The Thursday Blog

Longtime readers will know that my grandparents both died fairly recently. (Granddad first, Grandmother a few years later.) They left two children, my uncle, and my mother. The two of them always had had an adversarial relationship, and with the authority of my grandfather gone, they immediately fell to fighting over the control of my grandmother and her assets.

I think that both of them probably felt as though they were acting in my grandmother’s best interests, but neither agreed with the other as to what those interests were, and they both allowed their mistrust of the other to cloud their perceptions until they could see only menace and evil in the other sibling.

My grandmother died last year, and now the battle for her estate has begun. It is not inconsiderable, and the long knives are out. The will originally had split the estate in two evenly between brother and sister, but by the time my grandmother actually died, it had been changed several times and finally read that the estate would be split in half between my mom and my uncle’s two kids, with my mom determining who got what. (My grandmother suffered from Alzheimers’, and my mom was both her guardian and the executor of her estate.)

My uncle is ex-Secret Service and has uncovered what at least appears to a rather sizable amount of financial perfidy on the part of my mom and ex-dad (he disowned me a few years ago… it was a whole thing) that occurred while they were caring for my grandmother. For his part, my ex-dad is a judge here in town who seems to feel that he is untouchable. My uncle is well-off and has no (real) need of any more money, but mom and ex-dad were rather poor financial managers and had gotten themselves deeply in debt, and had ALLEGEDLY been counting on an inheritance from his father (that never materialized) to provide for their retirement. Their money problems are complicated by the fact that they are hoarders and mom is pretty much always shopping and bringing home stuff to throw on the pile. (Not an exaggeration. Their home looks like anything you might have seen on TV.)

I and my siblings have tried to stay out of the whole mess the best we could. Our only concern was that our grandmother be well cared for until her death, and that seems to have been the case. While we were in the original will and left out of the rewritten version, all three of us decided that if our mom cared enough about the small amount of money our grandparents had left to us to go to the trouble to take it from us, she could have it.

The trial between Brother and Sister is finally imminent. Plans are being drawn, and chambers filled. My uncle (whom I love, though I feel is acting foolishly) has told me he may want me to testify. I do not wish to, but he told me plainly that if I would not go, he would be forced to bring my younger sister into the trial. Although I honestly feel that either myself or my sister would be bad news on the stand for both sides, I told my uncle that I would do it, but only if subpoenaed.

Then came summer semester at the University of Florida.

See, my little brother is seriously dating a wonderful young woman who is currently enrolled in law school at UF. Last week the two of them, along with my sister and Lena and I, all went out for bar-b-cue at Bono’s, and my brother’s GF was telling us about her summer course load. One of the classes she was taking was something called e-Discovery, which we had to have explained to us.

Basically, the idea behind e-Discovery is to use the intrawebs to find evidence on a person or a financial transaction. It’s blowing up as a field of study since so many established lawyers are not really internet savvy and the use of e-Discovery can really give you a big leg up against your competition in the courtroom. One thing e-Discovery is very good at is using a person’s own words against them. Think of all the Tweets, Facebook updates, and blogs out there. Imagine if an attorney had the opportunity to bring everything you had ever said online into court, to twist and take out of context and use however he wished. Imagine what kind of reliable witness you’d make after he got done describing your fourteenth naked kegger of the month to the jury.

Imagine if you had a blog you had been writing for four and a half years and someone was trying to get you to testify in a trial you didn’t want to go to.

All of the following statements are absolutely true and accurately reflect my feelings, beliefs, and viewpoints. They are not for entertainment purposes.

I personally have all of the same magic powers Jesus did. He and I are equals, and though he had better PR, I have managed to live much longer. In both that and in my iPad I have surpassed him.

I do not believe in American exceptionalism, and in general I think that our nation’s principal importance is as an inefficient means of providing infrastructure. (Special note to terrorist recruiters looking for disaffected Americans online, you guys can go fuck yourselves. I have even less respect for you.) That said, I recognize that America provides that infrastructure for ME, so it does serve my interests… but it’s hardly special.

I am an ordained Reverend of the House of Liturgical Equanimity, (and will insist on being referred to as such in court) a religion I made up myself. I run an online D&D comic strip, but I like to think of it as a cult devoted to me. If I can figure out a way to legally dupe Christian zealots out of their cash, I plan on using my new religion to make myself rich and possibly get free lawn care.

