Add new comment

I agree that if there is a basis for the USSM annoyance, that's where the basis would be.  Your comment is reasonable from where I sit, for what that's worth...
As Billy1 put it one time - amazing that anybody from USSM should object on the basis of hubris.  Life has taught this pokey, at least, that it is the man who wanted to be the life of the party who is precisely the man most angry at the one who put a lampshade on his head.
............
Here's my reaction, Steen m'man ...
Can see how people would feel that Baker is talking down to them, even pulling rank once in a while with respect to his access and his experience on the East Coast.
I could be wrong, but for whatever reason his material just doesn't hit me that way ... not sure why the disconnect...
When people disagree with Baker, he responds with (some) respect and with ideas, as when SSI went to town on his Josh Leuke campaign.  You probably saw where Baker came on this site and, patiently, calmly, presented his defense against every attack leveled at him.
You're not going to see Baker empowering people who say things like "This really fuels my hatred for Baker for another winter.  Thanks!"
..........
So am not real sympathetic to a "moral equivalency" here.  But for those who find Geoff's tone annoying, I concede that the annoyance probably has some basis from their point of view.
Is it oversensitivity on the part of those taking offense, or genuine condescension on Geoff's part?  I'd like to hear from G-Money, Taro, Silentpadna, and others as to that question.  I may have a blind spot.