May 29, 2005
Attack Of The Dishonest And Intellectually Deficient Left
I really don't mind if someone comes after me based upon something I have written. I put my thoughts, reflections, and analysis out into the blogosphere for anyone to read and comment upon. That means some will love what I say, some will hate it, and most will simply not take the time to comment at all.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Probably the only thing that bothers me (though not on a particularly deep level) is when someone makes an attack that is clearly dishonest. No, I don't mean Ridor's attempt to tar and feather me for not writing about something that I never read about in a little town somewhere in Texas. That sort of stuff is just pathetic, and is merely a part of his "charm".
No, I'm talking about when someone engages in hack-job editting to twist the meaning of my words into something other than what was clearly intended. You know, sort of like they do in movie ads, where "If you have the intellect of a golf ball, you'll love this film" becomes ". . . you'll love this film."
That leads me to the case at hand, involving a fellow who goes by the handle "dolphin". About a week ago, I posted on a New Jersey case in which a little girl was tossed out of her school talent show because of the religious content of her song. Given that we were still hearing about rioting Islamists upset over reports of possible, I chose to draw a parallel between the Islamist way of gaining respect for their religion from American public officials (violence, murder, and mayhem) with the Christian method (political participation, legislative action, lawsuits). I then explained why a violent response to violations of Christian rights by government officials is a violation of what it means to be a Christian. I did so in a manner that any honest reader of at least moderate intelligence could understand what I was saying.
Much to my surprise, an old "friend" appeared in my comment section -- dolphin. He and I had a falling out a couple of months back, before I made the move from Precinct 333, my old blog. And he decided to launch an attack on me based upon -- get this -- my threat of Christian violence and desire to impose an Islamist-style theocracy!
I post the whole thing, so that you'll understand the absurd lengths to which he went in order to make this absurd attack.
Disturbing Posts I'm frequently disturbed by things I see on right-wing blogs but on a new one I have come across I have uncovered a frightful paragraph. I just came across this guys blog and haven't been reading long enough to get a true feel for him. Thus far, it's pretty typical stuff. Anything percieved to be left-wing is met with hatred and disgust, mistruths and misrepresentation abound, and pretty much all of what I've come to expect from right-wing blogs but unlike many others, this guy can form a complete sentence and put together an argument (even if he has to make up, or leave out, a few facts to make it work). This statement is what disturbs me:
maybe we Christians need to take to the streets and leave a path of death and destruction through the cities of this country in order to get the respect from government that our numbers merit and the First Amendment supposedly grants us.This is the theocracy we on the left are so terrified of. What these right-wingers can't accomplish with legislation they WILL accomplish with violence. Check out stats on hate-crimes and abortion clinic bombings. They are on the rise. As these people see a theocratic nation in which their particular brand of Christianity is forced upon all others begin to form, it's inevitable that they will try to speed up the process. The result will be violence. We need but look overseas to the Muslim theocracies to see that violent oppression is necessary to make such a theocracy work.
This particular writer did provide a weak attempt at disclaiming his intentions, following his threat with:
But I know that is Satan -- and my own sinful nature -- talking.I found the disclaimer to be rather weak. The very fact that he wrote the initial threat in teh first place indicates that it is something he's thinking about, and a short little disclaimer does littel to ease my alarm
Did you see the creative editting involved in this entry? He lifted two pieces from the paragraph in question, which reads as follows.
Such situations sometimes stir in me a disturbing thought. Maybe the Islamists have it right -- maybe we Christians need to take to the streets and leave a path of death and destruction through the cities of this country in order to get the respect from government that our numbers merit and the First Amendment supposedly grants us. But I know that is Satan -- and my own sinful nature -- talking.
Notice, please, that he had to edit out the (implicitly negative) comparison to the actions of the Islamist hordes who are currently engaged in just such acts of violence. Without that comparison, the hypothetical that I set forth looks really bad -- but there is no way of getting around that comparison, so he just took half the sentence. And he declares my rejection of such violence to be weak -- but it isn't, because it consists of not merely one sentence in that paragraph, but an entire additional paragraph that follows.
We Christians follow the Prince of Peace. He has commanded us to turn the other cheek. He has warned us that we will be reviled by those who reject him, and will be persecuted for the sake of his name. So while we will fight in the halls of governemnt for our rights, and pursue them in the courts, true Christians will not engage in the savage behavior we have seen of late from the intolerant practitioners of a certain false religion.
Yeah, dolphin didn't bother to let on that I said that "true Christians will not engage in the savage behavior we have seen of late" from the Islamists. How much more explicit can I get? I guess that he is either intellectually incapable of understanding what was written, or dishonest enough to misrepresent what I wrote. Either that or he is such an anti-Christian bigot that he actually does believe that Christians want to kill those with whom we disagree, and are secretly preparing to come after him and his ilk -- in which case he is clearly either warped with hatred or mental illness. I'll let you decide which one -- or combination -- it is.
Anyway, I tore his position apart on his site, pointing out how his reading was not a FAIR one (he deletes anything that questions his honesty). I suggested that his post meritted a retraction but did not ask for one. Why not? Well, given my previous experience that he is so lacking in manhood that he takes requests to be demands and firmly stated ones to be threats, I was concerned that he would get his panties in a knot and delete my posts. Guess what -- he did it anyway.
So now my response is here, where his delete key has no effect.
UPDATE: Commentary from Watching the Watchers.
UPDATE -- 5/30/05: I awoke this morning to discover that dolphin has created a new strawman (the first was my "threat", the second was my "demand") and is claiming that I wanted him to post my entire post -- which I never asked. Having become enamored of his own fantasy, he decided to "comment spam" me with the claim that my clear and in context excerpts constitute a distortion of the articles I'm commenting on -- somewhere around 20 copies of the same comment, one stuck on every current post of mine. I think that is further confirmation that he is something of a pathetic loser.
Posted by: Greg at
06:27 AM
| Comments (53)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1359 words, total size 8 kb.
1
Whats a real shame is whether or not someone is conservative or not this blog is instructive. The best blogs, (or articles) are ones that digress from my usual train of thought, but that make me look at something in a different way. Mr Dolphin lost out on an opportunity to see a Christian from a different perspective than his own loathing views. It's his loss. His intellectual dishonesty will cause no one to ever effect their perspective.
Posted by: Liberty at Sun May 29 13:29:48 2005 (3/F6g)
2
I didn't actually realize that you were TPC. That said, I'm thankful to hear it, I was concerned that my posting policy wasn't clear enough if there were actually two people out there too dense to understand it.
I suppose if this comment sees the light of day, I will at least have had the chance to tell the truth about the incident.
When I post a comment about the post of another, I usually do not quote the entire post in full. I quote the specific sections of the post that I am commenting on and provide a link back to the original post. I do this with any post I make that is based on another's post. Lest anyone think that I take a quote out of context I link back to the original post. In otherwords, I make it IMPOSSIBLE for anything to be taken out of context. By providing a link I am essentially giving my readers the full unedited text of the post in question. That's what I did in this case, so when RWR says I didn't "let on that he said..." what he means is that I linked to every word of what he said so that there could be absolutely no confusion whatsoever. Every single reader I has had full access to every word you wrote.
It's worth noting that I agreed with RWR on the main point of his initial post and only disagreed with a small part of it. That's why I only quoted from the part I disagreed with. I didn't quote from any of the post that I agreed with because the part I agreed with wasn't the part I was commenting on.
RWR came to MY site and decided I didn't post enough. He reposted nearly his entire post in my comment section. Such a posting was ratehr redundant since I'd already provided a link to said content. Basically he just reposted word for word what I'd already posted, then declared that, by posting what was already there, he'd "torn apart" my "position." While I thought it was very rude and a horrible way to establish a healthy dialogue, I decided that though reposting an enitre blog post in the comments is looked down upon by my clearly posted posting policy, I'd let it slide since long comments and blog reposts are not explicitly prohibited either. Also, trying to be nice to what I thought was a new visitor to my site, I figured if he felt that he'd done himself some justice by restating what I'd already linked to, then I'd let him feel better about himself.
I left his reprint of what I'd already said and linked to up, and told him that if he felt better having that up that was fine and nothing in that content (since I'd already put it up to begin with) contradicted anything I'd said or my opinion of it.
