by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Graphic art such as posters, paintings and film can be and often are considered works of art. Can propaganda using these mediums be considered art? Propaganda posters are considered art by many and in the design industry “propaganda” is considered a style all its own. Consider these examples and decide if you think they constitute art as well as propaganda.
Join the Turley Force as we discuss yet another facet of propaganda!
This means you!
As the last instalment in this series discussed, not all propaganda is verbal. Some propaganda images have become iconic parts of our culture. Rosie the Riveter is a perfect example of an image created as propaganda that has moved on to become something else altogether in our cultural subconscious. Images, like words, have both denotative and connotative value. The imagery, iconography and symbolism of the subject matter can influence your thinking on a subject as surely as words do and such choices as color, composition and fonts can have an even subtler but equally profound psychological effect on the viewer.
World War I and World War II were pinnacles in the use of the propaganda poster. Most of these examples come from American, British and Russian propaganda from those eras. One of the first thing that becomes apparent when studying the history of propaganda in this medium is that there are thematic commonalities. Join the military (as the gallery at the beginning of this article illustrates), support the troops/bring them home, commemoration of a date or event, buy war bonds, careful to who you talk to and what about, strength through unity, save materials for use in the war effort, the soldiers are protecting you and/or threatened, the bad guys are really bad (possibly even sub-human). This is not an all inclusive list of themes to be certain, but the following galleries contain examples of propaganda posters grouped by like theme. Some of them are graphically appealing in their design on a purely aesthetic level. Some of them are direct. Some are appeals to emotion. Some are appeals to nationalism. Some work to define “the Other”. They all carry a message.
Commemorative Messages:
Buy War Bonds:
Be Careful What You Say And Who You Talk To:
Save Materials:
Produce To Support The Troops:
These Are Really Bad Guys:
Does the fact that they carry a message negate their artistic merit? If you answered yes, consider the last instalment of this series on architecture as propaganda and ask yourself that question again. Does the propaganda power of the Great Pyramid or Abu Simbel automatically negate their artistic merit? I think the only reasonable answer is no. Both are not only amazing works of architecture, but artfully done as well. Now ask yourself does the content of the message matter in your evaluation? Does remoteness in time change your willingness to see propaganda as art? Consider these examples of Nazi propaganda posters.
Can you consider these works on artistic merit or does the message – and its attendant closeness in time – prevent you?
What if a noted and famous artist produced a propaganda painting? Is that art simply because of the creator’s bona fides in the art world? Consider the work of famous American painter Thomas Hart Benton. Titled “The Sowers”, it is part of an eight piece series of paintings Benton did in the 1940’s depicting the violence and barbarity of fascism. From 1942, it is the portrait of a brutish, monster-like man sowing not seeds, but skulls:
To further demonstrate the style in and of itself, what about propaganda posters designed as a tie-in to entertainment or as direct advertising?
Faux-Propaganda Posters for the (excellent) 2003-2008 television series “Battlestar Galactica”:
Candy Marches On!:
Mass media changed the face of propaganda. Mass produced newspapers, film, radio, television and the Internet all changed the way those with a message they wanted to sell and opinions they wanted to shape went about their mission. In America, some would say in the world, there is no greater producer of media than Hollywood. New York places a strong second, but their speciality since the early days of the industry has been television. In a way, film and television – despite their more transitory nature than something like great works of architecture – have become our modern cultural monuments of choice.
Animation is the nexus of graphic arts and film and it has been used for propaganda both here and abroad. A fair warning, these cartoons feature racist and/or dehumanizing characterizations about whatever “Other” they are trying to portray as the enemy. Although animation is not strictly for children, it holds a strong attraction for them, and these examples can be considered exemplary of one of the lowest tactics of propaganda – that which is aimed at children – and reflecting a maxim in propaganda that it is best to “catch them young”.
