Sunday, August 09, 2009

I Bet This Riles Up the Blogaroos

Ms. Creamcheese is our original blogger celebrity. One could call La
Creamcheese the ur-blogger for the schools' teachers. She blogged first.

I don't quite understand if this is SCreamcheese's sentiments or if she is alluding to someone else's opinion. I am already having comments piling up. They will eventually appear at the bottom of the page.

Freedom of speech, remember, is the right to disagree.


Suzie Creamcheese has left a new comment on your post "A Call for Vox to Mount Up and Ride His Very Own B...":

It may be hard to "google" those words because they have been "interpreted".

"I’d certainly never deny anyone else the right to use fertilization.

Or would I?

When people suggest that income levels or the fact that the couple already has children or maybe even marital status should be taken into account when determining a candidate for IVF - it sounds reasonable to me. I’ve said before that IN THEORY not only should poor people not breed, but neither should people who are ill (mentally or physically), developmentally delayed, or have a host of other problems that would prevent them from being responsible parents.

Of course, I’d prefer these were choices such people made and not anything legislated, but doctors should play a part in the process. They should be concerned with helping reasonable people bring children into this world, but also should help protect the world by turning some patients away."

Publish this comment.

Reject this comment.

Moderate comments for this blog.

Posted by Suzie Creamcheese to Lee Drury De Cesare's Casting-Room Couch at 11:27 AM


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A Call for Vox to Mount Up and Ride His Very Own B...":

ask wayne garcia. It's in creative loafing. A group of disabled people with children called to raise hell about it and were treated very rudely by kate's 'editor'.. certainly it's in the online copy. It's definitely in the paper copy. I READ IT. She scribbled it there under wayne's byline.

Lee, I only wanted you to publish the comment in the comments. LOL. Where it says publish or email?
I'll give some consideration to opening a blog. You can also reference other bloggers for kate's infamy of encouraging plastic surgery. sticks of fire for one.

Publish this comment.

Reject this comment.

Moderate comments for this blog.

Posted by Anonymous to Lee Drury De Cesare's Casting-Room Couch at 5:13 PM


Anonymous said...

It does seem odd that Susie Creamcheese posts pictures of herself in her underwear on her blog as Vox says. I imagine she is being ironic or tongue in cheek or whatever, but it does seem odd, sort of a cry for attention.

vox populi said...

no one misinterpreted her intention. She's a smooth one but she's a carnival of horrors.

ANYONE who knows what the people of gaza (OR THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL) are going through and waves her ISRAELI flag around not only is batshit crazy (as I read at her blog) but she is a hater who should never EVER have been involved with children.
Read that blog of hers, lee. It's not terribly hard for an astute person to read between the lines.

She wants to take her clothes off?

Great. Let's expose it ALL, baby.

Suzie Creamcheese said...


I provided the link and quoted the text I believed you were looking for.

Nothing in the post was meant to reflect my feelings or beliefs.

Thanks for allowing me to clear up any misconceptions.

Suzie Creamcheese said...


You apparently have me mixed up with some one else. I do not post any pictures of myself, anywhere, anytime.

Of course maybe Lee and I could be "convinced" to do a calendar.

Tongue and cheek alert!

John__D said...

My goodness! Susie Creamcheese provided the link and enclosed the text in quotation marks.

Lee and Vox, are you two really having that much trouble determining that she was quoting someone else or are you trying to make some kind of point?

Vox Populi said...

john d, stfu. anonymous came here and put that in to confuse the issue. I never said a WORD about susie creamchees. NOW, if susie creamcheese is katherine durkin robinson, that's one thing. But she's not. It's Katherine Durkin Robinson, the Irish Republican Army member, Israeli Flag waving 'faux feminist' who takes her clothes off on her blog.

Lee, are katherine durkin robinson and suzie creamcheese the same person?

