And as with the TV ... if you don't like it, don't watch/read it.

See, I disagree. Some very talented people are wasting time writing about this woman. There are better things to do. There are more interesting things to write about. Let's get on with that and end this Dr. Amy domination.

That's what I'm saying. I agree with you. If they don't like her, they don't have to read her. The "you" wasn't aimed at you, holly. Sorry if I was vague! :-)

Okay, thanks. :-) Absolutely.

It is juvenile to gang up on other writers; the breathtaking meanspiritedness of it makes new writers afraid to post anything for fear they will be targeted next. Thanks for taking a stand. rated.

I rarely ever read Dr. Amy because I'm not interested in most things she writes about, and I don't like that she sees OS only in terms of ratings and making $$$$. Plus, she's not much of a writer and her arrogance can be a little offputting. Then again, arrogance is not exactly unheard of in doctors or writers. But I see no need to defend her, either.

Who's this Dr. Amy? Did Phil have a sex change?

I don't think anyone's defending her. I don't read her blogs. And some of the parody ones are funny. It just gets old after awhile, and it would be nice to read other topics from these talented writers.

And I agree with Deborah that it can intimidate new writers. I'm pretty new, and I'm scared I'm going to say something that will piss off the crowd, including entering this discussion, and find myself as the one being publicly attacked. Of course, if that happened, I would leave in shame and horror, rather than continuing undaunted.

You know, all these people could be writing about ME (use pictures).

Some of what is being written is about the editorial choices that are made favoring her over equally talented writers here. Did you miss that?

"You know, all these people could be writing about ME (use pictures)." Damn right, Freaky!!!

And I, for one, did not miss that it's PARTIALLY about editorial choices. But only partially.

I guess I did. I haven't been much up in that debate. If that's right, then it's not fair. I agree.

But still. She's the favored one. Let's move on and forget who makes editorial picks and who does not. I've seen some exceptional posts not make 'editorial pick' and others I've thought were so,so make EP, you know? Maybe we should just ignore "EP" and just rate posts how we read them. Maybe pay more attention to ratings than EP.

You have a point, but then so did I, and I think I made it. If one's only desire is to cop a front cover, it can be done -- I did it with my first post. Some said it couldn't be done.

With my second, I helped move Dr Cut and Paste off the feed -- briefly. Some said that couldn't be done either.

I intended to leave it that, but by then Dr Amy had three consecutive posts with salacious titles. I decided to read one, and discovered that it was not only cut and paste, but she had NOTHING to add - she might as well have simply posted a link.
So posted a parody of her post.

But unlike Dr Amy, my presence on OS is not a business venture, and I can't afford the time required to continue this. So I have bid adieu for now. But like many here on OS, I find it sad that so many worthy writers will never be read because Dr Amy hogs the show to line her pockets. But that's capitalism, so who can complain.

But one thing I will wager; during my stint I entertained far more people than Dr Amy educated.

Susanne Freeborn:

"Some of what is being written is about the editorial choices that are made favoring her over equally talented writers here. Did you miss that?"

Let's think about that for a moment.

First, the number of EPs is unlimited. If one of my posts gets an EP, it has no bearing on whether anyone else's post gets an EP.

Second, on any given day, I can only be on the front page once. That's it. Since about 20-30 posts are featured on the front page every day, I am certainly not responsible for keeping anyone else off.

Third, I bring my own traffic. People come to read me, and don't simply read my stuff because it is featured on OS. For the past 2 days, I have not been featured on the cover. Yesterday's post was the most read post for most of the day. Today's post has been 1 or 2 since midnight.

Fourth, if you don't keep statistics, how do you know who everyone else thinks is talented? If you don't keep statistics, how do you know if anyone likes what you write. It seems incredibly presumptuous to conclude that other people's "brilliant" posts are being deprived of the limelight, when the reality could be that no one is reading them because no one likes them.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, the incessant whining is only hurting yourselves. People need to get a grip on reality. If they are not being read, it's because people don't want to read what they write, not because their brilliance remains undiscovered.

Every minute people spend talking about me, is a minute they are not spending improving their own writing. Whining about me is not going to get anyone to read them. In fact, as Holly points out, it's a big turnoff.

