Home > Journalism > BUY TRIMOX NO PRESCRIPTION

BUY TRIMOX NO PRESCRIPTION

November 6th, 2010

BUY TRIMOX NO PRESCRIPTION, I have to admit, Olbermann's show is the commentary show that I watch the most (save for “The Daily Show”), although I stopped watching for a while back when he was going too far over the top. Snarky and informative (in partisan, Buy no prescription TRIMOX online, tidbit form) is OK, but it's too easy to “go Fox News,” if you know what I mean, discount TRIMOX. As liberal as I am, TRIMOX long term, I consistently find myself taking Olbermann's claims with a grain of salt, or even sometimes just discounting a lot of what he says, knowing it for hyperbole or enthusiasm (if it can be called that), TRIMOX without a prescription. But it is snarky and often fun, Where can i buy cheapest TRIMOX online, and though filled with stuff that goes too far, it also covers much which is spot on. Like any other opinionated source, cheap TRIMOX no rx, you simply have to check more unbiased sources first to substantiate what was said before accepting them as fact.

All that said, Olbermann's suspension was a bit of a shock, BUY TRIMOX NO PRESCRIPTION. Herbal TRIMOX, You usually do not just yank your #1 primetime host off the air unless it is a damned important reason, and contributing to three midterm races does not seem to rise to that level. Yes, order TRIMOX online overnight delivery no prescription, it's a network policy, Buy generic TRIMOX, but it's a questionable one at best. Yes, he did violate it--but immediate indefinite suspension makes you wonder if no intermediate penalties even exist, where to buy TRIMOX. A one-week suspension, TRIMOX from canadian pharmacy, an on-air admission and apology, a fine, or something else along those lines might seem more in line, TRIMOX photos. BUY TRIMOX NO PRESCRIPTION, But doing what MSNBC did (a) seems over the top, (b) makes both Olbermann and the network look worse than need be, and (c) gives delicious fodder, not to mention “aid and comfort” to their chief competitor, Fox News. It doesn't seem to make sense. TRIMOX images, Let's take a look at the policy itself. It is, in theory, real brand TRIMOX online, intended to apply to journalists. Low dose TRIMOX, Their policy says, “Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest.” Now, as far as that does, buy TRIMOX without prescription, penalizing Olbermann is just stupid--everyone knows that he is not impartial. For the serious reporting that Olbermann sometimes does, I don't think many people mistake Olbermann for a journalist, BUY TRIMOX NO PRESCRIPTION. TRIMOX for sale, He's a commentator, an opinionated pundit, and to a certain degree a comedian, TRIMOX dangers. Yes, TRIMOX samples, he appears on MSNBC's election broadcasts, but so do lots of people who are partisan pundits.

The policy does not forbid political activity, purchase TRIMOX for sale, but it does go on to say that anyone who participates in politics, TRIMOX long term, including donations, “should” inform the network before doing so--and Olbermann didn't. So, TRIMOX interactions, he's caught, TRIMOX forum, yes. BUY TRIMOX NO PRESCRIPTION, Well, aside from the “should” part of that policy making the solidity of the policy questionable, we come to a point of reasonableness here: the policy is supposed to be there so the network can avoid embarrassment if a supposedly impartial journalist is caught making partisan campaign contributions--but in this case, MSNBC knew full well that Olbermann is anything but an “impartial” journalist. It's like Comedy Central yanking Jon Stewart off his show because he was funny off the air as well.

Many are pointing to what Fox News does as justification for Olbermann, about TRIMOX, but as far as I am concerned, TRIMOX canada, mexico, india, that's irrelevant. Fox is Fox, and it does not apply to Olbermann and what MSNBC does, online buying TRIMOX hcl. Many point to contributions made by right-wing MSNBC personalities Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan, Online buying TRIMOX, but I can find no mention that they failed to inform the network of their contributions, supposedly the main reason Olbermann was suspended.

