"I think that there's more than enough idiocy to go around, Shaw. For instance, Paul Krugman..."
Why did you address me on Lisa's blog?
I directed my comment to the person using my blog's name and passing him/herself off as me.
I have nothing to say to you unless you were the fraudulent blogger.
I am not responsible for Paul Krugman's or Rachel Maddow's opinion, only my own.
Your comments to me make absolutely no sense, since I directed my comment to the imposter.
You and the other commenters at Lisa's blog apparently have no problem with attacking a woman for holding a strong opinion. Lisa didn't have the decency to delete the vicious attack on me. And apparently you are okay with it as well.
How do I attack women?...Well, there this was one time, actually. I was evidently too critical of Sarah Palin on Tammy Bruce's site and got banned from it. That was probably OK, though, huh?
A commenter at Lisa's blog wrote vile and degrading comments about me.
Not one person spoke up to say that is unacceptable. It is fine to go after the commenter's OPINION or COMMENT. But to call me "vermin" is cowardly and unacceptable.
Neither Will, nor anyone else on that comment section said a word.
"In order for evil to triumph; good men must remain silent."
I never, never, accused Will of attacking me. I asked him why he directed a question about Paul Krugman and Rachel Maddow to me when I made NO comment about them.
dmarks,
You're the blog policeman, but you seem not to be bothered when a group of vile-mouthed bullies attack me?
You come running here to defend Will, when you have no idea what the situation is.
It's a double-standard that you and others are blind to.
I like Lady Gaga and Katy Perry, although not for their singing skills. Their music is not for me. I'm not at all familar with Adele in any respect, so cannot offer any opinion on her.
I do remember she performed on SNL, although I don't remember if I listened or fast forwarded (which is what I usually do with the musical guest). I know I wasn't struck by her singing as "channeling Brando". What the heck does that mean?
Blogging is rough, Shaw. I've been attacked a hell of a lot worse than that (almost exclusively by liberals over the hears). Vermin? That's what you're beefing about? Some blogger named 1138 accused my father of murdering my mother and also implied that I was a danger to the Alzheimer's patients who I work with. And when was the last time that anybody came to Lisa's defense over at Sues' echo-chamber?
And my point with those comments was in response to your and Sue's constant drumbeat that only the right engages in dishonesty, stupidity, and divisiveness. I was trying to give you some concrete examples that there's a fair amount of those traits on your side of the ledger, too. That's all.
Will, are you unaware that Lisa acts like a disruptive troll at Sue's blog? She hits and runs. When anyone tries to engage her and talk about her assertions, which I've proved with evidence on many occasions to be lies, she runs off or comes back with more taunts and derision.
In fact I did speak up when someone made disparaging remarks about her being a woman. I told that person there is no place for that sort of sexist talk.
Here is my comment to Lisa on her blog talking about Sandra Fluke:
"Shaw KenaweMar 5, 2012 02:48 PM Lisa, I challenge you to find evidence where Ms. Fluke says she can't afford her own birth control. This is a direct challenge. Find the link to her testimony where she says that.
Unless you can, what you've written in the above comment is nothing more than a pile of bullpuckey, made up to make you look like you know what you're talking about. You don't know what you're talking about, because Ms. Fluke never said such a thing.
Every time I challenge you to back up what you say with evidence, you FAIL.
And that's because you just make shyte up."
Lisa never provided evidence for her claim, and that's because there is none.
Why you directed a remark about Krugman and Maddow at me is inexplicable, since I never talked about them.
If you wanted to engage me, then why didn't you speak to my comment?
When I comment on blogs, I give my opinion, challenge something the blog host wrote, or refute what has been said. I do not write taunts and then run away.
That's what Lisa does. And that's why people become angry with her. Sue used to delete her, then she let her have her say--which was nothing more than taunts and talking points, often lies.
Now Sue is back to deleting Lisa, since she contributes nothing to any discussion--a real troll.
I am not responsible for what Sue's blog posts are about. She talks about the right in the same way that conservative blogs talk about the left. Or haven't you noticed?
There is nothing wrong with having a point of view, conservative or liberal.
There is everything wrong when people say nothing when a commenter is being personally vilified.
That needs to stop.
When I've gone after Lisa, and she knows this, I've challenged her on her facts and evidence.
I guess that Lisa's point was that if in fact she (Mrs. Fluke) COULD afford it, then why was she crying poverty about having to spend so much money on birth control (providing testimony with obviously inflated costs) in front of the entire country? As I've established here and elsewhere, people who can't afford birth control can get if free (via Title 10) at a clinic and the rest of the folks can get it for $9 (smaller than the normal $15 co-pay for my scripts) a month at either Walmart or Target. Lisa's criticism, while no doubt somewhat crude, was at least somewhat understandable. And I have to tell you, she comes off a lot less mean-spirited than most of the rest of Sue's contributors.
To show that I at least try to be fair, I just posted this at Lisa's - My point is that both sides of the blogosphere seem to engage in a lot of mean-spirited hyperbole (and, yes, for the record, I've defended Presidents Bush and Reagan against it, too) and that the resultant dialogue really seems to suffer from it. Idi Amin was an absolute genocidal madman. Mr. Obama, while certainly not the greatest President in history, is certainly not THAT.