I spend a lot of time researching what people want to read, researching my posts, writing them and publicizing them. That's why people read my posts. Why does anyone think they get the same traffic without doing the same work? Do you think it happens by magic?

Arnie:

"But one thing I will wager; during my stint I entertained far more people than Dr Amy educated. "

Really? You have literally no idea. You're just making that up to make yourself feel good.

You're nothing more than a parasite. Without me, no one would read you, and, clearly, you know it.

You may have entertained lots of folks, Arnie, but I'll wager you sent more than a few of 'em over to Dr. Amy's site to see what all the hilarity was about, so you've created a "meta-whammy" for all those other worthy writers; not only are Dr. Amy's posts occupying space in the feed and the "most read" list, but posts about her are, too.

I really don't care how many posts by or about Dr. Amy there are, as I'm capable of ignoring anything that doesn't pique my interest, but I think it's wise that you're rethinking your time commitment to OS if you're so concerned about her monopolizing the limelight.

I never read Dr. Amy not for the reasons you mention, but for her own reasons posted here. Who knew she took herself and her blogging so seriously? She researches what people like to read so she can get more traffic? She works while the rest of us are counting on magic.
First, I never think of this as work as I have a job, it's fun, it's picking and choosing not just on the editorial page but on my friend's page or my friends' friend's page, or sometimes even an interesting comment catches my eye and I'll click on that person to see what they've written. The whole effort-and-reward thing touted by DA seems out of proportion. Few people read me but no one's actively despising me, which I think is good, in my topsy-turvy mind. And HCA, your posts are so charmng and engaging, I was shocked and disappointed to see Dr. Amy featured in your title. Leave Amy alone but not till after you call her a callous bitch. I guess I can forgive you.

Amy, please move along back to your chosen specialties, oversimplified medical ethics and snarking at your perceived underlings. Leave the literary criticism to people who know what they're doing....

WAIT A MINUTE!! I'm gonna go get some popcorn.
This is getting good.

Juliet Waters:

"Leave the literary criticism to people who know what they're doing...."

You mean the people who KNOW that they are "brilliant" and "underappreciated" without consulting anyone but themselves.

There's just one thing they can't figure out: no one else seems to think they are "brilliant" or "unappreciated." No problem. It must be a conspiracy of others who are denying them the glory that is rightfully theirs. That's it, isn't it? It's all a horribly unfair conspiracy.

What next, everyone complaining that they would have been a doctor, but I unfairly took their place in medical school?

Well fortunately they'll never be complaining about you taking their place in the practice of medicine, since you seem to spend all of your time here.

Amy, you are a jackass if you think I care one whit about what you say. If I did, I would go to your blog, which I don't anymore. I don't need your advice. I got through graduate school without any help from you. I have been published without any of your tips. My comments have been about something complete OTHER THAN YOU.

Juliet Waters:

"Well fortunately they'll never be complaining about you taking their place in the practice of medicine, since you seem to spend all of your time here."

Is that supposed to be some sort of witty riposte?

Susanne Freeborn:

"you are a jackass if you think I care one whit about what you say."

LOLOL. Obviously you care, since you are writing back DIRECTLY to me. Or was it another Amy that you were referring to?

How about addressing what I said? No comeback for the truth, is there?

I'm not keeping you from being read. YOU are keeping you from being read, and if you don't take responsibility for it, it won't change.

Oh, wait, let me guess? You don't care if anyone reads your stuff. You just like to complain because it seems like a productive use of your time.

Amy. Please leave Holly's post alone, and go read your Statcounter or something.

In fairness to Dr. Amy, it should come to no surprise to HCA or anyone that DA is here to stir the pot and fight back as that is what she does. She is not interested in polite discourse or making connections, she is interested in conflict and putting people in their place. So though it's a bore, it's never a surprise.

so holly? are you beginning to understand why OS people don't like dr. Amy?

It must be a conspiracy of others who are denying them the glory that is rightfully theirs. That's it, isn't it? It's all a horribly unfair conspiracy.

DAMN STRAIGHT!