So, anonymous, you are confused. Yes it IS a cry for attention. Katherine Durkin Robinson who believes that ONLY THE RICH should have children .... or the FOLKS NOT IN WHEELCHAIRS .... believes that any kind of attention is good attention.
Lee you need to either remove that post from anonymous that susie creamcheese posts pics of herself in underwear at her blog or put this one up so that people are not confused.
Because that was the intent of anonymous and the butt kissing john d.

suzie creamcheese everyone knows it's NOT YOU who posted the pictures but kate and her little merry band of haters come here to obscure the picture of what she is.

Which is an Israeli flag waving hater who takes her clothes off and is THANK GOD out of our public schools before she became the next stephanie ragusa.
What kind of TEACHER posts all but nude pics of itself on a blog when it's teaching?
As katherine durkin robinson did.

And as stogie thinks is JUST GRAND.

But the most important thing is that she is war-mongering and also profiting FROM THE WAR ... her husband is some brass or trainer.

Actually, it's almost equally important that she thinks that only she should have children.

So that she can strip to her skivvies and have them take pictures of her.

Is that kinda like child abuse or OUT AND OUT child abuse? Because if her husband is taking them... seriously WHAT KIND OF MAN sticks his wife up on the internet in her underwear?

Sick bunch.

Vox Populi said...

hey john d(ipstick) the thing is that you know as well as I do that Lee and I are not confused, dear. It's you and your other anonymous friend. Kate has a HOST of anonymous friends. She talks to herself over there ALL THE TIME.

John__D said...

No, Vox, why don't you stfu instead? In Lee's own words, she doesn't quite understand.

(The next bit is a quote from Lee, which is why it's in quotation marks.)

"I don't quite understand if this is SCreamcheese's sentiments or if she is alluding to someone else's opinion."

Vox Populi said...

no, um john d you stfu ... if you're here all beneficial why not ... just leave me out of it. Because OBVIOUSLY I was NOT confused. Now, apologize or STFU. if you're so astute then you would recognize that lee posted HER BLOG POST before the comment from suzie creamcheese clearing it up. which cleared it up but then you my goodness'd your way in inferring that we don't know what's what (everyone's crazy but you and the schoolboard, the popo and the sheriff) And I was NEVER confused. So, while I think you're a twerp I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider that MAYBE your intentions were pure and I will offer up this: Perhaps you were mistaken. In which case, stfu. If not -- then stfu up anyway. Also, you are not the blog police. It's not necessarily true that things go in quotation marks depending on the blogger's expertise. Some still don't know html to place links. Some try to make it obvious that it's a quote in other ways.
AND, if I have misunderestimated you in any way please accept my sweeping apology.
Perhaps there really IS a bit of confusion in the delay in comment posting because lee moderates comments. But, you had mentioned that lee attacks people in a previous post so you'll have to forgive me if I was predisposed to what else you might have to say, my goodness. Bless your heart.

John__D said...

You don't like "my goodness", Vox? I'll use some of your abbreviated profanity instead, perhaps.

Lee posted her comment before Creamcheese's comment "clearing it up", but AFTER Creamcheese's original post that contained the quote in quotation marks.

Interestingly, Creamcheese's post was punctuated correctly so that the meaning was clear, yet Lee "didn't quite understand". You, however, write and punctuate like an imbecile so that few could work out wtf you are on about.

"no one misinterpreted her intention"? Whom tf did "her" refer to in your post?

Write clearly please, you name-calling bimbo.

Vox Populi said...

john d (ipstick) go waste someone else's time.
You ain't my grammar popo, baby.
Maybe you have more time on your hands than others ... I know some people who could use your help. Twaddle on over to creative loafing and help them out.

Vox Populi said...

and of course, my comment pertains to the blog post. So you try hard to figure it out. Or, are you confused? Does that confuse you?
I'm sorry. Go read somewhere else. LOL.

Vox Populi said...

wtf i'm 'on about'... lordie is this jack lamb back with the faux brit? Lordie I AM BRIT so bugger off, john_D

John__D said...

Yet another who dances around questions with some name-calling thrown in for good measure. Thanks for the response I pretty much expected, Vox.