I feel compelled to change my long-standing commenting policy, which you can read here. The reason for the change is the fact that a couple commenters seem to have lost the ability to argue and disagree respectfully. I've asked for it and not gotten it. So now it'll be enforced through comment moderation.
I think the problem stems from my idea that all gun owners share in the responsibility for gun violence. I admit this is a debatable premise, and that's exactly what we've been doing until recently when it turned particularly vicious and personal. I realize a legal gun owner might take my idea very personally, and even be offended by it, but when I'm repeatedly called "liar" and "bastard," and when the inference is made that I'm involved in child pornography, I say it's gone too far.
If you feel so strongly about my premise and are convinced that by proposing it I deserve to be called a "liar" and a "bastard" and if you really think that by engaging the pro-gun community in an argument like this I deserve to be slandered as a child pornographer, I would simply remind you that this is my blog. Here, I can do what I want, you cannot.
One interesting aspect is that the offending parties were never called to task by any of the other commenters. What is that all about? Do you gun guys support each other, right or wrong? Is that it? I don't have much respect for that. But, I'll tell you what I do respect. I respect someone who argues their point passionately, even heatedly. I can even accept some name-calling; we've had plenty of that around here. But, when it comes to personal attacks and slander, all of which is off topic, I won't have it. And if anyone cares to notice, I hold myself to the same standards.
Please feel free to comment. I'd love to hear what you have to say about this.
UPDATE June 28, 2009
Personal attacks will be rejected at my discretion.
Mike - I think the child pornography inference was simply a reaction mocking your continued infererence that folks like Weer'd, Bob, and I were responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms simply because we own and carry them as well.
ReplyDeleteIf I call you a liar and back that statement up with proof that shows you lied that is NOT "vicious and personal" it is a simple statement of fact.
If something you say can be easily shown to be demonstratably false then you deserve to be called a liar. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteI love the double standard you blatantly display. Typical Anti-freedom, pro-ignorance tactic.
You disrespect us on a constant basis and when you get someone disrespecting you, you can't handle it.
I'll be interested in seeing how many comments make it through moderation....you might be the responsible for me starting my own blog finally so I can makes sure comments have a place to be posted.
Now, onto fisking your little diatribe.
I think the problem stems from my idea that all gun owners share in the responsibility for gun violence.
No, the problem doesn't stem for that at all Mike. I don't mind people having ideas and discussing them. We've done that respectfully for many months.
The problem stems from your continual efforts to mislead, distort and deny the evidence that doesn't support your idea.
I admit this is a debatable premise, and that's exactly what we've been doing until recently when it turned particularly vicious and personal
What part turned particularly vicious and personal MikeB? The part from the beginning where you said I had responsibility for heinous crimes being committed? The part where you claimed we, law abiding gun owners, were helping criminals commit crimes by not giving up our guns?
I realize a legal gun owner might take my idea very personally, and even be offended by it, but when I'm repeatedly called "liar" and "bastard,"
Are there acceptable names to call you for your actions? I'll be happy to talk to anyone and make sure they try to meet the requirements....but shouldn't people be allowed to call things as they seem them?
That is what you do on your board..constantly and continually....and then complain when we turned it around. Double standard.
and when the inference is made that I'm involved in child pornography, I say it's gone too far.
But is it perfectly acceptable for you to insult people like me, like my late father, like my friends, like my family, like bloggers like Weer'd, Tom, Nomen and dozens of others by insinuating we are involved in horrendous crimes?
I've asked you to provide proof that we have responsibility, you haven't been willing to do that.
I've asked that you provide an argument other then your personal belief that we have responsibility, you haven't been willing to do that.
I've asked you to stop inferring that we have responsibility because I consider it a personal and vicious attack, you haven't been willing to do that.
So, when things get ugly in return....you start a new policy to limit what people can see, what people can post on your board....just because you disagree with what they have to say.
Can you deny that you own the same equipment needed to produce and distribute child porn?
Can you deny that by continuing to resist efforts to limit the means of production, you are contributing to the flow of child porn?
When things are said that way, you don't like it....Don't you see the double standard?