Stellaa:

"What bugs me is the constant put downs of everyone else at OS for a variety of reasons. Not being scientific enough, not being intellectually rigorous, not being hard working researchers that are diligent in their OS blogging, that all others are a chattering clique. "

Oooh ... you forgot one: telling the truth. People hate the truth.

Writing is a personal thing. If people want to blog about Amy, that's their right. I rarely read her posts because her attitude grates on my nerves, but I did find Arnies posts and the comments quite amusing.

Just like we're not forced to read Amy's posts, we're not forced to read the ones about her either. If they irritate you, don't click.

Amy writes: "I spend a lot of time researching what people want to read, researching my posts, writing them and publicizing them. "

So let me get this straight... you have researched what people want to read and guessing by your most recent posts, your extensive research has lead to the conclusion that ..... ta-da..... sex sells!

So from now on we are going to be treated to headlines with "sperm" and "masturbation" and "porn" and all other words related to sex and reproduction just to grab attention? Why don't you just save time and go write for Penthouse...

You really remind me of the high school drama queens who scheme and plot just so that they get to be prom queen.

So, pray tell -- how much do you pay google to market yourself. I suspect your prominent placement probably has to do with purchasing their adwords campaign or some similar program. Kerry has admitted he has no clue how that happened.

Amy: "oooh"

Okay, thanks for setting us straight.

EMDN:

"So, pray tell -- how much do you pay google to market yourself. I suspect your prominent placement probably has to do with purchasing their adwords campaign or some similar program. Kerry has admitted he has no clue how that happened."

Another conspiracy theory, huh? They are so much better than the truth.

It is not secret how Google works. There are many things that they value, but what they value most of all is inbound links. People link to me. I wasn't aware that Google had decided to list me separately until someone else pointed it out, but I do know that I have a lot of inbound links.

Don't believe me about Google? Check it out:

Type "click here" into Google. What comes up? Mostly Adobe products. Why? Because Adobe offers free software (like Flash, which is necessary to view many web features) and sites link to Adobe for those free products.

It's very simple, and it is common knowledge among people who publicize web sites. I know it is not nearly as fun as a conspiracy theory, though.

For the record my next blog title is going to be "OS Porn Leads to Freaky Masturbation With Added Sperm."

owie. owie.owie
I just stepped in for a minute to peek and now I'm all scratched up !!

Ah, so you didn't pay anything for the extra link. You just spammed the entire web with a link to your OS Blog. Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up.

I guess you really took the "Publish or Perish" rule of Academia to heart.

Now, shoo. Don't you have some post to write about a sensationalistic topic. Here: I'll give you the topic:

"Vaginal Rejuvenation -- not just for OS sluts anymore".

No need to thank me. Just seeing your name on the activity feed will be thanks enough.

This is my last comment about this. Amy starts her reply with: "Let's think about that for a moment."

The implication is clear, Amy believes she is the only one present who thinks. Why bother saying anything at all after that?

There is no one present at Amy's house who is listening to anything other than the wheels turning inside her head. Amy you are a boor. I don't feel the need to justify anything I have said. I have stated what I said clearly. Now I wonder, does Holly understand, now that you are here on her blog, what a complete boor you are? To be clear, I mean somebody who behaves in a crass, insensitive, or ill-mannered way.

EMDN:

"You just spammed the entire web with a link to your OS Blog. "

Evidently this is shocking news to you, but that's what getting readers requires. You don't simply slap your stuff on the web and wait for the adoring fans to pour in, just like you don't just write your novel and send it directly to Barnes and Noble and wait for the royalties.

You can't have it both ways. Anyone who claims that I am somehow stealing the limelight from them obviously wants some limelight. I'm telling you how to get it, and you're telling me that those strategies are beneath your dignity. Fine. That's your choice, but don't pretend to yourself that I am stealing your glory when you refuse to do what is necessary.

Susanne Freeborn:

"The implication is clear, Amy believes she is the only one present who thinks."

No, I'm merely pointing out that YOU are so busy whining that you forgot to think logically. I am not the reason that you are not being read; YOU are the reason, and any attempt to blame me is absurd for all the reasons I presented (and which you have failed to refute).