What followed was a demand that I retract the entire post. No "suggestion" was made, I was told that I "needed" to retract the post a word that quite clearly means I had no other choice. Well, my friend, I DO have another choice. It's clearly stated, in no uncertain terms, in my posting policy that demands are not tolerated. In accordance with the posted policy, which RWR knew he was under when he made his comment, I deleted the post with an invitation for him to repost if he could do so without brekaing the posting policy.
It's an interesting reveltion that RWR is TPC. As TPC, RWR held the same belief that for some reason he was special and my posting policy didn't apply to him. I have said it before and I'll say it again. I could care less whether I agree with you or not, however my site is run by a set of rules and all who visit are informed of the rules (via a link posted at the top of the page so that no scrolling is necessary) and ALL who visit my site are bouund by the same set of rules. As TPC here was a time when RWR visited and contributed regularly to my site. It was rare that I agreed with him but you can visit today and see that, because he obeyed the posting policy, all of his comments remain intact from that time period.
I'll not engage in childish cross-blog bickering. I've stated my case politely and hopefully RWR will see fit to let it stand. It's the price I pay for being mature and consistent in my blog management and protocol I will always tick people off who think it's my responsibility to provide them a platform to behave however they choose and will often not get to respond to those who attack me because they hemselves are incapable of abiding by someone else's rules when they visit that person's property.
I suppose if this comment sees the light of day, I will at least have had the chance to tell the truth about the incident.
When I post a comment about the post of another, I usually do not quote the entire post in full. I quote the specific sections of the post that I am commenting on and provide a link back to the original post. I do this with any post I make that is based on another's post. Lest anyone think that I take a quote out of context I link back to the original post. In otherwords, I make it IMPOSSIBLE for anything to be taken out of context. By providing a link I am essentially giving my readers the full unedited text of the post in question. That's what I did in this case, so when RWR says I didn't "let on that he said..." what he means is that I linked to every word of what he said so that there could be absolutely no confusion whatsoever. Every single reader I has had full access to every word you wrote.
It's worth noting that I agreed with RWR on the main point of his initial post and only disagreed with a small part of it. That's why I only quoted from the part I disagreed with. I didn't quote from any of the post that I agreed with because the part I agreed with wasn't the part I was commenting on.
RWR came to MY site and decided I didn't post enough. He reposted nearly his entire post in my comment section. Such a posting was ratehr redundant since I'd already provided a link to said content. Basically he just reposted word for word what I'd already posted, then declared that, by posting what was already there, he'd "torn apart" my "position." While I thought it was very rude and a horrible way to establish a healthy dialogue, I decided that though reposting an enitre blog post in the comments is looked down upon by my clearly posted posting policy, I'd let it slide since long comments and blog reposts are not explicitly prohibited either. Also, trying to be nice to what I thought was a new visitor to my site, I figured if he felt that he'd done himself some justice by restating what I'd already linked to, then I'd let him feel better about himself.
I left his reprint of what I'd already said and linked to up, and told him that if he felt better having that up that was fine and nothing in that content (since I'd already put it up to begin with) contradicted anything I'd said or my opinion of it.
What followed was a demand that I retract the entire post. No "suggestion" was made, I was told that I "needed" to retract the post a word that quite clearly means I had no other choice. Well, my friend, I DO have another choice. It's clearly stated, in no uncertain terms, in my posting policy that demands are not tolerated. In accordance with the posted policy, which RWR knew he was under when he made his comment, I deleted the post with an invitation for him to repost if he could do so without brekaing the posting policy.
It's an interesting reveltion that RWR is TPC. As TPC, RWR held the same belief that for some reason he was special and my posting policy didn't apply to him. I have said it before and I'll say it again. I could care less whether I agree with you or not, however my site is run by a set of rules and all who visit are informed of the rules (via a link posted at the top of the page so that no scrolling is necessary) and ALL who visit my site are bouund by the same set of rules. As TPC here was a time when RWR visited and contributed regularly to my site. It was rare that I agreed with him but you can visit today and see that, because he obeyed the posting policy, all of his comments remain intact from that time period.
I'll not engage in childish cross-blog bickering. I've stated my case politely and hopefully RWR will see fit to let it stand. It's the price I pay for being mature and consistent in my blog management and protocol I will always tick people off who think it's my responsibility to provide them a platform to behave however they choose and will often not get to respond to those who attack me because they hemselves are incapable of abiding by someone else's rules when they visit that person's property.
Posted by: dolphin at Sun May 29 13:39:04 2005 (ap5O2)
3
Liberty: To be clear I have many Christian friends. I do not hate Christians. I was a Christian. My parents are Christians, probably 99% of my friends are Christians. I've never heard one of them even discuss leaving a path of death and destruction. That's why the comment disturbed me. It's not a matter of it being a threat or think he's actually gonna do it. It's a matter of it being the first time I've heard a christian even mentioning it. For most true christians, it's somethign that's so far out of the realm of possibility that to even think of it would not be somethign they would do. As for my "intellectual dishonesty" remember you are only hearing the side of a story of a child who didn't get his way. Since he provided a link, I would suggest that you visit my site and see that I did provide a link back to his exact words. I don't know how I can be anymore intellectually honest that offering direct access to his own words. Were I to repost his entire post as he seems to think I should have to do I'd fill up my webspace in a hurry. I will continue the practice of quoting specifically what I am commenting on and providing a link to the source (much the same as RWR does throughout his site). If that's intellectually dishonest, then so be it but I can't possibly see how its dishonest to refer to a post someone else wrote with their on words!!!
Posted by: dolphin at Sun May 29 13:47:58 2005 (ap5O2)
4
Unlike you, I don't delete folks who disagree with me.
I also don't lie about them.
My comment was a statement of my judgement and clearly a suggestion, not a demand. That you cannot tell the difference is a sign of your lack of intellectual ability, not any problem of mine. My earlier comment had posted my two complete paragraphs -- not just the ecxcerpts you posted, and explained how the context made clear that your goal was to misrepresent the whole of my point.
And frankly, your deletion of non-abusive posts that dare to contradict you is evidence of your own lack of maturity, not a mature attitude and consistent posting policy. In my experience, you have neither, despite your claims.
Oh, and by the way, I don't believe I had been back to your site since I de-linked you back at Precinct 333, back in March. I went there only when you showed up around here making trouble and slinging insults, and generally behaving like the troll that you are when you leave your own little site.
And interestingly enough, I found myself the topic of your rantings. Yeah, you linked to my site, but not to the actual post, so it was unlikely my actual words would have been found -- or that I would ever know of your scurrilous act of defamation. It is simply one more example of your lack of maturity and honesty.
Hopefully you will some day grow up and be a man, little boy. You sure are not there yet.
I also don't lie about them.
My comment was a statement of my judgement and clearly a suggestion, not a demand. That you cannot tell the difference is a sign of your lack of intellectual ability, not any problem of mine. My earlier comment had posted my two complete paragraphs -- not just the ecxcerpts you posted, and explained how the context made clear that your goal was to misrepresent the whole of my point.
And frankly, your deletion of non-abusive posts that dare to contradict you is evidence of your own lack of maturity, not a mature attitude and consistent posting policy. In my experience, you have neither, despite your claims.
Oh, and by the way, I don't believe I had been back to your site since I de-linked you back at Precinct 333, back in March. I went there only when you showed up around here making trouble and slinging insults, and generally behaving like the troll that you are when you leave your own little site.
And interestingly enough, I found myself the topic of your rantings. Yeah, you linked to my site, but not to the actual post, so it was unlikely my actual words would have been found -- or that I would ever know of your scurrilous act of defamation. It is simply one more example of your lack of maturity and honesty.
Hopefully you will some day grow up and be a man, little boy. You sure are not there yet.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 29 14:03:14 2005 (/M+uy)
5
You never said I was making a threat? Good Lord, boy, you said the following.
This particular writer did provide a weak attempt at disclaiming his intentions, following his threat with:
But I know that is Satan -- and my own sinful
nature -- talking.