"but you seem not to be bothered when a group of vile-mouthed bullies attack me?"
I don't even read that blog, so I am not familiar with the incident. I'll take your word on it. You didn't even provide a link to it, and sorry if I am not going to bother to slog through the 499,000,000 entries that come up when I google for the Lisa blog.
"It's a double-standard that you and others are blind to."
So we're all out to get you. Yeah, right.
And despite your claim of " I. Did. Not. Say. WILL. Attacked. Me."
you DID say: "You [meaning Will] and the other commenters at Lisa's blog apparently have no problem with attacking a woman", which, in light of the information we have here (which is missing the context of the secret Lisa exchange) DOES have you specifically accusing Will of these attacks.
My reading comprehension is perfectly fine, thank you.
Will: "I guess that Lisa's point was that if in fact she (Mrs. Fluke) COULD afford it, then why was she crying poverty about having to spend so much money on birth control (providing testimony with obviously inflated costs) in front of the entire country?"
That was the challenge I gave to Lisa: Prove that Ms. Fluke was crying poverty about spending money on contraception.
Lisa could not because Fluke never did. Fluke spoke about a friend of hers, a lesbian, btw, who was having female problems not associated with birth control, but which the birth control pill addressed.
That's all I did, and then her bullies came on and attacked me.
dmarks, obviously my comment to Will was that he and others condone ad hominem attacks, not that Will attacked me.
I don't condone ad hominem attacks, Shaw. I don't condone that guy calling you "vermin". I don't condone Lesley Parsley calling Sarah Palin "a worthless piece of excrement". I don't condone that guy on Lisa'a blog calling Mr. Obama "Idi Amin". And I don't condone you saying this about Lisa - "Nice try moron. But the name of my blog is "Progressive EruptionS." You don't have the brains or the wits to do a funny parody. No surprise there." Hell, I don't even condone some of the stupid crap that I say at times.......As for Mrs. Fluke, did she not complain mightily about having to dish out $3,000 for birth control and how that was becoming a major burden?
". And I don't condone you saying this about Lisa - "Nice try moron. But the name of my blog is "Progressive EruptionS." You don't have the brains or the wits to do a funny parody. No surprise there;
Will do you actually read the comments I make?????
That comment was NOT directed at Lisa!!!!!!
It was directed at the creep who was using my blog name and commenting under it!
Can you understand why there is so much anger on the internet.
You misREAD that comment. I did NOT call Lisa a moron!
That comment was directed at someone who was imitating my blog and who was anonymous!
I give up.
I. Just. Give. Up.
Your criticisms and trying to equate lierals and conservatives now come under some scrutiny, since you got that comment, which you thought I made in reference to Lisa, COMPLETELY WRONG!
"But you're the first one to come to my blog to point out that someone is using the race card when you believe that is happening."
And that clearly happened when you posted a piece by someone who said that Herman Cain should not run for President because he was black And you agreed with the sentiment and defended it.
Shaw, I apologize for misreading the comment. I did think that you were directing it at Lisa. My overall comment, though, about there being more than enough idiocy, mean-spiritedness, and dishonesty to go around - that I continue to stand by.
dmarks: ...you posted a piece by someone who said that Herman Cain should not run for President because he was black And you agreed with the sentiment and defended it.
I don't recall the specifics, but I'm pretty sure you've mentioned this here before. I called you on it then. You linked to a post on Shaw's blog, which I read... and found you were totally wrong in your assesment of the situation. Nobody said Cain shouldn't run for president because he was black. And Shaw didn't agree with it because it wasn't said.
You didn't call me on it, really, as you misread everything involved.
I consistently oppose all racism, including anti-black racism. And this includes the racist smears against Herman Cain, as well as those against Obama.
dmarks: You didn't call me on it ... I consistently oppose ... the racist smears against Herman Cain [from the Left].
Yes, I did call you on it. We discussed this before. I remember you claimed that Shaw agreed with something racist said about Herman Cain, I asked for a link, you gave a link to a post on Shaw's blog, I looked at it...
...and what I discovered is that it was YOU who "misread everything involved". The article Shaw was talking about included ZERO racist smears against Herman Cain.
22 comments:
Will,
"I think that there's more than enough idiocy to go around, Shaw. For instance, Paul Krugman..."
Why did you address me on Lisa's blog?
I directed my comment to the person using my blog's name and passing him/herself off as me.
I have nothing to say to you unless you were the fraudulent blogger.
I am not responsible for Paul Krugman's or Rachel Maddow's opinion, only my own.
Your comments to me make absolutely no sense, since I directed my comment to the imposter.
You and the other commenters at Lisa's blog apparently have no problem with attacking a woman for holding a strong opinion. Lisa didn't have the decency to delete the vicious attack on me. And apparently you are okay with it as well.
How do I attack women?...Well, there this was one time, actually. I was evidently too critical of Sarah Palin on Tammy Bruce's site and got banned from it. That was probably OK, though, huh?