Hi Holly,

I was avoiding this post and avoiding it, because I mostly stay away from Amy posts, either by or about her. They just don't interest me. But then a friend stopped by, which I saw on the feed, so being a happy tagalong, here I am.
Upside: You are Anti-blogging about Amy. Downside: This has resulted in blogging about Amy. I call that a conundrum. So. Perhaps this would have been best served by blogging and closing comments. Don't know. I do know that there are people, only a few, but there are people at OS that actually draw energy from me, like an energy vampire, and AT is one of them. She reminded me tonight. So, I will renew my boycott of AT blogs and hightail it outta here. Peace out.

Here's the thing. If you had given up practicing and teaching medicine to blog full time about subjects that were important to people, and you felt this was your vocation. Great. I think most people would respect that.

But right now you're feeding the increasing perception that you're not much more than a narcissistic shock doc. On the web mostly to drive up your readership and feed your ego. You harp on and on and on about your freelancing knowledge. But, as someone who has actually been a freelancer for a long time now, the difference between a professional and an amateur is the thickness of your skin. And you need to grow some.

Because, in the words of the great American satirist, Jon Stewart "your a dick."

Personally, I don't give a Rat's Ass "the limelight". Where have I whined about you "stealing" the limelight from me. Hell, if being read was my only goal in life, I would post here as relentlessly as you do.

I post when I feel like it. I post when I feel like I have something to share. I post because I want to write. I DON'T POST with the sole purpose of "LOOK AT ME!! People, LOOK AT ME!"

My last word here: I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that you never got very much approval or attention growing up because you are obsessed with garnering attention -- even if it is negative attention. It is just plain...well.... sad and quite pathological.

Looking forward to NOT reading that article on vaginal rejuvenation that I'm sure will be gracing the OS cover any minute now.

'ta

Stellaa, I told myself I'd stay out too, and now I'm in. It's all your fault!

Holly, I was with you right up until you began namecalling. I thought your post made very good points, and then you went and kneecapped yourself by calling Amy a 'callous bitch'. It's your opinion and I guess you are entitled to it, but I wonder why you felt the need to say something like that in a public forum, when you could just as easily have shared this with her in OS mail vs. in front of an audience. Perhaps she disparaged *you* in some way the rest of us aren't aware of.

OS is an open forum, which means we are going to encounter all types. I've run into bloggers I find stupid, shallow, childish, and assholey - I've also noticed that not everyone shares my opinion on their stupidity, shallowness, childishness, and assholiness. Such is life.

I've had a few people be unaccountably rude and shiteous to me. I now ignore them. It costs me nothing. Occasionally I see someone being really shiteous to someone else, in which case I do not ignore them, b/c I think it's wrong to watch abuse and say or do nothing. But I'm under no illusions that the shiteous person is actually influenced by anything I say; I speak up for the benefit of the person being abused, in the hopes they don't take the shiteousness to heart.

I'm glad to see that Amy responded to you directly, since people often criticize her for not doing just that - responding directly to points they are making. If someone called me a callous bitch, I doubt I could be as rational as she is about it.

I don't agree with much of what Amy writes. But, I sometimes read her - I think she does a good job writing about some interesting topics, and I enjoy her analyses of research studies. I disagree with her broad sweeping statement that 'people hate the truth' though - it's just a dumb thing to say, being obviously disprovable. *I* don't hate the truth, after all. I'm pretty sure Stellaa LOVES the truth with a fiery Greek passion. I mean, "people hate the truth" - what does that even *mean*?

But we're all capable of saying dumb things when we get emotional. It's an open forum and we're all certainly welcome to get all emotional and then tromp all over each other, saying things we'd never say right to one another's faces....but doing so ends up destroying what's good about what we've - all of us in our diverse glory and not just the some of us that some of us like the best - have created here.

We all write for our own reasons. Some of us, like Amy, are clear in our goals- we write for a maximum audience. That she succeeds in this actually works out well for lots of us, since people who come to OS to read her often stay to read others.

Some of us are here for the community. Some of us are here for sympathy, some to generate laughs, some to get laughs. Myself, I hope to make a living writing some day, and thought OS might be a good place to find out if my family and friends are just being nice when they say "this is good, no really, it's good!"

