I started my blog years ago because I was so ticked off with the Liberals and where our country was headed. I was appalled by the outright stealing of taxpayers money by Liberals in what we now call Adscam. If Adscam did anything, it motivated the normally silent Conservatives, like me.
I slugged away for a long time, one blog among thousands of others, getting 20 to 30 readers a day, thanks mainly to being on the Free Dominion roll, and the Blogging Tories roll. I spent a few years blogging to mainly myself, and a few dedicated readers, then I made it to what I call the "front page" of the Blogging Tories and my readership increased a hundred fold. That is the power of a dedicated Conservative blogging site, it attracts like people interested in hearing what other Conservatives have to say, but, there is a down side.
Lately my blog actually made it onto the National Post website, and I thank them for that, it was a great honour. The problem is that as soon as a Conservative blogger gets noticed, the lefty trolls come out in full force, leaving trash comments. There are days I don't even want to check my own blog because I see that lefties have linked to a post of mine, and I know the trolls are sure to follow.
I have tried ignoring them, arguing with them, and deleting comments because of swearing. They keep coming back and they never have relevant comments on my actual post, they attack me and my fellow Conservative posters personally. This is what the lefties do best, denigrate those that have opinions that are different from theirs. They try to weaken us by bombarding us with their lefty garbage, and sometimes they succeed, some good Conservatives bloggers have given up posting because it is too much trouble to fight them. Closing down comments is one means to shut them up, but it kills discussion and that is what makes a blog interesting, so it's not an option. Stop blogging? Why let the arrogant, "progressives" win? This is how they play the game, and they are used to winning it, they "protest" or sue anyone who disagrees with them.
What they fail to understand is that blogging has given Conservatives a power they have never had before, their voices are being heard over the MSM lefty tilted news. We do not have to listen to the TV news anymore, we can read the newspaper, then go to blogs to get a new view on the articles, a Conservative view.
So, after much thought, and many slurs and ugly comments from the lefties, I have decided to tell them.....I'm not going anywhere!
Next topics are Sarah Palin, abortion, ugly feminists, and has Bob Rae had a face lift. Other interesting topics will be: how to raise a family while making a huge salary, pickles, perogies and raspberry wine. Followed by, how to compost, capture rain water, and use solar power to grow your tomatoes. Oh, and once in awhile, I will post about how much I respect the job PM Harper is doing for all Canadians, and how lame the Liberals are on real issues that concern real Canadians.
Given that I can not comment on my own blog during work hours, I am counting on my readers to help me support the Conservative view, without getting into personal flame wars. Ignore the trolls.
Facts over emotion.
245 comments:
1 – 200 of 245 Newer› Newest»Hi Hunter. With regard to squelching discussion by deleting comments - I disagree. The abusive trolls do not contribute to discussion so feel free to delete their comments or to block them. They contribute nothing but their own lack of intelligence or rationality. I don't mind somebody disagreeing with me but I do mind people who think that it is their duty to spew unfair criticism and abuse.
You should set your blog to moderation and if you don't get to moderating them until the next day, so be it. Maybe the trolls will get it through their heads that their abuse is not welcome and will not appear.
Keep up the good work, Hunter.
It's a tough call. The left is filled with hate and are toxic as hell. Remember that all the major genocides have been carried out by the left. They kill their own..all for the good of the state of course.
Keep up the good work.
hey watch this
To Taxitalk:
What was the relevance of this clip? A demonstration of liberal activism, which seemed to point out most participants were uninformed and self-absorbed?
Good job Hunter, I am not a regular reader but agree that it is time to stand up to the trolls.
Cheers!
I agree Hunter. You have to develope a bit of a thick skin to be a conservative blogger, more so if you rae a womann I think. I appreciate your work as do many others. Tha you irritate leftie trolls should be worn as a badge of honour. I wish you were in Winnipeg so i could meet you!
Patsplace - you sure hit the nail on the head. Here in Canada, the lefties accuse the CPC of being heartless. Think about it - who killed our health care system just before the baby boom retirement bubble burst? The Libs. Who ruined the Ontario economy? The NDP.
It may not be genocide, but it is still destruction. Count on the left to ruin a good thing and brag about it like it's a good thing.
Ignore the trolls for sure.
Another idea is to start thinking about moving to Wordpress, where you can highlight certain names, email addys etc to be held in moderation, while giving your regular readers free access.
Personally, I would have no problem deleting an ignorant comment. It does nothing to further the discussion.
Hi Hunter -- When you decide to try Word Press, join Joanne and I where we are. You can give me your password and I'll help you find a theme/template that you like and help you set things up.
E-mail me when you are ready and I'll let Cynapse know (Cynics Unlimited). He is our webmaster as we use his server space at no charge. cruxofthematter@ymail.com
Joanne, Crux - you are correct. I like your sites and I agree that deleting ignorant comments only enhances the discussion. Hunter seems to have attracted some deviant commenters who do absolutly nothing but disrupt what could be a productive discussion. Personally, I'd also like to see Gayle banned from our sites because she does nothing but disrupt our discussions although she is not overly abusive like some of Hunter's stalkers.
Hunter - seriously consider moving over to WordPress - it's quite pleasing in terms of format and It isn't necessary to keep logging in to Blogspot each time.
Keep up the good work Hunter. Free speech rules, girl!
Congrats Hunter on "making it". I truly admire those of you who blog as just keeping up with reading the blogs seems to be very time consuming. It is so nice to have somewhere to express the view from the right.
You really have to have a tough skin to blog from the right as it seems the most vitriolic and denigrating comments come from those who call themselves progressive - quite the oxymoron if you ask me as their comments often belie their belief's about themselves.
Even as a commenter, I have been on the receiving end of some pretty nasty name calling (and not only from the left - although he did make an apology - it still doesn't take the sting out and given that he made the comments; he must actually believe what he wrote). Unfortunately, my skin isn't quite as thick as yours and Joanne's and Sandy's and all the other female bloggers I have come to love reading. I spend more time reading than commenting these days. Just so you know that your readership is much higher than even you know.
Keep up the good work, Hunter (and all you other conservative bloggers), we need you!!
It takes huge shoulders to challenge the sarcasm and intent of the trollers. I think that they must be the road ragers and bullies of the blogging community.
One has to wonder though, are any readers, doing what your blog name suggests? Climbing out of the dark? Those are the moderate readers that are worth sharing a conversation with, I think.
The bully bloggers? Let them be intellectually challenged in their sewer world. Bye Bye is my vote.
SQ - you are one of the people who has abused Hunter. Free speech does not mean rudeness is acceptable.
EofE: I never abused Hunter. I challenged her on some of her absurd statements. If she thinks this is abuse, well, there is nothing I can do about it.
BTW. I am not rude -- I am sarcastic. The amount of sarcasm is directly proportionate to the outrageous statement made by Hunter.
Facts over emotion.
Would we have it any other way?
For those interested, Canadian Cynic has a run-down here of what happens when you engage Hunter in good faith.
Rude or civil, it doesn't matter. Hunter expects to demonise and vilify adversaries (using any and all vile lies she's either thought up herself or repeating unexamined) and thinks the rest of us are just supposed to take it.
Well, life doesn't work that way. You wingnuts should be grateful the rest of us are, at worst, only insulting you.
SQ - you are one of the people who has abused Hunter.
What is it with conservatives and lying? Can you simply not stop yourselves anymore or is it a matter of never having been able to recognise the truth in the first place?
Oh boy, Ti-Guy comes out of the woodwork. Good grief - yet another abusive and rude one. Hunter - run for the hills and glom on to Word Press and, please, set it to moderate all comments - even if it takes until the next day.
Hunter ... hear that Sarah Palin has a great moose chili recipe. Wonder if we can get a copy and post it on Ti-guys and cynics blog sites. That would surely give them the runs!!
Friday nights "conservative" funnies still rule (and yes I was warned!!)
"This is what the lefties do best, denigrate those that have opinions that are different from theirs. "
Don't you see the glaring hypocrisy in this statement?
Good grief - yet another abusive and rude one.
Well, at least in my case, you're not lying (although I have respected Hunter's rule about profanity). But you were lying about SQ. Apologise at once for that vicious and vile defamation.
If you "conservatives" think you're going to be free to trot out any and all lies and vilify your adversaries with impunity, you're mistaken.
Blogger LogicallySpeaking said...
"This is what the lefties do best, denigrate those that have opinions that are different from theirs. "
Don't you see the glaring hypocrisy in this statement?
If you would have said " there is .. or I would like to point out ... " I could accept your logical argument BUT "you" denigrated "me" by making it personal!!
Cheers
Hunter, keep up the great work, along with Blue and Crux and others.