I found the disclaimer to be rather weak. The very fact that he wrote the initial threat in teh first place indicates that it is something he's thinking about, and a short little disclaimer does littel to ease my alarm
The word "threat" is yours, and yet you claim that you never said I was making a threat. I think everyone can see what your word was worth, you lying little pup..
And by the way, I didn't say you needed to duplicate the entire post. I said that you were taking the words out of context, and that quoting the complete sentence would make it clear I was drawing a parallel. I furthermore pointed out that you ignored the entire next paragraph (which your lies here make clear was intentional) so as to make it appear that my denunciation of violence was insincere. Your deletion of my comments makes it impossible to verify that, but I think you've already demonstrated that you are a bald-faced liar.
This particular writer did provide a weak attempt at disclaiming his intentions, following his threat with:
But I know that is Satan -- and my own sinful
nature -- talking.
I found the disclaimer to be rather weak. The very fact that he wrote the initial threat in teh first place indicates that it is something he's thinking about, and a short little disclaimer does littel to ease my alarm
The word "threat" is yours, and yet you claim that you never said I was making a threat. I think everyone can see what your word was worth, you lying little pup..
And by the way, I didn't say you needed to duplicate the entire post. I said that you were taking the words out of context, and that quoting the complete sentence would make it clear I was drawing a parallel. I furthermore pointed out that you ignored the entire next paragraph (which your lies here make clear was intentional) so as to make it appear that my denunciation of violence was insincere. Your deletion of my comments makes it impossible to verify that, but I think you've already demonstrated that you are a bald-faced liar.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 29 14:17:55 2005 (/M+uy)
6
I'll correct the link, I thoguht I hit the permalink, if the post doesn't link to the specific post and you're not just lieing about it.
Now I don't expect you to be mature enough not to be insulting, but as for me deleting "non-abusive posts that dare contradict" me there are at least three such posts on the FRONT page of my site, and many more including your own through out the archives. I'm consistent with my posting policy, you just don't seem to think it applies to you. Your cliaming otherwise truly makes you the dishonest one. Dare to back your statement by doing what many others have done and leaving polite but dissenting comments (like you used to). Dissenting comments are not, have never been, and will never be deleted.
Finally, there would be no problem at all with this post if I was a striaght conservative "christian." The ONLY reason you have any problem with this post at all is because I'm a gay liberal diest. You said yourself that it was a disturbing thought. NOBODY jumped down your throat for calling it a disturbing post, yet when I, a gay liberal diest, refer to it as such, I become a monster for even suggesting that death and dustruction might be a bad thing.
Now I don't expect you to be mature enough not to be insulting, but as for me deleting "non-abusive posts that dare contradict" me there are at least three such posts on the FRONT page of my site, and many more including your own through out the archives. I'm consistent with my posting policy, you just don't seem to think it applies to you. Your cliaming otherwise truly makes you the dishonest one. Dare to back your statement by doing what many others have done and leaving polite but dissenting comments (like you used to). Dissenting comments are not, have never been, and will never be deleted.
Finally, there would be no problem at all with this post if I was a striaght conservative "christian." The ONLY reason you have any problem with this post at all is because I'm a gay liberal diest. You said yourself that it was a disturbing thought. NOBODY jumped down your throat for calling it a disturbing post, yet when I, a gay liberal diest, refer to it as such, I become a monster for even suggesting that death and dustruction might be a bad thing.
Posted by: dolphin at Sun May 29 17:39:42 2005 (UIVSD)
7
One other thing. Howcome anytime any body disagrees with you (or in this case AGREES with you) you call them an "anti-christian bigot"?
Is it so hard to believe that I might possibly disagree (or agian, in this case, AGREE with you opinion) without having some hatred for Christians, a group who makes up the vast majority of my friends and family). Are you so desperate to be a matyr that you can't possibly stand the thought that maybe just maybe, when I say that you are right when you say that death and destruction at the hands of the religious right is quite a disturbing thought, I'm not saying it out of some hatred for christians??
Is it so hard to believe that I might possibly disagree (or agian, in this case, AGREE with you opinion) without having some hatred for Christians, a group who makes up the vast majority of my friends and family). Are you so desperate to be a matyr that you can't possibly stand the thought that maybe just maybe, when I say that you are right when you say that death and destruction at the hands of the religious right is quite a disturbing thought, I'm not saying it out of some hatred for christians??
Posted by: dolphin at Sun May 29 19:12:02 2005 (UIVSD)
8
No, my position has nothing to do with your sexual orientation or your religious beliefs. They are irrelevant to me.
They do have something to do with you being a liberal -- in that contemporary liberalism (as opposed to classical liberalism, which is today called conservatism) tends to be quite anti-Christian.
You clearly excerpted my words in a manner that twisted them to counter my own condemnation of religious violence. You objected to me recontextualizing them. You objected to me observing and suggesting that a retraction was appropriate. And now you continue to lie over here.
And guess what -- I won't delete you or ban you. I'll just let you continue to show yourself to be an ass. After all, you are rather proving my point for me.
They do have something to do with you being a liberal -- in that contemporary liberalism (as opposed to classical liberalism, which is today called conservatism) tends to be quite anti-Christian.
You clearly excerpted my words in a manner that twisted them to counter my own condemnation of religious violence. You objected to me recontextualizing them. You objected to me observing and suggesting that a retraction was appropriate. And now you continue to lie over here.
And guess what -- I won't delete you or ban you. I'll just let you continue to show yourself to be an ass. After all, you are rather proving my point for me.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 30 01:16:24 2005 (XJvMc)
9
I can only assume it's because I'm gay because I can't figure out any other reason you would have developed this personal vendetta against me, a person whom you've never even met.
You are a hateful bigot willing to go after any fag who dares contradict you. I made a post in full agreement with your own and you have in turn bashed me into the ground and I don't even know why! Since I have done nothing to you and my post argued AGREEMENT with you. My post was not libel, my post did not misrepresent you (though your post certinaly did me), my post actually agreed with what you yourself had stated. You are so blinded by your extreme hatred that you went off and attacked, libeled, and lied about me in response to a post I made that agreed with your point of view, compliemented you, and sent visitors your way.
You are a hateful bigot willing to go after any fag who dares contradict you. I made a post in full agreement with your own and you have in turn bashed me into the ground and I don't even know why! Since I have done nothing to you and my post argued AGREEMENT with you. My post was not libel, my post did not misrepresent you (though your post certinaly did me), my post actually agreed with what you yourself had stated. You are so blinded by your extreme hatred that you went off and attacked, libeled, and lied about me in response to a post I made that agreed with your point of view, compliemented you, and sent visitors your way.
Posted by: dolphin at Mon May 30 03:56:40 2005 (2h6qI)
10
Oh and about the comment spamming. Check the IP. Not me, I was asleep when they were posted, kinda makes you wonder where they came from. It couldn't be from the guy who has a personal vendetta against me and is out to make me look bad....
Posted by: dolphin at Mon May 30 04:05:54 2005 (2h6qI)
11
Actually, it is clear from your conduct that you don't "think" my disagreement is because of your sexuality -- you "emote" that it is.
And no, you didn't compliment me or in any other way agree with me in regards to the part you cited -- you indicated that I was making threats and made it clear that you believe that the statement was a sincere threat.
Granted, you have now revised the post to remove that language (good thing I preserved it here), but even that move was duplicitous -- you nowhere note the radical revision of the post, and call me a crazy. So much for honesty.
By the way, if the term "little boy" gets your panties in a twist, might I suggest that you are more than a little bit over-sensitive, given your tendency to sling harsher words here.
Oh, and I didn't spam my own site -- here is the IP address it all came from, along with every other dolphin IP address that has shown up in my comments.
4.248.38.204
(NON-SPAM IP ADDYS REMOVED IN SHOW OF GOOD FAITH)
I've not been able to run them to ground -- but it seems to me that you post from a number of different IPs, including some that are similar to the one that was the source of the comment spam. So unless you have a lot of folks out there impersonating you. . .
And no, you didn't compliment me or in any other way agree with me in regards to the part you cited -- you indicated that I was making threats and made it clear that you believe that the statement was a sincere threat.
Granted, you have now revised the post to remove that language (good thing I preserved it here), but even that move was duplicitous -- you nowhere note the radical revision of the post, and call me a crazy. So much for honesty.