I deserve to be slandered as a child pornographer,I would simply remind you that this is my blog. Here, I can do what I want, you cannot.
So, you can call people liars, you can call people accessories to murder....but we can't return the favor?
One interesting aspect is that the offending parties were never called to task by any of the other commenters.
See, this is where you lie again MikeB.
I talked to Weer'd about it, believe here and on his blog. While he didn't agree with my points, I did call him on his behavior. And frankly, he has a valid point. Why not stop feeding the troll?
Do you gun guys support each other, right or wrong? Is that it? I don't have much respect for that.
MikeB, if you think that, you haven't read your own blog. We don't support each other right or wrong. Nomen and I have disagreed and several others. We've corrected each other and debated each other, not just you.
And if anyone cares to notice, I hold myself to the same standards.
In your own post, you prove yourself wrong.
I realize a legal gun owner might take my idea very personally, and even be offended by it,
So, once again you say it is okay for you to slander us, then you turn around and say you don't slander people.
Sorry MikeB but the technical nomenclature for that action is - a lie.
I would have to disagree with the idea that gun owners are responsible for the gun violence. If you use that logic than everyone who drinks is responsible for drunk driving deaths and every American is responsible for the actins of the President.
ReplyDeleteI have always tried to keep my comments to the point and on topic. One of the problems with political and ideological debates is it often gets on the wrong track when insults and cliches are used in the debate. That is one of the problems I discussed in a recent posting on the media in America and the split screen shouting sessions.
Apparently MikeB can dish it out but can't take it, hence his "New Commenting Policy."
ReplyDeleteThis is sadly the hallmark of anti-gunners. They are hypocritical through and through.
Also not to mention that if you agree with Mike and slander others, you are exempt.
ReplyDeleteMike Licht has a similar commenting policy, and like you he doesn't adhere to it at all.
One interesting aspect is that the offending parties were never called to task by any of the other commenters. What is that all about?
ReplyDeletespeaking only for myself, of course --- partly that's about you being a big boy who can stand up for himself. partly it's about me not respecting your position enough to stand up for you; i still think you're debating in bad faith on the gun issue, and so long as you insist on that, you can mount your defenses alone.
partly it's about realizing that, insulting and rude as Weerd and Bob have got towards you, they really do have a point. you too have acted insultingly towards gun owners as a group, and you still don't seem to realize it. their insults towards you were far more vicious, but no more groundless, than your slanders on them --- now, you end up seeming like you can dish it out but not take it.
but in another part, i suspect it might also be part of a larger pattern i've noticed since the recent election. several right-wing bloggers and gun bloggers i used to read and think relatively moderate conservatives have radicalized to the point i can't put up with them any longer. i suspect parts of the right wing are trying to rally the base by doing more of the same, louder and harder; a tried and proven technique that's worked well for the GOP ever since Nixon and his despicable "southern strategy". i'm pretty close to quitting Weerd's blog myself, he's become so focused on Obama Derangement Syndrome and telling blatant lies of his own about Democratic party policies and bills.
Yep, One Utah (unless there has been a change) is the ONLY anti-gun blog now that doesn't play games in the comment section. Self-fulfilling prophecy, methinks.
ReplyDeleteBTW Mike if you're going to get all butthurt that we won't show you any respect, and call you names that happen to be true, maybe you should think about being a respectful and honest person.
Not only is it easy to do, but you'll feel better about things, and I promise you'll eventually earn my forgiveness.
Sorry you feel it's come to this. Comment moderation is no fun.
ReplyDeleteI haven't been commenting on (or really reading) the gun control stuff here for a while. I know how you feel and I know how some of your commenters feel. I don't think anyone's mind is gonna get changed here. You are gonna keep pushing your agenda and they are gonna keep pushing back.
Only a matter of time before someone's feelings got hurt.
But again, sorry it's come to comment moderation. No fun at all.
Although I think some of the recent trolling is counterproductive, this is your place, your rules and it is your problem to enforce them. I'm responsible for my own behavior here, I'm not responsible for other guests.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone is calling you a child pornographer, any more than you are calling us criminals.