Just think, if it wasn't for the trolls we would never know what their sick minds think up. They can't distinguish between truth and what they would like to be the truth. Perhaps that is the reason that the conservatives are winning, the other side is exposing it's hateful self for all to see. I refuse to answer them anymore, just scroll past them on any blog.
As Rush says, it must be awful to be a leftie full of hate, knowing you will wake up in the morning still full of hate for everyone around you. I truly feel sorry for any of their co-worker.
Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but the lefties just abuse this freedom.
Also, the Friday funnies are a great start to a weekend.
Hunter, you rock!
You managed to whip Ti-Guy into a respectable troll....
Bob Rae had a face lift???
So is that the 'face of renewal' for the Liberal party?
An end to the 'sagging fortunes' of the Liberal party?
A real 'lift' for the Liberals?
Apologise at once for that vicious and vile defamation.
Uh, Ti-Guy, on what authority are you ordering me to apologize at once? Vicious and vile defamation - are you serious? Good grief, you folks sure know how to fake indignation.
I hate to stereotype but you left-wingers and liberals sure are blind when it comes to your own behaviour or words. Unbelievable. Ti-Guy, you are the very last person who should be ragging on anybody for viciousness or vileness.
Is it just me or do the lefties and libs not have a really bad habit of calling everybody liars? It seems to be a knee-jerk mantra of that crowd to accuse everybody who doesn't fall into line with them of lying. Amazing.
Teddi - I like the moose chili idea. I liked Sarah Palin - not for VP but for her spunk. She was definitely not prepared for the job but she's pretty spunky - and pretty easy on the eyes, if I dare risking the chauvinist label.
maryt: you are truly "special".
eofe: I accept your apology.
Uh, Ti-Guy, on what authority are you ordering me to apologize at once? Vicious and vile defamation - are you serious? Good grief, you folks sure know how to fake indignation.
At least you're sensate enough to know I'm faking the indignation.
I couldn't care less what an overbearing scold such as yourself and the rest of the shrieking fishwives here care, one way or another, about anything. I've never seen you do anything here but high-five the latest nonsense the illiterate Hunter spews and then get further energised by venting biliously at anyone who deigns to challenger her vilification and defamation.
She was definitely not prepared for the job but she's pretty spunky - and pretty easy on the eyes, if I dare risking the chauvinist label.
Bilious...and creepy.
SQ - I did not apologize but if you read an apology into anything I wrote, what the heck; whatever floats your boat.
Ti-Guy - you show flickers of high intelligence but then you blow it out of the water wish some interesting, to say the least, dialogue after it.
I do sense a contradiction, however. You say that you don't care what I, and others like me, have to say but you very quickly input a comment and you do carry on a virtual conversation with me and others. So, if you don't care...why are you participating? I think that deep down, you do care and you do have things you wish to express but, for some reason, you are unable to express yourself without some degree of negative energy. This is puzzling. It is a shame, really, because I see these glimmers of rational thought and insight but, as I say, those glimmers are quickly and effectively overshadowed by what surrounds them.
Whoops - typo - my bad.
"the water wish some" should read "WITH some..."
Fishwives? Now that is personal.
My theory? If it can be said to a real person in a real room, then say it.
On the otherhand, if the bravery is isolated to staring at a screen and shrilling with 10 fingers, then debate with like kind. Alone and anonymous.
Notice, nothing was personal... there is a concept ?
Ti-guy puffs out his chest and exhales...
"you wingnuts should be grateful the rest of us are, at worst, only insulting you."
sooo ti-guy became tuff-guy?...hahahahaha...back to the cesspool son, where all the tough kids hang out.
as ti-guy's link points out, there have been numerous occasions in which hunter had been engaged in good faith but refused to reciprocate. i only have to witness this a couple of times to realize that there is no point in good-faith engagement.
but i'm always happy to play a game of grabass.
when a lefty like me trolls, you know it's me, because i sign my comments here as i do everywhere else, so i feel no shame in my actions; i've allowed for some level of personal accountability. when a righty trolls, he hides behind a sockpuppet and says the most vile things imaginable.
KEvron
"The left is filled with hate and are toxic as hell."
why would anyone ever want to troll such reasonable people like you?! lol!
KEvron
hi-guy said...
"back to the cesspool son"
see? vile sockpuppetry.
the right is filled with immoral cowards and are dishonest as hell.
KEvron
just out of curiousity, hunter: what's the worst thing i've ever said on your blog? it'd be interesting to compare and contrast.
KEvron
"Now that is personal."
ah, but sweeping, nasty generalizations of lefties ("The left is filled with hate and are toxic as hell") isn't?
your selective vision betrays you for a fraud.
KEvron
Yeh whatever KEV, say you're Cesspool diver, a guy in the know, a go to guy...how about the inside poop of what's going on at the Cesspool these days...you got dish(effluent)?...inquiring minds wanna know...not that I'm a busybody but things like: how's the boy's dementia coming along?,...do you think the cesspool will freeze over this winter?...is ti-guy pumping iron/roids?...you know mundane/everyday stuff...go!...
immoraLOL
There is a Gayle who posts reasonable comment at Canadian Sentinel, is that our Gayle in disguise. If it is she/he has a severe case of split personality.
Stick with it Hunter. I gave myself a fresh start though as a change is as good as a rest. You worked hard to get where you are. The good in people overtakes the bad in them. You have many good people who visit. Never let the trolls get you down.
All in all, an interesting discussion. I might look into Wordpress, it sounds like it gives a blogger more control of comments.
I must admit that posters are respecting my no swearing rule, thanks for that!
Now, if we can discuss the issues and not the people posting, I think we could have some good back and forth discussions.
I like Bec's advise, if you wouldn't say it to a person's face, don't type it into comments.
you've strayed from topic, mahmood, which only serves to undermine hunter's ridiculous assertions.
lol!
KEvron
"Now, if we can discuss the issues and not the people posting"
but "people posting" is the very topic of this thread.
KEvron
I say switch to wordpress, if only to ban Kevron. He is to discussion as a black hole is to all matter beyond the event horizon.
now, now, "raphael" (if that is your real name, and everyone now knows it isn't), hunter has admonished us:
"Now, if we can discuss the issues and not the people posting, I think we could have some good back and forth discussions."
there's a good lad.
KEvron
Thanks alot KEVron the tattletaler...apologies to Hunter and of course being way out of line in asking KEV for the inside dope of what's floating around in the Cesspool...maybe just one nugget KEV?...(leans in and whispers)tell me KEV, just between you and me, there's no one else here, honest...did LULU have another you-know-what?...it's in the vault pal...go, I'm listening.
lol! did i happen to mention "vile sockpuppetry"?
i think i just won the thread. woot on me!
KEvron
Yes KEV yes, you're a winner, a real winner...now back to the Cesspool if I may...you're being a stick in the mud here...I notice ol'Red doesn't dive in at the cesspool as much...the boy and ol'red have a tiff?...over money?...is the boy a tightwad?
I think hunter wins the thread here!
A post about trolls, and this comments thread is practically a compendium of all the usual elements of a flame war. The hilarious part is that the flaming examples are almost entirely provided by her own supporters.
Thank you hunter, great post! It is truly a pleasure to read this.
Hahahahahahahaha!
"you're being a stick in the mud here"
well....
(leans in uncomfortably close and whispers, ever so gently, into mahmood's ear)
word on the street is, "raphael alexander" is a pen name....
KEvron
"the flaming examples are almost entirely provided by her own supporters."
too late; i already won this thread.
it's been my experience that the righty blogs that most decry the lack of civility in discourse are typically the worst offenders.
KEvron
Sorry, had the garlic shrimp, toast and caesar salad for lunch but you're gonna have to lean in closer...did you say ol'red is out on the street?...yikes!
i'll tell you what, mahmood: seeing as it's her blog, if hunter asks me nicely, i'll be happy to divulge everything i know about the folks at canadian cynic.
KEvron
You know KEV, I'm having second thoughts about that...what happens in the Cesspool should most definitely stay in the Cesspool.
cesspLOOL...now gimme some LOL's.
now why would i say anything that wasn't true, mahmood? i'm not a conservative, afterall.
no, what i did say is that "raphael alexander" has been passing himself as raphael alexander, when, in fact, that is not his real name.
we could, if you like, discuss "raphael's" fudiciary woes, and the sofa he's now sleeping on. i figure, as long as i keep donating to rt's blog, your fantasies will likely remain just that.
KEvron
"I'm having second thoughts about that"
lol! plurals are funny!
KEvron
Geez, how did we get sidetracked on ol'red and ralph?...now, gimme some LOL's...
we didn't.
KEvron
KEV?...we need the LOL's...don't get freaky here son, concentrate, now...
freakLOL
"we need the LOL's"
do we?
