In the thirteen months I have been running this blog I have had several people whose blogs seem obsessed with me and how I have somehow failed them. My imagined crimes are many and to prove it they mine my words looking for nuggets they can strip of context to prove their point.Then, in another more recent post, Cooke dropped this falsehood:
I do not like censorship.Now, together, these two posts show exactly why I occasionally post about Cooke's rather absurd remarks. First off, Cooke has an ego as big as the state of Texas. No, Cooke has not failed me, or anyone else. I have long considered Cooke to be something of a curiosity. I remember the absurd "performance art piece" where Cooke took the APA's announcement that they were dropping homosexuality from the DSM and changed it to be about gender identity disorder. Personally, I thought it just dumb.
I also remember Cooke's tyranny on the mailing list "Women Born Transsexual." Heaven help the member that actually had the audacity to have an original thought. Cooke would have none of that, nor would Cooke's partner, Tina.
No, Cooke has never failed me. The only thing Cooke could fail to do is provide the occasional laugh.
Which brings me to Cooke's claim to "not like censorship." Now, that is a real knee slapper. Cooke loves censorship. In fact, that is the main reason Cooke is the subject of post's here. Cooke will not allow any criticism on "Women Born Transsexual." Post a disagreement with Cooke, and chance are you will be banned for life. Suck up to Cooke, like a certain kook from Canada, and Cooke will let you post, even if your ideas are completely at odds with Cooke's.
I will remind people, any and all are free to post comments here. The only time I remove any of them are if the contain personal attack, particularly on others...or if they contain links to to ads, especially for sex or porn sites.
But, I notice that those like Cooke don't like to post where they can't control the argument. If they can't censor it, then they want no part of it,