Instead, the central point is that even though Olbermann did break the rules, it was a pro forma thing--a matter of form and not substance, like spelling correctly but forgetting to cross your “t”s and dot your “i”s, BUY TRIMOX NO PRESCRIPTION. In which case, TRIMOX trusted pharmacy reviews, immediate and indefinite suspension is way over the top in terms of punishment. Order TRIMOX no prescription, It is simply out of scale with the infraction.

That, in turn, buy TRIMOX no prescription, suggests that there is more to the story than we know about. TRIMOX gel, ointment, cream, pill, spray, continuous-release, extended-release, And that may become clearer when one begins to learn about the fact that MSNBC is in the process of changing hands, being bought by Comcast--an organization with distinctly right-wing ties. That the head people at MSNBC who have cultivated Olbermann are no longer there, TRIMOX from mexico, and the new heads may not be as enthusiastic about their primetime lead as the old ones were, Order TRIMOX from United States pharmacy, and may be angling for a reason to demote or slap him down some. That, of course, is TRIMOX safe, is conjecture, TRIMOX no rx, but that's what we're left with in trying to figure out this overblown and self-injurious act of bizarreness.

On a side note, Kevin Drum tweeted that this was bringing the left and the right together, and while there do seem to be some on the right defending Olbermann--most notably Bill Kristol--most of the commentary I have seen from the right is simply smug and happy.

.

Similar posts: BUY LORMETAZEPAM NO PRESCRIPTION. LEUKERAN FOR SALE. HALAZEPAM FOR SALE. ZERIT FOR SALE. Buy IMURAN without prescription. SOMA without prescription. Cheap PREVACID no rx. Order ZYRTEC online overnight delivery no prescription.
Trackbacks from: BUY TRIMOX NO PRESCRIPTION. BUY TRIMOX NO PRESCRIPTION. BUY TRIMOX NO PRESCRIPTION. BUY TRIMOX NO PRESCRIPTION. Order TRIMOX no prescription. Fast shipping TRIMOX. TRIMOX dose. Effects of TRIMOX.

Categories: Journalism Tags: by
  1. Tim Kane
    November 6th, 2010 at 14:29 | #1

    I don’t think it is fair to put Olbermann on the level as most opinion show hosts.

    I watched Hannity once and caught five lies in two sentences. Olbermann spends most of his time pointing out the lies being spawned by conservatives, and correcting them with the real facts. So I don’t find his show over the top. Its a powerful antidote to right wing ‘spin’ (disinformation). For whatever reason, I don’t really like his show when someone else runs it.

    I agree, there’s more to this than meets the eye. I think left wing T.V. is being dismantled by corporate ownership. Olbermann brought in Rachel Maddow. Maddow’s show is pure quality. That lead to the current battery of four left wing shows. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to watch MSNBC much in the last two months, so I’m sickened at the thought of him disappearing. During the darkest part of the Bush years he sometimes seemed like the only ray of light. I’m really sickened by this. Maybe all the liberals will move over to CNN and give that network a second lease on life by becoming home of the liberal franchise.

    During the Health Care debate, Olbermann orchestrated fund raising for health clinics. This is far and above anything done by any other pundit. It is a quality and a character that makes hims a veritable saint amongst the pundity class. Most of his actions are done with great heart as well as with great professionalism, and with humor and most of all, decency. I just can’t say enough good things about him. From what I can see he is a far better human than I am, for sure, and, most people on Television. I feel I can be critical of most people on television, pundits, and what not, but not him.

    I feel this as a terrible blow. With Olbermann gone they’ll be coming for Maddow next. The writing is on the wall. After that, Schultz and O’Donnell will die on the vine without the other two shows as lead ins. Then the corporate owners will restock with rightwing idiots plucked from AM radio. They’ll have to be over the top to steal viewers from Fox, but the net effect will be dumbing down the public.

    Not good.

  2. Troy
    November 6th, 2010 at 14:30 | #2

    The existence of Olbermann and Maddow were in fact curious exceptions to the general impression that the mass media tacks center-right, as both are clearly anti-conservative well beyond the center of mass of the supposedly neutral media.