KEvron
C'mon KEV, be a sport and LOL only the way you can.
spLOLrt
Hunter, delete these wastes of human life now.
ask me nicely.
KEvron
"delete these wastes of human life now."
that's very uncivil of you, "raphael" (if that is etc). jesus doesn't think i'm a waste of life.
KEvron
KEV, are you gonna crank LOL's or not?...if not say so, we've got to move on.
ask me nicely.
KEvron
btw, "raphael": by simply re-booting my modem, i recieve a new ip#, so banning really isn't very effective.
KEvron
er, "receive". "....except after 'c'"
KEvron
i gotta tell you, hunter, that i find these little visits to your blog very therapeutic. thanks.
KEvron
A perfect example to all of CC's university bots reading the comments. This is why the Conservatives are winning, and the lefties are being left (HA) in the dust.
Now don't all of you students have papers you should be writing, or did you come here because CC told you to because you have no ability to think for yourselves? Check out Kevron as a good example of what you can aspire to be. Good luck.
"Personally, I'd also like to see Gayle banned from our sites because she does nothing but disrupt our discussions although she is not overly abusive like some of Hunter's stalkers."
East- it is time for you to get over me. You are starting to sound like Tori with your obsession.
I know what you mean though. People post some completely silly and slanderous nonsense like "judges want to release all sex offenders to the streets" or "progressives do not care about the victims of crime", and when I show up to demonstrate how very silly and totally untruthful those comments are, it seems to set people like you off. Some of you attack me personally, some of you lie about my behaviour and then when called on your lies run away with your tail between your legs (that means you, in case you failed to notice), and some of you (many of you in fact) resort to pretending I said something I did not say in a sad attempt to counter my points.
I have no problems with conservatives - even conservative women (my mother being one). What I cannot stand are people who mindlessly post slanderous comments about things they clearly know nothing about. And in case you are wondering, I have the same problem with liberal and NDP bloggers who post utter baseless nonsense.
"A perfect example to all of CC's university bots reading the comments."
i'm pretty sure mahmood, "raphael", east of eden, nathalie and bec would prefer that you not refer to them as such. better add yourself to that "comments reader" list.
"This is why the Conservatives are winning, and the lefties are being left (HA) in the dust."
i knew there had to be a good reason.
"Now don't all of you students have papers you should be writing"
who are the students here? is it bad to be a student?
"or did you come here because CC told you to because you have no ability to think for yourselves?"
yes.
"Check out Kevron"
fine, but no undressing me with the eyes, folks.
"as a good example of what you can aspire to be."
don't even bother with the aspirations, folks; i'm one of god's originals. a one-of.
"Good luck."
good grief.
KEvron
ps, still waiting for my most vile comment on your blog, hunter. surely, you can recall one or two doozies.
Dear Hunter:
As Ti-Guy so helpfully pointed out much earlier in this thread, you are a liar.
This is not a troll, it is in fact a civil and polite observation that you have posted something that you know full well to be a blatant falsehood by your own admission.
If any of your commenters are capable of addressing this precise issue in a sane, logical and rational way, I would be utterly gobsmacked.
CC
P.S. We already know "mahmood" is incapable of rational discourse, so I'm hoping someone else is capable of stepping up. Now we'll see if anyone here can actually reason.
Go on, Hunter ... surprise me.
The Cesspool boy shakes his anonymous inkblot head and cries in the wilderness...
"This is not a troll, it is in fact a civil and polite observation...blah de blah blah..."
and then(sighs)continues with...
"sane, logical and rational...more blahs(trust me here)..."
all that hooey and I think he's quite capable of more if pressed from a boy that has c**ted and retarded and douche'd and dumb c**ted and f'd this, that and most every BT gal on the blogroll now wants answers and engagement in a "sane, logical and rational way".
...and we won't mention WANDA WATKINS in a sane, logical and rational way, shall we?
so yeh, I'm utterly gobsmacked that no one wants to respond to the Cesspool boy in a sane, logical and rational manner...gobsmacked I tell ya.
now get in the mood, get in the pool and gimme some LOL's...
Not surprisingly, mahmood is utterly incapable of addressing the issue I've presented -- pretty funny for someone who, earlier in this very thread, is encouraging people to concentrate, and not get sidetracked, etc, etc.
Anyone else want to have a go at it? You folks are always claiming such stunning intellectual powers. Feel free to start demonstrating them anytime.
Once again: Hunter is a blatant, bald-faced liar. Discuss.
Uhh Cessy, no one seems interested in taking your bait here sooo maybe it's back to fishing in your Cesspool...I understand the insane, illogical and irrational creatures that float in there are ready to be hooked, gaffed and gutted...a splash of(very sour)lemons and waa laa!...lunch is served...bon appetit' mon ami'.
intecLOLctual
*Sigh*.
Yes, Mahmood, we know you're in over your head here, you've established that. Abundantly.
Now please go back to the kids' table while the grownups have a grownup discussion. That's a good boy.
P.S. Or should I just assume that this is as intellectual as it's going to get, and that I've made my point.
I'm good with that, too.
Oh, thanks for the lunch invite but I'll have to pass, it gets a bit crowded around your table and I like my elbow space...nothing personal Cesspool boy, perhaps another time.
Point made, taken and received.
are we done here?...yeh, I think we're done here.
Don't ignore the "trolls"
Just because someone has a different viewpoint, and they challenge you on something you said, doesn't make them a troll... It makes your blog a nexus of political discussion. This is an opportunity, not a burden.
Sure, ignore the ridiculous and childish posts. But if someone comes on your blog and challenges you on something you said, don't immediately slip into the comfortable mode of ad-hominem attacks. Branding someone as a "lefty" because they disagree with something you said is exceedingly immature.
If they make a valid case, you would be wrong not to introspect a little and see whether someone who disagrees with you is actually right.
You owe that to yourself, and you owe that to your readers.
It makes your blog a nexus of political discussion.
On this blog? Among "Conservatives?" Not a chance. Even a credentialed, PhD in education like Sandy Crux up there ignores the vile lies, vilification and defamation if it comes from a useful id...er...fellow partisan.
All "Conservatives" are morally bankrupt. There is no good faith dialogue possible with them. As much as they'll permit it, the rest of us should simply continue to challenge their vile lies and grotesque defamation.
Which isn't easy...most of them have comment moderation on and refuse to post robust challenges, no matter how civil.
Ti-guy:
on this blog? why not? if Hunter wants to rise to the challenge, instead of residing inside an echo chamber, she can if she wants.
Wishful thinking? Maybe, probably, no, who knows.
Hunter, challenge yourself to step outside your comfort zone and introspect on your own values and beliefs.
"Remember that all the major genocides have been carried out by the left. They kill their own..all for the good of the state of course."
The Nazis were leftists? Huh?
The horrors currently occurring in Darfur are being carried out by socialists?
The complete destruction of American native culture and most of its people was carried out by Communists, even though the majority of that occurred before Marx was even born?
It would appear that someone has come up with a meaning for the term 'leftist' that I hadn't considered before.
ROTFL
Oh yeah, if there's anything that Canadian Cynic and his clown car brigade are known for, it's honest and open discussion.
You want to accuse Hunter of being a liar, CC? A great many of us know full well about the numerous lies you spread about people who show up on your site with unwelcome facts.
"it's been my experience that the righty blogs that most decry the lack of civility in discourse are typically the worst offenders."
This from the very individual who once wrote "taze Wanda Watkins and her grief"?
(Then later lied about it.)
Yeah, buddy. You really have a shitload of credibility on that particular topic.
I have the same problem with liberal and NDP bloggers who post utter baseless nonsense.
All right, Gayle, if I see you taking the foamers to task on Garth's blog, perhaps I'll take you seriously. However, other than seeing you tell Garth that you sent money to his campaign, I have not seen you taking on the liars who comment on Garth's blog nor have I seen you take Garth task for some of the half-truths or innuendo I have read on his blog. His blog is a lot tamer, now that he lost the election but where were you when he was slandering Lisa Raitt, where were you when he and his supporters referred to the CPC as being angry old white guys, when he and his supporters made out like Harper hated...well, everybody.
There you go, Gayle. On which Lib and NDP blogs do you comment - I would like to see you take on their untruths, as well.
When the going gets tough, the "Conservatives" get to lyin'.
Reading Ti-guy's comments is like having a slow motion stroke.
And yet Ti-Guy has always dismissed his master's lies so casually.
What else do you really expect from someone incapable of thinking for himself?
"Reading Ti-guy's comments is like having a slow motion stroke."
Obviously a reference to my comment on CC
You tip your hand that you read CC, and the comments to boot. Why don't you have the guts to comment then?
This blog IS like a slow motion stroke, the content and the comments alike.