People who dress up as animals and attend conventions to have anonymous sex with other costumed people wig me out way less than Catholics do.

Long ago I made up a plan to protect my home from zombies, though I still occasionally worry that one passing by in the street might hear when I check the lock on the front door at night.

I don’t have children because I didn’t want to have to share my video games.

Between us, my sister is the crazy one. If it becomes necessary, I’d be happy to provide her space here to talk about booze, sex, drugs, growing up in a dysfunctional family, and her beliefs about all parents of today’s youth. I’m sure it’d be a hoot.

Finally, this trial is going to be in the summer, in Florida. That means T-shirt, jean shorts, and sandals. Only saps wear suits in the summer.

80 Responses to The Thursday Blog

  1. loooooooooool

    Approved!!! I’d wish you good luck, my reverend, save that, with you being jesus-like and all, I don’t think you neeed it in any way.

  2. Perfect! I love it! You had me laughing so hard I had to explain to the others here what I was laughing at…

    Good luck!

      • Reminds me of George Carlin’s routine about how to get out of Jury duty…tell the Judge you’d be a perfect juror, because you can tell guilty people just by looking at them.

        • No doubt. Of course the best way is to answer “yes” when they ask you if you’ve ever been victimized by whatever crime it is they’re trying the guy for. (As long as that is a truthful answer. You must never lie. Lying is wrong.)

  3. Sorry to hear about all that court mess. Don’t forget to add sphinx and half-troll boobies to the mix there. 😆

    My father died a few months ago(2 days before my birthday, actually, I consider it a great early B-day present) and I had a little inheritence-themed legal drama of my own, complicated by the fact that I’ve chosen to estrange(?) myself from my mother(and refuse to directly talk to her) and little sister, really don’t trust any of her so-called friends(especially some woman my mother knows who gives me the creeps and talks like a professional embezzler who I believe is trying to scam her for money or something*) and that I really hate courtrooms and all that beurocratic stuff.

    Oh, it’s a short, uncomplicated story with me, but lets just say I didn’t really get along with my folks either.

    *Not sure where she’ll pull it from though, my mom hasn’t got much really.

    P.S. I had a the legal opportunity to make my mother and little sister get evacuated from my parents apt'(of which a large portion belongs to me as both an heir and a male one at that…I just love outdated laws) but decided not to bother.
    I’m lazy like that.

    • That’s for the best. While I don’t communicate with my parents, I bear them no ill will either. I have long since forgiven them the fallibility of their humanity, I just realized that they aren’t really people I enjoy.

      • Oh, it’s nothing like that. Like I’ve said, I’m just too lazy to get into all this legal stuff and beurocracy drives me crazy. Also, it’ll sour things between me and my older sister.

        I do bare ill will towards my mother. In fact just about all the ill will I bare is directed her way. But I find it funnier for her to live on knowing I won’t talk to her.
        It might wane over the years, like with my older sister who also used not to speak to her(though that’s mostly ’cause she’s an annoying bitch and no sane person would want to talk to her…my mother, that is) but now reluctantly does when she really has to, but it’s probably gonna take more years than she’s got to live.

  4. Wow that’s way more horrible than anything I could have imagined. Good idea with dressing down, judges REALLY hate that. Back when I was a legal clerk there was an estate fight that took up a whole bigass shelf, still unresolved. You’ve inspired me. In the extremely unlikely event I have any money to will, the document shall end with the following provisos:
    1. Should anyone attempt to legally alter the aforementioned will in any way, my ghost will return personally from the grave to KILL YOU and drag you down to Hell.
    2. An unmentioned amount of money has been set aside to the Sicilian Mafia to kill anyone who tries to alter this will.
    3. Anyone who disputes this will is hereby legally disowned, for whatever ammo that may give to lawyers, who are worse than ghosts, demons, and assassins.
    4. Another sum has been given to the IRA, to blow up the entire courthouse should the Sicilians fail.
    5. Yet another sum has been set aside to erect a statue of me pissing atop the grave of whosoever alters this will (unless the cemetery believes they might like that sort of thing, in which case they get Martha Stewart).
    6. I will KILL YOU!!!!!!!!! I mean it! Do you see my ghost coming out of this page to strangle your insincere little ass? GRAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. ok first, its terrible how money can bring the worst out of people, making family and friends enemies. shame these people are allowed to breed…

    Second. how the fucking hell can a will be altered by a individual other then the person who originally wrote it? man this legal system is MESSED UP when are we going to ditch the ENTIRE THING and rewrite it from the ground up?

    now im no lawyer but wouldn’t that e-discovery thing be inadmissible? might work if someone confesses he/she in fact wrote that stuff but would it work if he/she would not admit it? and couldn’t it be abused? its pretty easy to hack or at least impersonate most accounts just ask Sarah Palin

    • Hey, at least there are no executions, exiles and civil-wars started over this like with royal families.