Bugs Bunny in Nip the Nips:
Daffy Duck in Daffy the Commando:
A Russian example with subtitles – The Millionaire:
A Nazi war propaganda cartoon aimed at the French to convince them that the Allies were attacking them as well:
In cinema, it is no different. The history of film used officially as propaganda traces its roots to World War II. Before the war, Germany was a hub of European cinema. Exploiting this asset, the Nazis had the Ministry of Propaganda under the leadership of Joseph Goebbels driving the production of antisemitic films like “Jud Süß“, “Die Rothschilds” and “Der ewige Jude“. In addition, the Third Reich was heavily involved in the production of the more nationalistic fare of films like Leni Riefenstahl‘s documentaries. Of her two most famous works, one is considered the most famous propaganda film in history. “Triumph des Willens” or “Triumph of the Will” is about Hitler and the rise of the Nazi Party to power. Her second most famous works are the pair of films known collectively as “Olympia” (“Olympia 1. Teil — Fest der Völker ” (Festival of Nations) and “Olympia 2. Teil — Fest der Schönheit” (Festival of Beauty)) that chronicle the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. The Nazi co-opting of the German film industry had the not so surprising effect of driving out some of their top talent who fled to Hollywood, such as actress Hedy Lamarr (who also aided the Allied war effort in her role as an inventor – a very interesting and insanely beautiful woman) and directors such as Fritz Lang and Otto Preminger.
In the United States during World War II, we had the Office of Wartime Information (OWI). Despite the fact that the overall net effect of propaganda of World War I was negative with many Americans feeling the propaganda from the previous war was not only misinformation, but possibly human rights violations, the Roosevelt administration went forward with a full media blitz from posters to radio to cinema. Some of the films were pure propaganda such as the series of films produced by Frank Capra at the behest of General George C. Marshall. Called “Why We Fight”, the series consisted of seven films made from 1942 to 1945: “Prelude to War” (1942), “The Nazis Strike” (1943), “Divide and Conquer” (1943), “The Battle of Britain” (1943), “The Battle of Russia” (1943), “The Battle of China” (1944), and “War Comes to America” (1945). They made no pretence to be anything other than what they were – propaganda.
Other films, however, worked in to the efforts of the OWI and were more commercial in nature. Did you know that “Casablanca” was propaganda? The hero of the film, Rick Blaine, is a man with an anti-fascist past who despite his personal misgivings and personal motivations to the contrary works to help his former lover and her freedom fighter husband escape the claws of the Nazis. The message is distinctly anti-Nazi and anti-fascism. That the film is art is practically without question as when you mention the very term “classic cinema” it is practically synonymous with “Casablanca”. Other films of the period were similarly slanted in their messages and some, like he 1942 film “Mrs. Miniver” (which told the story of an English housewife during the Battle of Britain and urged the support for the war effort) were even rushed into release at Presidential request. “The Purple Heart” (1944) dramatized Japanese atrocities and the heroics of American flyers. “Hitler’s Children” (1943) told the story of an American girl declared German by the Nazi government and her trials and tribulations with the Hitler Youth. “Dive Bomber” (1941) tells the heroic story of a military surgeon working with a Navy flying ace to develop pressure suits to keep pilots from blacking out in steep dives. These are but a few of many such examples of commercial films made with directed political messages. Even after World War II, the Hollywood/Washington propaganda nexus is alive and well.
The tail-end of Red Scare of the McCarthy era and the burgeoning Cold War brought us the rather unusual movie “Zots!” (1962). “Zots!” tells the story of a language professor who comes into possession of an ancient magic coin that gives him the power to inflict pain, slow down time or kill. In no time at all, Communist spies are out to get him and steal the coin for their own nefarious purposes. Directed by scholck-meister William Castle – best known for his cheesy horror films, “Zotz!” most certainly is a film, but it is so bad I don’t think anyone would mistake it for art. But anti-Communist propaganda? Without a doubt. The 1960’s and early 1970’s brought the United States the very unpopular Viet Nam War. It also brought us films like the highly unrealistic and jingoistic John Wayne fare, “The Green Berets” (1968). Today we are again involved in an unpopular war and again we have pro-war propaganda from Hollywood in the form of 2112’s “Act of Valor” where an elite team of Navy SEALs embark on a covert mission to recover a kidnapped CIA agent. Have you seen a commercial for this film? They are very proud of the fact that it stars not actors, but active duty Navy SEALs. Propaganda at its finest (?).
