Thursday, October 18, 2007

Radical Republican Movement Simply A Test

You might not have been expecting this but: the Radical Republican Movement is just a faux pas experiment created by myself last week.

There is no such thing as Radical Republicans. The entire experiment was launched as a marketing tool to generate visitors to the Étudiant. It is safe to say that the experiment succeeded as the Étudiant has broken viewing records nearly every single day.

Thanks to controversy, the Étudiant is being viewed by more people!

Damn, this was fun.


  1. Well now we're just going to go away...

  2. I hate you. I hate you I hate you I hate you, so much you can not even begin to imagine it.

  3. Just because someone is insulting, it doesn't mean its Ali, Glen.

  4. Nice cop-out. We all know that what you've written over the last few days about gay marriage is your view, though. We also know that you and Prateek have expressed your contempt for gays and gay marriage. Maybe you'll stop calling yourself "Radical Republicans," but as Shakespeare said, "that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Or in your case, "that which we call 'Radical Republicans' by any other name would still be a group of bigots." Your name might change, but your feelings won't, and that is ultimately the problem.

    P.S. I don't think you know what "faux pas" means.

  5. I actually find this extremely humorous, seeing as I know for a fact that this whole "Radical Republican" deal was created as a result of an argument between you, me, and two other students not at all affiliated with this blog.

    On a similar note, was the Radical Republican facebook group a marketing scheme as well? If so, it was really ineffective, seeing as it did not have any link or reference to this blog.

    I'm not going to make you admit to why you have backed out of this crusade against civil rights, because I know that no one is really buying this anyway.

    Anywho, I'm glad to hear that the Etudiant is getting more acknowledgement. At least someone has benefited from this whole ordeal. It's good to know that the other talented writers here will not be harmed by what Glen has been writing.

    p.s. i'm sorry, anonymous 2 that I have inadvertantly been given credit for your comment towards Glen.

  6. Yeah, not many people like you because of what you said. Like it or not, you did say everything you said, even if it was an "experiment," which it wasn't. And, like it or not, people aren't going to just agree with you or like you again just because you're making up a lame excuse to end this debate which you know you are losing. Those are still your thoughts, and we all know you believe in what you said, because you've said things like that before. Ending this debate isn't going to make what you said go away or make everyone not dislike you for what you said.

  7. the only reason you're saying this is because you can't come up with anymore "facts"

  8. Sorry Ali, if I singled you out. I thought in a previous post, you made it clear that you were anonymous by posting with the name "Ali...duh"

    I never said that my views have changed. Of course, if it wasn't for the Radical Republican Movement, people wouldn't be hatin' on me as much.

    I haven't studied vocab yet, so I might have used faux-pas wrong.

    The facebook group wasn't a marketing scheme so much as an experiment to see how many people would join. Of course, only three people did including myself.

    I'm not lying about the fact that the Etudiant has been getting a record number of visitors each day. That is true without a doubt. And without a doubt it is because of my recent posts. You can't deny that. So I don't really see how this is a lame excuse.

    BTW, I am going to continue to argue in the other posts' comment sections. Don't think I have given up. I am just doing other, more important things at the moment.

  9. Oh.. so the facebook group was just another "experiment." Tell me Glen, what exactly did this experiment of yours aim to prove? And what did I have to do with this experiment which caused me to be singled out and named on the group site?

    Everyone knows that the things you have written during the past few days accurately reflect your true feelings on gay marriage. No one is believing this experiment story. For someone who does an awful lot of talking about "having the balls" to stand up for your beliefs, you certainly are quick to lie in order to avois taking responsibility for your actions. Forgive me if I am not about to believe that you were thinking up this whole "marketing scheme" during our argument on October 4th or when you created that facebook group.

    And just to clear this up, I am not every anonymous commenter on these blogs. That really wouldn't make much sense.

  10. I still say Fascist American Party should have been your title.

  11. also.. the fact that you are continuing the arguments on other posts proves that this was anything but a meaningless experiment.