      Which reminds me, we haven’t had any good, interesting(i.e bloody, destructive etc) dynastic feuds recently, what with this boring democratic system and all.

    • As the guardian my mother had complete legal control of my grandmother and her holdings, but for legal documents she did need her signature at the bottom. Now you could probably have convinced my grandmother at the time that humans were descended from turnips, and she would certainly have signed her estate over to Adolph Hitler if you told her it was important. My mother likely rewrote the will to suit herself and then told my grandmother that my evil uncle would put her out on the street if she didn’t sign. My understanding was that there were attempts to alter the will even more egregiously but that the lawyer they were seeing (who specialized in elder affairs) told my mother that the changes she was seeking were not in my grandmother’s best interests and that my grandmother was incapable of distinguishing such, and therefore kicked them out.

      Bush v Clinton is has always been about dynastic feuding, orald. And it’s been bloody enough.

      • Bushes V (Clinton/Gore) is a lot like the Hatfield/McCoy feud. No one is really sure exactly where it started, but it got so incredibly stupid so incredibly fast that everyone just sits there and stares like they’re watching a train wreck in slow motion.

    • About the e-discovery thing being inadmissable, I’m aware of at least one case in the UK, dangerous driving I believe, where the defendents case was seriously harmed by the fact that he’d been happy to write on forums about driving fast and breaking the law. This was found, brought up in court and used to help him gain a prison sentence based on minimal actual evidence.

      And our laws are ancient and stuffy so imagine how shiny new laws would react to it.

      On the plus side, more jobs for lawyers…

  6. Oh, and not just any t-shirt. Make sure it’s one of those sleeveless/tank-top ones – ya’know, the ones affectionately referred to as “wife-beaters.”

      • I believe that Geeklabel* had a rather nice t-shirt bearing the following text; “I’m the GM and that make all of you my bitches!”
        I’m sure that would get you out of the legal squabblings real fast.
        There is also a real possibility of ending up in the slammer for “showing contempt for the court” or something, but hey…some you win , some you loose. 😛

        *Atleast untill they started closing up shop on June 1st. 🙁

  7. Should you require accompaniment to the courthouse, feel free to call upon my free companion services.

  8. Kevin I feel for you and the burden that a disfunctional family forces upon oneself. It is truly sad when parents must take from children in order to find ‘retirement’ and financial stability, worse when they must twist the wishes and wants of the dead.
    I often ask myself when Parents lose this Right and become more beggars and thieves, stop being parents. I am glad you have such an impressionistic point of view of the whole, I have seen first hand the destruction this type of personality (parents) can have on a family.

    I believe our society has completely lost all respect for our elders as a culture. It is truly sad as these wonderful people make the best story tellers.

    When you go into court looking as Jesus ignore the judge, you are not on trial, some arguments would state that you are in fact a victim, and the judge should respect your opinion, if he/she does not you should quietly remind the judge that it is your family that is imploding and they should have a little respect for the dead.

    Wear your good sandals and clean linens!

    • As another friend pointed out to me, family dysfunction is really a lot more “normal” than family normalcy is. Makes me wonder if the dysfunction is an instinctual pattern butting up against a cultural standard that doesn’t want to see it.

      In any case, I am STILL waiting to being the counting of my years from the point I no longer have to deal with any of these fucking people.

      • My understanding is that people don’t always choose the best partners, and people change over time in reaction to their environment and stressful situations can wreck even a good relationship. Well, that’s really elementary, nothing new about that.
        The thing is, as there’s so much change going on in life, a static relationship like the monogomous marriage, which can’t be dissolved easily and without alot of negative reprecautions, just can’t fit everyone. In fact, I think it only fits a minority. Perhaps not a small minority but a minority nontheless.
        Alot of people suffer through their marriages but don’t get a divorce because of all the shit that goes along with it(or they can’t ’cause they’re stupid enough to practice Catholicism…shouldn’t God make your marriage happy if he wants to show you it’s the way to heaven?), others just get divorced.
        Some are stupid enough to go through several such cycles.

