You, Chicken George, who is not without sin, has betrayed the Lord's injunction to not cast the first stone.

Negatively motivated. A real downer.

Is that "downer" as in discouragement or as in a bundle of feathers? You've responded to the critics in the creative way an AIR writer should, via satire, and taught me a couple of new French expressions. Félicitations!

methinks some 1-bombers got a little butthurt at this one cry George some Rivers! 5's

This is an attack parody, and I don't like it. There is a legitimate right to use a pseudonym, and a right to criticize. They are not only allowable, but useful and necessary. For example, in recent days there have been parodies with graphic descriptions of defecation and prison rape. A slang term for an erect male member has been used today. I hereby criticize these parodies -- and you know which they are -- and approving comments as being vulgar and puerile. But if I were to do so under my real name, which is well known around here, I would be labeled as "negative" and my future parodies would no longer be judged on their merit. You all know that's true. I shouldn't care if I get all 1s for my parodies, but I do. I'm human. Why else share my parodies with a large group if not to get the approval which improves my life? I could show my parodies to my small circle of friends, but they always like them and they're too polite to give critical feedback. Is that any different from showing them to a large group of fellow parodists who are too hostile to give fair grades with accompanying explanations? A pseudonym is a shield. Shields are not the instruments of "chickens." The chickens are the people who, under their real names, award 5s promiscuously.

Some pseudononymous comments I've seen here are passionate and harsh. This is, after all, the Internet. Still, I have never seen such a comment which solely attacks a person's character. Anyway, a mechanism exists for reporting such comments. No, I have seen harsh pseudononymous comments, but they always stuck to relevant issues of content and style, and aimed at improving the site.

So what the Pseudonym windbag is saying is that he or she is a spineless jellyfish unwilling to risk criticism over his or her personal views concerning the intention of any parody he or she finds objectionable and so is content to hide under a mask of anonymity like the yellow coward he or she is! GC's parody is spot on regarding all the personal attacks and uno-bombing folly carried out by a range of thoughtless, careless, merciless, unyielding anallectuals masquerading under the umbrella of infantile pseudonymity that carries the verbal weight of a mouse in a lion's cage! You are vermin. Away with you now.

Bam! You walked right into it! Tell us, is "Observer" your family name or your given name?

@ Pseudonym; Our inner selves likely share many concepts re limits of what should be posted on AIR, but good sense and good taste are not universally agreed on. If impassioned on this issue, why not post your disapproval on the relevant authors' threads, rather than here? Cheers,

Whatever you say Mr.X. is that your family name or given name? Security Code is HPY :)

Observer nailed it since this is what we thought about the kind of people who does this nonsense.

Tried to ignore "satyre" and "épées", but the pedant in me can't help but point out that they should be "satyr" and "epées"...

Looks to me that Pseudonym is trying to have it both ways: anonymous comment and criticism should be allowed, yet criticizing said anonymous commentary shouldn't? Maybe you should have submitted this one anonymously, Giorgio :-)

..but increasingly on AIR there has been a plague of anonymous cowards, making pathetic and ill-considered carping, too negative & frequently inaccurate to be called "criticism" - it comes across as little more than aggressive whining. Definitely apposite targets for this sort of parody - nice one, Giorgio :-)

Every reference I have seen has it as épée. My client clearly referred to "satyre" as the French word for sex-maniac. En Anglais, c'est "satyr."

@Fact Checker; It would have been quite safe, and more suitable for you to have posted under your real name. Our friend PhilA, whose remarks are always appreciated, apparently fell into a trap set by an erroneous web-translator.