Television is no better. Much of what passes for entertainment is either direct propaganda or has propagandistic elements. Consider “Dragnet” – possibly the original pro-police propaganda program. A more modern example? Consider the show “NCIS” and its spin-off “NCIS: Los Angeles”, all of the programming on the Military History channel, and the consequential commercial advertising that supports most networks persuading you to buy things you may or most likely do not need. On most networks you are guaranteed at least twenty minutes out of every hour being devoted to persuade your or change your mind based on the interests of those who may or may not have your best interests at heart. I would say that as Americans you are awash in a sea of never ending propaganda, but the reality of the matter is that mass media has become a practically unavoidable global phenomena. Where mass media goes, propaganda surely follows. It is up to you to think for yourself and not succumb to the subliminal and overt efforts of others to think for you. That doesn’t mean you have to live in a cave. That means you have to consider what you see dispassionately even if it is something you enjoy or that entertains you in some way.
Can propaganda be considered art? I think that some of it most certainly can be, but that it is part and parcel of the idea of persuasion to make the idea being presented attractive. It is not art though merely because it is pretty. Something about it must transcend both the intentional message and the method of presentation to reach something universally human to truly be art. The perfect example of this is “Casablanca”. Enjoy it. I know I certainly do. However, I also keep in the back of my mind that it is a form of propaganda. Being aware of and asking the right questions about propaganda is the first step in protecting yourself from its undue influence.
Can propaganda be considered art?
Does intent of the speaker color the artistic merit of the piece?
Does remoteness in time affect the relationship of message to artistic merit?
What do you think?
As a reminder: when carrying on the fight to make sure you understand when propaganda is being used to manipulate you, be vigilant, thoughtful and emotionally detached when considering whether something is or isn’t propaganda. And above all . . .
__________________________
Disclaimer: All images used are either public domain or copyright of their respective copyright holder, used without permission and used for not-for-profit educational/illustrative purposes.
~submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
The Propaganda Series;
Propaganda 105: How to Spot a Liar
Propaganda 104 Supplemental: The Streisand Effect and the Political Question
Propaganda 104 Supplemental: The Sound of Silence
Propaganda 104: Magica Verba Est Scientia Et Ars Es
Propaganda 103: The Word Changes, The Word Remains The Same
Propaganda 102 Supplemental: Holly Would “Zero Dark Thirty”
Propaganda 101 Supplemental: Child’s Play
Propaganda 101 Supplemental: Build It And They Will Come (Around)
Propaganda 101: What You Need to Know and Why or . . .
Related articles of interest;
Mythology and the New Feudalism by Mike Spindell
How about Some Government Propaganda for the People Paid for by the People Being Propagandized? by Elaine Magliaro
@Dredd: What is your obsession with mini-skirts?
The Voynich manuscript probably WAS propaganda. The last thing I saw on it was that it is most likely code but for a foreign language, or mix of foreign languages, used to record the dogma of a secret religion or cult without exposing those secrets to non-initiates. Secret “Mystery” religions were rampant in the middle ages, this is probably a relic of one of them. The herbal stuff is probably about magical potions or medicines (same thing, in the middle ages).
And I’m under the growing impression there is something very wrong with you and you have no idea why I’m writing this series in the first place.
Here’s a hint: In toto, the series is not a defense of propaganda, but rather it is illustrating the history and methodology of propaganda so people can learn to evaluate propaganda properly and inoculate themselves against the negative influences. The first article defined the issue, the second and third have been historical examples using architecture and visual arts mediums of communication as examples.
You have your own space to discuss propaganda in any manner you see fit, Dredd. It’s called “your own blog”. I suggest you worry about the content of it instead of worrying about the content of this blog. I’ll write what I wish and how I wish for this blog within the constraints presented by the rightful owner and that includes structuring presentation of themes and formulating questions around the subject matter of given articles. If you want it done differently here, that’s simply too bad for you. I don’t write to cater to your specific beliefs, desires or neediness nor will I start to do so simply because you want to repeatedly act out seeking attention for yourself.
Gene H. 1, June 20, 2012 at 2:00 pm
“Currently I am trying to show that there is a legal distinction that engenders a bipartite reality with respect to propaganda.
Notice, again, the definition congress gave it:”
Notice again, that legality and legal definitions are not the topic of this current column. The subject is can propaganda as generally defined (as opposed to legally defined) have aesthetic artistic appeal and/or merit as a visual art form.
Your second statement is argument by non-sequitur. Semantic drift is not relevant to the topic at hand.