        Now what I wanted to say through all that is: Life’s a neverending change and you can’t put it within the narrow confines of a rigid system and expect it to fit perfectly.

        Oh, and always suspect the “normal”, happy couples. There’s something dark and sinister they’re all hiding…

      • There are always complaints about the previous/next generation, it’s just that there are merely different levels of complaints. As in are you parents unreasonable in their decrees & quirks vs. are they mentally ill vs. are they heavy drug abusers.

        • They do have some mental illnesses, which is unfortunate. Mostly though they were never shown as children how reasonable people were supposed to operate. Not their fault… I just don’t want to be around them.

  9. I’m not going to go into all of the weird **** that’s happened in my life, but whenever ‘stuff’ happened, I have sighed that it was like living in a soap opera. Y’know, once I’d calmed down enough. It’s strange, isn’t it, that the kind of events that make us cringe and suffer in real life are watched so avidly by the couch-warming public every day?

    I hope things work out for you, Kevin.

  10. You thought you might need a writ of redeeming value for this? If that’s true my writ is probably inadequate to the task. Still, if I understand correctly you are attempting to avoid being entangled in disgraceful dynastic politics you have no interest in by means of bold, bald mocking statements which assault the petty purpose in using court powers to shanghai you. I think that’s praiseworthy: If you limit the number of witnesses who drag out such an embarrassing waste you are acting in the civil interest. Anyone who can’t respect that is either one of those set-back by your efforts or has a severely inadequate sense of humour and justice.
    Problems and potential problems: At the moment your sister may be a significantly less worthless witness, and would require an effective means of avoiding this mess. Doing so in the exact same manner increases the possibility of both efforts failing or being nullified more easily than if you had used varied methods. When someone performs witness self-disqualification it then leaves them without a plan for what to do if they need to be an effective witness at some point in the future. And obviously, showing up to a courtroom in a Jesus costume could get you arrested for contempt and threatening to do so may not be enough to get you out of this without follow-through.

    I’ll avoid talking about what to do with the kind of dysfunctionality involved in this mess since I’ve Godwin-ed myself on it in the past talking about how people and organizations that plainly assault the general good for their own limited benefit are supporting arguments for Nazi-style suppression methods against such.

    Praise Kevin, the holy works of Kevin, and his many Jesus-like miracles.

    • Planning on T-shirt and shorts, which is how I typically dress. The costume would be funny, but I don’t actually want to just walk in and slap the judge in the face.

      My sister is now officially embroiled, as my parents have subpoenaed her. Further, she is pretty pissed at my uncle for using her to threaten me and may go willingly. However, since she is already in it, there is no longer any reason for me to even pretend to go along with the program.

      If anyone still wants me to testify, they will be frustrated. The only options left are to either leave me alone or to have me jailed for contempt. I will not cooperate in what I see as an immoral venture.

      • I think you need one of those old-style leather aviator/motorcycle helmets with goggles. When it gets heated in the courtroom, just quietly put the goggles down to protect your eyes. It will go great with the shorts and sandles, too.

        • Shorts, T-shirt, sandals, leather jacket, goggles… I’d slap that with contempt myself unless I was dealing with a homeless person or legally incompetent person who obviously was never gonna do better.

      • I’d try writing a letter describing your discomfort with the trial, knowledge of the circumstances and disrespect for both arguing sides, which asks how to go about limiting your own involvement in the proceedings to zero. Then bring this letter to a lawyer and ask what you should do to get out of going to the trial, along with whatever else you may need to explain the case.
        Judges are people whose jobs are to balance competing interests and weight all the relevant facts against the law. This one may decide that such a letter may be all he or she needs to avoid wasting the court’s time to hear you as a witness. If not, it may still be useful as your prepared statement on the subject of the trial which limits the further questioning.

        • Yeah, and for my bravado, while I may be willing to spend some time in a cell for my morality, a heavy fine could be financially ruinous. I do know a lawyer I could ask who is completely uninvolved. That sounds like a plan.

          • I didn’t suggest pissing on the judge, you probably know better than I do that they tend to have no sense of humour for that.
            A judge does usually appreciate people who don’t waste their time or try to lie to them though, and saying that you believe both your mother and your uncle are both dealing in bad faith and may be distorting the truth in a way that disrespects your grandmother’s memory… that will give them ammo to stick it to whichever one they are most pissed off at (or even both).