Oops.. Egg on face time: should've been a bit more alert for French spelling of satyr, given the profusion of other mots français; re épée - I guess the French must be a bit miffed, because the rest of the fencing world mispronounces it (to be fair, the rest of the fencing world has dispensed with both acute accents, but I'd only noticed it spelt without the first acute - possibly because the accent on a capital letter is often omitted). Sorry, Giorgio (and thanks for the kind words):-)

To "Libertarian" - criticism may be valid, but spewing bile using a pseudonym is a cowardly act. Calling someone a coward for doing so is therefore not a personal attack, it is a valid description. But you seem to be logically challenged: if you use your name, you are by definition not anonymous. "Haughty and dismissive of a couple of newbies"?? I've not noticed that from any named parody author (but I don't read every single message, so if you'd like to point out where, I can go and have a look). You might think Pseudonym to be a class act, but he's acting as an apologist for many similarly pseudonymous posters who aren't - and how do we know that he isn't one of the petty snipers? It's not as if he uses his own name, after all.

1. I see that my original remarks have been deleted for some incomprehensible reason. But, as I recall, I said that anything goes with reference to the give and take of well-reasoned debate. Except that personal attacks, as used against Pseudonym, are out. Period. Makes no difference whether "coward" or "vermin" are used as a first strike or in retaliation for a preemptive personal attack.
2. You call yourself "Phil Alexander." You might as well call yourself "Etaoin Shrdlu." You are not a physical entity in either case. You are an abstraction, not available to receive a glove in the face. Therefore, you are de facto anonymous.
3. The newbies were Snapletts and Martin Gardy. The latter auditioned with an estimable parody praising Giorgio, but it appeared in the body of a comment. This upset Giorgio, who "owned" the string, and he had it deleted because, according to him it contained an ethnic slur. Such slur was pre-announced by Gardy and, in any case, amounted to the offensiveness of Mark Twain using the N-word in Huckleberry Finn. So the parody is gone, and so is Gardy.
4. Pseudonym's real name is Pseudonym. All our names and responsibilities are as ineffable as strings of ones and zeroes.

Sorry, but you don't get to redefine words just to help your arguments: "anonymous" means "without a name"; "pseudonymous" means "using a false name". It is the work of a few minutes (probably less) to tie the real, physical me to the name I post under here, paridoes or comments. If you were to try the glove in the face, you could find me easily enough. I do hope you're reasonably competent at foil, sabre or even épée

But in the context of amiright, you have commentors who are inarguably parody authors making snide remarks on others' work while hiding their amiright identities. Sometimes wanting anonymity is understandable: since arguing with some of the offenders on here, as soon as I post any parody, it gets hit by 1-votes. I've been around for too long for this to bother me, but not everyone wants to see their vote averages tumble. You may not like the word "coward" to describe that, but by your own argument, the word "coward" is just a string of ones and zeroes.. and does it really count as a personal attack when the person is hiding behind a pseudonym?

Sorry, but I'm not convinced Martin Gardy was who he said he was, either (that was an odd comments thread, not least because of the number of Americans who don't seem to know their neighbour's national anthem); if he did write the parody he posted in the comments thread as a paean to Giorgio, he must have lifted most of it from another pseudonymous commenter from 2013. "Snapletts" doesn't seem to have left any trace at all, so I don't know what you're talking about, I'm afraid.

John Barry and Al Silver; Please join me on this outing... As you 2 are deservedly-influential "retired" veterans of this site , I ask your help in ferreting out those pesky critics who use my threads to anonymously post their own pompous outpourings, as well as their mutual animosity. One grows tired of anonymous animosity. My attempts to embarrass these roosters with the above heart-felt lyrics has been to no avail. Wait a minute!!! What am I asking??? Never mind!. I will take "Frank Pizzarro"'s advice, and never again post songs on this web-site. I am stepping aside to leave room for the next generation. Farewell

GC, if you are reading this, color me saddened.

Hi there. As one who agree anonymous commenting is cowardly and extremely detrimental to the community -- if no one knows who you are, you're not a member of the community, but a troll -- I am officially a fan. This one is going straight to my favorites list.

TY, Claude; Nice to meet you. Feel welcome to visit my blogsites (one for parody-songs, the other for wordplay). I would appreciate your comments there. I don't visit here regularly here anymore, as you might guess from my comment above.