I'm glad to have an audience but I don't begrudge others who have a bigger or more loyal one than me. It would be a waste of time, wouldn't it- to begrudge people the editors deem popular through their stats, or to begrudge those that get lots of clicks b/c they post a ton of stuff.

I would rather spend my time writing and finding the good stuff than holding grudges. Like Matt B., a shy soul with an off-kilter, glorious sense of humor. Liz Emrich who writes so intelligently. Luis, who wrote a really killer satiric piece on being Ryan Gosling's best friend. Michael Copperman, who writes beautifully. Greg Correll, Steven Axelrod, Mishima666 - all are quite good, and rarely in the feed for more than a few minutes (though sax got some play on his divorce series, yay for him). I've just friended some new writers in the past few weeks that are all great finds but not much on the feed, like Nada Holland, m.a.h, Carol Berg, MissAdventures and the best post I personally loved on OS, by SeattleK8 (Instant Messaging with Duff). The point being,they are quality writers with quality content and I don't think Amy or anyone else is preventing them from building an audience - and if Amy IS somehow stopping them from being read, well, there's always me in OS mail, blogwhoring them to anyone who will listen. It's the nature of being a writer, generating your market virally, by hook or by crook.

Thanks for the post, sorry for the long comment.

About me calling Dr. Amy a callous bitch.

Okay,

1) I don't think it hurts Amy's feelings if I call her a callous bitch.
2) My experience with Amy started off of OS, and it was there that I formed the opinion that she's a callous bitch- sometimes. This doesn't have to be a completely bad thing. Sometimes I think DA has to be a callous bitch to get her point across. For example, case in point:

There have been numerous homebirth deaths from mothering.com over the past year, and Amy has written about all of them. She copies the posts onto her blog, and then says the parents were selfish, that they weren't thinking of their baby and only of themselves, etc. etc. Of course the mother who just lost her baby can read all of this. Does she really NEED DA in her face (well, not technically in her face) telling her that she killed her baby? (And yes, Dr. Amy has accused women who have lost babies in homebirths of killing their babies.) No, that woman doesn't need that. Of course on the flip side, DA truly believes (and I do think that there is definite merit to this) that homebirth can be a huge contributing factor to fetal demise- for all of the reasons that have been debated on the site- failure to rescue, the absence of an OR in your home, unqualified midwives, no OB back up, no prenatal care beyond a urine stick and all of that jazz. So, is DA being a callous bitch when she says things like that knowing that women who have lost babies in homebirths read her blog? Yeah, I think she is. But, I can also see from her point of view where for her the ends justify the means, and if babies are saved by her being a callous bitch, then she has to be a callous bitch.

3) I also understand that the Dr. Amy online is most certainly not the Dr. Amy in real life. Of course I don't know that for sure as I have never met her in real life, but I have a strong suspicion. She's probably a very caring person in real life. I guess I don't picture her walking around being a hard ass to everyone she meets. She wouldn't have any friends that way, and her children would hate her and that's clearly not the case. So, when I'm calling Dr. Amy a callous bitch, I'm more calling her internet persona a callous bitch, and not the IRL Dr. Amy. I can't make that call about who she is in real life because I've only known who she is online.


And that's my defense about the callous bitch business.

I can be a bitch sometimes too. I know with my sweet face, and my sweet children, and my sweet posts, and my sweet husband everyone here thinks I'm the good witch of the west, but unfortunately in real life sometimes I can be a selfish bitch. (That was tongue in cheek.) ;)

Deborah wrote:

" It is juvenile to gang up on other writers; the breathtaking meanspiritedness of it makes new writers afraid to post anything for fear they will be targeted next. Thanks for taking a stand. rated."

You are right on the money there. I am at this point terrified to write anything I am emotionally attached to here...no way...one horrible response and I am blue all day.

But then, I am a pussy.

