Hooray!

No more doggy poo images? Oh NO! Those were swell!

I do regret that some of the more artful use of imagery is lost forever, but that is the way it goes. Seems the moonbats always ruin it for the rest of us. They abuse html and less importantly help rogue nations like North Korea and Iran get nukes.

But we'll all miss Keith being swallowed by the shark!

Some of the better work - like Nick's animated GIFs will find a home elsewhere on the site.

nick's worked sucked. you people have no sense of satire.

"nick's worked sucked. you people have no sense of satire."

Someone over the age of 12 still using the word "sucked" should be a bit reticent about questioning the judgement and standards of others.

I would think.

However, if you're under 12, we'll let it go. But isn't it time for bed for you?

SMG

Speaking of tech issues, I've joined this delicious rss thing and it doesn't seem to do anything.

What's the point?

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
Benjamin Franklin

You people are really afraid of pictures? Or of potentially being offended by pictures?

It's amusing that someone would set up a site devoted to the idea that a public figure is one-sided and trumpet the false notion that differing viewpoints are welcome. With this gesture thus noting that all perspectives are not welcome, and in a one-sided fashion. How cute.

But you're going to keep the tripe; failing to realize that Max Headroom went out with neon sunglasses sometime in 1988. It's unfortunate that Nick is a no talent hack, but I suppose the no talent hacks have to stick up for one another, yes?

I am not sure what Benjamin Franklin has to do with my decision as to whether or not to allow active HTML code with comments but I was not "potentially" offended. I was "actually" offended. I made the decision after someone posted images of anti-semitic "posters" sponsored by Hezbollah on the site which included images of the bloody, dead body of a small baby with part of its back torn our by shrapnel. There is no simple way to allow some images and not othere so it will have to be none - unless you want to volunteer your time to serve as "image moderator" for Olbermann Watch.

If you would like to display those images on your site let me know and I can hook you up with that person. I'm sure you two will get along famously.

Sarah,

I am not sure what Benjamin Franklin has to do with my decision as to whether or not to allow active HTML code with comments but I was not "potentially" offended. I was "actually" offended. I made the decision after someone posted images of anti-semitic "posters" sponsored by Hezbollah on the site which included images of the bloody, dead body of a small baby with part of its back torn our by shrapnel. There is no simple way to allow some images and not othere so it will have to be none - unless you want to volunteer your time to serve as "image moderator" for Olbermann Watch.

If you would like to display those images on your site let me know and I can hook you up with that person. I'm sure you two will get along famously.

Olbermann Watch was not set up "devoted to the idea that a public figure is one-sided". The site was set up to mock Keith Olbermann and I think we do a pretty good job of that judging from your prescence on the site.

We don't "trumpet" any "false notions" about differing viewpoints being welcome. That you regularly post here ought to make the clear - even to you.

I block and delete what I deem to be spam and will ban IP addresses or delete comments that strike me as beyond the pale. What is "beyond the pale" is totally subjective and depends on what kind of mood I am in that day. For sure, an opposing viewpoint is NOT beyond the pale.

I have, in the past, deleted certain homophobic, racist and anti-semetic language that I felt was over-the-top. Also, forms of physical threat or incitements to violence.

I do not read every comment so there may be examples of comments that were "beyond the pale" that I did not address but I am not taking suggestions and not interested in your opinion of what is "good" and what is "bad". This is my site and if you don't like it start your own. Maybe I will even link to you.

Anything else?

One last thing, I have a standing offer to OlbyLoons such as yourself to write GUEST POSTS for Olbermann Watch. As an OlbyLoon in good standing that invitation extends to you.

Would you care to write up a piece on Keith, the Rummy Rant, an episode of Countdown or some other KO-centric post?

I don't think anything you say to Sarah will sink in Robert. She will forever prefer to just jump in here and criticize all of us whenever she gets the whim. Or at least until we all come around and realize that we really owe Keith a "Great Thanks" for the service he is providing.

Jim,

I am sure Sarah would like to give Keith "Much Thanks".

I would like to give KO "Great Thanks" (as opposed to "much thanks") for demonstrating the thought processes - or lack of one - of a Loony Lefty and for providing fodder for this wonderful site which draws out people like Sarah so the world can observe Olbyloons in their natural habitat.

Cox, how well liked are you in real life? If you're attitude on this site is any indication the answer would be "not very."

You seem to only be able to communicate in insults when none are necessary and then give the line "we don't deal in personal insults here." Your invite to blog on this site is about as facetious as a shark inviting a seal in the water for a swim.

Go, Mr. Cox, contine calling people "Olbyloons" while you obsess over Keith Olbermann more than anyone else on this site.

real life? what do you think Olbermann Watch is?

As for how well I am liked? As a matter of fact I am not well-liked. Most people are very jealous of me because I am so smart, talented and good-looking. If I had to chose I'd say the hardest part for me is being smarter than everyone else. The main reason is that I have to spend a lot of time explaining things that are quite obvious to me and my superior brain that escape the comprehension of people of average - or in your case, below average - intelligence.