  11. I think inheritance is one of the greatest flaws in our society, inheritance tax should be 100%, end of.

    Inheritance concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, it gives an unfair leg-up to people who’s only qualification is their rich ancestors (and effectively penalises those with impecunious or spendthrift parents), and as you most entertainingly describe, it causes masses of completely unnecessary stress, arguments, litigation and family division.

    Sadly my revolutionary ideas will never catch on, as the general populous is far too greedy to vote for something so inherently fair and sensible. Even the socialists.

    • Why not just have the government take everyone’s kids away at birth, and adopt them out at random without keeping track of what kid went where, and then make all property belong to the government and let them parcel it out?

      Oh, wait…I think that second part, and your 100% inheritance tax, which amounts to the same thing (Your stuff isn’t really yours, it’s on loan from the government until you die, then they take it back, is what your idea basically is) has been tried, and it failed miserably…I think the term for it was Communism.

      • Each person achieves and earns their wealth and possessions solely through their own efforts. The most capable are the most prosperous. What’s so radical about that?

        Can’t see the advantages in government intervention in parenting, other than our planet is already way overpopulated and there are insufficient resources already to sustain the current population, so having kids at all is a pretty selfish individual decision. I don’t think the population is ready for mass sterilisation programmes either, though! So mass starvation it is.

        • You’re responding to the concerns raised as though they are reasonable and legitimate: This is an error.
          A very large number of Americans have been raised to view all means of controlling the excesses, abuses, extensions and accumulations of privilege as communist, and therefore immoral. The most interesting thing about those who hold such views is that most of them identify their interest with people vastly more wealthy and privileged than they are or ever will be and oppose measures that would benefit themselves and their families.
          Like people everywhere Americans are delusional about what is in their own best interest. The difference is that they tend to have more expensive and stronger illusions about it to go along with their (declining) status as the richest and most powerful country in the world.

          • That would be the American Dream kicking in, AC.

            Everyone dreams about when THEY will get rich, and they do not want anything in the way of that!


        • Actually, I was trying to point out how incredibly ludicrous his suggestion that the same government that should, in Obama’s own publicly expressed opinion, be able to dictate to your doctor whether having a pacemaker installed or “just taking a pain pill” is the appropriate treatment, be given “sole beneficiary” status in all inheritance.

          That’s like giving the greedy nephew the ability to rewrite his rich uncle’s will AND letting him write his uncle’s medication prescriptions at the same time.

          And AC, the concept that one’s wealth and property actually belong to the state is UNQUESTIONABLY communistic, not just a debate tactic.

          • The proposal was a 100% estate tax, not ending private property. To be honest, I don’t think such a tax would actually change very much because rich people would just use other ways to pass on their wealth. It’s not gonna happen in America anyway.
            Talking about the completely irrational American health provision system and the Obama insurance-debacle is a different issue and suggesting that the U.S. government would engage in mass euthanasia of its citizens in order to cannibalize its private economy is asinine beyond reasonable discussion.

    • “Inheritance concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, it gives an unfair leg-up to people who’s only qualification is their rich ancestors (and effectively penalises those with impecunious or spendthrift parents),”

      And people with that attitude make me [happy] to the stomach.

      My paternal G.Grandfather blew our families “nest-egg”, worth several million US by todays standards.
      Since then every generation has been working it’s arse off to rebuild something to keep our kids in decent schools and all families members away from the stupid whims of bureaucracy.
      No-ones stopping you from doing the same, except yourself. And [pretty butterflies] like you.

      So instead of penalising the few, you would have a world where there is [rainbows and puppy dogs], let alone working hard. No point doing hard yards, thinking and planning well, where there is a chance for a better tomorrow for your family.

      No you want [Disney World!] No tall poppies, no personal responsibility, no looking after anyone but [me an’ Opie down by the ole duck pond]. And government which have proven Oh so effective, Oh so efficient, Oh so Trustworthy, and Whom never looks after their own interests, is supposed to look after [family sitcoms]. And probably change your [batteries] too.

      [Have a beer]. and do it soon [BBF].

      (Oh hey, while I’m here editing other people’s comments, I’d just like to mention that while we may engage in energetic debate, we do not make personal attacks against one another. That gets us BANNED. – Kevin)

      • “My kids are more important than your kids, as long as my kids are ok, yours can suffer and die”

        I think that’s pretty much what you’re saying. Just because it is institutionalised, hardwired into our society and has been that way since time immemorial, that doesn’t make it right.