By the way, if the term "little boy" gets your panties in a twist, might I suggest that you are more than a little bit over-sensitive, given your tendency to sling harsher words here.
Oh, and I didn't spam my own site -- here is the IP address it all came from, along with every other dolphin IP address that has shown up in my comments.
4.248.38.204
(NON-SPAM IP ADDYS REMOVED IN SHOW OF GOOD FAITH)
I've not been able to run them to ground -- but it seems to me that you post from a number of different IPs, including some that are similar to the one that was the source of the comment spam. So unless you have a lot of folks out there impersonating you. . .
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 30 05:13:55 2005 (GeT7T)
12
Thanks for posting my IP address for all to see. Perhaps I'll return the favor and put your email adress on a number of mailing lists. No, I'm bigger than that, bigger than you. All I can say is that I didn't comment spam you. If I were to do it you'd never know it was me. I'm a web deisgner, I know my way around the internet.
My post was in fact an agreement with you. You said that the following thought was "disturbing." I agreed that the thought was disturbing. Yes I even complimented you. When I said "hearing it from someone who I suspect is more representative of the religious right is particularly disturbing" you SHOULD have considered that a compliment. Granted it's a weak one but what I was saying was that you probably aren't out bombing abortion clinics and gay clubs each night (though I admit that I don't know you and shouldn't necessarily have made that assumption).
While I can only care so much about somebody I don't know, it is mildly upseting that someone who doesn't know me or anything about me has taken up such a hatred of me. I would love to know what happened during the time between your original visits for my blog as Texas Teacher, when I enjoyed your contributions and point of view, to now when you only stop by to spew filth and troll my comments. I'm curious if maybe some gay person did somethign to you that so amplified you hatred of gay people?? If that's the case I feel compelled to remind you that you had a bad experience with ONE person, and I had nothing to do with it. Please don't take it out on me.
My post was in fact an agreement with you. You said that the following thought was "disturbing." I agreed that the thought was disturbing. Yes I even complimented you. When I said "hearing it from someone who I suspect is more representative of the religious right is particularly disturbing" you SHOULD have considered that a compliment. Granted it's a weak one but what I was saying was that you probably aren't out bombing abortion clinics and gay clubs each night (though I admit that I don't know you and shouldn't necessarily have made that assumption).
While I can only care so much about somebody I don't know, it is mildly upseting that someone who doesn't know me or anything about me has taken up such a hatred of me. I would love to know what happened during the time between your original visits for my blog as Texas Teacher, when I enjoyed your contributions and point of view, to now when you only stop by to spew filth and troll my comments. I'm curious if maybe some gay person did somethign to you that so amplified you hatred of gay people?? If that's the case I feel compelled to remind you that you had a bad experience with ONE person, and I had nothing to do with it. Please don't take it out on me.
Posted by: dolphin at Mon May 30 05:32:22 2005 (2h6qI)
13
dolphin, what you haven't done was to acknowledge the purposeful twisting of RWR's context. I knew exactly what he meant. Why should readers believe you if you cannot be that forthcoming?
Posted by: mcconnell at Mon May 30 05:56:25 2005 (UMLNq)
14
Because mcconnell, I don't think I twisted his context. I think I said exactly what he said. I only quoted the main paragraph because that was the only part I was discussing. I provided a link back so if anybody wanted to know what RWR's personal intentions were, they could. What I was concerned about wasn't his personal intentions but rather the abstract thought of the religious right commiting violence on a large scale.
Had I left his name out altogether and just said, "this thought randomly occured to me and I have concerns about the increasing amount of violence coming from the religious right" would it have made anything diferent. I would have done that if I'd have knon that crediting him for the post idea was gonna bring about his wrath. I honestly didn't realize that he would be so upset that I agreed with him on a topic and decided to make a post on the topic. It's fairly typical in the blog world to credit another blog if they give you an idea for a post. All he has to do is ask and I'll never give him credit for anything again.
Had I left his name out altogether and just said, "this thought randomly occured to me and I have concerns about the increasing amount of violence coming from the religious right" would it have made anything diferent. I would have done that if I'd have knon that crediting him for the post idea was gonna bring about his wrath. I honestly didn't realize that he would be so upset that I agreed with him on a topic and decided to make a post on the topic. It's fairly typical in the blog world to credit another blog if they give you an idea for a post. All he has to do is ask and I'll never give him credit for anything again.
Posted by: dolphin at Mon May 30 06:22:36 2005 (2h6qI)
15
Spare me the dime store psychology -- my problem is with you, and you alone.
And go back and read the original post that you made -- you know, the one that I preserved on my site before you changed it on yours. The one in which you accuse me of making a threat of violence.. The one in which you indicate that you believe my words indicative of the desire of those of us on the Right who believe in Jesus to engage in violence to impose a theocracy. Yeah, that sure sounds like a post indicating agreement to me. Even your comment on my site, after agreeing with me on the case at hand and making subtle accusations at those of us who hadn't posted on another case, ended with the following:
I am troubled by the call to violence offered in this post (despite a weak attempt to retract it). This is what we need to fear my friends. What these nutcases can't accomplish with legislation they WILL accomplish with violence.
Like I said, clearly you are twisting the hypothetical used to make a comparison into an actual call to violence -- and accusing me of making one. Like I've said all along, your purpose is clear.
After you got caught, after you got exposed, you changed what you wrote to make it more conciliatory. Maybe that is your retraction? Maybe that is your admission of error, if not outright lying? Why not come out and say that, instead of going to great lengths to obscure your original words and deny your original intent?
Now I find it very difficult to believe that someone would show up on my site and make those posts in your name. Could it have happened? Yeah, I suppose it could have -- I suppose someone who knows their way around the internet, perhaps a web designer, might have popped up and done exactly that. It does seem far-fetched that someone would do that, though. But if that IS what happened, you have my apology -- and as a show of good faith, I will remove all the addresses except for the one which was the source of the spam.
And go back and read the original post that you made -- you know, the one that I preserved on my site before you changed it on yours. The one in which you accuse me of making a threat of violence.. The one in which you indicate that you believe my words indicative of the desire of those of us on the Right who believe in Jesus to engage in violence to impose a theocracy. Yeah, that sure sounds like a post indicating agreement to me. Even your comment on my site, after agreeing with me on the case at hand and making subtle accusations at those of us who hadn't posted on another case, ended with the following:
I am troubled by the call to violence offered in this post (despite a weak attempt to retract it). This is what we need to fear my friends. What these nutcases can't accomplish with legislation they WILL accomplish with violence.
Like I said, clearly you are twisting the hypothetical used to make a comparison into an actual call to violence -- and accusing me of making one. Like I've said all along, your purpose is clear.
After you got caught, after you got exposed, you changed what you wrote to make it more conciliatory. Maybe that is your retraction? Maybe that is your admission of error, if not outright lying? Why not come out and say that, instead of going to great lengths to obscure your original words and deny your original intent?
Now I find it very difficult to believe that someone would show up on my site and make those posts in your name. Could it have happened? Yeah, I suppose it could have -- I suppose someone who knows their way around the internet, perhaps a web designer, might have popped up and done exactly that. It does seem far-fetched that someone would do that, though. But if that IS what happened, you have my apology -- and as a show of good faith, I will remove all the addresses except for the one which was the source of the spam.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 30 09:23:57 2005 (mMt0P)
16
Why do I even bother?
I WAS NOT claiming that YOU personally were making a call for violence!!!! I specifically refered to the nuts on the right and the religous right as the source of increasing violence. If you are suggesting that you are such a nut than that's your interpretation and self-view, however I was speaking of a much wider population. Get over yourself already, it's not all about you! Read my post:
"This is the theocracy we on the left are so terrified of. What these right-wingers can't accomplish with legislation they WILL accomplish with violence. Check out stats on hate-crimes and abortion clinic bombings. They are on the rise. As these people see a theocratic nation in which their particular brand of Christianity is forced upon all others begin to form, it's inevitable that they will try to speed up the process. The result will be violence. We need but look overseas to the Muslim theocracies to see that violent oppression is necessary to make such a theocracy work."