The word was defined within the proper etymological context and for the purposes of this discussion. If you want to make up the meaning of words, conflate them or use them out of context or prematurely, you go right ahead. It’s one of the thing you are good at doing.
=========================================
I am of the growing opinion that you are in denial about the reality of propaganda as a very destructive force in American society.
You want to make a comic book feature out of it, which is art, but so is anything else anyone wants to call art.
It is dysfunctional to both art and the citizen’s duty to understand the utter destructiveness of the propaganda disease.
It is a disservice in the sense that it is a plastic mini-skirt intended to hide what should be exposed, but reveal what should be hidden.
“Currently I am trying to show that there is a legal distinction that engenders a bipartite reality with respect to propaganda.
Notice, again, the definition congress gave it:”
Notice again, that legality and legal definitions are not the topic of this current column. The subject is can propaganda as generally defined (as opposed to legally defined) have aesthetic artistic appeal and/or merit as a visual art form.
Your second statement is argument by non-sequitur. Semantic drift is not relevant to the topic at hand.
The word was defined within the proper etymological context and for the purposes of this discussion. If you want to make up the meaning of words, conflate them or use them out of context or prematurely, you go right ahead. It’s one of the thing you are good at doing.
Gene H. 1, June 20, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Propaganda was defined at the very beginning…
But that’s not exactly what people feel when they hear the word, is it? Why do most people have a negative reaction to the word “propaganda”?
===================================
Word meanings change.
Sometimes so much that if one adheres to them they will become “entertaining”:
(Ancient …). That book could be complete and utter propaganda but the prosecution would have a hard time proving the case.
Modern propaganda is not our great great great great grandpa’s propaganda.
Mommies Boy 1, June 20, 2012 at 11:14 am
It is respectfully disagreed that anyone is an authority of what constitutes propaganda, unless however, one is an expert in that particular area. Lay opinions are exactly that, non experts.
Anyone’s lay opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s, unless you happen to disagree with the messenger. This is what’s relatively apparent Dredd. You have no more hijacked this thread than any of the other guests, guest bloggers or troll. Your opinion counts just as theirs. Unless and of course, you have editorial privileges, then that makes your statements more or less moot, as you are not as good. Figure that out and you will be just fine.
==================================================
Currently I am trying to show that there is a legal distinction that engenders a bipartite reality with respect to propaganda.
Notice, again, the definition congress gave it:
(22 U.S.C. § 611(j)). That had the force of law because it was the law, which may be modified if the current bill is not vetoed or shot down by the Senate.
Congress regulates art? Congress defines or conflates art with propaganda, and can forbid it?
“… any oral, visual, graphic, written, pictorial, or other communication or expression by any person … ”
It would seem that “any” includes art.
But we can see at once that congress cannot regulate private art that way because of constitutional constraints (1st Amendment, etc.).
Thus, propaganda can be regulated if it is foreign governments doing the art containing the propaganda.
However, that would not hold true for American Artists who were doing counter-propaganda to strike back at the Empire.
One definition, one size if you will, does not seem to fit all.
Another aspect of propaganda: outright lies by high level government officials that are intended to drum up support for offensive activities.
“mushroom cloud”, “wmd”, vial of “anthrax”, etc.
Tony C. and Dredd … that’s okay … I know you guys are enjoying yourselves
Propaganda was defined at the very beginning of this series. To wit:
“What is propaganda? Webster’s defines the word as follows:
propaganda \ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də, ˌprō-\, n.,
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions (ed. note: Not relevant, but interesting.)
2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
But that’s not exactly what people feel when they hear the word, is it? Why do most people have a negative reaction to the word “propaganda”? After all, by definition, “propaganda” is much like the verb “to persuade” in meaning.
persuade \pər-ˈswād\, v., v.t.,
1: to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action
2: to plead with : urge
Etymologically speaking, the word “propaganda” is fairly new as a political science term. “Propaganda” didn’t come into common use as a political science term until World War I. Even then it was not a pejorative in use like it is today. The word originated (some would say unsurprisingly so) as shorthand referring to the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregatio de Propaganda Fide or the “congregation for propagating the faith”. This committee of cardinals was established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV to supervise foreign missions. The word “propaganda” is the feminine gerund of the Italian verb “propagando” which in turn is derived from the Latin verb prōpāgō, meaning “to propagate”.
propagate \ˈprä-pə-ˌgāt\, v., v.t.,
3a : to cause to spread out and affect a greater number or greater area : extend b : to foster growing knowledge of, familiarity with, or acceptance of (as an idea or belief) : publicize c : to transmit (as sound or light) through a medium
Clearly the largest distinction between persuasion and propaganda is that propaganda is a form of large scale persuasion. Persuasion isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Changing someone’s mind is a better tactic than violence. Persuasion is at the heart of society’s pillar and replacement for self-help justice and dispute resolution, the adversarial court system. Persuasion is an alternative to coercion.