    (ABC on the whole strikes me as entirely corporate sell-outs CBS is entirely centrist, and NBC somewhere in between)

    kos has some background here:

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/14/884359/-Phil-Griffin-and-MSNBC

    A certain occasional poster here likes to throw the bombastic claim out that media is completely leftist and anti-American and whatever, but this is just an attempt to demonize one’s opponents as opposites of oneself, when the reality is the mainline media like the NYT and WaPo are pretty much the traditional Establishment — conservative to a fault, in the sense of protecting *their* own interests, be it class or cultural.

    The NYT made its bones exposing the BS in Vietnam early in the war — Halberstam’s The Making of a Quagmire was published in 1965, and Sheehan was an early critic of our war effort.

    What conservatives don’t like is independent media voices harshing their mellow. They want nothing less than Pravda, and Murdoch has been smart to service this market need.

    So the WaPo’s breaking of the Watergate thing made the company a permanent enemy to the conservative right, even though the motivation to break this story was to save our government from rather horrifying and egregious abuses of the powers of the Executive.

    Complicating matters further is the fact that elements within our government covertly fund media enterprises — outfits like Commentary and the National Review are totally in bed with conservative right power bases in the government.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird while a bit tin-foily, does have the attributes of being able to explain how insane things have become.

    It also doesn’t hurt that overseas military action creates news, a product our media can sell to us. Win-win.

  3. Troy
    November 6th, 2010 at 14:43 | #3

    If KO is in fact KO’d, this would also an extension and continuation of movement conservatism’s drive to monopolize the message, which began with the Powell Memo of 1971

    http://www.truth-out.org/100109A

    The Roberts Court is of course 4/9ths full of this, unless BO’s 2 appointees are hidden sleepers that we don’t know about.

  4. stevetv
    November 6th, 2010 at 14:43 | #4

    Olbermann is more of a character than an objective reporter. But the ethical problem may be that he interviewed several of the candidates he donated money to, and NBC wants to avoid any appearence of you-scratch-my-back-etc.

    You’d be suprised how many media companies frown on this practice. The New York Times doesn’t allow their reporters to make contributions, and I remember years ago in New York a local TV reporter named Chuck Scarborough was chastised for making campaign donations, in his case to Republican candidates. I don’t remember what the repercussions were. Even companies who don’t have strict rules on the practice prefer their employees not do so. But in this day and age, it all seems rather archaic. The definition of “reporter” or “journalist” has expanded to “pundit” and “commentator”, and permissable political activities of such journalists go far beyond making monetary contributions. You can hold a rally on the National Mall in Washington or conduct a Hannitization tour, and as long as you don’t specifically endorse a candidate it’s perfectly fine. It’s pretty ridiculous.

    But I can’t say I have too much sympathy for Olbermann. These rules may come a surprise to us, but it shouldn’t have come as a surprise for Olbermann. The rules may not seem to apply to him, but I can’t imagine NBC didn’t send out memos on a semi-regular basis (particularly during the height of campaign season) spelling out specifically what you’re not allowed to do and who isn’t allowed to do it. If the network didn’t publicly cop to Olbermann’s contributions, who’s to say someone else wouldn’t (say, Fox)? Donations are a matter of public record, after all. Now, if there was a failure in communicating these policies, that’s another matter. I guess we’ll wait and see if that was case. And if there was a clampdown on these rules due to Comcast… well, that sounds even more plausible.

    I suppose I should mention that I can only handle Olbermann’s show in three minute doses. There! I did my part in the interest of full disclosure. Can I keep my job?

  5. Troy
    November 6th, 2010 at 16:45 | #5

    But the ethical problem may be that he interviewed several of the candidates he donated money to

    As did Joe Scarborough.

    These rules may come a surprise to us, but it shouldn’t have come as a surprise for Olbermann

    It’s up to MSNBC’s management to fit the punishment to the crime. If they’ve got the knives out for him, then this is just trumped up BS and yet another ratchet down towards Idiocracy or at least the continued dominance of center-right (ye olde Establishment) to full-right (FOX conservatives) in the mass media space.