You are frustrating, in that you refuse to be pinned down. You say we need more restrictions and if we don't accept them we are responsible, but you refuse to say what those restrictions should be. If we have evidence, you ignore it or call the source biased--even when the source is a government agency. But sources whose stated goal is gun control are taken at face value.
"One interesting aspect is that the offending parties were never called to task by any of the other commenters. What is that all about? Do you gun guys support each other, right or wrong? Is that it?"
ReplyDeleteI have never called to task any of the other commenters on either side of the argument because I am not responsible for them or their comments. Much like I as a gun owner am not responsible for those that misuse firearms in a criminal or irresponsible manner.
This is your blog and your rules and we are guests here. If I come to your house for a party and then do not like the behavior of your other guests, I will not set out to correct them--it may be behavior totally acceptable to you and imposing my beliefs on your other guests would be rude. I would either ignore them or, if I could not be party to it, I would leave.
The same applies to your forum here. I will argue with or against your other guests but I will not "take them to task" for their behavior. If you want to then great, its your place and I applaud your efforts.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of these comments from California:
(h/t to Snowflakes in Hell)
Proposed easing of concealed-weapons law draws fire
McGinness said he was sympathetic to people concerned about their safety, but said a uniform approach isn't good for California. "Alpine County and Los Angeles County are vastly different," he said. "A one-size-fits-all is not in the best interest of public safety."
The 1st amendment is a one size fits all right, so is the right to assemble, the right to against warrantless searches....but the right to keep and bear arms changes depending on your location in the state?
Lt. Mark Reed, who reviews concealed weapons applications in Placer County, said local law enforcement often recommend alternatives to carrying a gun. For example, he said, many people apply because they carry around lots of money as part of their job. "If they could use a courier service, that'd be safer. … If I can offer a safer alternative, it negates the 'good cause.' "
Notice how this one individual is deciding how people show lead their lives, run their businesses and protect themselves. Is that fair? Is that right?
That is the current state of gun control....a position you support
Think about it MikeB....if a courier service is available no right to bear arms will be approved. Never mind that a good firearm can be had for less then $400 and a courier service could run into the thousands.
In addition, Knight said, there's an inherent unfairness in deciding that some people's perceptions of danger are more valid than others. "Lots of judges in California get permits," he said. "Does (the state) have the same amount of regard for the safety of a liquor store owner or a jewelry store owner?"
George Orwell had it right in Animal Farm. All animals are equal, some are just more equal then others.
Both McGinness and Reed said that in their counties, simply wanting to carry a concealed weapon isn't good-enough cause.
"Personal protection is insufficient," McGinness said.
But the police have no duty to protect an individual. There is no way they can be there to stop every rape, every assault....but providing for your own protection isn't sufficient enough to get a concealed carry permit.
Are these the type of people you want to support MikeB?
That is what you are doing.
The problem with your blog is similar to a problem that I must deal with from time to time: single-minded comments.
ReplyDeleteIn my case, it is the fundamentalists who, like robots, spew the same crap each time they decide to lay some shit at my doorstep.
There is absolutely zero reasoning with this knot of righteous folks. They have the kernel of truth, I don't.
Similarly, Mike is stuck with the pro-gun crowd, again, single-minded, kernel of truth in their pocket. Nothing that Mike posts or comments satisfies them They are obsessed with this blog much as the OCD fundies with my blog.
Maybe Mike should just close the comment section altogether and post his thoughts without the input of 'others.'
Surely that would drive the obsessive pro-gun crowd wild. But if you do, watch your back, Mike.
"Maybe Mike should just close the comment section altogether and post his thoughts without the input of 'others."
ReplyDeleteWell it certainly wouldn't be unexpected, since the gun-control movement relies on misinformation. That is why the Brady Campaign closed down their blog and why pretty much every single anti-gun blog or website either doesn't have comments, or heavily screens out all pro-gun comments.
I hope MikeB doesn't choose that course of action.
"The 1st amendment is a one size fits all right, so is the right to assemble, the right to against warrantless searches...but the right to keep and bear arms changes depending on your location in the state?"