A whole lot of closed-mindedness.
ROTFL
Right. And if anything characterizes Canadian Cynic, it's "open minded", isn't it?
Hey, anyone else remember when Cynic wrote off the suffering of New Orleans residents during Hurricane Katrina because they were (god forbid) Americans?
I remember that.
CC has its problems, and I've voiced my opinion of it there. We're talking about this blog. If you want to talk about CC, why don't you go there and post your thoughts?
"CC has its problems"
Holy shit can you ever say that again.
And yet, here you are -- obviously a fully-fledged member of the clown car brigade -- who apparently is so clueless as to not be able to figure out that, even as you take your marching orders from Cynic, you allow him to continue trampling progressive values while claiming to be a progressive all the while.
And the best thing you can think of to do with your time is be over here badgering Hunter?
I'd suggest you take some time out to get your head on straight.
patrick ross - perfect example of an ad hominem attack. Are you aware of such logical fallacies?
You assume, wrongly, that I am part of what you deem a "clown car brigade" that marches to the order of CC. Your assumption is completely false, and if you knew anything about me you would know how ridiculous your assertion is. In fact, if you did any research you would see I've posted more criticism than praise on CC's blog.
Here I am, succumbing to your distraction technique, so I'll summarize:
I'm not here badgering Hunter. I don't know what gave you that opinion. I'm offering tips for how she can improve the level of discourse offered by her blog.
But by all means, continue shooting the messenger and ignore the message. I can't stop you.
Help me out here Richards, you seem to be a bright light...the Cesspool boy babbles on his site for Hunter to "shut the "f" up" and calls her a "lying turd", then proceeds to stand in her living room(site) dripping effluent demanding a "sane, logical and rational" dialogue on something(?) she's posted...now I don't know about you pal but that has to be chapter (1) in the "You Gotta Be Kidding Me" book...do you really think that's gonna happen?
I believe I've made my point. I threw out a specific issue for intellectual discussion, and all the regulars here pretty much wet their pants running in the opposite direction. Not one person addressed my original accusation.
Thanks for playing, kids. We must try this again when you're all grown up. Say in five to ten years.
Yeh Cessy, that point has been a least a 1000 times...you're nuts.
mahmood - I agree with you... It seems hypocritical to demand logical debate when you show up and spit in someone's face and drop feces on the carpet. Hence, one of the big problems I have with CC.
Someone has to take the high road though, otherwise everyone will be covered in feces and spittle.
ROTFL, Peirce,
You call it an "ad hominem attack". I call it accurate.
Let's stop and go over this for all of 30 seconds here, because I don't think you've stopped to think for even half that since all of this nonsense started.
First off, we have Canadian Cynic singling out Hunter for attack.
Then, oh-so-magically, we have you over here badgering Hunter. And I'd like to emphasize that particular word: badgering.
You suggest you're "offering tips for how she can improve the level of discourse offered by her blog."
Yet you're running with the very same people who have drug the level of discourse in the Canadian blogosphere to ever-sinking depths.
Let me put it to you this way: when it comes down to "improving the level of discourse", anyone who chooses to comment on that particular cesspool has no credibility at all.
"I believe I've made my point. I threw out a specific issue for intellectual discussion, and all the regulars here pretty much wet their pants running in the opposite direction. Not one person addressed my original accusation."
ROTFL
Once again, I'll remind everyone here of the hilarity of you, of all the contemptible pieces of garbage in the world, branding someone else a liar.
Uh, word of advice to the uninitiated: Patrick Ross has many screws loose. I won't get into the various tedious dramas that have swirled around him in the past, but I'll just point out one thing....he deletes challenging comments (no matter how civil) on his own blog when he bothers to moderate them through at all. And he won't admit it if you bring it up. In fact, he'll remain completely silent when his own, boundless and appalling mendacity is pointed out to him.
Google him. It's really quite eye-opening.
Pathological liar. Engage at your own risk.
What happened to intellectual debate?
...it's on the bottom of the Cesspool...squish your toes a bit...feel it yet?
Patrick Ross -
You are once again practicing ad hominem attacks. You also demonstrate another logical fallacy, which I will clarify for you:
You claim I run "with the very same people who have drug the level of discourse in the Canadian blogosphere to ever-sinking depths." Your argument has a serious flaw.
For all CC's flaws, there are gem posts in there that hit the nail squarely on the head. You have to be discerning with what you read and accept. I do it with CC, I do it with every blog I read.
Furthermore, I have now posted roughly the same amount of comments on Hunter's blog as I have on CC. By your reasoning, am I running with Hunter now? You're demonstrating a classic associational fallacy in logic, and I hope you can see that.
I will admit I found Hunter's blog through CC. However, I'm glad I did, because otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Yes, a big flame war wouldn't be complete without PR waddling in to spew.
And of course folks, take note of who is following Hunter's no swearing rule, and who is not. Just search the thread for your favourite swear words and you will see who is uncivil (twice) and who is not.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
...it's on the bottom of the Cesspool...squish your toes a bit...feel it yet?
Ok so this place is a cesspool and if I did deep enough then I'll find actual discourse?
Naw I'm too lazy for that, thanks for the offer though!
That's a lie, Ti-Guy, and you know it.
Anybody who wants to see how critical comments are treated at the Nexus, they may feel free to be my guest.
So tell us more about "pathological liars", Ti-Guy. Please, you'd know the subject well, seeing one in the mirror every morning.
"I have now posted roughly the same amount of comments on Hunter's blog as I have on CC. By your reasoning, am I running with Hunter now? You're demonstrating a classic associational fallacy in logic, and I hope you can see that."
Nonsense.
The question, in this case, is: what is the motivating factor in your commentary on each blog?
Well, there are number of things we can safely conclude. First off, we know you're a commenter at the Sycophantic Groupthink Temple.
Secondly, you started commenting here after Cynic singled it out for attack, knowing that his cronies would heed his call.
There's no "associational fallacy in logic" here, Peirce. Cynic targeted Hunter for attack, and you've obliged him.
I hope you don't honestly think everyone is stupid enough to buy your nonsense.
PR, your assertion of "Nonsense" does not make it so.
Instead, the Conservative way would be to look at who is respectful and follows the rules and who is not.
I cannot recall ever having seen you comment on this blog, and I have followed it off and on for a year.
So on your first outing here, you show disrespect to Hunter by breaking her clearly given rules. Not once, but TWICE.
And you are the only one in this 100 plus comment thread to do so.
If you cannot even follow a simple rule and be civilized when the operator of the blog specifically asked you to, why should your views be given any credence at all?
You are simply not credible.
And just for the record, I went ahead and took Ti-Guy's advice on this one, and googled myself.
The Nexus was the third hit in. I'm glad to see Ti-Guy believes my blog is "really quite eye-opening" -- apparently even for the ideologically blind folded.
"You are simply not credible."
So says mr nothing-to-say.
Let me ask you this: are you still supportive of assaults on the elderly?
Talk about simply not credible.
As much as Patrick would love us to make this all about him, it's not, so let's give him all the attention he deserves (none) and address the topic at hand... um what is the topic at hand?
Patrick Ross -
My motivating factor for contributing on this blog is to engage in political dialogue, not to attack. I grow weary of posting on liberal blogs, so I come to conservative blogs to debate. I am doing that now, in a civil manner, which you cannot claim yourself.
And yes, you are exhibiting an associational fallacy in logic. Your inability to recognize it does not change that fact.
The timing of my posting is immaterial, the content of my posting is the issue. How have I attacked Hunter in any way? Yes, the "slow motion stroke" comment was lowbrow, but it was a comment on the state of the comments section, not on the blog itself. And I stand by that comment, as you are proving it.
Let me ask you this: are you still supportive of assaults on the elderly?
Less supportive than you are of murdering abortion doctors.
And you remain the ONLY person in this thread to spit in Hunter's face by disobeying her main rule for commenting here.
If you can't even do that, why should you expect anyone to believe you can put a rational argument together? Because you clearly can't. Just attacking others. Maybe that works for you in fight bars, but not here.
"And yes, you are exhibiting an associational fallacy in logic. Your inability to recognize it does not change that fact."
Clearly, you're all too oblivious to your lack of ability to convince anyone other than yourself.
And, simply, no. The timing of your post is not immaterial. It reveals to the rest of us the venue through which you were alerted to Hunter's blog, and even shows us who provided you with the "closed minded" narrative you've decided to peddle here.
Meanwhile, we find you cozying up, through this post, to individuals such as Ti-Guy, who are only here to spout vapid accusations of dishonesty -- ironically lying in the process.
You can try and defend your "slow motion stroke" comment all you want. An attack is an attack, and it merely reveals for us your true intentions for being here.
