Duncan seems to hate readers who confuse his books with genre fiction simply because he writes about lycanthropes.
From high-end Symbol handhelds to low-end pen readers (man, I hate pen readers), I've seen them all.
"The I Hate George W. Bush Reader" has done well enough to spawn an "I Hate Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice... Reader".
The bookstores around town were well stocked with bilious volumes like "The Bush-Hater's Handbook," "The I Hate George W. Bush Reader," "The Lies of George W. Bush," but only hints of such outrage sneaked past the Party apparatchiks.
There has been Clint Willis's "The I Hate George W. Bush Reader: Why Dubya is Wrong About Absolutely Everything", which is not to be confused with "The Bush-Hater's Handbook: A Guide to the Most Appalling Presidency of the Past 100 Years" by Jack Huberman.
Persecution is the only way to deal with such people, and it is natural that today a wave of political books with the word "lies" in the title (lies being self-evidently bad, as in "The Lies of George W. Bush") should coincide with a wave of books with the word "hate" in them (hate being good, the banner of a club one should want to join, as in "The I Hate Republicans Reader").
I hate to disappoint eager readers, but both searches drew a blank.
MES: I hate this question, but readers always want to know.
Quite frankly, as a reader, I hate it when investors pull some of the masturbatory shit about their companies over and over and over again.
(Regular readers know I hate that word as a negative description of International startups, as much as I keep finding myself using it).
I repeat: I would hate for readers to suggest humiliating trail names for Mark Sanford in emails with the subject line: "THIS SHOULD TOTALLY BE MARK SANFORD'S TRAIL NAME".