    The funny thing is I can’t handle Olbermann at all because reading is 100X faster than TV.

    Plus I prefer online back-and-forth “argumentation” with in-line research and links. TV for info is just dumb dumb dumb.

    Did I mention I don’t have TV?

    I did like to watch Jon Stewart’s monologue earlier last decade, plus Louis Black is generally worthwhile.

  6. Luis
    November 6th, 2010 at 17:43 | #6

    Tim:

    I don’t think it is fair to put Olbermann on the level as most opinion show hosts.

    I see where you’re coming from, but he is an opinion show host. I too believe he’s way better than the others, but it’s still opinion. When I mention that he went over the top a while back, it was when he was getting angry about everything, and it showed–and it hurt the quality of his show. To his great credit, he recognized this, said so on the air, and dialed it back–and I started watching again.

    However, I still recognize that he is biased, and so when I hear him say that something “always” happens, or such-and-such is “completely” the case, then I don’t really accept it blindly. But, like so many commenters on the left, Olbermann has the redeeming quality of being primarily fact-based–and that even when he overdoes it, it is in that direction.

    Olbermann brought in Rachel Maddow. Maddow’s show is pure quality.

    True. I am just not a fan of the low-key snarky she delivers. I would love to try out Lawrence O’Donnell–my dad is a big fan, and he seems more balanced, at least from what I hear, but he’s not being podcast yet, or so it was the last time I checked. You are very correct in that he has brought some high-quality people on the left into the spotlight, however. Don’t get me wrong–I like Olbermann, and respect him a lot. But I also recognize that he is partisan and biased. Like me. And I know I have to be careful to not let that get too far away from me at times.

    …I’m sickened at the thought of him disappearing.

    I would be very surprised if they’re going to do that. I have a feeling he’ll be back after a week or so. I don’t think they’re going to let him go, but I do think they want to slap him back a bit. I have a feeling that that is what this is about–an assertion of dominance, cautioning him to hold back in his politics somewhat. Knowing Olbermann, however, I don’t think he’ll stand for that. If he goes, it would probably be because he would rather go than be muzzled, and not because they kick him out.

    During the Health Care debate, Olbermann orchestrated fund raising for health clinics. This is far and above anything done by any other pundit.

    Absolutely. He’s done a brilliant job on the whole, his heart is exactly in the right place, and morally, he’s head and shoulders above anyone I know on the right. But he is still a pundit.
    Steve:

    Olbermann is more of a character than an objective reporter. But the ethical problem may be that he interviewed several of the candidates he donated money to, and NBC wants to avoid any appearence of you-scratch-my-back-etc.

    I think that doesn’t hold up very well. Now, if the candidates had given money to Olbermann, then you would have a point. But Olbermann to the candidates, that’s just him giving money to people we clearly know he supports. How is it a quid pro quo situation is Olbermann gives them money and then Olbermann has them on his show and supports them? That only works if you are suggesting that they would not come on his show unless he contributed–but I don’t think anyone believes that for a second, as Olbermann has no trouble getting liberal guests, and is as attractive to liberal politicians as Hannity is to conservatives.

    The New York Times doesn’t allow their reporters to make contributions…

    Different standard. Journalists, not pundits. Does the NYT forbid opinion columnists to make contributions?

    But in this day and age, it all seems rather archaic. The definition of “reporter” or “journalist” has expanded to “pundit” and “commentator”, and permissable political activities of such journalists go far beyond making monetary contributions.

    Perhaps. But I see it as a line worth noting an reinforcing. Fox is the network that really broke that definition into little shards, and I see value in trying to maintain it. Let the pundits be pundits, and the reporters be above it all.

    Frankly, however, I don’t see a problem with allowing reporters to have their personal political life intact. Pretending they are political eunuchs is not realistic. As Troy pointed out, their value not lay in their being in fact neutral, but in the value and neutrality of their reporting.