  12. I don't assume any responsibility for what Prateek posted in the group which signaled you out.

    Yes, I am not trying to say that I have made up everything. However, the whole "Radical Republican" entity was created just to see your (everyone) response.

    Our argument at the math team was just informal discussion. The actual creation of the Party didn't occur till later on.

  13. If the whole point of this was to see peoples' reactions, then why didn't you stop when you saw how outraged and offended everyone became? How was it neccessary to put up more than one post? I'm pretty sure it was safe to assume that every post would recieve similar if not identical responses.

    And you CANNOT try to say that this Radical Republican creation was not directly rooted in our argument at the math meet. That is a complete lie and you know it.

  14. Instead of obfuscating one post's comment section, I decided to create a few more posts to spread out discussion and keep things fresh. Some people don't like cycling through 20 replies.

    Direct result? Maybe. The Math Meet discussion certainly did allow for us three to learn of our similar views.

  15. I'm prateek, I'm too lazy to make an account

    anyway. Well we are just having an opinion, its people like ali and hannah putting their fingers in their ears and saying LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR U!!!!!!!!!!!!

    end of statement.

  16. again its prateek..

    I dk why I'm getting the silent treatment from so many people.

    its just stupid lets talk this out we don't want to fight. Just talk, about stuff.

  17. Prateek, there is absolutely no need to single me out in this, so please stop doing it. The issue at hand here is not me, or Hannah, or anyone else who disagrees with your viewpoint.

    No one is saying that you are not entitled to your opinion. In fact, the whole reason we are all so enraged about this is that we all believe so strongly in equal rights for everyone. We do, however, have an issue with the ways in which you express your opinion.

    I agree that this has been blown out of proportion, but whose fault is that? I know that I certainly haven't been creating any blogs or groups to bring attention to this issue. So again, please, leave my name out of this.

  18. Whatever cat fights people choose to have via blog is fine by me, but please do not drag me into this. I would appreciate if everyone, "Radical Republican" or not kept my name out of your arguments.
    Thank you.

  19. Glen, you have a nice first name.

  20. glen, this one's for you..

  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

  22. NOTE: i reread that last post and saw i'd left important stuff out.


    experiment? bullshit. i agree with ali, you would have stopped automatically if you were just trying to get opinions.
    let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

    the velvet underground stuff? come on glen, you're not trying. if you really do respect lou reed and didn't give a rat's ass about his sexuality, then you'd respect all day people. and by respecting one, you'd leave them alone.

    and that horseshit about how you only meant marriages that can have babies... sure, glen. if i asked you whether or not you think a hetersexual couple that couldn't have children could marry, i can guess what you'd say.

    if god had a problem with guys having sex, then he wouldn't have made it possible (or make it feel good).

    and also, and i know from experience.. people ARE born gay. i've never been straight, and the only "decision" i made was the one to be open about it. the lamest thing about this whole thing is that you are certainly not opposed to racial integration. for example, no one chooses to be indian, just as no one chooses to be gay. if anyone asks me if i would choose to be straight if i could, i wouldn't be able to answer because i've NEVER BEEN straight.

    Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself.
    i quote leviticus.

    do you dislike gay people?
    i know that they dislike you.
    i'm glad that people are able to dislike someone as they choose, but to hate without any reasons? that's the real evil, glen.

    in conclusion, glen (and this probably sums up everything everyone has been saying in these comments the past few days)-

  23. 1, austin has a good point.

    2, if this really was an experiment, you would have stopped when it started to snowball, not after.

    3, Ben told me how we had a lot of visitors before your post, so its not just you (very pompous on your part).

    4, This seems like it was just a quick opt out because you were losing credibility and respect from others. Good job Glen! */sarcasm*(it thought it was html otherwise.


Your comments are valued greatly. Please adhere to the decorum on the "First time here?" page. Comments that are in violation of any of the rules will be deleted without notice.

3/11 Update - No Moderation

*Non-anonymous commenting is preferred to avoid mix-ups. Anonymous comments are, at the behest of management, more likely to be deleted than non-anonymous comments.