ReplyDeleteSad but true. The 1st and 4th Amendments are applicable to the states, but the 2nd Amendment is not. As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently observed in Maloney v. Cuomo:
The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Supreme Court recently held that this confers an individual right on citizens to keep and bear arms. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2799 (2008). It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right. See, e.g., Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) (stating that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state”); Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75, 84, 86 (2d
Cir. 2005) (holding “that the Second Amendment’s ‘right to keep and bear arms’ imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts” and noting that this outcome was compelled by Presser), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1174 (2006). Heller, a case involving a challenge to the District of Columbia’s general prohibition on handguns, does not invalidate this longstanding principle."
And as Justice Scalia observed in Heller, the Second Amendment does not deprive the federal government of all power to regulate firearms:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
'in common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual
weapons.'
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
That's the current state of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence in a nutshell. As against the federal government, there is a right, although somewhat limited. As against the states, the Second Amendment does not appear to offer much protection. It would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court would do if a state attempted to ban firearms altogether. I have a feeling that a complete ban by a state would not survive federal review.
Mud rake:
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid I don't know what an OCD Fundy is??
Anyway. I am not "obsessed" by Mikes blog but rather I enjoy it. I found it after Mike visited my blog and left a comment.
It is obvious that we are never going to convince Mike our views are the truth--or maybe we do but he won't admit it.
But anyway, in spite of all the name calling, in spite of all the dead horse beating and the b.s there is one thing that sets Mike above all of the anti freedom people out there: Mike is not afraid of comments. Sure he is complaining about a few as of late but we are still commenting. You won't find that at Brady's website. Helmke got tired of only pro-gun people commenting--probably because there are really so few of his ilk out there. Paul only allows comments from his people now. You don't find that here.
I applaud MikeB and this site. Its like having your own anti-gun troll at your disposal when you feel like participating in a comment war.
Now a post by MudRake implying that shutting off comments would initiate violence on the side progressive firearm rights supporters gets approved.
ReplyDeleteWhat MikeB? No 'calling him to task' for that blatant piece of libel?
It's normal 'reasoned discourse' to try and demonize the opposition when the facts and evidence don't fit your argument. It's what we've come to expect.
Mike, you gotta do what you gotta do. Some people are disrespectful and just never learned decency. And this is not the time or place to attempt to teach em that.
ReplyDeleteMike W: then you deserve to be called a liar.
Excuse me, but a personal blog is someone's house. You do not go into someone's house and announce they are a liar, even if you believe it is true. Show some decency as a GUEST, okay? It is possible to engage in spirited debate without insulting the blog owner; I do it all the time.
MANNERS is the subject as far as I am concerned.
Update on the new commenting policy: I've rejected a few comments which contained nothing constructive and were perfect examples of what I described in the post.
ReplyDeleteIt's a point well taken that it's not your job as commenters to take anyone to task. Yet, over the months the atmosphere has been extremely contentious, everyone taking everyone to task at the least provocation. So, my point is well taken then too. I think some of you guys give each other a little too much slack, even to your own detriment. I've said it before, you should all take your cue from Sevesteen. He's a man who disagrees with what I say, has expressed frustration at my not being forthcoming enough, yet he's never found it necessary to be impolite or insulting; he doesn't exaggerate my insults in order to justify striking back. I have a lot of respect for his style. And, actually, I like the rest of you guys too, otherwise I wouldn't still be here.
Thanks to Don for that 2nd Amendment comment. I may turn that into a post of itself. I guess it's about time we stopped beating around the bush and got right down to the heart of the issue.
Excuse me, but a personal blog is someone's house.
ReplyDeleteno. it just isn't.
blogs are private media, but being media, they're public spaces. we're just plain not having a private-as-in-not-public discussion in mike's living room here. it's more like we're all sending letters to the editor of mike's wholly owned newspaper.
"Show some decency as a GUEST, okay?"
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I'll show decency to those who deserve it. If you post something that's a blatant lie you deserve to be called out on it.
Calling someone out as a liar when they lie is nothing more than a statement of fact.