As far as insults, I do not tolerate any insults on Olbermann Watch. What might have you confused is that you don't realize that you are a Loon and, as a fan of Keith Olbermann, by definition an OlbyLoon. That is not meant as an insult any more than if I were calling a cat a "cat" or a dog a "dog". They are what they are and you are what you are. There is nothing "wrong" with being an OlbyLoon just as there is nothing wrong with be a cat or a dog or a rat or a liberal. Likewise, as you are obviously of below-average intelligence, it is just stating a matter of fact that you are such. I don't "insult" you by stating a truism.

As for your last point, I don't see how you can possibly say that I "obsesses" over Keith Olbermann. I "critique" Keith as do many other loyal Olby Watch readers (we are, after all, the number Keith Olbermann site on the web). There is a big difference between offering an insightful and objective criticism of Olbermann's work and "obession".

If you need me to walk through this S L O W L Y for you just let me know.

You know, I was about to take you seriously when I realized you weren't good-looking and had to be joking.

I'll read the rest of your post once you get a better sense of humor (dry sarcasm sucks).

He's actually still reading it. You did not write slow enough for Nonfactor to comprehend. And dry sarcasm is an advanced form of humor. Still wondering why Nonfactor still lurks here - probably hoping some common sense rubs off.

I liked the shark eating Keith picture, but I think I'd like a picture of a shark labeled "Bob", eating a little seal labeled "olbyloon" even more.

Rob-bob, name calling? This is still the big gun in the arsenal?

Here's what I think, since I got you to state:
"The site was set up to mock Keith Olbermann and I think we do a pretty good job of that judging from your prescence on the site."

I think you're desperate to have me defend Keith Olbermann, in spite of the fact that I have already stated that I didn't come here to defend Keith Olbermann. Meaning that you feel the need to redirect or misdirect my presence here. Or was that my prescence here? Was that a shout out to Sunday's (09-03-06)"Frank and Ernest"?

I know control is the name of the game.

Just why is Sarah here? One thing is for sure, she has found a site worth returning to again and again.

For someone who says she is not here to defend Keith Olbermann, she certainly does seem to be obsessed with this site doesn't she?

Sarah's Motto:

"They who would give up Olbermann for sanity, deserve neither Olbermann or sanity.""

Sarah says:

"I have already stated that I didn't come here to defend Keith Olbermann."

Some questions for Sarah:

1) Why not defend Olbermann? Do you not have an opinion about him? If you do, why won't you share it? You seem very adept at offering words of criticism for others, yet you won't tell us what you think about such things as Olbermann's Nazi salute, the Rummy Rant and the debunking of the Joe Wilson accusations against the Bush administration that Olby has been promoting as gospel truth for months. Do you have an aversion to having your opinions about Olbermann's work subjected to scrutiny?

So, Sarah doesn't come up to defend KO, only to attack his detractors.

Sarah, it's been so long since you've cut and pasted your highly original "sycophantic...shear stupidity" diatribe that I've almost got the DT's. Please post it again, so that those Wingnut KO haters can be brought around to see the light.

IMHO, the pictures should have been stopped when that idiot posted all the pictures of (hopefully) animal feces all over the site. Talk about "adding nothing to the national debate and...(making) me queasy."

This site is designed for “Olbermann Haters” I don’t believe it has ever been advertised as anything else. I have noticed a few “nut jobs” defending Obly and calling us “Haters” all kind of nasty names. For you folks there is an Olbermann fan club web site ! This site will remain the Anti- Olbermann- No-Admiration sociality (A.O.N.A)

Brian,

Actually, this site is for "Olbermann Mockers". Part of the mockery is pretending that we take what he says or does seriously as if he was some kind of "player" in the world of political media.

I don't mind the OlbyLoons posting here at all. It's good to see how the "enemy" thinks. Based on the OlbyLogic these OlbyLoons display, I find it all VERY reassuring.

How do we know that "Sarah" isn't:
1) Olby himself
2) Katy Tur
3) Brian at TVN
4) KOS

I'm obviously joking, but the confluence of moonbats, starry eyed college kids, women who just graduated college, and deluded TV hosts into a single voice is quite scary (or humorous) actually.

don't like something? then outlaw it. true colors of the resident republican pussies always shines through (yellow).

censorship of that with which you disagree ... republo-fascism at its finest.

"don't like something? then outlaw it."

You mean like "hate speech" laws?

Or maybe you mean helmet laws for cyclists?

Or maybe you mean anti-smoking laws?

Or maybe you mean gun control laws?

Or maybe you mean protesting outside abortion clinics?

Or maybe you mean the War Powers Act?

Or....help me out clear-thinkers...this is TOO EASY...

"censorship of that with which you disagree ... republo-fascism at its finest."

There is no democracy at this site or any other and freedom of speech as well as censorship is void, meaning if the owner of this site wanted to, he could ban every IP and banish any comment that likens Olbermann whatsoever, but he doesn't.