The Nexus was the third hit in. I'm glad to see Ti-Guy believes my blog is "really quite eye-opening" -- apparently even for the ideologically blind folded.
What a laugh! PR, do you have any idea why your blog is the third hit? Try to think back, to when CC was pointing out that any prospective employer would google your name. I recall googling your name then, and you were not way up there.
We set up bots to search for your name repeatedly, you silly cretin! You are the third hit on google because of a rather large network of computers, fool! You didn't think it was actual people looking for you did you?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
"Less supportive than you are of murdering abortion doctors."
Which is a lie.
So, let's recap here.
We have Ti-Guy, accusing Hunter of lying, then lying himself.
We have Liberal Supporter -- known for any number of reasons aside from his ability (actually lack thereof) to put forth a rational argument -- lying.
We have Pearce Richards, insisting that he's just here to raise the level of discourse, then lying about where he was alerted to Hunter's blog in the first place.
And these people imagine I'll take lectures on putting forth rational arguments from them?
It is to laugh. And I do.
*yawn* (I suppose this classifies me as a troll but I find flame wars boring and let's be honest to ourselves, this IS a flame war. Congratulations Hunter)
Does this mean that Canadian Cynic was right and that we cannot discourse without it degenerating into a flame war?
Hmmm
"We set up bots to search for your name repeatedly, you silly cretin! You are the third hit on google because of a rather large network of computers, fool! You didn't think it was actual people looking for you did you?"
Awwwwww, you did that just for me? I'm honoured.
The interesting thing about this is that, considering your master's insistence that this will somehow prevent me from finding work, you've failed spectacularly considering how obscenely well-employed I am right now.
Meanwhile, the Nexus is, what, the third highest hit for one of the most common names in the world?
That's adorable. And considering the motivation for your little enterprise, just goes to remind everyone here about the depths of your malice, and that of your comrades in the clown car brigade.
Hey, Pearce -- are you sure these clowns are really the crowd you want to be running with?
"Does this mean that Canadian Cynic was right and that we cannot discourse without it degenerating into a flame war?"
No. It just confirms that Cynic's cronies will do what everyone, at this point, knows they will, and start a flame war at his command.
Patrick Ross
I don't need to prove your associational fallacy to anyone, it is right there for everyone to see.
I STATED that I came here through CC, so why do you think this is some huge revelation? You constantly come back to your associational fallacy while at the same time saying you're not doing it. You've painted every reader of CC with the same brush, which is wrong-headed and ill-advised. It does not matter how I got here, what matters is why, and what I've said. Concentrate on the message, not on the messenger or the blog he linked through from.
How am I "cozying up ... to individuals such as Ti-Guy"? I would love to hear you explain that. The "attack" was as much on other CC'ers for their posts as it was on you and other conservatives lowering the level of discourse.
And we have PR, making wild assertions, while the only thing that can actually be verified is that he is the ONLY one swearing in this thread. Twice.
PR, if you did not support murdering abortion doctors, my support for assaulting the elderly would still be less than that. Because I do not support assaulting the elderly, and have never made statements that could cause one to believe I do. You on the other hand would only supply links to your blog, and not simply give a yes or no answer. I asked you about eighteen times, and it was only after that many requests did I get something other than a link, even though it was a pretty weaselly answer. Not an unequivocal one. Since I have given an unequivocal answer, I am being truthful that I support assaulting the elderly less than you support murdering abortion doctors. Since you won't give a clear yes or no unequivocal answer.
And if you think I am going to follow a link to your blog to read more fact free assertion and weasel words, guess again. I have a bot for visiting there. It has the advantage that it does not actually comprehend your words and so it does not have to be subjected to the sheer idiocy that is found in abundance there.
paladiea, this is a thread about trolls. I noted that this appears to be "a compendium of all the usual elements of a flame war". I spoke too soon, however. I stand corrected that it was not a complete compendium at that time.
With PR showing up in all his finery, I think the catalog is much more complete now, don't you? We only need PR's standard threats of violence which usually happen sooner or later and we'll have the whole set.
No. It just confirms that Cynic's cronies will do what everyone, at this point, knows they will, and start a flame war at his command.
Actually it seems that you started this war. And I quote:
"You want to accuse Hunter of being a liar, CC? A great many of us know full well about the numerous lies you spread about people who show up on your site with unwelcome facts."
To which CC did do, however he asked to be refuted with facts instead of calling names.
This:
"This from the very individual who once wrote "taze Wanda Watkins and her grief"?
(Then later lied about it.)
Yeah, buddy. You really have a shitload of credibility on that particular topic."
Does not count as a factual and well reasoned rebuttal to CC's accusation.
Further evidence that you continue to propagate this flame war is your insistence to bring in individuals (actual or not) positions on other topics that do not pertain to the post at hand.
I suggest you reconsider the statement that it's "CC's cronies" that start flame wars.
That's nonsense, Pearce. Insisting otherwise over and over again will never change that.
And furthermore, no. It isn't at all unfair to paint all the CCers with the same brush. Those who comment, overwhelmingly approvingly, on a blog that devotes itself to attacking people deserve no distinction between themselves and the purveyors of political hatred.
Those who obey the marching orders issued by the purveyors of political hatred deserve no distinction, either.
I would never say that you're either with me or against me, Pearce. But if you're with them, you're clearly with them.
And you clearly are.
If you aren't comfortable with being with them, then I'd suggest you distance yourself from them.
"paladiea, this is a thread about trolls. I noted that this appears to be "a compendium of all the usual elements of a flame war". I spoke too soon, however. I stand corrected that it was not a complete compendium at that time.
Fair enough, but I feel obliged to play the "can't we all just get along" character in this because I like to have my faith in humanity validated sometimes.
Alas, another disappointment...
I would never say that you're either with me or against me, Pearce.
Oh! There's the first shoe!
Will we get our complete catalog of trollery all in thread?
Fair enough, but I feel obliged to play the "can't we all just get along" character in this because I like to have my faith in humanity validated sometimes.
That is an important part of the cast of characters in a flame war.
Alas, another disappointment...
The real uplift to me is seeing most of the characters resume being normal in another thread. It is only the true troll that never veers from being, well, a troll. Such as our swearing buddy here today, as I have seen many times on a consistent basis.
Patrick Ross -
"I would never say that you're either with me or against me, Pearce."
There's your THIRD logical fallacy, using a false dichotomy. But hey, at least you spelled my name right this time.
The real uplift to me is seeing most of the characters resume being normal in another thread. It is only the true troll that never veers from being, well, a troll. Such as our swearing buddy here today, as I have seen many times on a consistent basis.
Hmm I never thought about it that way before. Enlightenment in the most unlikely of places. :)
"
PR, if you did not support murdering abortion doctors, my support for assaulting the elderly would still be less than that. Because I do not support assaulting the elderly, and have never made statements that could cause one to believe I do. You on the other hand would only supply links to your blog, and not simply give a yes or no answer. I asked you about eighteen times, and it was only after that many requests did I get something other than a link, even though it was a pretty weaselly answer. Not an unequivocal one. Since I have given an unequivocal answer, I am being truthful that I support assaulting the elderly less than you support murdering abortion doctors. Since you won't give a clear yes or no unequivocal answer."
That's nonsense and, once again, you're lying.
My answer to your question stated that those who murder abortion clinic doctors are criminals at best, and terrorists at worst.
That answer is as unequivocal as it gets. Only someone motivated to not accept that answer, or someone hopelessly stupid, could fail to see that. You may take your pick of which you are.
Yet you, like the intellectual coward that you are, insisted on asking that question over and over despite the fact that it had already been answered.
I will never give you a "yes or no" answer to that question. First off, a simple "no" will never convey the depth of my disgust with people who commit such acts. But the most compelling reason why I'll forever deny you a "Yes or no" answer?
You simply don't deserve one, one way or the other.
"There's your THIRD logical fallacy, using a false dichotomy. But hey, at least you spelled my name right this time."
Evidently, not only can you not properly define a logical fallacy, but you can't read, either.
This entire argument is one large logical fallacy.
Why? Because it's irrelevant as to what CC and the people who read his blog are up to over there, the point is that CC asked if we could have a reasonable discussion based on logic and facts. In fact CC echoed the sentiment expressed by Hunter.
To bring CC's actions on his own blog into this discussion is an appeal to emotion and not to the facts that CC has put in his accusation that Hunter is being dishonest.
But of course that's the purpose of a flame war, to derail actual discussion...
"I feel obliged to play the "can't we all just get along" character in this because I like to have my faith in humanity validated sometimes."
While impotently offering excuse for the lies of Canadian Cynic -- an individual who casts doubt on the faith in humanity of any rational person.
