Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Hobnobbing at the Hob Nob
re: #14: Reductio ad Hitlerum! yay and yikeroo at the same time! But is it a Godwin if one compares using the more general term "fascist?" And when the topic is left/central/right? Thanks in any case for letting me in on that one, Fred--am I ever gonna use it, too. I had the wrong Godwin ;) I love you too, Fred--even if you don't stop by Zales (I refuse to consider that other possibility--we'll let sleeping girlfriends lie). ;)— January 25, 2010 12:14 a.m.
Watch Your Butts
re: #67: No! You are! ;)— January 25, 2010 midnight
Watch Your Butts
Hee hee hee— January 24, 2010 11:58 p.m.
Watch Your Butts
re: #68: maninthemirror, good point about probable cause. re: #68: Now, the only way we can know for sure what might happen is to find out the degree of likelihood that anyone would investigate Pete. If someone were to rat Pete out, would they bite? If they did, Pete says they would have a hell of a time finding him, much less prosecuting him. I wish we knew-- Where is that Surfpup? We need a few lawyers in here, and a disinterested party who has worked some 'special' crime task forces... ;)— January 24, 2010 8:50 p.m.
Watch Your Butts
Sorry I brought up Al Queda, because this is actually more interesting! Let's try and figure out what the likelihood might be of PETE getting caught. Fred has outlined some ways in which it is possible. How do you explain then, your lack of concern over discussing these things online, Pete?— January 24, 2010 4:41 p.m.
Watch Your Butts
General Announcement: I'm tired of arguing with Fred about nothing. Fred, let's work for the powers of good together. General Question: and I have questions: Pete, have you ever considered any of the "ins and outs, and what have yous (a la Lebowski) of what Fred is saying? Fred: If Feds want to catch an Al Qaeda operative who seems traceable only online, what is the likelihood that they will catch him in this way?— January 24, 2010 3:26 p.m.
Watch Your Butts
re: #57, onward: Deep Thoughts from Jack Handey: ...Can a hack hack?... ...Can a hack be hacked?...— January 24, 2010 3:19 p.m.
Watch Your Butts
"Get over yourself. I've been writing stuff like that online since at least 1993..." Annnddd, once more, Fred proves he has no understanding of irony, and is so uptight he can't even take a friendly poke here and there. It is sooo easy to get your goat! You should take your own advice, and get over YOURSELF! I can understand you wanting to straighten Pete out over what he claims to know about the field you've dedicated your life to actually learning, but your reactions are over the top. Why are your sensibilities so offended by his claims, unless you are the thin-skinned individual who needs to c-h-i-l-l? It's not like he starting using the "N" word, and began slandering whole racial groups. Now, wouldn't THAT be a more appropriate instance in which to get all worked up?— January 24, 2010 1:30 p.m.
Watch Your Butts
re: #51: Yada yada... Fred, you are so bad at this, you don't even realize when someone is writing hyperbole, just to be silly? Are you so full of yourself that you think you "brutalized" me? HYPERBOLE. C'mon, you use enough of it yourself when you write those cute little vignettes the structure of which you clearly have ripped off from my "one-acts in a comment" ;) Good guess here, but wrong subtext: "Yeah, show that Fred that he doesn't know anything..." You were irritated for nought. I was busy trying to figure out Pete's scamming of the IRS with dead people's SS #s, and really hadn't given you a thought except as a very welcome intrusion, and a potential expert-- I know not much about this subject, either, and had actually just written SurfPuppy to see if HE wanted to join the convo to talk about the legal side of things. That's what has irritated me, here. That you completely, arrogantly, read me THAT wrong. You should slow down a little, chill. Unless it is a debate about the environment or race and culture, I usually don't have that much at stake, and am just here to learn or chat. Oh, and by the way? I didn't interrupt your conversation--you interrupted mine--welcome, of course--but get it straight. Ciao. Adieu. Bonne soir. Exeunt.— January 24, 2010 4:14 a.m.
Watch Your Butts
re: #46: "SDaniels, you wrote: "#34: I look forward to seeing this happen. My bet's on Pete this time." Betting on Pete knowing what he's talking about proves you also know nothing about the subject. Case closed. Stick to what you know." Fred, you seem to understand that I have a background in literary theory. That is true, and I also have a background in textual analysis, to be specific. Therefore, I am overqualified in all respects when I say that you completely misread the thrust and intent of my words. I'll take you through it quickly, since it involves my rep as a truth-teller here, and I know well enough that you are sensitive about your own. Bear with me: Bets are exciting. I was "looking forward to" seeing Pete make it "happen;" in other words, I was eager to see him produce the information you challenged him to produce. "My bet's on Pete this time." Did you perhaps read into this that I was undervaluing your IT authority, Fred? Nah, you hadn't said much at that point in the discussion. I was simply trying to offer my frenemy some encouragement to go ahead and produce the goods. Nowhere did I claim to have knowledge I do not possess. I was merely a bystander, an innocent spectator, brutally injured when you accelerated and crashed the stands, mad to get at Pete. So, there was no need to accuse me of anything. Stick with what you know, Fred--unless lashing out is your bag.— January 24, 2010 3:16 a.m.