So what is propaganda? It’s a tool to change people’s minds.”
If you don’t know the definition of “propaganda” by now, you didn’t read or perhaps didn’t understand the first installment and/or you haven’t been following the topical discussion.
The definition of art is a more malleable proposition because it involves and aesthetic judgment which is often subjective. The relevant definition of “art” for the purposes of discussion here is “the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects”. Aesthetics are matters of, relating to, or dealing with aesthetics or the beautiful as an adjective. As a noun, aesthetics are “a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste and with the creation and appreciation of beauty or: a particular theory or conception of beauty or art – a particular taste for or approach to what is pleasing to the senses and especially sight”.
Deciding whether propaganda is art is asking a blended question about the nature of beauty from subjective and objective standards as applied to the objective definition (provided above) of what constitutes propaganda in both the value laden and the value neutral meanings of the word.
An expert is one with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject and especially gained through experience and study. As propaganda is intimately tied to communication, language and persuasion, a person with the proper expertise to evaluate the subject in an expert manner could come from any number of fields of study and practice from psychology to art history. Given the reliance on language and rhetoric in creating effective propaganda, one such background suitable to be considered expert is someone with the analytical background and rhetorical skills required to understand the nature of persuasive speech – for example a lawyer with a degree in English who has studied the topic of propaganda extensively.
Validity of opinion isn’t the issue. Everyone is entitled to one. How other’s evaluate the validity and intellectual merit of another’s opinion is equally left up to the audience.
Just turn the question around: “Can Art be considered propaganda?”
Besides being aesthetically pleasing, art can convey a message, and propaganda is just a form of messaging. Using the definition of the word “can,” we could rephrase the question as, “Is it possible for Art to be considered propaganda?”
That practically answers itself, of course somebody could consider the message conveyed by a piece of artistry as propaganda. So the reverse is true as well: It is possible for propaganda to be considered art; because the nature of a message conveyed by art does not make it non-art.
That logic does not depend on a legal definition of propaganda, it only depends upon propaganda being classified as a form of message. As for art conveying a message, any song will do, as will any poster with writing on it, and most “heroic” images without words as well. Even instrumental songs can convey a message by association; like “Taps” at a funeral, or unspoken ritual, such as the military honor detail and 21-gun salute for a soldier fallen in battle.
It is respectfully disagreed that anyone is an authority of what constitutes propaganda, unless however, one is an expert in that particular area. Lay opinions are exactly that, non experts.
Anyone’s lay opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s, unless you happen to disagree with the messenger. This is what’s relatively apparent Dredd. You have no more hijacked this thread than any of the other guests, guest bloggers or troll. Your opinion counts just as theirs. Unless and of course, you have editorial privileges, then that makes your statements more or less moot, as you are not as good. Figure that out and you will be just fine.
The poster asks:
Depends on the definition of propaganda and who is doing the art and the definition of propaganda.
Except in the bully religion that is being evangelized by propaganda.
“The point is that without legal definitions of propaganda, especially since ‘art is in the eye of the beholder’, one can’t get a handle on whether or not propaganda can be conveyed by art can one?
At least in the sense of government propaganda?”
Nonsense.
The discussion of art in the sense of fine art or graphic art is an aesthetic discussion. Since the topic is medium and the mediums in question are artistic, legality is not relevant to discussion either of the beauty (or not) or effectiveness propaganda (or any message) through said mediums. “What was the artist trying to say” is a fundamental question in evaluating art. Concurrently, “what is the speaker really saying” is a fundamental question in evaluating propaganda. Legality is a separate issue.
The House of Representatives had a bill (“Smith-Mundt Act of 2012”) floating around within the 2012 budget bill that involved the legalization of foreign propaganda within U.S. boundaries.
