Thursday, October 21, 2010

"Open, Honest, Rational, Conversation"

This evening I sent the following email to Jonathan Sullivan, who writes by the moniker of “Linoge” at his oddly named “Walls of the City” weblog:

Subject: In order to provoke some thoughtful reflection

Jon,
Given that, unlike you, I am genuinely interested in an open, honest, rational conversation, I feel it is only appropriate that I call your attention to my recent post here:

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/10/open-honest-rational-conversation.html

Also unlike you, I promise that I will not moderate your comments into oblivion just because I disagree with what you say (though I should caution that my weblogging platform does auto-moderate any new commenters – I will approve whatever comment you care to leave as soon as I can). If you have any questions or concerns about that post, please feel free to comment at it, or respond to this email.

Thank you for your time,
JadeGold.

(Please be advised: Any email sent to this address will be considered for publication at the above-linked webpage. Also, this email has been blind-carbon-copied to others, and any attempt to misrepresent it will be handled accordingly.)


Unsurprisingly, I have not received any form of acknowledgement from him, though two of my blind-carbon-copy recipients did indicate they received it, and one uses the same online email system Jon uses, so I think we can rule out technical difficulties. For someone who claims to be “passionate about the issue” and interested in “provok[ing] some thoughtful reflection”, I find his lack of a response to be disturbing.

For people who seem so very inflamed by their respective causes celebres, they seem to lack the courage to defend, or even support, their personal beliefs anywhere other than their own closely regulated, controlled, and moderated corners of the cortex. I wonder why that is?

Also. Bwahahahahahahaha.

17 comments:

  1. The problem is that they won't accept anything which challenges their viewpoint no matter how well documented. On the other hand, they will offer the most absurd arguments as justification of their beliefs.

    I found it interesting to read the primary sources of the founding father quotes when I made the switch.

    Don't worry guys, you'll be in shock for a day or two, but it'll go away.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ah, could Laci finally be seeing the light? How her "absurd arguments and justifications of [her] beliefs" are mostly refuted ad nauseum by cited facts from resources such as http://www.gunfacts.info/ ?

    Yes, I WOULD be in shock if that were the case.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hmm. Could have ended up in the spam folder. Or perhaps the fact that most people asking for "Open, honest, rational conversation" are typically only interested in such conversations if they can convince someone else to see their point of view without ever considering the other point of view.

    Of course, I don't know this guy from Adam, and it's very likely he's as close minded as you are.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Provide me with a reasoned argument with good evidence to back it up and you will be published.

    You deserve to be sent to the spam folder if you are going to say something insulting, idiotic, and inane. My most persistent spam poster shows that he has not read the posts he attempts to comment upon.

    Anyway, when something claims to be "facts" they are usually lies. I cite check the alleged facts and find them to be inaccurate.

    For example, there is a funny item being passed around in the pro-gun circles that the 5-4 Heller decision was "unanimous". First off, a unanimous decision is 9-0, not 5-4 (5-4 is a split decision). Likewise, two justices came out with dissents. Unanimous, by definition precludes dissent.

    See this post and this post.

    I have a feeling that at least one of these anonymous anonymous posters doesn't believe in global warming either.

    Thus, if you are relegated to the spam folder, it is because you have shown yourself incapable of intelligent discourse.

    ReplyDelete
  5. they won't accept anything which challenges their viewpoint no matter how well documented.

    Laci - That perfectly describes anti-gunners like yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A perfect example of an inane comment in light of my postings:
    Anonymous said...

    they won't accept anything which challenges their viewpoint no matter how well documented.

    Laci - That perfectly describes anti-gunners like yourself.


    Translated:

    Anonymous said...
    If I am so are you. Nyah Nyah nayah.


    Come on, I thought you people were supposed to be intelligent. Please don't waste my time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This seems too cordial to be Jade's writing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think the pro-gun side is worse with regards close-mindedness and general nastiness.

    ReplyDelete
  9. TS: I lifted it nearly verbatim from something Linoge wrote.

    It's called "irony."

    Linoge claims he wants "open, honest, rational conversation." Yet, he accuses those he wishes to have "open, honest, rational conversation" of being "criminals," "violent criminals,""liars,""bigots," "spineless violent cowards," "PSHers," and other lovely terms of endearment.

    Apparently, Linoges's idea of "open, honest, rational conversation" involves him spewing vitriol and his target graciously accepting it meekly.

    It's telling that Linoge accuses people of deleting comments when he does the same. Apparently, there are certain rules for everyone but Linoge.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ah, so you’re not actually asking for open, honest, rational conversation- you’re just mocking Linoge. Too bad. My suggestion would be to combat whatever it is he is doing with open, honest, rational conversation of your own, rather than trying to one up him.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Actually, TS, I very much welcome "open, honest, rational conversation."

    I do, however--and I'm sure you'll agree--find it exceedingly difficult when those with whom you wish to have such conversation opt to start out by deeming you a "criminal" or a "spineless violent coward" or a "murderer."

    And it's pretty darn difficult to toe the high ground when he chides you for moderating comments when he doesn't permit comments with which he disagrees.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jade: “Actually, TS, I very much welcome "open, honest, rational conversation."”

    Sure you welcome it- you just haven’t been giving it back.

    Jade: “I do, however--and I'm sure you'll agree--find it exceedingly difficult when those with whom you wish to have such conversation opt to start out by deeming you a "criminal" or a "spineless violent coward" or a "murderer."”

    …Or “gunloon”, “racist”, “redneck”, “neurologically impaired”, “professionally and socially arrested”, “NRA-heroes”, “issuing death threats”… need I go on?

    Maybe this is an opportunity to extend the olive branch and change your own ways.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ah, so you’re not actually asking for open, honest, rational conversation- you’re just mocking Linoge.

    That's all folks like Jade and Laci are interested in. Personal attacks are what they do.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jade: “And it's pretty darn difficult to toe the high ground when he chides you for moderating comments when he doesn't permit comments with which he disagrees.”

    Jade, I just checked out “walls of the city” for the first time. It appears you are wrong about him not permitting comments of which he disagrees. Maybe it is just that he doesn’t permit YOUR comments, am I right? Clearly you’ve had a relationship with him in the past (I don’t think your distain comes from nowhere), so I’d guess he used to post your comments, but at some point he banned you (similar to how MikeB banned Mike W). Is that about right? That is a little different than not letting the anti-gun voice be heard.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "(similar to how MikeB banned Mike W)"

    Actually I'm pretty sure MikeB didn't ban Mike W., he just chooses not to comment here anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous said, in typical pro-gun exaggerated fashion, "That's all folks like Jade and Laci are interested in. Personal attacks are what they do."

    That's ALL they do? Please give me a break, will ya?

    And TS, as the other Anonymous said, I certainly have not banned Mike W., or anyone else for that matter. I've deleted a number of nasty comments which contained nothing but personal attacks and name-calling. Then when that exercise became too cumbersome I put on the comment moderation so I could remove those prior to publishing.

    It's true that guys like Mike W. and a couple others are often caught up in those screening measures of mine simply because the so often write nasty one-liners.

    I've always welcomed their substantive comments and have frequently overlooked an occasional bit of meanness or a sprinkling of colorful name-calling within a lengthy comment in order to publish it.

    That's the way I run the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thank you for your explanation, Mike. Perhaps I misused the word “ban” (first time ever, mind you). The way you run the blog is reasonable; though I would vote for open commenting with selective deletion (you do read them all, right?). Still, this is probably the exact situation that is happening to Jadegold at pro-gun sites throughout the blog-o-sphere.

    ReplyDelete