        • Right and wrong is an interesting way to put it, because the recently banned one evidently believes it’s offensively wrong for you to suggest taking away the advantages they seek to bring to their family through uneven distribution of the benefits of wealth. Perhaps you need to clarify your language about this.
          More importantly, you’ve proposed taking away inheritance (to some degree) and taking away private property (or at least money), but haven’t explained what you would replace them with. What are the replacement parts?

          • I don’t think I’ve proposed taking away private property, at least not from anyone alive enough to enjoy it. I just think that once living people have finished with it, it makes more sense for wealth to be shared round fairly, or targeted at the needy, than simply rolled over to some lucky sap just because he happens to share a couple of chromosones with the wealth-creator.

            Frankly it doesn’t even make that much difference to the privileges you enjoy, most of which you experience at your parent’s expense while they are still alive. But once they kick the bucket, having given you the best education their money could buy, and enough material possessions for a decent start in life, do you honestly really NEED all their land and property and huge dollops of capital too? Wouldn’t it be more usefully applied elsewhere, given that there are people living in poverty and denied education and opportunities even in the richest nations? Aren’t you capable of generating your own wealth? Shouldn’t it be a matter of pride to you to live off your own means rather than wallowing in the accumulated luxury of your ancestors’ labour? Or is greed and laziness just a natural human condition?

            I appreciate the suggestion that relativistic terms should be avoided in reasoned argument, but sometimes it just takes the most cursory glance at something to see that it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

            • Noodlebug for president! ^^^

              and yes seems like the comments get splattered all over the place, thats always bugged me

          • I would replace money with chocolate. The good kind.

            We seem to be having a problem with the comment nesting. I’ll try and figure it out. Please bear with me ’till then.

    • As I understand your logic, I think a system of randomized extension of egregious wealth-benefits and inheritance would probably be better. Western society has evolved over centuries with notions of inheritance and providing for one’s children and I think it’s overambitious to try and eliminate those outright as the other responses here would seem to indicate. Further, all our social and economic norms are founded on these patterns and trying to disestablish them promises substantial resistance and unpredictable side-effects.
      My proposal is simple: Switch everyone’s babies with those of different classes.
      This would give the rich an incentive to actually do something about a few intergenerational poverty-trap problems like crack-babies, meth-babies and skin-colour prejudice if they didn’t manage to corrupt the system to avoid it.

      Yes, I am mocking this whole sub-topic of discussion as totally insane–both your initial proposal and those responding to you.

  12. I think noodle is absolutely right but if its a problem for the “evil” government to take it then just burn the damn money when they die, this shit has dragged on way too long,

    or better yet give it to the pets >=D

  13. Oops, I’m sorry! I missed the entire blog because I was thinking about Bunker’s dick again.

  14. rather I meant money itself makes mankind sad, not amount of it. tho I may have worded it wrong initially

    even if you disagree simply read mist’s above detailed post and you’ll see this is true

    in short
    Money: The Disease
    Amount of Money: symptom of above disease

  15. ***Attention Commenters***

    I think I ought to say something here, for the benefit of our little community. This is a place for expression and debate, for arguing social policy and discussing the dicks of cartoon drawings. No subject is taboo and no language is forbidden.

    That said, the one thing I will not tolerate is pointed, personal, and mean-spirited attacks on other commenters. I have had to ban a commenter today, and it has made me cross. The commenter was someone I liked and who had been with us for quite a while. He was warned, and made the choice to continue his attacks rather than listen to me.

    I am very sorry that it happened.

    • Thanks for saying so, and I do appreciate that, but it really isn’t about whether or not you got offended.

      For the record, I’m glad you weren’t.

    • If I may? When someone goes so far as to wish someone ill that has never stolen from them or otherwise assaulted them, that’s uncalled-for, especially if it’s wishing death on them. Uttering death-threats in response to someone else’s words that they chose to read by entering Kevin’s website goes against Kevin’s purpose in setting up the interactivity on this site. He wants reasonable discussion and humour instead of flamewars and attempts to suppress other people through intimidation and antipathy.
      People that can’t handle the notion of argument for argument’s sake which go ballistic with flame-warfare may not directly bother the host or anyone else here but they’re figuratively coming to Kevin’s house and pissing on the carpet. I’ve been cautioned for less here with fair reason.