If that means “propaganda” is illegal within the U.S. boundaries at the moment, would the posters Gene has provided in his post be legal or not if done by a foreign government?
This illustrates a need for the definition of propaganda, in legal terminology.
Some of the posters Gene provided were done by “The United States War Department“, others were done by foreign governments.
Evidently the “Smith-Mundt Act of 1948” originally defined propaganda thusly:
(22 U.S.C. § 611(j), emphasis added, repealed in 1995). The point is that without legal definitions of propaganda, especially since “art is in the eye of the beholder”, one can’t get a handle on whether or not propaganda can be conveyed by art can one?
At least in the sense of government propaganda?
gbk,
Your suggestion is noted and any excuse to show Caravaggio usually works for me.
Gene,
Looking forward to the rest of your postings, and I’m taking a cue from Blouise’s excellent suggestion on Queen Elizabeth whereby you might also want to consider the Counter-Reformation as another point of viewing religious art as propaganda. As I’m sure you know, the church codified many rules during the century long Council Of Trent for many things including acceptable artwork and then actively commissioned artists to produce art with the goal of showing Catholicism as an enlightened belief relative to Protestantism.
As a juxtaposition to this, one only needs to look at Caravaggio’s paintings for the Counter-Reformation of which many were done under commission and then rejected because of his realistic painting style. His themes were acceptable to the church, but his realism was too shocking and dark, not “uplifting” enough. Because we all know angels have white wings not dark gray/black, dammit!
@Dredd: I do not know who you are talking about; I am a full time research scientist working at an accredited large university. I get paid. I have an office.
It is shameful to quote yourself as an authority when you clearly are not.
Back at ya, you self-serving jerk that fills your posts with links to your own blog as if they were some kind of authority. Unlike you, I did not quote myself anywhere, I stated my logic, I was clear where I was stating an opinion, and every fact I used was not my own work at all, but easily locatable on the intertubes.
Type “Junk DNA” into google, and start perusing the links. Here is the one from Wiki you SHOULD have read: Non-Coding DNA.
I will remind you, and everybody, that YOU wanted to talk about junk DNA, I did that. But you did not REALLY want to have a conversation about it or what it meant or why it was a misnomer, you just wanted to bloviate about your misunderstood drivel about how junk DNA was really microbial DNA (it isn’t) and all your other magical speculations on what that means.
We are not the authoritarians or control freaks here, Dredd, you are the one seeking fans, readers, to start your little fiefdom, it is you trying to develop some position of leadership by blog, or a following as an author.
My metaphor goes like this: We just came to a party to discuss Gene’s art, with each other and with Gene, and you said, “Hey lookie there, a party, and the door is open, let me go see if anybody in there wants to save $200 or more on their car insurance …”
Self Promtion, Self Production, Attention Seekers and the organ grinder is not keeping a watch on the pets or is that pest? The Circus is officially out of control, the beast best be caged for the safety of others.
Don’t start none, don’t be none?
Well then if you don’t want to catch shit for persistently hijacking threads and shameless self-promotion of your blog, Dredd, then why don’t you stop it?
As to the sharper fangs, it’s not anyone else’s fault you pick arguments you can’t win other than your own. This is a marketplace of ideas – by nature a competitive place. That you bring a ridiculous product to market is your own doing. Ridiculous ideas get . . . ridiculed. Imagine that.
As to authority? Well Tony having a professional science background rooted in biology certainly makes him a better authority on the subject of genetics and microbiology than you – a computer programmer (or me the amateur scientist for that matter, but since he agrees with me that you don’t know what you are talking about, that’s moot).
I’d ask how you’d like it if people came to your blog and constantly tried to change the subject of threads to whatever they wanted to talk about instead of the topic at hand and filled their posts with self-promotion. However, since you have squat for traffic over there and you obviously have some pathological need to be the center of attention, you’d probably take any attention you can get. Just like a child acting out or the “Hey! There’s a party at MY place!” guy seeking attention.
Tony C. 1, June 19, 2012 at 3:36 pm
@Dredd: I am not an attorney. I am a full time research scientist.
======================================
Yeah well I like retired people who are now googlers, but you need to clean yourself up.
It is shameful to quote yourself as an authority when you clearly are not.