Did I punk myself?
In an article published today, I quoted an earlier article that I had written, “Orly Taitz demands to be made Queen of the United States” that includes a quotation ostensibly from one of Taitz’s email broadsides saying “I am uniquely the person to exercise moral power above government, as in Queen of England.”
One of the issues with that referenced article is that it is dated April 1, 2010, and categorized “Wild & Wacky.” That’s a bad sign. Did I quote my own April Fool’s joke as a real story?
Taitz thinks so, writing on her own blog the same day an article [link to Taitz web site] titled:
New April 1 hoax. Last year it was a hoax, starting with the words “quietly eligibility case reaches Supreme Court” It still goes around, even there is no such case in the Supreme Court. Now Obots came up with 3 new ones: Orly Queen of england, Queen of America and Queen of US. Are those dumb Obots paid with our taxpayer money?”
And she was right (except for the paid part), so it turns out, as I wrote in a comment on that article I wrote:
Yes, this is an April Fool joke, as you have surmised. It has gotten a little bit of replication on other web sites that may not have gotten the memo.
My favorite comment was: “You might think this is an April Fools day joke, but it’s not.” http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=17730
I’m always a little uneasy about starting a rumor, even on April Fool’s Day, but ya gotta have a little fun now and then.
And in a later comment I confirmed that the specific quotation was a total fabrication. So here I am, hoist on me own petard.
I thought about linking this earlier to bring some cheer for those who might enjoy the substance; it involves a prank which is arguably within the realm of the post topic?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HG_wfMK7dko
HAH!!! Well at least you own up to your mistake. Something you’ll never, EVER see Oily Taint do.
“Oily Taint”? Why do people mockingly change Taitz’s name? Isn’t her actual name funny enough?
Not Queen. Czarina.
Apart from mocking, the use of such language provides a sense of identity for the group that uses it.
I generally avoid distorted names for things because I think it makes it hard to take such a speaker seriously. On a right-wing site, as soon as I see “Obummo” they’ve lost me.
After how many years of listening to the birthers repeat the foreign student April Fool’s joke, you’re forgiven.
Her name is a sound too pathetic, for even the lowly Norman Krasner to utter.
Because it’s easy. I make no claim to comic genius.
How could anyone possibly keep track of what wacky stuff is real and what isn’t regarding peple who debate whether Mr. Omeedian is Armenian or Persian?
Yeah, Mario has taken to using the phrase “Monty Obots” of late—he doesn’t seem to understand just how silly it makes him sound (especially since he tries to pass off his tripe as actual sound legal analysis).
And good for you for owning up to your mistakes!
I have neither need nor desire to be taken seriously. You, Doc, have a reputation to maintain. I am a troll, and happily so, since I have a really hard time taking ANY of this seriously.
I’ve never understood how refusing to call something or somebody by its or their correct name makes a point. I can’t stand it when Rush and his followers say “Democrat Party.”
that is exactly the point.
The point is to irritate and offend people?
Yes.
My retort is to call it the ‘publican Party. The “Publicans” were the hated tax collectors in the Roman Empire.
Wait, you mean “Svetlana Averbuch” is a funny name?
Didn’t mean to start something here guys
Really, she does herself enough damage. How can this complete drivel not be grounds for disbarment?
“If proper action is not taken and redress of this grievance is not provided, a number of citizens of the state of Colorado might have to bring a legal action against the Administrative Court of the State of Colorado itself for ACTUAL GOVERNMENT ACTION by the court itself under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and under 42 U.S. 1983 in discriminating against heterosexuals in favor of homosexuals and for discrimination against religious individuals in favor of godless atheists and depriving heterosexuals and religious individuals of their civil rights under the color of authority.”
Aside from the fact that even a fetus knows you can’t sue a Court over a decision it’s rendered, and there is not even a hint of any basis for a cause of action, how will the action be heard? All of the judges will have to recuse themselves.
you’re talking about “rush and his followers”, so that’s an unqualified “yes”.