tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post3579726959005582452..comments2023-12-05T07:50:19.855-05:00Comments on No Oil for Pacifists: Overconfident Fascists@nooil4pacifistshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16688417615117569825noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-56071276090794361302007-07-25T18:55:00.000-04:002007-07-25T18:55:00.000-04:00Whig:I appreciate the sentiment and the offer. In ...<A HREF="http://cannablog.wordpress.com/" REL="nofollow">Whig</A>:<BR/><BR/>I appreciate the sentiment and the offer. In particular, it's commendable that you recognize that <A HREF="http://phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/judge-breaking-the-law-betraying-the-nation-is-part-of-libby-cheneys-official-duties/#comment-9414" REL="nofollow">the "record" of comments on Mercury Rising</A> was tampered. And, as a political Whig, I applaud your chosen name.<BR/><BR/>But let's be clear about what happened: Charles <A HREF="http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2004/08/kerry-and-press-perfect-together.html" REL="nofollow">said I was "lying"</A> and when I chose not to react to the accusation but instead <A HREF="http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2007/07/fraud-on-left.html" REL="nofollow">quoted</A> and <A HREF="https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1258-52" REL="nofollow">hyperlinked</A> <A HREF="http://bp2.blogger.com/_wLFw4lOGQzk/RqKNmfU5aCI/AAAAAAAAAIM/P3dAJRfPl88/s1600-h/screen_shot_phoenixwoman_Charles_July+21_3am.JPG" REL="nofollow">evidence to the contrary</A>, <A HREF="http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2007/07/fraud-on-left.html" REL="nofollow">he deleted the comment</A> (<A HREF="http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2007/07/overconfident-fascists.html#925185800785292831" REL="nofollow">AVI</A>: Charles deleted the comment. Period. Full stop.) <A HREF="http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2007/07/overconfident-fascists.html" REL="nofollow">thus leaving the impression he prevailed in the debate</A>. There was indeed an "unwillingness to engage further conversation"--but only with me (remember, <A HREF="http://phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/judge-breaking-the-law-betraying-the-nation-is-part-of-libby-cheneys-official-duties/#comment-9456" REL="nofollow">Charles</A> and <A HREF="http://phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/judge-breaking-the-law-betraying-the-nation-is-part-of-libby-cheneys-official-duties/#comment-9450" REL="nofollow">Phoenix Women</A> shared snipes after my post was deleted) and starting only when Charles began to realize he had erred. <BR/><BR/>Characterizing the foregoing as "looking for an argument" and admonishing about some "right to waste Charles's time" demonstrates you fail to grasp the gravity of the offense. Blog debate is strictly voluntary; responses aren't required (I don't reply to each comment or email). But it is pointless to take your ball and go home as soon as it appears you will lose; it is scurrilous to substitute invective for argument; it is dishonest to falsify the documentation to obfuscate your loss; it is outrageous to do all three and <A HREF="http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2005/05/left-isnt-liberal.html" REL="nofollow">claim to be liberal</A>. <BR/><BR/>Despite the fashionable but unfortunate post-modern reluctance to be judgemental, truth is truth. And, as AVI says, rude is rude. I politely supplied facts; Charles dissembled and chose a cover-up rather than accept he was mistaken. He <A HREF="http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2007/07/fraud-on-left.html#816902527815135610" REL="nofollow">apparently reacted similarly to AVI</A>. I'm sure there's <A HREF="http://www.psychnet-uk.com/clinical_psychology/criteria_personality_antisocial.htm" REL="nofollow">a DSM number covering such behavior</A>. <BR/><BR/>Clinical or not, Charles and his sort prefer prejudice to persuasion; they'll never learn. This is well beyond the merely "frustrating" you concede. AVI is spot-on in calling it "tribal," and concluding that "people who will brook no disagreement . . . do not have a right to claim [they] are seeking an exchange of ideas." I'm not sure, Whig, why you fail to appreciate this--but it undercuts <A HREF="http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2007/07/debate-hating-left.html#645998317565748196" REL="nofollow">your admirable invitation to further debate</A>.@nooil4pacifistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16688417615117569825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-9251858007852928312007-07-24T16:28:00.000-04:002007-07-24T16:28:00.000-04:00First - Charles may not have deleted a post. I tr...First - Charles may not have deleted a post. I tried five times on different threads to post after the first exchange, but none came through. We all have occasional trouble posting on other sites, but I have never had five in a row. I call it suspicious, but not an accusation, as the error could have been mine.<BR/><BR/>Whig, you make a distinction between deleting a comment before and after banning. That seems an inadequate difference.<BR/><BR/>Then you judge that Carl was "just looking for an argument," which as much as claims that the difficulties all resided on Carl's side. That is not sustainable, and to attempt it is less than honest. I appreciate this can be frustrating to people who will brook no disagreement, but you then do not have a right to claim you are seeking an exchange of ideas.<BR/><BR/>Bottom line. We were polite. Charles and Phoenix Woman were rude. We attempted discussion. Charles refused it. I recognise that this does not seem to the folks at Mercury Rising to be what occurred. To them, stupid a/o deceitful people came over and tried to cause trouble. I maintain that such an impression is precisely the problem that progressives have. An observer from Mars - or from another era in the history of Western Civilization - reading the exchange would have no trouble spotting who was discussing and who was merely insulting. Progressives now have a false view of reality, so convinced are they of the ill-will of their opponents.<BR/><BR/>I was a man of the left for a long time, writing for socialist weeklies in the 70's. I know whereof I speak. Reconsider that the entire enterprise, root and branch, of the progressive attitude is not founded on an intellectual but on a social foundation. Charles and Phoenix Woman's responses were purely tribal.Assistant Village Idiothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-56319659967623063002007-07-24T12:25:00.000-04:002007-07-24T12:25:00.000-04:00I looked at the exchange and it appears that there...I looked at the exchange and it appears that there was an unwillingness to engage further conversation and that was clearly stated. It does appear that a final comment was deleted and not responded to once the decision had been made to discontinue the debate.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate that this can be frustrating to someone who is just looking for an argument, but you do not have a right to waste Charles's time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com