+1 Nomen. I would have zero problems with Mike's lies and bias if any old joe with a computer couldn't just run a google search and find a page if unreliable information, screened comments, and a forced agenda.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I bring truth to light. It certainly isn't for people like Mike, Muddy, Slyde, and Micro. They're all in the same boat. It's for JonnyX Google searcher curious about certain issues, who might get the wrong idea because Mike pontificates and crushes comments he might not agree with.
You want "living room" write a diary, then nobody can read it unless your invite them. Or use somthing like livejournal or myspace and set up privacy filters for your own little mono-culture.
Otherwise you're standing on the street corner and shouting into the crowd, but choosing to squelch those who might disagree with you.
Sic semper tyrannis
"I may turn that into a post of itself. I guess it's about time we stopped beating around the bush and got right down to the heart of the issue."
ReplyDeleteI second that motion, and look forward to participating.
Otherwise you're standing on the street corner and shouting into the crowd, but choosing to squelch those who might disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteNope...not analogous.
I can't censor the street corner people. But I can censor you. :)
Daisy - Doesn't change the fact that calling someone a liar for making a statement that is demonstratably false is NOT bad manners.
ReplyDeleteDaisy,
ReplyDeleteDo you think it is fair that MikeB continually insulted gun owners, continually implied that we aided and abetted criminals?
Do you think it is fair that because MikeB doesn't like the analogy that I used to highlight his hypocrisy that he censors my comments instead of responding to them?
I would have expected MikeB to do the same as I did when he posted and continually posted false information: Ask for proof or ask him to stop posting.
What do you call someone who continually posts information known to be false, proven to be false?
"What do you call someone who continually posts information known to be false, proven to be false?"
ReplyDeleteIf it walks like a duck, talks like a duck..... right Bob?
I will call MikeB a liar when it fits all avaliable evidence. I can use another term if you'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that if he's being intentionally dishonest then he's a liar.
Thanks for all the comments, but I've had enough and all commenting is now closed.
ReplyDeleteOnly kidding.
I've enjoyed the imagery of "living room" vs. "street corner." Either way, Daisy is absolutely right that, "MANNERS is the subject as far as I am concerned."
Mike,
ReplyDeleteAre you one of the people that don't like cussing, won't tolerate cussing in your house....but cuss when you want to?
Sorry but that is what you are doing with your commenting policy.
Some people are blunt about the facts, others are more polite but they all are saying the same thing.
When you repeat lies, when you state thing that are untrue; then you are lying.
We've shown you the repeated incidences of your lies.
To implement a comment moderation to stop the blunt outspoken criticism of your actions is hypocritical at best.
Maybe there is another reason for you to implement the moderation.
Fatwhiteman --when Mudrake writes about OCD Fundies, which he does on nearly every other post at his blog, he's referring to his obsession with fundamentalist Christians whom he considers to all suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder -which he knows about first hand --having inherited it from his father who had OCD manifested by HIS obsession against protestants.
ReplyDeleteWE have the privilege of censoring our blogs, but they are a form of public media --unless we close them. You'd think blogs and their authors who are enjoying the right of free speech would champion the right of free speech for others, letting people disagree on their blogs. Of course, every publication censors, making "editorial decisions," just as every library and school censors in what they purchase for readers and students.
I get called uninformed and a liar, bigot, racist,fundy, etc. frequently by liberals and the likes of an unknown mudrake or an infamous PZ Myers. The worst of liberals all have the same style of ad hominem attack --scorn instead of discussion.
It grieves me that an open-blog author like Mikeb who asks us for our opinions would give a Mudrake the time of day by posting as a team member at his website ----just because they agree about liberal causes. Mike is usually a gentleman and lets respectful disagreement stand. Mudrake is never a gentleman nor respectful of others right to disagree. he won't stay on point, but always makes the disagreement personal. If you disagree with him, you are not simply wrong--you are stupid and evil and not worth space at his blog.
Yes, Mudly, I'm using you as an example of a bad blogger --and hope Mikeb recognizes the difference between a mudrake and a barb.
One more thing --I think of a liar as one who intends to deceive --who knows he doesn't speak truth. Someone may be mistaken without intending to lie --and should not be called a liar.