I'd suggest you want to rethink that.
That's nonsense and, once again, you're lying.
Standard PR bombastic lead off. (yawn). Usually there is bold or italics, I suppose he is in a hurry today.
My answer to your question stated that those who murder abortion clinic doctors are criminals at best, and terrorists at worst.
Yes, you did cough up that answer after being asked, every time you appeared, at least eighteen times.
That answer is as unequivocal as it gets. Only someone motivated to not accept that answer, or someone hopelessly stupid, could fail to see that. You may take your pick of which you are.
Standard PR fare. The point is I had to ask you many times, each of which you said you had "already answered" and provided a link to a massive post on your own blog, instead of the simple answer you finally provided.
Yet you, like the intellectual coward that you are, insisted on asking that question over and over despite the fact that it had already been answered.
Like the person with something to hide you are, you kept obfuscating and I was tenacious, hounding you until you finally gave some semblance of an answer. You're a student journalist, aren't you? You should understand staying on the story.
I will never give you a "yes or no" answer to that question. First off, a simple "no" will never convey the depth of my disgust with people who commit such acts. But the most compelling reason why I'll forever deny you a "Yes or no" answer?
You came close enough for me, though you are too obtuse to realize it. Yet you decided to re-open the whole mess by asking if I support assaulting the elderly. Completely off the topic here, except it is another example of the trollery you engage in so regularly so it is actually on this thread's topic. Since I am clear and unequivocal that I do not support assaulting the elderly, and always have been, unlike yourself who had to be asked eighteen times, I can reasonably say I am less supportive of assaulting the elderly than you are of murdering abortion doctors.
And this, for our Trollery Encyclopedia, is an example of responding to a hairsplitting troll with more of the same back.
You simply don't deserve one, one way or the other.
And PR closes with one of his standard sneers.
While impotently offering excuse for the lies of Canadian Cynic -- an individual who casts doubt on the faith in humanity of any rational person.
I'd suggest you want to rethink that.
Be a dear, prove to me that Canadian Cynic is or was being dishonest. And do point out about what he was being dishonest about.
Patrick Ross -
False Dichotomy - The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, or bifurcation) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Painting me with the rest of the CC'ers and saying I'm with "them" over and over with no room for there to be any other option is a fairly clear example of a false dichotomy.
You ignore the fact that someone can read a blog, comment on it, and still disapprove of the methods and message of the blog, when circumstances call for it. By ignoring this, you are making yourself look exceedingly foolish, and you have no ground to stand on to argue otherwise.
You ignore the fact that someone can read a blog, comment on it, and still disapprove of the methods and message of the blog, when circumstances call for it.
Not to mention that you can follow the plainly stated rules of this blog. Even CC has come here and refrained from swearing. Only PR has been swearing, twice, in this thread.
Correction, three times, with two borderline swear words. Quoting someone else (who has never said those words here) doesn't change that.
Hahahahahahahaha!
"Painting me with the rest of the CC'ers and saying I'm with "them" over and over with no room for there to be any other option is a fairly clear example of a false dichotomy."
Once again, you're trying to argue against the obvious facts.
What do we have here?
We have you arriving here after Cynic targeted Hunter for attack.
We have you mimicking Cynic's own demonstrably ridiculous narrative (demonstrably ridiculous considering the source).
We have your "slow motion stroke" comment at CC's blog.
I'm not saying that there's no range of options but for you to be with them or against them.
But you are clearly with them -- you've demonstrated this through your actions.
Despite whether or not you'd like these things to be relevant, they are. Insisting they're irrelevant isn't going to change that.
So you can whine about a "false dichotomy" all you want. A PHD in philosophy isn't necessary to recognize your assertions as sheer nonsense.
Do you stop to think about these things for so much as 30 seconds before you say them?
I do, I could ask you the same question.
Again, it's irrelevant what Canadian Cynic has said about Hunter in this thread. Bringing them up is not a factual or logical rebuttal to the Canadian Cynic's accusation that Hunter is being dishonest. You can see that right?
And you honestly expect us to believe that Cynic is the slightest bit interested in "rational discussion"?
Canadian Cynic has never proven himself capable of rational discussion. He's proven the exact opposite time and time and time again.
Yes I expect you to believe that Canadian Cynic is capable of rational discussion. The fact that he calls people names does not mean that he is incapable of not doing so. In fact he laid out his reasons for thinking that Hunter is dishonest in his post.
By the way, I don't think that Obama musing about NAFTA counts as much of a smackdown since he's not, you know in power yet.
I forgot to put the most important part:
The fact that you continue to protest how incapable Canadian Cynic is of rational discourse while failing to adhere to it yourself reeks of your fear that you will lose in a rational discourse with him.
Patrick Ross
"But you are clearly with them -- you've demonstrated this through your actions."
How? Which actions? The "slow motion stroke" comment? I've already explained that. If you don't want to accept my explanation, that's your prerogative.
My actions in this thread and in all my comments speak for themselves, while yours show you to be an uncompromising, highly biased person wholly incapable of entering into rational dialogue without poisoning the well in regards to your opponents and regressing into childish ad-hominems.
"How? Which actions? The "slow motion stroke" comment? I've already explained that."
To any rational person's satisfaction.
"If you don't want to accept my explanation, that's your prerogative."
You'll find that a great many people will exercise just such a prerogative.
"My actions in this thread and in all my comments speak for themselves,"
Indeed, they do. Cynic commanded that a swarm coalesce around Hunter's blog post, and you joined the swarm.
Your actions in this threat speak for themselves.
"while yours show you to be an uncompromising, highly biased person wholly incapable of entering into rational dialogue without poisoning the well in regards to your opponents and regressing into childish ad-hominems."
That's nonsense. Just because someone won't accept your pitiful excuses, rationalizations, and dishonesty doesn't make them "incapable of entering into rational dialogue".
I don't honestly believe you were ever interested in rational dialogue. Either that, or you share the Canadian Cynic definition of "rational dialogue", which is as far from the genuine article as one can get.
I don't honestly believe you were ever interested in rational dialogue. Either that, or you share the Canadian Cynic definition of "rational dialogue", which is as far from the genuine article as one can get.
Personally I think Pearce has been exemplary in his patience and civility with you Patrick. You however have not been very reciprocative.
That's unfortunate. By your standard of logic that makes you incapable of rational discourse as well.
The astonishingly retarded Paladiea is one ignorant t**t.
Soo Pal., wanna have a sane, logical and rational discussion with me...go ahead sweetie, pick the topic and we'll get at 'er.
"The astonishingly retarded Paladiea is one ignorant t**t.
Soo Pal., wanna have a sane, logical and rational discussion with me...go ahead sweetie, pick the topic and we'll get at 'er.
Clever. Just because I may not want to debate you after that remark mahmood doesn't mean you're incapable of rational discourse.
Which is why all this protesting is irrelevant. If hunter isn't interested in dialogue, she can say so. Making fun of CC and any people who happen to come across his blog is counter productive.
"Personally I think Pearce has been exemplary in his patience and civility with you Patrick. You however have not been very reciprocative."
I'm not prepared to "reciprocative" with people whose intentions I doubt.
As for being civil, weren't you the one who was basically arguing that someone's incivility isn't relevant to the discussion, as is merely an appeal to emotion?
Before you answer that dishonestly, I'll answer it for you (since this is the only way this question will be answered honestly): yes. Yes, you were.
As for being civil, weren't you the one who was basically arguing that someone's incivility isn't relevant to the discussion, as is merely an appeal to emotion?
No my complete argument was that dragging someone's incivility from another thread to this one without any context is an appeal to emotion, and irrelevant.
However anything said in this tread is fair game.
Are we done here now?...yup I think we're done here.
"Are we done here now?...yup I think we're done here."
Not quite.
"Making fun of CC and any people who happen to come across his blog is counter productive."
Is it only making fun of CC and "any people who happen to come across his blog" counter productive? Or is it making fun of people which is counter productive?
If the latter is the case, then I'd wonder where your criticisms of Kevron would happen to be.
Is it only making fun of CC and "any people who happen to come across his blog" counter productive? Or is it making fun of people which is counter productive?
If the latter is the case, then I'd wonder where your criticisms of Kevron would happen to be."
I wasn't aware that I had to criticize everyone in the thread. I however wouldn't object if someone were to take him to task concerning civility.
Regardless, Kevron isn't here right now. So why are we talking about him?
"No my complete argument was that dragging someone's incivility from another thread to this one without any context is an appeal to emotion, and irrelevant."
You, like Pearce, have a real gift for nonsense.
You tried to make the argument that Cynic was only interested in rational discussion. Yet he's never been interested in that before, and based on his previous track record, a person has every reason to doubt that he's interested in it now.