Geez I must be a horrible writer to have used all those plural pronouns when I was (apparently, though I wasn't aware of it) talking very specifically about YOU.
I WAS NOT claiming that YOU personally were making a call for violence!!!! I specifically refered to the nuts on the right and the religous right as the source of increasing violence. If you are suggesting that you are such a nut than that's your interpretation and self-view, however I was speaking of a much wider population. Get over yourself already, it's not all about you! Read my post:
"This is the theocracy we on the left are so terrified of. What these right-wingers can't accomplish with legislation they WILL accomplish with violence. Check out stats on hate-crimes and abortion clinic bombings. They are on the rise. As these people see a theocratic nation in which their particular brand of Christianity is forced upon all others begin to form, it's inevitable that they will try to speed up the process. The result will be violence. We need but look overseas to the Muslim theocracies to see that violent oppression is necessary to make such a theocracy work."
Geez I must be a horrible writer to have used all those plural pronouns when I was (apparently, though I wasn't aware of it) talking very specifically about YOU.
Posted by: dolphin at Mon May 30 09:51:33 2005 (2h6qI)
17
And having just quoted my words, your words clearly include me. Don't you see that?
Think about it -- you've just made reference to a post on my site and proceed to argue that "these right-wingers" are going to do thus and such. Clearly, that acusation includes me.
And when you then talk about the weakness of my disclaimer following my "threat", is it any wonder that your post is unable to be interpreted as not referring to me -- as exemplified by the commenter who thinks the FBI needs to be contacted about what I wrote? It isn't just me, and it isn't just the other site (a liberal one) that picked up on my post about yours. If you were truly intending what you wrote to not include me, your use of plural pronouns didn't do it.
Think about it -- you've just made reference to a post on my site and proceed to argue that "these right-wingers" are going to do thus and such. Clearly, that acusation includes me.
And when you then talk about the weakness of my disclaimer following my "threat", is it any wonder that your post is unable to be interpreted as not referring to me -- as exemplified by the commenter who thinks the FBI needs to be contacted about what I wrote? It isn't just me, and it isn't just the other site (a liberal one) that picked up on my post about yours. If you were truly intending what you wrote to not include me, your use of plural pronouns didn't do it.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 30 10:04:57 2005 (0KvOF)
18
So now I'm responsible for the views of my commentors?
I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my post, however that doesn't change the fact that I am right, there are factions on the right who want the very same thing that you mentioned disturbs both you and I.
If you doubt me, do a google search on such groups as The Army of God," "Christian Voice," "Christian Patriots" and those are just three I can think of off the top of my head.
I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my post, however that doesn't change the fact that I am right, there are factions on the right who want the very same thing that you mentioned disturbs both you and I.
If you doubt me, do a google search on such groups as The Army of God," "Christian Voice," "Christian Patriots" and those are just three I can think of off the top of my head.
Posted by: dolphin at Mon May 30 10:35:48 2005 (dZMbY)
19
I'm pointing out that your words were sloppy and unclear enough that it isn't just me who sees this as an accusation against me. Can you concede as much?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 30 12:27:13 2005 (lzU4i)
20
it woudl seem so.
Posted by: dolphin at Mon May 30 12:41:13 2005 (dZMbY)
21
Well, it did indeed seem to be an attack on RWR specifically. I've seen numerous times across many different mediums where this exact technique was used to insult someone specifically, making them the representative for an entire group.
Dolphin, you made a mistake. Could happen to anyone. RWR, though I quite adamantly disagree with him on almost every issue, has the stronger case. You editing your post like you did and not putting any attribution as to why in it advances his case and weakens yours.
Let it go, apologize, and truly be the bigger man you claim to be.
You don't fight fire with fire, Dolphin. That just makes for a larger blaze.
~A!
Dolphin, you made a mistake. Could happen to anyone. RWR, though I quite adamantly disagree with him on almost every issue, has the stronger case. You editing your post like you did and not putting any attribution as to why in it advances his case and weakens yours.
Let it go, apologize, and truly be the bigger man you claim to be.
You don't fight fire with fire, Dolphin. That just makes for a larger blaze.
~A!
Posted by: ~A! at Mon May 30 15:33:14 2005 (zjq8s)
Posted by: Ridor in DC at Mon May 30 22:37:26 2005 (q0BAD)
23
Hardly, ridor -- simply acknowledging that you are intentionally provocative, and that it is understood to be part of your style.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue May 31 00:05:17 2005 (QvhDw)
24
Sorry Dolphin, but I've got to agree with RWR here. Your removed verbiage of his that took away from the tone of what you were trying to put forth, and did so deliberately to make it seem as if he and people like him were violent and willing to be violent to get their way.
I find this happens quite often with neo-liberals. They believe it's OK to lie, so long as the intended goal is perceived as good.
Hello Newsweek.
I find this happens quite often with neo-liberals. They believe it's OK to lie, so long as the intended goal is perceived as good.
Hello Newsweek.
Posted by: Subjugator at Tue May 31 04:14:11 2005 (lkCzp)
25
Fortunately nobody asked you Subjugator.
You definately have made it clear in your post that had I been a conservative you'd have had no problem with my post.
I will make you the same deal I'm wiling to make anybody. All someone has to do is ask and I'll give them the chance to prove me a liar. In my post I indicated that though RWR and I were both disturbed by the statement, there are infact groups in this country who are NOT disturbed by it and are actually pursuing it. If you honestly think that these groups do not exist I will be happy to provide you a list and then you can sit there and tell me why each group is a figment of my imagination, therefore proving me a liar. However, b careful when you make this deal because if I can find even one militant christian group out there, you'll be the liar.
You definately have made it clear in your post that had I been a conservative you'd have had no problem with my post.
I will make you the same deal I'm wiling to make anybody. All someone has to do is ask and I'll give them the chance to prove me a liar. In my post I indicated that though RWR and I were both disturbed by the statement, there are infact groups in this country who are NOT disturbed by it and are actually pursuing it. If you honestly think that these groups do not exist I will be happy to provide you a list and then you can sit there and tell me why each group is a figment of my imagination, therefore proving me a liar. However, b careful when you make this deal because if I can find even one militant christian group out there, you'll be the liar.
Posted by: dolphin at Tue May 31 04:39:03 2005 (2h6qI)
26
Quite so, Subjugator. I agree. I've experienced the same thing on my blogsite.
Posted by: mcconnell at Tue May 31 04:39:07 2005 (UMLNq)
27
Subjugator, the reasons the Liberals reacted is because the Conservatives and Christians kept on bashing them for years to a point where they got fed up with their antics and retaliated. They wanted it to be a slugfest. So be it.
R-
R-
Posted by: Ridor in DC at Tue May 31 07:11:31 2005 (q0BAD)
28
Psstt..."all the more reasons not to respond to your site" is getting reallll thin.
As for bashing, so the end justifies the means by lying in order to get the desired results? And play the professional victim?
So, nothing else is new on how Liberals think.
As for bashing, so the end justifies the means by lying in order to get the desired results? And play the professional victim?
So, nothing else is new on how Liberals think.
Posted by: mcconnell at Tue May 31 08:04:58 2005 (LmcbS)
29
No the end does not justify the means at all. That's why the GOP can get their message out so well. They aren't hindered by making sure everythign is factual!! I completely object to any liberal lying. That said, if someone plans to call ME a liar based on this post on the existence of militant christian groups, I again extend an invitation to them to prove me wrong. There you go, put up or shut up.
Posted by: dolphin at Tue May 31 08:30:49 2005 (2h6qI)
30
Acknowledging facts are better than ignoring them and lying about them in order to subvert the whole process for personal gains. N'est ce pas?
Posted by: mcconnell at Tue May 31 10:07:12 2005 (LmcbS)
31
Exactly!!
Posted by: dolphin at Tue May 31 11:35:21 2005 (SVh3K)
32
Except that, while you may have intended to comment on extremist groups (which undeniably exist on both sides of the spectrum), it isn't what you actually did.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue May 31 17:40:07 2005 (OsZyu)
33
Which comes to the point that Dolphin hasn't yet acknowledged the point of contention on RWR's part when his comment was taken out of context. This is what RWR's saying?