I wrote about the weekend-fascist invasion. And I linked you, Mike.
ReplyDeleteTrolls, trolls, everywhere a troll
Bob, of course: Do you think it is fair that MikeB continually insulted gun owners, continually implied that we aided and abetted criminals?
ReplyDeleteIn his own house, Mike can pick his nose, scratch his balls, insult gun owners and do whatever the hell he wants to do.
Suck it up and get used to it, you cannot control everybody and everything. I realize this is the Fascist Dream, but it is simply a misbegotten fantasy, not real life.
Barb, I have been insulted by PZ Myers too. He is not above attacking Christian liberals, did you know that? So, we actually have something in common there, and might have something we could politely discuss. However, if you automatically condemn me outright as a liberal and start name-calling, you won't learn that, will you?
ReplyDeleteI am not anti-gun at all, I merely expressed skepticism about assault weapons--my mind WAS open. Now, of course, it certainly isn't. (If Bob is the type of person defending assault weapons, they MUST be banned.)
Over-zealously attacking people who are not totally disagreeing with you, who might be open to polite debate... that is common trolling, that is nothing remotely connected to "free speech"... it is viciousness, pure and simple. And you cannot viciously attack me, call me names and then bring your posse to finish the job; I WILL delete personal attacks and have that right.
So does Mike. He and I are far more tolerant than the rest of you would be. Bob, do you allow people to call you liars and bitches suchlike on YOUR BLOG? I very much doubt that. Got a link where this has occurred?
Didn't think so.
Daisy, I see you call yourself a "lefty" and a feminist --but don't want to be identified as "liberal?" You can call me right-winger --that's what I am --and you may be a "left-leaner."
ReplyDeleteWhere it gets ugly is the assumption that I'm racist, fascist, hateful, bigoted, homophobic, gaycist --and anti-freedom --wanting theocracy for the US--just because I prefer the status quo of America as a "christian" nation in SOME senses --because of the worldview Americans have loosely held for a few centuries. Granted, we haven't consistently lived as a nation by Christian values --but we have let Christian teachings like the Golden Rule, and the equality of persons in God's sight, and compassion for the needy, and Biblical ethics and morals shape our national conscience and character in good ways. In fact, even in disagreements between Left and Right, we often appeal to the same virtues and values. What is Just? what is RIGHT? What is fair? What is compassionate? What is best for the most people? Who is responsible?
On gun control, there are certainly multiple ways to look at the issues involved.
If you think my gun ownership causes crime I will shoot you for looking at me funny. [irony]
ReplyDeleteIf you think my gun ownership causes crime then you won't think that anymore when the criminals shoot you in the head. [sarcasm]
If you think my gun ownership causes crime then you are out of your mind and your mother wears combat boots. [ad hominem, the weakest debate tactic on the planet]
If you think my gun ownership causes crime that doesn't really matter to me because I HAVE A GUN! [correlation does not equal causation]
Gecko. I'm really enjoying your comments. You're a sharp one.
ReplyDeleteAs you can see, I've gone back to NOT moderating comments. I hope I can keep it that way.
I understand the necessity of moderating comments on a public site, for trolls and folks who don't moderate themselves. The semi-private nature of the internet is akin to driving on a highway. Writers and drivers will say and do things they'd never repeat face-to-face.
ReplyDeleteThere was an interesting study on the psychology of road rage behind the wheel and why you won't see such road rage from old ladies in grocery stores but they will flip you off from the privacy of their home-on-wheels. Grandma, stop that!
Internet comments are exactly the same. We can only know others by their words. I prefer to be known for being completely deluded by my own position and impervious to distractions like mudslinging, implications, or inferences. Other folks have their own delusions and it would be hypocritical of me to call them liars if their delusions did not have enough statistics to back them up.
Now I'm intriqued and will have to pour a cup of green tea and read some of the archives. It sounds like a real fracas in here.
Gecko, I liked the way you described that very much.
ReplyDeleteWelcome and make yourself at home.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just because I'm right and you're wrong, doesn't make your opinion any less valuable. ;)
ReplyDelete