And I want to add that, yeah, I do think Dr. Amy (the internet persona) can be a callous bitch sometimes, and I do think she can come across as very arrogant. But, I also think that she has some interesting things to say and offers a valuable point of view to OS. I think some of her posts are entertaining and I enjoy hearing about her "case studies". I do think many of them are about sex, but she was an OB, you know? That's what she dealt with every day. She counseled women on sex and babies and birth. That's probably what a lot of her case studies are going to be about. And I hate that this is turning into a post where I'm defending Dr. Amy (Dr. Amy is her own defense), because that's not what I intended. I just think people could spending their time writing other pieces that showcase their talent more effectively. So let's all move on! Get to work on our own short stories, essays etc.

Sandra,

I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I don't read Amy because I think there are better, more credible and more interesting medical essayists. If I want to read interesting science writing I read The New Yorker. I come here for what you can't find there. Vital life writing, stuff that's happening now. And I come here to do that kind of writing, and to have fun. And for political commentary. And yes satire.

And when she writes a second rate essay about a second rate critic, and attempts to appropriate and re-define a first rate word like snark. I'm going to make as much fun of her as I want to with my funny new friends because she's entered our territory.

And she can whine, and bleat all she wants about how unfunny we are, and call us parasites and losers and whatever. Or she can just go back to the cold comfort of her blog. But teasing is not abuse, it's part of a vital community. It's part of a healthy family. I think, as you've shown, that family is always open to her. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't get the feeling she's all that interested in being part of it.

I guess time will tell...

The best way to deal with satire is to laugh along with it -- unless you believe there's entirely too much truth in it.

I don't touch her or it myself anymore. She's a paid staffer for OS. That's their business.

(rated)

Persephone13? "You go girl!"

Parasite: an organism that lives in or on a host organism; it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host

Host = OS Parasite = Amy Tooter

That was cool!! I just watched a verbal food fight!!

Come back, Dr. Amy! I have a cream pie for you!

Thanks for this post. I wonder why some people take the time for a "witch hunt" against Dr Amy. I've read some of it in amazement, but mostly just avoid the diatribes.

It seems that there is room for everybody here, for whatever anyone chooses to get from it. No one has to read any writer who offends them.

Love your comment OEsheepdog.

See my new post today
" Dr. Amy meets Sarah Palin in sperm hurling cat fight "

I kind of agree with the concept of just NOT reading her ,
not doing post about her . So actually I won't be doing anymore
about her ...

Y'all can STILL go read " Two Sperm for Dr. Amy "
at my blog ....The LIGHTER side of all this crap !

They're just jealous because their posts don't get editor's pick as much as they like, and they can't imagine it's because their writing is boring. Say what you like about Dr. Amy, but her writing is skillful, concise, and interesting.

Perhaps our view on being a "bitch" is a little different, Holly, since we're so much younger than most of the OS posters. Our generation has reclaimed that word. : ) I'd much rather hang out with a bitch than a woman who is all nicey nice when she doesn't mean it and passive aggressive.

Each of us is responsible for our own behavior, regardless of that of others, so it often surprises me when someone whose character I've admired begins piling on Amy. Speaking negatively in the third person about someone is simply rude and callous, and I've found it disturbing in the extreme to discover this undercurrent of hostility and bullying happening on OS. It doesn't matter whether you agree with someone's substance or style; your own behavior is what counts at the end of the day if you want to be a good person. (I understand everyone's goal isn't to be a good person, of course; I'm referring to people here who, I think, otherwise consider themselves "good people," whose posts, in fact, celebrate goodness and spirituality and compassion, etc., but who fail to see that creating negative posts about someone is, no matter how you slice it, not kind.)

We all have our secret sorrows and hidden vulnerabilities. Nobody here knows how this affects the person Amy. I know that if I were talked about regularly like this, I would either leave or come out defensively. Perhaps what some see as arrogance is hidden hurt. Who the hell knows? But why participate? Really--why?

At the risk of belaboring the point, it occurs to me that some of the defense of writing negative posts about Amy (or merely referring to her casually as "that witch" or other favorite names elsewhere on OS) reminds me of the kinds of rationales that my middle school students come up with when I confront them on their own unkind, perhaps retaliatory, behavior. They invariably say, "Yeah, well, she deserves it!" To which I say, "I'm not talking about her weaknesses. I'm talking about your unkindness."