Posted by: mcconnell at Tue May 31 18:53:52 2005 (UMLNq)
34
Dolphin - you were intellectually dishonest. You can paint it with whatever illogic you want, but that doesn't make it truth.
Also, by my own standards, I *AM* a liberal. I stand for liberty. I cannot stand our government as it is and think that Republicans and Democrats are carbon copies of each other (i.e. not EXACT duplicates, but close enough as to make very little difference). I am a capitalistic minarchist, which puts me pretty close to Libertarianism (though I disagree with them on some points and find Lockean philosophy to be degenerate because it works out to communism with overpopulation).
Anyway - my disagreement is not resulting from your position. Had you simply said that you fear abortion bombers, psycho militant groups, and other idiots with half a brain and a dozen vendettas and you HADN'T colored RWR as something he isn't, I would have readily agreed with you.
I find the wrongful use of force to be abhorrent.
It's just that I find intellectual dishonesty similarly abhorrent.
As for the rest: Bill Clinton (and through him, the Democrats) earned what he (they) got. For the common American Bill Clinton was a failure not because of his philandering, lies, and other terrible behavior, but because they made him less effective in accomplishing what he sought to do. While I loathe most of what he sought to do (on a governmental, not personal basis), the average American did not...and he could have accomplished considerably more had he not been the opportunistic womanizing liar that he is.
The Republicans had Nixon, the Democrats had Clinton...and the Libertarians and other side parties...well...we/they have the many loonies that join our parties.
Sub
Also, by my own standards, I *AM* a liberal. I stand for liberty. I cannot stand our government as it is and think that Republicans and Democrats are carbon copies of each other (i.e. not EXACT duplicates, but close enough as to make very little difference). I am a capitalistic minarchist, which puts me pretty close to Libertarianism (though I disagree with them on some points and find Lockean philosophy to be degenerate because it works out to communism with overpopulation).
Anyway - my disagreement is not resulting from your position. Had you simply said that you fear abortion bombers, psycho militant groups, and other idiots with half a brain and a dozen vendettas and you HADN'T colored RWR as something he isn't, I would have readily agreed with you.
I find the wrongful use of force to be abhorrent.
It's just that I find intellectual dishonesty similarly abhorrent.
As for the rest: Bill Clinton (and through him, the Democrats) earned what he (they) got. For the common American Bill Clinton was a failure not because of his philandering, lies, and other terrible behavior, but because they made him less effective in accomplishing what he sought to do. While I loathe most of what he sought to do (on a governmental, not personal basis), the average American did not...and he could have accomplished considerably more had he not been the opportunistic womanizing liar that he is.
The Republicans had Nixon, the Democrats had Clinton...and the Libertarians and other side parties...well...we/they have the many loonies that join our parties.
Sub
Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 1 02:36:48 2005 (lkCzp)
35
OK, I've had enough.
Please feel free to continue to bash me if it makes you feel better about yourself. If you want to stop bashing mindlessly and actually prove that what you're saying has even the slightest bit of value at all, the invitation I extended earlier still stands. As I said, put up or shut up. Bashing me doesn't prove your point. YOu want to prove your point, I've given you the option. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Please feel free to continue to bash me if it makes you feel better about yourself. If you want to stop bashing mindlessly and actually prove that what you're saying has even the slightest bit of value at all, the invitation I extended earlier still stands. As I said, put up or shut up. Bashing me doesn't prove your point. YOu want to prove your point, I've given you the option. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Posted by: dolphin at Wed Jun 1 05:12:22 2005 (2h6qI)
36
So where did I bash you in the last post? I said you were intellectually dishonest. That describes behavior and is not a personal attack against you, but against an idea you expressed.
You presented half of what someone said, left out pertinent parts that indicated the person loathed what was described, and then claimed that your intent was not to do such.
Let me present a similar situation (that never actually happened):
LibDem said:
Republicans keep cutting away at our freedoms of speech and religion! I'm starting to think that we should cut back further on free speech! Cut back on free speech and make it illegal to be a Republican! Jail them and never let them out! Tax them into oblivion!
Of course, the fact that I treasure free speech means I would never really support such an idea. Even if Republicans hold despicable ideas and ignore people who need help, they still have a right to their opinions, and as much as I disagree with them, a foundation of my beliefs (and those of all freedom loving individuals) is that even people who disagree with me have the right to believe, vote, and say what they wish.
I may not like them, but I'll fight *hard* for their right to think, vote, and speak as they wish.
Then...LeansRight got ahold of the quote, and he said this:
Quoth LibDem: "Republicans keep cutting away at our freedoms of speech and religion! I'm starting to think that we should cut back further on free speech! Cut back on free speech and make it illegal to be a Republican! Jail them and never let them out! Tax them into oblivion!"
Democrats scare me, because they say stuff like this on a regular basis. They advocate the restriction of freedoms for anyone that disagrees with them. Here's a link to the rest of the stuff this guy had to say, but I have to say, I'm always concerned with people that say stuff like this.
See what I'm saying? As far as I can tell, that's what you did. If you try and tell me that doesn't try and paint a picture about the original poster, you're lying to my face.
Sub
You presented half of what someone said, left out pertinent parts that indicated the person loathed what was described, and then claimed that your intent was not to do such.
Let me present a similar situation (that never actually happened):
LibDem said:
Republicans keep cutting away at our freedoms of speech and religion! I'm starting to think that we should cut back further on free speech! Cut back on free speech and make it illegal to be a Republican! Jail them and never let them out! Tax them into oblivion!
Of course, the fact that I treasure free speech means I would never really support such an idea. Even if Republicans hold despicable ideas and ignore people who need help, they still have a right to their opinions, and as much as I disagree with them, a foundation of my beliefs (and those of all freedom loving individuals) is that even people who disagree with me have the right to believe, vote, and say what they wish.
I may not like them, but I'll fight *hard* for their right to think, vote, and speak as they wish.
Then...LeansRight got ahold of the quote, and he said this:
Quoth LibDem: "Republicans keep cutting away at our freedoms of speech and religion! I'm starting to think that we should cut back further on free speech! Cut back on free speech and make it illegal to be a Republican! Jail them and never let them out! Tax them into oblivion!"
Democrats scare me, because they say stuff like this on a regular basis. They advocate the restriction of freedoms for anyone that disagrees with them. Here's a link to the rest of the stuff this guy had to say, but I have to say, I'm always concerned with people that say stuff like this.
See what I'm saying? As far as I can tell, that's what you did. If you try and tell me that doesn't try and paint a picture about the original poster, you're lying to my face.
Sub
Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 1 08:57:50 2005 (lkCzp)
37
You presented half of what someone said, left out pertinent parts that indicated the person loathed what was described
Wow. Well I guess if the facts don't back your assertions you just make up new facts. I actually specifically indicated that RWR was disturbed by what was described, however Not everyone on the right is, and that is extremely scary to me.
Wow. Well I guess if the facts don't back your assertions you just make up new facts. I actually specifically indicated that RWR was disturbed by what was described, however Not everyone on the right is, and that is extremely scary to me.
Posted by: dolphin at Wed Jun 1 09:10:57 2005 (2h6qI)
38
Oh, that's right, I'm violating "Dolphin's Law" -- Any criticism of Dolphin or his actions is bashing, and most likely based upon an aversion to his sexual preference.
My comment was not bashing. I actually extended an olive branch by saying you may have intended to exclude me from your generalization, but did not in fact do so in a manner that was understood by anyone but for you. I was engaged in a little diplomacy there, dude, and your response was a post which would have been immediately deleted if posted on your site as a violation of your posting policy (actually, everything you have posted on my site since about Friday would have been deleted under your policy).
And by the way, I don't accept your invitation -- I already tried to politely dispute you without hurling insults. Those posts werre deleted. I don't feel a need to waste my time doing again what I did on your site once and have done very effectively here.
And Dolphin, you accused me of making threats, and said you were not reassured by my "weak" disclaimer. That makes it clear that you were never really intending to exclude me. Later on, you went back and re-wrote your post in an attempt to hide your original mistake, and have acted as if your original words were never written. That is not the course of action of a completely innocent party who was accidentally unclear.
