February 23, 2004

The Return Of The Huge Comment of the Week®

Picking a Huge Comment of the Week® for the week of February 15 through February 21 was difficult for me. Two or three lengthy and civil debates occurred in the comments. The Kerry's Medal post garnered 21 comments. The Judge Warren post yielded 14, and the Scalia At Amherst post topped the list with 22 comments.

So you'd think there'd be a lot of good material for me to choose from when determining the newest winner. Not true.

Yes, there were many comments that were well reasoned and articulately written. In fact, most of them were. Unfortunately, since so many of you visitors chose to disagree with me, i had to throw out all of those comments.*

That left me with a good number of amazingly brilliant comments by one particular commenter whom i happen to think very highly of. That is, of course, me. But it wouldn't really be fair to award the coveted Huge Comment of the Week® award to myself. Heh, i'd win it every week then, wouldn't i?

Well, now that i think about it, maybe that's not such a bad . . .

No, of course not. That wouldn't be nice. So anyway, i agonized over this week's selection more than i usually do. Everyone who took part in the debates of the last week, here on annika's j, deserves their own silver star. Or in some cases, maybe a purple heart.

i had the feeling that i should award a tie. Such a decision would be consistent with my well known fear of commitment, so it made sense to do so. Especially with so many deserving commenters.

But then i came across some information, which i considered sufficient to break the tie in a way that would be manifestly unfair to the other deserving candidates. i found out that one commenter is taking the bar exam this week. Not wishing to distract him with undue worry over the outcome of this latest Huge Comment of the Week®, i have decided to bestow the honor upon Matt Rustler.

The winning comment is Matt's February 20th counter-argument to my counter argument to his counter-argument. The one which prompted him to point out, in his next counter-argument, that i had been "conspicuously silent" in response to some analogies he made in his previous counter-argument. Well Matt, there was a reason i was conspicuously silent, you bastard. Those were tough analogies to defeat. i'm still right, though.

And since Matt has already won the coveted prize once, he gets the very first Huge Comment of the Week® Oak Leaf Cluster! Congratulations Matt, and good luck on the bar!

Then there's D-Rod, who called me a "vile slandering surrogate Bush lackey skankpuppy." That's okay, i consider those compliments. Except for "skankpuppy." i prefer "skank-kitten."


* Just kidding.

Posted by: annika at 07:56 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 486 words, total size 4 kb.

1 "Huge Comment." Are we playing Jim Rome on the blog now? :-p

Posted by: glenn at February 24, 2004 07:32 AM (1oqLe)

2 Thanks for the honorable mention. I agree with you though, that your comments are truly the best.

Posted by: d-rod at February 24, 2004 10:32 AM (CSRmO)

3 Yes, Glenn. It's a blatant rip-off of Romie's Huge Call of the Day.

Posted by: annika! at February 24, 2004 11:35 AM (zAOEU)

4 Wow! Annie, I am honored. It's all just so much . . . *sniffle* . . . I'm afraid I may pull a Halle Berry here; I'd better quit while I'm ahead.

Posted by: Matt at February 25, 2004 08:20 PM (of2d1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
15kb generated in CPU 0.0138, elapsed 0.0718 seconds.
61 queries taking 0.0633 seconds, 116 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.