As for the old "Name calling won't hurt her!" Really? How do you know?

My last comment, I promise! (Can you tell this has been bothering me? For months. I've been thoroughly demoralized at what can only be referred to as cyberbullying. There is no other word for it. What else would you call it?)

It reminds me of my position on capital punishment, which I'm against. Unlike the people who rail against capital punishment because of its unfair application or potential for inadvertently killing an innocent person (excellent, pragmatic points, btw), my major objection to it is its immorality. Institutional murder is wrong, even if the guy on death row is guilty as hell. I object to capital punishment because of what it says about us, not what it says about the convict. I feel the same about bullying. It's not about Amy; it's about us.

Lainey - You make some good points, and perhaps Amy was hurt by my posts and by those of others, and that is regrettable. But pompousity invites satire, always has, and always will -- unless you live in a totalitarian regime, in which case, it can get you killed. Fortunately, we're not quite at that point in America -- yet.

Furthermore, I think if you read my posts and the comments that followed, you know that while Amy may have provided the departure point, the vast majority of what went on in them was not about her at all, but was a bunch of consenting adults acting like children -- that is, having good clean fun -- and some that was maybe not so clean -- but I don't believe crossed the line into the obscene.

While I appreciate your concern for Amy and others, to make a comparison between what went on in my posts and capital punishment frankly boggles the mind. To somehow equate people engaging in some slightly salacious satire to a lynch bomb strains credulity to the nth degree. Some might even suggest such a comparison is a kind of bullying in its own right -- or more precisely in its own wrong.

My only question is when the hell does she patients? She's on this thing 24-7.

SEE patients, I mean. That probably makes a little more sense.

Hey Arnie, I haven't even read your posts, so I guess I can't claim to be including them in the broad brush I've painted. But if they're satire and funny, then that feels different to me than the others I'm thinking of. Truly, this has been going on for months, this referring to Amy in the third person and calling her names. If your stuff is satire, then I don't find it offensive. I liked the satire that someone or other did about regular salon during the campaign season.

As for the analogy, well, that's what an analogy is. I was making the point that being mean is about us, not about the person who perhaps acted in a way to elicit a mean response. It had nothing whatsoever to do with capital punishment other than to convey that similarity. I never know how to respond to people who object to analogies by claiming they're not the same (even if by "same" they mean "not on the same level of seriousness"). Analogies aren't meant to be literally compared.

Lainey -- I'm going to be a lot kinder than Dr Amy would if you criticized her -- which is the real reason she continues to take so much heat. You are obviously a very bright person and quite capable of expressing yourself. While I take your point, I supect most people will view your analogy as I did -- comparing a bunch of people behaving childishly to a lynch mob.

Ms Jane -- You know, I'm really beginning to like you, enough so that I'm considering switching species.

And you'll love a doc
With a very large .........
.........
............
..............
................
................
...................
voc ....
...........
................
...abulary

After reading the posts here you would think Dr. Amy is actually Dr. Amy (R). I've seen people here talk nicer about Rush Limbaugh than Dr. Amy.

I, for one, like Dr. Amy. I make a point of looking up her stuff and reading it. Do I agree with her 100%? No, but I don't agree with myself all the time.

The first comment made here by dogmom that if you don't like her don't read her is the best thing written in the comments. It seems to me that all the people who are bitching here read her stuff. If you didn't you wouldn't know about most of the things you are writing.

Well I have to go. I need to send Dr. Amy a private message telling her to make sure I know where she is posting.

This place is incredible, I'e been laughing like crazy reading this stuff, and then my husband came by and he's laughing also. We're both new to this; read this post and a few of Dr. Amy's, as well as the comments to some of her posts.

I see a bunch of jealous people who can't get published bitching about someone who can, saying how awful that person is, how they are going to ignore her, and then they KEEP FOCUSING ON THE SAME PERSON. The other people decide they don't like her political views (which, although I don't agree with them, are not by any means outside the norm) and call her really obscene and disguisting names.

Amy is right. What a bunch of losers and whiners we have here.

Who is Dr. Amy and how is she making $$ on OS? I'd really, really like to know.