And by the way -- that you have both Left & Right offering the same criticism of you should cause you to consider that you were wrong.
My comment was not bashing. I actually extended an olive branch by saying you may have intended to exclude me from your generalization, but did not in fact do so in a manner that was understood by anyone but for you. I was engaged in a little diplomacy there, dude, and your response was a post which would have been immediately deleted if posted on your site as a violation of your posting policy (actually, everything you have posted on my site since about Friday would have been deleted under your policy).
And by the way, I don't accept your invitation -- I already tried to politely dispute you without hurling insults. Those posts werre deleted. I don't feel a need to waste my time doing again what I did on your site once and have done very effectively here.
And Dolphin, you accused me of making threats, and said you were not reassured by my "weak" disclaimer. That makes it clear that you were never really intending to exclude me. Later on, you went back and re-wrote your post in an attempt to hide your original mistake, and have acted as if your original words were never written. That is not the course of action of a completely innocent party who was accidentally unclear.
And by the way -- that you have both Left & Right offering the same criticism of you should cause you to consider that you were wrong.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 1 10:02:36 2005 (BP2Eg)
39
It all begins with a simple acknowledgement. How hard is that, Dolphin? And, no, this isn't bashing.
Posted by: mcconnell at Wed Jun 1 11:32:30 2005 (LmcbS)
40
The thing that is perhaps most amazing to me is that you seem to actually believe that what you are saying is true.
Let's take some snippets:
I'm frequently disturbed by things I see on right-wing blogs...
Thus far, it's pretty typical stuff.
...even if he has to make up, or leave out, a few facts to make it work...
[ed. note: ironic that]
This statement is what disturbs me...(followed by an inflammatory quote)...
This particular writer did provide a *WEAK* (emphasis mine) attempt at disclaiming his intentions, following *HIS* *THREAT* (emphasis for both, again, is mine)...
Then you have a minimized quote that in its original context decries the original statement and that even exceeds the inflammatory remark in length and depth of consideration. Too bad you only included twelve of the ninety-four words that he wrote that spoke against violence.
So - he used fifty-seven words expressing anger, and he used ninety-four decrying the violence that the anger brings up in his mind, and you say his disclaimer to be weak? Also - when challenged on your choice of words, you say WE are the ones wronging YOU?
YOU made it sound as if his ENTIRE disclaimer was 'But I know that is Satan -- and my own sinful nature -- talking.'
Sorry dude, but you are objectively and totally in the wrong. Like many liberals you refuse to admit it. After all, a liberal can stand any idea except one that contradicts his worldview.
Interestingly, it is LIBERALS who grow violent when confronted with conflicting ideas. The group ProtestWarrior goes to liberal protests to express conservative views - guess what...the liberals...the "free thinkers"...the people who want "balance" and "new ideas" PHYSICALLY ATTACK the ProtestWarriors. It's on video...the reasons and the people starting the violence is always the same...liberals get mad because someone dares to disagree with them in a public forum.
Sub
Let's take some snippets:
I'm frequently disturbed by things I see on right-wing blogs...
Thus far, it's pretty typical stuff.
...even if he has to make up, or leave out, a few facts to make it work...
[ed. note: ironic that]
This statement is what disturbs me...(followed by an inflammatory quote)...
This particular writer did provide a *WEAK* (emphasis mine) attempt at disclaiming his intentions, following *HIS* *THREAT* (emphasis for both, again, is mine)...
Then you have a minimized quote that in its original context decries the original statement and that even exceeds the inflammatory remark in length and depth of consideration. Too bad you only included twelve of the ninety-four words that he wrote that spoke against violence.
So - he used fifty-seven words expressing anger, and he used ninety-four decrying the violence that the anger brings up in his mind, and you say his disclaimer to be weak? Also - when challenged on your choice of words, you say WE are the ones wronging YOU?
YOU made it sound as if his ENTIRE disclaimer was 'But I know that is Satan -- and my own sinful nature -- talking.'
Sorry dude, but you are objectively and totally in the wrong. Like many liberals you refuse to admit it. After all, a liberal can stand any idea except one that contradicts his worldview.
Interestingly, it is LIBERALS who grow violent when confronted with conflicting ideas. The group ProtestWarrior goes to liberal protests to express conservative views - guess what...the liberals...the "free thinkers"...the people who want "balance" and "new ideas" PHYSICALLY ATTACK the ProtestWarriors. It's on video...the reasons and the people starting the violence is always the same...liberals get mad because someone dares to disagree with them in a public forum.
Sub
Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 1 13:34:26 2005 (r/FBF)
41
That's right Sub, it's all the liberals, there's never been a conservative in the history of time to ever get violent. Wow, I think I'll stand clear next time this guy talks about dishonesty. I wouldn't want to get struck by the giant lightening bolt that will come streaking down.
Posted by: dolphin at Wed Jun 1 16:32:10 2005 (MIt/1)
42
Oh and for the record. I wasn't talking about you bashing RWR. I was refering to mcconnel and (mainly) Subjucator who have (in typical angry neo-con fashion) used this as an opportunity to attack all liberals.
And I reject the notion that everything I've posted here since Friday would have violated my site's posting policy. Anything I have said that wouldn't have stood on my site has been in response to someone else attacking me. and I'm curious as to waht you think I would find so offensive about, for instance, the comment under "Do I Understand This Correctly" that I posted just yesterday?
And I reject the notion that everything I've posted here since Friday would have violated my site's posting policy. Anything I have said that wouldn't have stood on my site has been in response to someone else attacking me. and I'm curious as to waht you think I would find so offensive about, for instance, the comment under "Do I Understand This Correctly" that I posted just yesterday?
Posted by: at Wed Jun 1 16:38:47 2005 (MIt/1)
43
^^^^^^ That was me if it wasn't clear.
Posted by: dolphin at Wed Jun 1 16:39:49 2005 (MIt/1)
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 2 01:55:17 2005 (kLTBe)
45
when I say "Liberal" it is those who are more left than the usual moderate Democrat who usually have the modicum and sincerity to acknowledge things and some common sense. For example, Dean is a Liberal. No, let me take that back. Sorry. I sincerely apologize. Dean is a socialist.
Name a Liberal that have condemned terrorist attacks (and not call them "insurgents" a la Michael Moore style of identifying them as "freedom" fighters) in Iraq with their suicide bombs.
Maybe then I'll be quiet.
Name a Liberal that have condemned terrorist attacks (and not call them "insurgents" a la Michael Moore style of identifying them as "freedom" fighters) in Iraq with their suicide bombs.
Maybe then I'll be quiet.
Posted by: mcconnell at Thu Jun 2 04:00:18 2005 (qzj0i)
46
I think you might be surprised about what you'd find out about the 8 time NRA-endorsed Dean if you looked beyond the soundbytes and talking points that you've been issued by the GOP, but I'm no "Deaniac" so we won't bother to have that conversation.
As for a liberal for a liberal who condemns terrorism, including that going on in Iraq, how about myself.
As for a liberal for a liberal who condemns terrorism, including that going on in Iraq, how about myself.
Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 2 04:54:53 2005 (2h6qI)
47
Dean gave Osama a pass with the "innocent til proven guilty" while he went ahead charged Delay with "guilty til proven innocent." Says volumes about Dean's thinking on terrorists.
You condemn terrorism? Ok. So, you support President Bush, then, on the war against terrorism.
Ok, name a >>well known
You condemn terrorism? Ok. So, you support President Bush, then, on the war against terrorism.
Ok, name a >>well known
Posted by: mcconnell at Thu Jun 2 05:16:51 2005 (LmcbS)
48
got cut off somehow...
name a well known Liberal who expressedly and publicly condemned terrorists attacks, including suicides and called them "terrorists" and not "insurgents."
I guess that means you support Israel in building a wall to stave off suicide attacks?
name a well known Liberal who expressedly and publicly condemned terrorists attacks, including suicides and called them "terrorists" and not "insurgents."
I guess that means you support Israel in building a wall to stave off suicide attacks?
Posted by: mcconnell at Thu Jun 2 05:19:08 2005 (LmcbS)
49
Dolphin - I am a liberal. I don't blame liberals for all the woes of the world, but as a group, the more radical liberals have earned my contempt. They are intellectually dishonest for so long about so many things that I must now look at everything they say with a jaundiced eye.