If you were to visit other sites than here you would find a good 8-9/10 of sites disallow HTML and images.

"censorship of that with which you disagree ... republo-fascism at its finest."

There is no democracy at this site or any other and freedom of speech as well as censorship is void, meaning if the owner of this site wanted to, he could ban every IP and banish any comment that likens Olbermann whatsoever, but he doesn't.

If you were to visit other sites than here you would find a good 8-9/10 of sites disallow HTML and images.

Rob-bob, that's all you've got? You have constructed a quote and attributed it to me, in spite of the fact that there is no instance of any such statement on my part. That's the best you've got?

So, based on that logic, I can assume then what comes next; B following A. Sad.

I didn't come here to defend Keith Olbermann, as I have said previously. I think it's both funny and telling that everyone on this site is so desperate to follow the synthetic logic of if/then forced-choices by default; wherein forced-choices are actually false choices because they are always diametric.

e.g. the idea of false forced choices is that if I criticize someone criticizing X, then I must be defending X.

When, in fact, I criticize the criticism of X for a distinct purpose. Interpolate. Go ahead, ask the wrong questions.

For instance, I don't care about the Bill O'Reilly nazi salute, I didn't come here to discuss it, and beyond stating that I won't, I won't. That same logic can be applied to all the other non-issues-of-interest that the sycophants who post on this site can attempt so poorly to corner post.

The other thing: the made-up words. They aren't true neologisms, because no one uses them outside of this site. It would be more impressive if legitimate words were used. It would constitute better prose, instead of the bruised sitting-ass Jimmy-took-my-plastic-blocks and then cold-cocked me,-MOMMY!- gibberish. Step it up. Do it better.

"don't like something? then outlaw it."

Robert Cox wrote:
“You mean like "hate speech" laws?

Or maybe you mean helmet laws for cyclists?

Or maybe you mean anti-smoking laws?

Or maybe you mean gun control laws?

Or....help me out clear-thinkers...this is TOO EASY...”

So, the pictures that you were offended by (as per your own admission) were criminal, since your entire counter argument is based in terms of “laws”. Rob-bob, you are the one making the comparison, by default or not, between criticism of your banning pictures to the illegality of criminal acts. There seems to be some hyperbole.

Helmut laws for cyclists? Okay, so since you people speak in vague generalities about stereotypical perspectives, if you are a libertarian, then you believe that the notion that people are to have insurance of any kind is absurd. So, to condense that through to Olbermann-Watch-o-meter-of-diametrics, then you hate insurance companies, therefore cyclists don’t need helmets. I see.

But if you’re not a libertarian, and you can note that Insurance companies have through legislation mandated that citizens desiring to operate motor vehicles on public roadways must purchase insurance (in some states), then you might be aware of the idea of statistics, actuaries, rates, averages, profit margins, pay-outs, etc. and how safety affects those things, right?

So, it’s absurd that I don’t want to pay more for my PLPD because someone operating within the same system needs to feel the wind flying through his hair and the bugs in his teeth, and that I should just pay for his medical care by proxy through my insurance when he has that traumatic head injury. I see my lack fiscal irresponsibility there.

Anti-smoking laws? Perhaps you don’t believe there are carcinogens in cigarettes or the smoke created by the act of smoking cigarettes? Maybe you don’t believe that lead blocks an action potential traveling across a neuron. We should start putting that stuff in paint again, right, I mean according to your argument, right? Because we don’t like carcinogens when we can avoid them, therefore we should outlaw them; and according to you that is absurd.

Basically, the crux of your argument is that it’s absurd that we have laws that against things that are criminal, or pose a danger to one’s self or others.

But, if it’s “too easy”, then why do you need help?

And you might want to look up the proper use of ellipsis.

Sarah (or should I say Elite Grammarian).

I am not making any "argument" so their is no "crux" to any argument. I don't have the faintest idea what how you get the idea that I think "it’s absurd that we have laws that against things that are criminal". Seems a bit "reducto ad absurdum" of you as "things" are "criminal" BECAUSE we have laws against them.

As for posing a "danger to one’s self or others"...

bungie jumping is dangerous...should that be outlawed?

little kids regularly drown in backyard swimming pools...should those be outlawed?

alcohol is dangerous...should we outlaw booze?

scuba diving is dangerous...should that be outlawed?

You'd have to explain to me how smoking a cigarette outdoors is a danger to "others" yet there are laws in some municipalities that ban smoking outdoors.

As for the pictures that offended me, I described them already. I found that to be offensive. Many other readers have complained about commenters filling some threads with lots of images. Some don't like the images, some say it slows down the loading of the page. I am not sure how you arrive at the notion that "he pictures that you were offended by (as per your own admission) were criminal"

I did not "outlaw" images because I disagreed with the political argument the poster was making. I just do not want to see images of dead babies on my site. I don't like when someone is posting anti-Israel propaganda and I don't like it when someone is posting anti-abortion progranda even though I am 100% opposed to abotion.

If you like to view images of dead babies let me know and I will hook you up withat that commenter.