    And that has been the germ, the genesis of the whole “liberal media” myth. Remember, it started with a badly-performed survey which indicated that in their personal lives, more journalists were liberal rather than conservatives. That was taken as the seed of the idea that the media is liberal, and therefore their reporting is suspect. But (a) there was never any indication that the actual reporting leaned left, and (b) it was ignored that a greater percentage of editors and publishers–people who are more powerful in setting the agenda, deciding the slant, and pointing the media in a specific direction–are more conservative than journalists are liberal.

    But I can’t say I have too much sympathy for Olbermann. These rules may come a surprise to us, but it shouldn’t have come as a surprise for Olbermann.

    First, the publicly stated policy says “should,” not “must”; second, even if it didn’t, Olbermann is a pundit, not a journalist; third, if it can be shown that Scarborough and/or Buchanan did not give prior notice, Olbermann has an argument there; and fourth, the punishment is still way, way out of proportion with the infraction.

    If the network didn’t publicly cop to Olbermann’s contributions, who’s to say someone else wouldn’t (say, Fox)?

    I seriously doubt that Olbermann contributing would be a story, especially coming from Fox, whose entire purpose is to do publicly what Olbermann was doing privately. It would come across as hypocritical–I know, Fox’s milieu, but still it would not really stand out.

    However, the way MSNBC did it, it looks worse, and they have given Fox far more ammunition now that they would have had MSNBC simply slapped him on the wrist. So, that reasoning doesn’t really stand up, either.

    I suppose I should mention that I can only handle Olbermann’s show in three minute doses. There! I did my part in the interest of full disclosure. Can I keep my job?

    I understand. It is often hard to watch something as partisan as that if it’s not right down the alley of your own politics–and sometimes even then. I had a very difficult time watching CNN’s crossfire, and currently Bill Maher. Which is why I don’t call Olbermann a journalist, even though he covers news events and sometimes breaks stories before the media at large, sometimes stories the media stays away from after the story has broken.

  7. GeoffK
    November 6th, 2010 at 18:35 | #7

    And nothing of value was lost. I’m smug and happy.

  8. Luis
    November 6th, 2010 at 18:54 | #8

    Yes. I can see what you mean when you insist that you are not being a troll.

  9. stevetv
    November 6th, 2010 at 23:48 | #9

    I think that doesn’t hold up very well. Now, if the candidates had given money to Olbermann, then you would have a point. But Olbermann to the candidates, that’s just him giving money to people we clearly know he supports. How is it a quid pro quo situation is Olbermann gives them money and then Olbermann has them on his show and supports them?

    In reality it’s probably not, but again, it’s all in the appearences. For a politician, a gig on any interview show is a campaign boost of sorts. Publicity is publicity. “How can we expect Olbermann to ask these candidates tough questions if he’s donated money to their coffers,” blah blah blah.

    Different standard. Journalists, not pundits. Does the NYT forbid opinion columnists to make contributions?

    Depends on how each company defines “journalist”, which I suspect is as elastic a word as “religion” is. You may want to read this interesting piece which shows all the different rules and standards from different companies. Ironically, it’s from MSNBC:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19178161/

    For the most part, the Times refers to their employees as “staff members”. I wouldn’t yet put too much stock into the fact that the word “journalist” is used so often until each company clarifies for us what is meant by “journalist” according to their own whims and caprices. And I’m sure that will happen soon enough. In the New York Times case, it will probably be in Sunday’s editorial page. Ready for all the media soul searching and pontificating? I can’t wait.

    For whatever it’s worth, the Pulitzers editorial prizes fall under the journalism category.

    third, if it can be shown that Scarborough and/or Buchanan did not give prior notice, Olbermann has an argument there;

    It would also depend on when these rules took effect. This could all be relatively new. Comcast’s smudgy fingerprints may be all over this. There are so many details we still don’t know, and that’s what makes this story so frustrating.

    and fourth, the punishment is still way, way out of proportion with the infraction.