Here is a short list of the things about which liberals are intellectually dishonest:
Global warming (theory, not proven)
Gun violence (statistics)
Gun control (statistics)
Violence against women (statistics)
Sexual discrimination (statistics)
Racial discrimination (statistics)
Sexual harassment (statistics)
Gun control (efficacy)
Second amendment (what it means)
News in general (the titanic slant)
Evolution (theory - never been proven as fact)
Abortion (pro-life does NOT mean anti-choice)
The 2000 elections (Bush did NOT steal it, the Florida State Supreme Court was absolutely full of manure...they overstepped their bounds and stomped on Executive purview that had been granted to the Executive by the state Legislative branch)
The 2004 elections (this one wasn't stolen either)
...and so on and so forth...
Conservatives are also intellectually dishonest about things, but they are not such about as many things or as often. Examples of this include:
Abortion (pro-choice does NOT mean anti-life)
Marriage - (NOT a government institution, therefore none of their business who marries who)
Both sides are full of it...but the Democrats seem to be full of more of it and with more variety.
Sub
Here is a short list of the things about which liberals are intellectually dishonest:
Global warming (theory, not proven)
Gun violence (statistics)
Gun control (statistics)
Violence against women (statistics)
Sexual discrimination (statistics)
Racial discrimination (statistics)
Sexual harassment (statistics)
Gun control (efficacy)
Second amendment (what it means)
News in general (the titanic slant)
Evolution (theory - never been proven as fact)
Abortion (pro-life does NOT mean anti-choice)
The 2000 elections (Bush did NOT steal it, the Florida State Supreme Court was absolutely full of manure...they overstepped their bounds and stomped on Executive purview that had been granted to the Executive by the state Legislative branch)
The 2004 elections (this one wasn't stolen either)
...and so on and so forth...
Conservatives are also intellectually dishonest about things, but they are not such about as many things or as often. Examples of this include:
Abortion (pro-choice does NOT mean anti-life)
Marriage - (NOT a government institution, therefore none of their business who marries who)
Both sides are full of it...but the Democrats seem to be full of more of it and with more variety.
Sub
Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 2 06:44:01 2005 (lkCzp)
50
Actually, in all fairness I believe Joe Lieberman has stood tall next to President Bush in the War on Terror.
I realize he may be perceived to have a vested interest in the success thereof, but I'm putting my money on the fact that he knows what terrorism can do to a country, and he does not want to see it happen to this one. I may disagree with him on many issues, but I believe him to be a patriot who truly wants what's good for America.
That said, I also think he's fulla caca about a lot of things. The fact that he has good intent doesn't count for everything for me.
Sub
I realize he may be perceived to have a vested interest in the success thereof, but I'm putting my money on the fact that he knows what terrorism can do to a country, and he does not want to see it happen to this one. I may disagree with him on many issues, but I believe him to be a patriot who truly wants what's good for America.
That said, I also think he's fulla caca about a lot of things. The fact that he has good intent doesn't count for everything for me.
Sub
Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 2 07:22:10 2005 (lkCzp)
51
Sub, you're not a liberal, and you're also not worth my time therefore I'll be ignoring you from now on.
Mcconnel,
Opposing terrorism doesn't mean that I support George W. Bush. Typical neo-con response. Nobody can possibly disagree with you without being an unpatriotic, anti-american, terrorist supporter. I'll not engage in such nonsense talk.
I disagree with you on many issues, I'm sure. For starters I disagree that we are any safer from terrorism by turning Iraq into a terrorist breeding grounds (as confirmed by independent and military reports) in the name of some mythical "War on Terra". Despite these disagreements, i do not claim you are more or less American than I, nor that you support terrorism. I believe you honestly think that your views are for what's best for this country. It's a pity that you (and so many on the right) are unable to acknowlege the same about me.
I'll not engage in further debate so long as you continue to believe that dissent is treason. This is a democracy and we should be able to hold different views about the way things should be done while acknowleging that we both want what's best for this country, our country.
Mcconnel,
Opposing terrorism doesn't mean that I support George W. Bush. Typical neo-con response. Nobody can possibly disagree with you without being an unpatriotic, anti-american, terrorist supporter. I'll not engage in such nonsense talk.
I disagree with you on many issues, I'm sure. For starters I disagree that we are any safer from terrorism by turning Iraq into a terrorist breeding grounds (as confirmed by independent and military reports) in the name of some mythical "War on Terra". Despite these disagreements, i do not claim you are more or less American than I, nor that you support terrorism. I believe you honestly think that your views are for what's best for this country. It's a pity that you (and so many on the right) are unable to acknowlege the same about me.
I'll not engage in further debate so long as you continue to believe that dissent is treason. This is a democracy and we should be able to hold different views about the way things should be done while acknowleging that we both want what's best for this country, our country.
Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 2 07:34:54 2005 (2h6qI)
52
Helping the other side to win by whatever means necessary by skewing the picture just so they can score points against the other party (e.g. abu ghraib, newsweek, insurgents, "freedom fighters", etc) is not a sign of patriotism.
You SHOW ME a well known Liberal that doesn't do this who would rather err on supporting the troops than to malign the whole friggin Army with slurs and innuendos saying Abu Ghraib is worst than the publicized beheadings giving the otherside a morale boost! And I'll back off.
The thing is, like Subjugator said, we don't need intellectual dishonesty. Acknowledgements can be traded back and forth between parties instead of resorting to intellectual dishonesty just to score points.
I like Leibermann. A moderate. And Dean? Well he just screams like a banshee. No wonder the DNC isn't getting any money.
You SHOW ME a well known Liberal that doesn't do this who would rather err on supporting the troops than to malign the whole friggin Army with slurs and innuendos saying Abu Ghraib is worst than the publicized beheadings giving the otherside a morale boost! And I'll back off.
The thing is, like Subjugator said, we don't need intellectual dishonesty. Acknowledgements can be traded back and forth between parties instead of resorting to intellectual dishonesty just to score points.
I like Leibermann. A moderate. And Dean? Well he just screams like a banshee. No wonder the DNC isn't getting any money.
Posted by: mcconnell at Thu Jun 2 08:02:44 2005 (LmcbS)
53
What's the matter Dolphin - when I list the things that are traditional lies the liberals tell, do your feelings get hurt?
Bring up something the Republicans have lied about and I'll almost certainly agree with you. I hate dishonesty. There are some things I don't believe to be lies that Democrats HAVE called lies. WMDs are a good example - for one thing, they HAVE been found (though not in huge quantities), and for another, even if NONE were found he didn't like, he was WRONG. There's a big difference.
So come on - admit that global warming is an unproven theory. Admit that being pro-life does not mean one is anti-choice. Admit that murder rates DROP when states move to 'shall issue' statutes for permits to carry guns. Admit that when similar sacrifices are made, the glass ceiling is MUCH higher than is normally described (like say, when women sacrifice personal life, ignore their families, and otherwise act the way hyper-successful men do - their salaries are in the realm of four cents an hour different and not the 20-40 cents per hour so frequently described).
Admit these things...go on, it'll work...
Sub
Bring up something the Republicans have lied about and I'll almost certainly agree with you. I hate dishonesty. There are some things I don't believe to be lies that Democrats HAVE called lies. WMDs are a good example - for one thing, they HAVE been found (though not in huge quantities), and for another, even if NONE were found he didn't like, he was WRONG. There's a big difference.
So come on - admit that global warming is an unproven theory. Admit that being pro-life does not mean one is anti-choice. Admit that murder rates DROP when states move to 'shall issue' statutes for permits to carry guns. Admit that when similar sacrifices are made, the glass ceiling is MUCH higher than is normally described (like say, when women sacrifice personal life, ignore their families, and otherwise act the way hyper-successful men do - their salaries are in the realm of four cents an hour different and not the 20-40 cents per hour so frequently described).
Admit these things...go on, it'll work...
Sub
Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 2 09:14:02 2005 (lkCzp)
67kb generated in CPU 0.0108, elapsed 0.0183 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0103 seconds, 82 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
21 queries taking 0.0103 seconds, 82 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.