Furthermore, it isn't as if those comments previously mentioned were isolated incidents. Indeed, they've been rather thematic, and are demonstrative of his intentions.
The only reason you're insisting his previous comments are irrelevant is because you want them to be. Again, you wanting them to be irrelevant doesn't make it so.
"I wasn't aware that I had to criticize everyone in the thread. I however wouldn't object if someone were to take him to task concerning civility.
Regardless, Kevron isn't here right now. So why are we talking about him?"
You're responsible for maintaining consistency in your arguments. You can't focus on the vapid ridicule lobbed by one individual and dismiss that lobbed by another and expect to be taken seriously.
"You, like Pearce, have a real gift for nonsense."
If no one's making sense Patrick, perhaps the problem lies with you?
"You tried to make the argument that Cynic was only interested in rational discussion. Yet he's never been interested in that before, and based on his previous track record, a person has every reason to doubt that he's interested in it now."
I never said he was only interested in rational discussion. I merely said he was capable of it. And in this thread he extended an olive branch (albeit rather crudely).
On the other hand you've been making the case that CC is incapable of said rational discourse. I reject that premise, and you haven't been able to objectively prove that he is indeed not capable of said discourse.
"The only reason you're insisting his previous comments are irrelevant is because you want them to be. Again, you wanting them to be irrelevant doesn't make it so."
It's not because I want them to be, it's because they ARE.
However, please, explain how they are relevant.
"You're responsible for maintaining consistency in your arguments. You can't focus on the vapid ridicule lobbed by one individual and dismiss that lobbed by another and expect to be taken seriously."
My arguments are very consistent. Just because I wasn't here when Kevron was doesn't mean that I don't disapprove of his actions.
And the swearing score results just in:
PR: 3 swear words, 2 semi swear words
Everyone else: 0 swear words, 0 semi swear words.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the PR autoresponse bot system will be going off line for routine maintenance in a while.
Thank you for participating in this latest testing of the PR bot. I think you'll agree this version has improved capacity for channel changing, argumentative baiting, cognitive dissonance, and incessant repeating of the talking points fed into it. We still have a couple of bugs in the decorum submodule because it still swears, but we're quite proud of the enhanced ability to take words out of context and throw them back at the speaker, resulting in a most effective simulation. It often fools many people for a time, and we hope one day it will be ready to pass an extended Turing test.
Thank you, and good night!
"I never said he was only interested in rational discussion. I merely said he was capable of it. And in this thread he extended an olive branch (albeit rather crudely).
On the other hand you've been making the case that CC is incapable of said rational discourse. I reject that premise, and you haven't been able to objectively prove that he is indeed not capable of said discourse."
Wait -- I want to get this straight.
Do you honestly believe Cynic's typical standard of discourse demonstrates ability for rational discourse?
Clearly, you have a very bizarre definition of that.
"Do you honestly believe Cynic's typical standard of discourse demonstrates ability for rational discourse?
Clearly, you have a very bizarre definition of that."
No, I believe that it DOES NOT demonstrate an inability for rational discourse.
There's a difference you know.
Patrick Ross
"I'm not prepared to [be] "reciprocative" with people whose intentions I doubt."
I have given you no reason to doubt my intentions except the fact I linked to this post through CC. Call the press, it's the crime of the century. You've done nothing but attack me in lieu of actually discussing anything of substance, particularly my original point:
If someone you don't like makes a valid case, you would be wrong not to introspect a little and see whether someone who disagrees with you is actually right.
Rational people would suggest that the level of discourse one typically offers is an indication of their capability.
Few rational people would suggest that the level of discourse they fail to offer is an indication they are capable of offering it.
In other words, if one never offers rational discourse, it's fallacious to insist they can.
Patrick Ross
"In other words, if one never offers rational discourse, it's fallacious to insist they can."
There is irony in this statement... If you would introspect on your actions in this thread, you would see it.
"Rational people would suggest that the level of discourse one typically offers is an indication of their capability."
Not necessarily. As in the case with someone with a themed blog.
"Few rational people would suggest that the level of discourse they fail to offer is an indication they are capable of offering it."
This isn't true either. Just because someone doesn't do something, doesn't mean they're incapable of it.
"In other words, if one never offers rational discourse, it's fallacious to insist they can."
I have to disagree. As in a court of law, I need a demonstration that Canadian Cynic resorts to name calling and incivility without provocation in the midst of a rational discussion in order to convince me that he is incapable of said discourse.
There's my burden of proof Patrick, can you meet it?
"I have to disagree. As in a court of law, I need a demonstration that Canadian Cynic resorts to name calling and incivility without provocation in the midst of a rational discussion in order to convince me that he is incapable of said discourse."
I forgot to add:
And even then you would have to show me a consistent pattern of such events in order to determine a pattern.
"If someone you don't like makes a valid case, you would be wrong not to introspect a little and see whether someone who disagrees with you is actually right."
Under many circumstances, you'd be correct.
But, as I've said, your commenting relationship with the Canadian Cynic blog has utterly crushed your credibility. Though we know you'll never admit it, we know exactly what your intentions are here, and they certainly aren't what you say they are.
When something looks like a chicken, smells like a chicken, and sounds like a chicken, it's not terribly hard to figure out that it's a chicken.
I don't think that anyone who dares disagree with a particular blog is a troll. But when someone's been targeted by an individual who has a large number of such individuals who do exactly what they say -- as is the case for Hunter -- one should be excused for deciding to simply ignore those particular individuals.
You, however, simply don't satisfy my expectations of someone who's happened along to offer respectful, civil discourse. You are here through and at the behest of, someone who specializes in the polar opposite of that.
If you were willing to distance yourself permanently from that cesspool, I'd be able to trust you, just a little. But you won't, so I really can't.
"But, as I've said, your commenting relationship with the Canadian Cynic blog has utterly crushed your credibility. Though we know you'll never admit it, we know exactly what your intentions are here, and they certainly aren't what you say they are."
That doesn't factor into the strength of his argument. If anyone (even you) had a solid case for any point you debate I would be inclined to believe you, regardless of your associations.
"This isn't true either. Just because someone doesn't do something, doesn't mean they're incapable of it."
But, once again, it doesn't make is any more fallacious to assume that they can.
You remember what happens when you assume something, don't you?
"I have to disagree. As in a court of law, I need a demonstration that Canadian Cynic resorts to name calling and incivility without provocation in the midst of a rational discussion in order to convince me that he is incapable of said discourse."
First off, this is not a court of law.
Secondly, I reject the premise of your argument.
Third, I've demonstrated the typically uncivil nature of Canadian Cynic's discourse -- even in this thread, where you would like everyone to believe that he's been civil, all he's done is call Hunter a liar. That's far from civil.
You, on the other hand, have yet to demonstrate that Canadian Cynic has ever been civil. About anything.
"Themed blog" or not, the proof is in the pudding. I'd daresay you need to produce some proof of your claims, instead of simply rejecting the proof offered by others.
"That doesn't factor into the strength of his argument. If anyone (even you) had a solid case for any point you debate I would be inclined to believe you, regardless of your associations."
Evidently not. Canadian Cynic's track record in the blogosphere speaks for itself. You seem to be one of only a handful of people who don't understand this.
"But, once again, it doesn't make is any more fallacious to assume that they can.
You remember what happens when you assume something, don't you?"
I think it's more of an assumption to assume that someone is incapable of something without a demonstration, or a confession.
"First off, this is not a court of law."
No it's not. But I said my burden of proof was similar to one. Are you going to meet my standard or not?
"Secondly, I reject the premise of your argument."
On what grounds?
"Third, I've demonstrated the typically uncivil nature of Canadian Cynic's discourse -- even in this thread, where you would like everyone to believe that he's been civil, all he's done is call Hunter a liar. That's far from civil."
Again as I explained to you several times already, Cynic's discourse does not prove that he is in fact incapable of having a civil and rational discourse.
"You, on the other hand, have yet to demonstrate that Canadian Cynic has ever been civil. About anything."
Because it's not my burden to do so. You claim he's incapable of civility. Prove it.
""Themed blog" or not, the proof is in the pudding. I'd daresay you need to produce some proof of your claims, instead of simply rejecting the proof offered by others."
One, as I explained above, the burden of proof falls on you.
Two, as I explained earlier, proof of incivility is not prove of a lack of capability.
"Evidently not. Canadian Cynic's track record in the blogosphere speaks for itself. You seem to be one of only a handful of people who don't understand this."
So even if someone happened to read his blog once, that disqualifies them from making a valid point ever in the future?
This line of reasoning is ridiculous on it's face.
What's odd, o.k. really weird is how the Cesspoolian's rush(swarm) to the defence of the Cesspool boy...what the "H" is in that Cesspool effluent?
heh heh..."themed blog"...I like that one, it'll come in handy one day I'm sure..."themed blog"...heh.