    We still don’t know what the punishement will ultimately be. He could be back on Monday, all nice and contrite.

    However, I do think the story itself has been blown way out of proportion. But we all know how much the media loves to write about itself.

    I seriously doubt that Olbermann contributing would be a story, especially coming from Fox, whose entire purpose is to do publicly what Olbermann was doing privately.

    I wouldn’t be so sure. As Charles Foster Kane said, “If the headline is big enough, it makes the news big enough.”

    Rigidly speaking, campaign contributions is a public activity since it’s a matter of public record.

    Which is why I don’t call Olbermann a journalist, even though he covers news events and sometimes breaks stories before the media at large, sometimes stories the media stays away from after the story has broken.

    But he does engage in journalistic activites. Slippery slope.

  10. stevetv
    November 7th, 2010 at 00:43 | #10

    I just thought of this. Maybe the media makes a distinction between the words “journalist” and “reporter”, with “journalist” the umbrella beneath which most news media activities fall under. Just a guess. I myself have no idea.

  11. Luis
    November 7th, 2010 at 00:59 | #11

    You may want to read this interesting piece which shows all the different rules and standards from different companies. Ironically, it’s from MSNBC:

    Yeah, actually I linked to it in the post, it was the source for quoting their policy. I have heard people say that it is “strict,” but MSNBC itself printed it as “should” inform, not “must.” Anyway.

    But he does engage in journalistic activites. Slippery slope.

    Well, yes and no. I acknowledge the point, but let’s remember that nobody has any illusions about where his bias lies. And that’s really at the center of things.

    Now, a violation of journalistic ethics on a show that’s part news, part entertainment brings me back to Larry King just before 9/11. Remember how his show was the “Let’s Convict Gary Condit on TeeVee for the Murder of Chandra Levy Pseudo-News Hour”? Almost every episode of King’s show for months concentrated on that one case, and it was practically non-stop Condit-bashing. And I specifically remember King saying to the effect, “If I were innocent, the first thing I would do is go on TV and declare it to everybody, but hiding like he is make me really suspicious.” Of course, if you are actually innocent, then the last thing you should do is go on TV and talk, because it’ll be a huge boost for the prosecutors who will tear you to shreds with it. But the real point here was that King would have made huge amounts of money in ratings had Condit appeared on the show–and yet there he was, effectively saying on national television that Condit looked guilty as hell for not appearing on the Larry King show. Huge conflict of interest, huge violation of Condit’s fifth amendment rights, incredibly unethical… and yet no one blinked.

    Olbermann’s infraction, on the other hand, is really meaningless in terms of ethics and morals, it’s more like a paperwork thing.

    Maybe the media makes a distinction between the words “journalist” and “reporter”, with “journalist” the umbrella beneath which most news media activities fall under.

    I have long felt that journalism should be licensed, accredited, and reviewed the same way doctors are. (Well, not like Rand Paul is, though that’s probably the avenue Fox would take.) If you don’t have a license, you can still broadcast, you just can’t call it “news.” And if you do have a license, you have to follow strict ethics, have high standards, and be responsible for your reporting. Right now it’s all voluntary. And it shows, like amateur hour.

  12. Testing
    November 7th, 2010 at 01:07 | #12

    By the way (still me, Luis here), has anyone here tried the <blockquote> tag? I have tried it while logged out (as with now), and it seems to work fine in the comments.

    Here is a sample of what it looks like.

    Unless there’s some weird thing with IP addresses not my own, it should work for anyone. I just thought it was strange that no one seemed to use it.

  13. Tim Kane
    November 7th, 2010 at 01:35 | #13

    Luis: Good points. I also don’t enjoy Maddow’s smarky style, but I do appreciate that there is quality in her broadcast. I don’t always agree with her approach, but I cannot deny the quality of her show.

    It just occurred to me that some of this might be for publicity purposes. If and when Olbermann does come back, I wonder if his ratings will be affected. If it does, maybe they’ll suspend Maddow later.

