Actually, the screaming headline is just for amusement. It's only a couple of tiny things. I could just let it go. Except, since I buy pixels by the barrel: may as well call him on it. Also, readers love a good blog fight: trashy fun. And maybe I enjoy it too: change of pace.
Because Blogger restricts length of comment, I broke a comment at Jack's blog into three consecutive comments(spaced approx 30 seconds apart). My response ran long in order to respond to each of Jack's misguided assertions. Jack deleted my comments. I kept a copy of my comments, and later pasted them into this End Zone post. Jack ran with this circumstance as an opportunity to exaggerate:
Because Blogger restricts length of comment, I broke a comment at Jack's blog into three consecutive comments(spaced approx 30 seconds apart). My response ran long in order to respond to each of Jack's misguided assertions. Jack deleted my comments. I kept a copy of my comments, and later pasted them into this End Zone post. Jack ran with this circumstance as an opportunity to exaggerate:
"I replied to the visitor, and returned later to see that he had commented again, in rapid succession, 4 or 5 times in a row."To which I reply: that's a bullshit misleading statement, and indicative of insecurity. If you were confident of your logic, you would not waste time on slander, but would go directly to logical refutation. You see what I'm saying? If what I said was illogical, there would be no need to (mis)characterize me to your readers: your refutation of my illogic would be more than enough for your readers to get the point.
More Jack:
"I quickly skimmed his first two replies and determined they were of the similar hair-splitting variety...."LOL. Disagreement = "hair-splitting." Notice "I quickly skimmed". I am not worth Jack's time, my opinion is not worth his attention, yet he wrote 1200 words back at me yesterday. More Jack:
"But this fellow evidently didn't see it that way and apparently wanted to make a federal case out of the matter by posting our back and forth point by point on his blog. Even after I had commented I would no longer discuss torture or waterboarding with him.""Federal case" = Federal LOL. Besides, didn't you, Jack, in my comment section on Monday, graciously give permission for the exercise of my free speech rights on my own blog? You: "...and I will no longer debate torture with you, period. Good evening, sir, and do as you wish in your blog tomorrow." So you changed your mind on both points:
1) you rejoined the waterboarding debate on your blog, and
2) you then protested("federal case") my free speech exercise on my own blog.
More Jack:
More Jack:
More Jack:
Jack's continuation of the above sentence:
Jack continues that sentence:Then Jack links to scholarly legal arguments about why waterboarding is torture - which: I'm glad he does link to those arguments, and I'm glad he is joined in the debate.
"It would appear he is indeed obsessive and may be attempting to make me and what I have written a cause celebre among his friends on the right who support waterboarding and deny it is a form of torture."Nah. I don't have that kind of influence. You are a cause celebre amongst some of my relatives.
More Jack:
"No doubt he is making an effort to show how supposedly narrow-minded I and we others on the left are who oppose the use of waterboarding."I don't consider you "narrow minded" for holding a different opinion. Anyone who is a Twins fan cannot be all bad. But your exaggerations and mischaracterizations, of me personally, are starting to piss me off. You ought defend your opinion without slandering and misrepresenting me.
More Jack:
"I consider this to be a bit over the top, in view of the circumstances...."What you are saying is: Shut up you conservative who disagrees with me. Shut up! Stop disagreeing with me on your own blog!
Jack's continuation of the above sentence:
"...but I do recognize and acknowledge his right to free speech and interpretation,...."Except your actions belie these words, otherwise you would not be mischaracterizing me, i.e. "rapid succession 4 or 5 times in a row"; you would not be launching vague ad hominem accusations, ie.: "hair-splitting" "federal case" (which, technically, is a specific accusation!) "obsessive and may be attempting ... a cause celebre" (funny on a couple of levels).
Jack continues that sentence:
"...even though I, as administrator of this site, do find his arguments supporting waterboarding and denying it to be a form of torture personally and morally objectionable, as I do Mr. Cheney's. So I haven't even bothered to revisit his site, nor will I again. The information I present below will make his presentation a moot point, and is directed at all who share his viewpoint."
Our nation's debate over this is a sign of our nation's greatness. This debate is something to step back from, for a moment, and just admire: a great nation conducting a great discussion about what is moral and righteous. Both sides are arguing from selflessness; from commitment to virtuous action. Like our peaceful transference of power after an election: this argument is something to admire and to be thankful for. I am thankful for it.
I'm even thankful for a trashy fun blog spat.
Posts
3 comments:
Here's my biggest problem with many on the left today.
A reader comments on a blog post in agreement with the author, and the reader is thanked for a "valid and thoughtful" comment.
A reader comments on a blog post in disagreement with the author, and that reader's comments are deleted.
I am sympathetic and respectful of many philosophical beliefs from the left, but the left loses credibility when they are closed minded and not courageous enough for a real, substantive debate of issues. Anyone who holds an opposing opinion is immediately attacked and demeaned.
Awesome. When the "Anchorman" style brawl begins, you got my back. I'll provide either a mace or a flail. Your choice.
Emjay gets a morningstar. Unsure how much she will use it in battle, yet quite certain she wants to shake it around menacingly while spouting devastating insults.
I'm pretty sure Emjay's insults will be enough to vanquish this foe. Still, will ask Mr. Gilham to bring the yellow haired avenger, just in case.
Emjay with a morningstar is like Truman dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; there is nothing else to do. If given the choice, I definitely want the flail, because it looks like a lot more fun. But if Emjay is engaged with a morningstar, then I'm reduced to simply taking post-battle pictures with my flail. The image of her spouting devastaing insults recalls Monty Python and the Holy Grail with the Frenchmen "shouting insults in your general direction", but Emjay would have a lot more spice on her lines. She'd bring the heat, baby. It would be embarassing to see a grown man reduced to tears in her presence, but it's probably the most humane treatment for a closed minded, censorship loving lefty.
Post a Comment