"heh heh..."themed blog"...I like that one, it'll come in handy one day I'm sure..."themed blog"...heh."
LOL I love how everyone assumes I was talking about CC when I used that example!
I'm sure Patrick can tell us what happens when we assume!
Patrick Ross
You've read ONE of my comments at CC. You apparently haven't seen any of my posts critical of his blog. But hey, don't let facts and reality get in the way of unfairly pigeon-holing someone you don't even know.
"This from the very individual who once wrote 'taze Wanda Watkins and her grief'?"
citations, please.
"Then later lied about it."
citations, please.
"You really have a shitload of credibility on that particular topic."
1) i appreciate your deference to my acute perspective in the matter.
2) please respect hunter's wishes, and refrain from swearing.
KEvron
So Pal., you do LOL's?
"I think it's more of an assumption to assume that someone is incapable of something without a demonstration, or a confession."
Even if it were, that assumption would be stronger if it were based on evidence, as opposed to merely assumed.
Whether you like it or not, constant incivility, and the rejection of civility itself, is evidence of that.
Cynic's asserted incapability of civility is certainly in greater evidence than your assumption that he's capable of it.
"But I said my burden of proof was similar to one. Are you going to meet my standard or not?"
Secondly, I reject your authority to impose a burden of proof.
"On what grounds?"
I reject your argument because it is based on an assumption that is not only not in evidence, but is contradicted by the available evidence.
"Again as I explained to you several times already, Cynic's discourse does not prove that he is in fact incapable of having a civil and rational discourse."
But it is most certainly proof that he has never engaged in civil or rational discourse.
Only a fool would assume that an individual is capable of civil discourse. Only a fool would overlook that particular individual's behaviour and simply assume that they'll act otherwise.
Furthermore, I would further posit that the capability of acting civilly is actually irrelevant if one refuses to do so.
You've insisted that he is capable of such discourse. Prove it.
"Two, as I explained earlier, proof of incivility is not prove of a lack of capability."
It goes much further toward proving a lack of ability to engage in civil discourse than anything you have to offer.
The standard of evidence I've offered may not satisfy you, but frankly it's superior to anything you've yet offered.
"You've read ONE of my comments at CC. You apparently haven't seen any of my posts critical of his blog. But hey, don't let facts and reality get in the way of unfairly pigeon-holing someone you don't even know."
If you don't like what happens when you take Canadian Cynic's marching orders, then I'd suggest you stop doing so.
Hmmmmm ... just popping by to see if anyone's actually addressed the original issue.
Nope.
Quelle surprise.
"So Pal"
don't call me "pal", guy.
"you do LOL's?"
only if you ask nicely.
KEvron
and speaking of effluent...Hey der'...hi der...ho der'...it's KEV, the party pooper...you LoLlygagger you.
"then I'd suggest you stop doing so."
but it's a compulsion.
KEvron
If you don't like what happens when you take Canadian Cynic's marching orders, then I'd suggest you stop doing so.
*Sigh* like a broken record, you are.
I've already explained why I came here and posted, if you choose to ignore it, I can't stop you. But have fun in your delusional little world where CC has that kind of power over people.
Even if it were, that assumption would be stronger if it were based on evidence, as opposed to merely assumed.
Whether you like it or not, constant incivility, and the rejection of civility itself, is evidence of that.
Cynic's asserted incapability of civility is certainly in greater evidence than your assumption that he's capable of it.
Again as I have explained many times before, you have to show me that within the context of a rational discussion that Canadian Cynic resorts to incivility.
None of your evidence has shown that. You can't show me a tape of someone calling names, even if they like calling names and claim that they are incapable of being civil!
"Secondly, I reject your authority to impose a burden of proof."
That's unfortunate, because you, as the person making the claim, has to prove your assertion. This is debating 101 Patrick.
"I reject your argument because it is based on an assumption that is not only not in evidence, but is contradicted by the available evidence."
Again, and how many times do I have to explain this, evidence of incivility IS NOT PROOF of an inability to be civil.
"But it is most certainly proof that he has never engaged in civil or rational discourse."
Really Patrick? NEVER? Give me proof of that claim too!
"Only a fool would assume that an individual is capable of civil discourse. Only a fool would overlook that particular individual's behaviour and simply assume that they'll act otherwise."
By that logic, all of polite society is utter ridiculousness to you. I'll keep that in mind next time my boyfriend can't make it to a gala and I need a date.
"Furthermore, I would further posit that the capability of acting civilly is actually irrelevant if one refuses to do so."
It is irrelevant, but that's not the point here. The point is that you claim that CC is incapable of civility therefore we shouldn't even try when he offers to be civil. If he's willing does that not show a capability of being civil?
"You've insisted that he is capable of such discourse. Prove it."
OH no, you're the one who made the claim that he's incapable! Prove your assertion!
"It goes much further toward proving a lack of ability to engage in civil discourse than anything you have to offer.
The standard of evidence I've offered may not satisfy you, but frankly it's superior to anything you've yet offered."
I don't have to offer anything. You made the claim, I merely am positing the opposing viewpoint. It's your responsibility to convince me since you're the one advocating that any attempt to engage CC should be reconsidered.
no citations, patsie? that's a shame; makes you look like a liar.
KEvron
or are you pretending again to ignore me? your first comment to me proves this is impossible for you to do. you know, i vaguely recall another comment i had made to you while you were then also pretending to ignore me. i just wish i could remember the crux of it....
KEvron
lord help me, but i'm good....
KEvron
KEV, this isn't about you, it's all about Cesspool boy and his sane, logical and rational need to debate and whatever...
being self-centered is not a good quality...just so you know...heh heh we're waiting...you know...
"Again as I have explained many times before, you have to show me that within the context of a rational discussion that Canadian Cynic resorts to incivility.
None of your evidence has shown that. You can't show me a tape of someone calling names, even if they like calling names and claim that they are incapable of being civil!"
Absolutely I can. You can't show me a tape of someone doing nothing but call names and expect me to assume that they are capable of being civil.
The capability of that civility is not in evidence. Incivility, however, is. No matter how badly you'd like to, you cannot deny this.
"This is debating 101 Patrick."
This isn't a debate club. If you want to debate according to formal rules, go join one.
"It is irrelevant, but that's not the point here. The point is that you claim that CC is incapable of civility therefore we shouldn't even try when he offers to be civil. If he's willing does that not show a capability of being civil?"
Wow, are you ever an obtuse little Kool-Aid drinker.
He showed up here and called Hunter a liar. That isn't showing willingness to engage in civil, rational debate. It's evidence of the opposite -- that he isn't willing to.
"KEV, this isn't about you"
of course, it is.
KEvron
LOL!
I'm sorry, Patsy ... your position is that calling someone a "liar" proves they're incapable of rational discourse? Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.
"It's evidence of the opposite"
no, it isn't. it's not evidence of anything, really.
now, how 'bout them citations?
KEvron
"Absolutely I can. You can't show me a tape of someone doing nothing but call names and expect me to assume that they are capable of being civil.
The capability of that civility is not in evidence. Incivility, however, is. No matter how badly you'd like to, you cannot deny this."
A tape of someone doing nothing but calling names would only be evidence that they are incivil. Nothing more, nothing less. Capability cannot be questioned with such a tape unless you can prove that the person only calls names 24/7 in any context.
"This isn't a debate club. If you want to debate according to formal rules, go join one."
Strike one. You can't debate and make the rules up as you go. The reason we have rules is to ensure an argument in good faith, and to ensure that everyone supports the conclusions of said argument. If you don't like the way the rules are, I suggest you don't debate.
"Wow, are you ever an obtuse little Kool-Aid drinker."
You know, one of the proofs of an incapability of civility is resorting to name calling (without provocation)in the context of a rational discussion. You fail.
He showed up here and called Hunter a liar. That isn't showing willingness to engage in civil, rational debate. It's evidence of the opposite -- that he isn't willing to.
Calling someone a liar is neither irrational or uncivil in and of itself.
"Thanks, I'll keep that in mind."
oof! that's gonna leave a mark....
KEvron
"I'm sorry, Patsy ... your position is that calling someone a "liar" proves they're incapable of rational discourse? Thanks, I'll keep that in mind."
Pff.
No, the fact that you showed up here only to accuse Hunter of lying is proof that you weren't willing to engage in "civil" or "rational" discourse here.
But it's so terribly like yourself to be too stupid to recognize that.
The Cesspoolian Palidiea is a lying little turd.
i once saw a tape of the nytc on fire, which would have to mean it had always been on fire....
KEvron
200!
Where is my pony?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Post a Comment