  14. Troy
    November 7th, 2010 at 04:46 | #14

    I just thought it was strange that no one seemed to use it.

    Too many characters to type, plus I don’t like the 3D effect.

  15. Roger
    November 7th, 2010 at 11:00 | #15

    I’m with Troy regarding the undesirability of the 3D effect – the shading would be sufficient.

    As to Olbermann – forgive me if I missed it above… but I ran across a very interesting Maddow commentary on the whole thing… her take was not to take sides with Olbermann, but to use the moment to contrast MSNBC (a typical news organization in regards to having such a policy and expectation) with Fox (wherein on-air personalities not only contribute to political causes and candidates they actively campaign for them, and lying for them, and their causes on the air). I do think that Olbermann earned himself a suspension. I hold journalists to a high standard and he should humbly admit his mistake and apologize… that said, he should be back in short order or MSNBC would clearly be over-reacting. …and if I think that Olbermann should apologize, you can imagine how I feel about the scums at Fox.

  16. Roger
    November 7th, 2010 at 11:03 | #16

    one more thought about the blockquote: by blockquoting I figure that one is simply trying to clearly distinguish a quote from the reaction to the quote… not that one is trying to highlight the quote or necessarily make it stand out more than the rest of the post.

  17. Luis
    November 7th, 2010 at 12:20 | #17

    OK, try this out:
    I have created a new tag, called the <bq> tag, and have allowed it in comments (or at least I hope that I have). This is what it looks like. The command is a unique element, and should be easy to type–just as easy as an <em> tag that people already use.
    It should work for anyone, logged in or not.

  18. Luis
    November 7th, 2010 at 12:22 | #18

    Should I add a big, light-colored smart-quote image to the top left?

  19. Troy
    November 7th, 2010 at 14:17 | #19

    I have created a new tag, called the <bq> tag, and have allowed it in comments (or at least I hope that I have).

    let’s see. . .

  20. Troy
    November 7th, 2010 at 14:19 | #20

    change the bevelling to uniform dark gray and it would be perfect :)

    hey, I should GMOFB : )

  21. Luis
    November 7th, 2010 at 18:15 | #21

    OK, rounded the corners and simplified the borders. It should serve. I tried various little trinkets (quote marks, lit corners, etc.) but all looked hokey. Maybe if I find something akin to Pharyngula’s Gumby, I’ll make another change…

    If I finally understand “GMOFB” correctly (took me a while, it’s not findable via Google), I have wondered why you don’t–just like Tim a while back, it sometimes seems you write as much as I do on this thing. Great for me, but for the investment of time you could have your own… :D

  22. Luis
    November 7th, 2010 at 18:20 | #22

    BTW, I really like being able to style new HTML elements in CSS. Just so long as you ignore the existence of Internet Explorer, it can be fun.

  23. Troy
    November 7th, 2010 at 20:11 | #23

    I do most of my internet “discussion” on reddit these days.

    2005-2008 I was on metafilter a lot.

    Any Troy you see on blogs — from the old CalPundit to Calculated Risk — is me.

    I have a blog — toroi.typepad.com — but it’s boring putting posts up.

  24. Ken sensei
    November 8th, 2010 at 05:47 | #24

    It should work for anyone, logged in or not.

  25. Ken sensei
    November 8th, 2010 at 05:48 | #25

    Hey, it worked!
    [that blank quote below must be where I hit the “return” key…

  26. Luis
    November 8th, 2010 at 08:43 | #26

    Ken:

    HTML and CSS are fun.

    The blank one is not where you hit “Enter,” rather it’s because you used two beginning tags (<bq> ~ <bq>) instead of a beginning and an ending tag (<bq> ~ </bq>). Easy enough mistake to make if you’re not used to writing HTML.

  27. Roger
    November 9th, 2010 at 23:23 | #27

    OK, try this out

    nice.

  28. matthew
    November 10th, 2010 at 08:33 | #28

    Hi Luis,

    the google hack is back. Just an FYI.

Comments are closed.