Shaw said: "You and the other commenters at Lisa's blog apparently have no problem with attacking a woman for holding a strong opinion"
(1) Do you have any evidence that will and the others are attacking you because you are a woman? If you do, it might mean they are sexist.
(2) If you are claiming this without evidence, then you are implying that being a woman places you above criticism. That would make you sexist.
From Will's reputation as exhibited in many comments, and from his most recent comment above, (2) seems more likely.
Will and dmarks,
You both have poor reading comprehension skills.
I. Did. Not. Say. WILL. Attacked. Me.
A commenter at Lisa's blog wrote vile and degrading comments about me.
Not one person spoke up to say that is unacceptable. It is fine to go after the commenter's OPINION or COMMENT. But to call me "vermin" is cowardly and unacceptable.
Neither Will, nor anyone else on that comment section said a word.
"In order for evil to triumph; good men must remain silent."
I never, never, accused Will of attacking me. I asked him why he directed a question about Paul Krugman and Rachel Maddow to me when I made NO comment about them.
dmarks,
You're the blog policeman, but you seem not to be bothered when a group of vile-mouthed bullies attack me?
You come running here to defend Will, when you have no idea what the situation is.
It's a double-standard that you and others are blind to.
I like Lady Gaga and Katy Perry, although not for their singing skills. Their music is not for me. I'm not at all familar with Adele in any respect, so cannot offer any opinion on her.
I do remember she performed on SNL, although I don't remember if I listened or fast forwarded (which is what I usually do with the musical guest). I know I wasn't struck by her singing as "channeling Brando". What the heck does that mean?
Blogging is rough, Shaw. I've been attacked a hell of a lot worse than that (almost exclusively by liberals over the hears). Vermin? That's what you're beefing about? Some blogger named 1138 accused my father of murdering my mother and also implied that I was a danger to the Alzheimer's patients who I work with. And when was the last time that anybody came to Lisa's defense over at Sues' echo-chamber?
And my point with those comments was in response to your and Sue's constant drumbeat that only the right engages in dishonesty, stupidity, and divisiveness. I was trying to give you some concrete examples that there's a fair amount of those traits on your side of the ledger, too. That's all.
Will, are you unaware that Lisa acts like a disruptive troll at Sue's blog? She hits and runs. When anyone tries to engage her and talk about her assertions, which I've proved with evidence on many occasions to be lies, she runs off or comes back with more taunts and derision.
In fact I did speak up when someone made disparaging remarks about her being a woman. I told that person there is no place for that sort of sexist talk.
Here is my comment to Lisa on her blog talking about Sandra Fluke:
"Shaw KenaweMar 5, 2012 02:48 PM
Lisa, I challenge you to find evidence where Ms. Fluke says she can't afford her own birth control. This is a direct challenge. Find the link to her testimony where she says that.
Unless you can, what you've written in the above comment is nothing more than a pile of bullpuckey, made up to make you look like you know what you're talking about. You don't know what you're talking about, because Ms. Fluke never said such a thing.
Every time I challenge you to back up what you say with evidence, you FAIL.
And that's because you just make shyte up."
Lisa never provided evidence for her claim, and that's because there is none.
Why you directed a remark about Krugman and Maddow at me is inexplicable, since I never talked about them.
If you wanted to engage me, then why didn't you speak to my comment?
When I comment on blogs, I give my opinion, challenge something the blog host wrote, or refute what has been said. I do not write taunts and then run away.
That's what Lisa does. And that's why people become angry with her. Sue used to delete her, then she let her have her say--which was nothing more than taunts and talking points, often lies.
Now Sue is back to deleting Lisa, since she contributes nothing to any discussion--a real troll.
I am not responsible for what Sue's blog posts are about. She talks about the right in the same way that conservative blogs talk about the left. Or haven't you noticed?
There is nothing wrong with having a point of view, conservative or liberal.
There is everything wrong when people say nothing when a commenter is being personally vilified.
That needs to stop.
When I've gone after Lisa, and she knows this, I've challenged her on her facts and evidence.
I guess that Lisa's point was that if in fact she (Mrs. Fluke) COULD afford it, then why was she crying poverty about having to spend so much money on birth control (providing testimony with obviously inflated costs) in front of the entire country? As I've established here and elsewhere, people who can't afford birth control can get if free (via Title 10) at a clinic and the rest of the folks can get it for $9 (smaller than the normal $15 co-pay for my scripts) a month at either Walmart or Target. Lisa's criticism, while no doubt somewhat crude, was at least somewhat understandable. And I have to tell you, she comes off a lot less mean-spirited than most of the rest of Sue's contributors.
To show that I at least try to be fair, I just posted this at Lisa's - My point is that both sides of the blogosphere seem to engage in a lot of mean-spirited hyperbole (and, yes, for the record, I've defended Presidents Bush and Reagan against it, too) and that the resultant dialogue really seems to suffer from it. Idi Amin was an absolute genocidal madman. Mr. Obama, while certainly not the greatest President in history, is certainly not THAT.
Shaw: "You're the blog policeman"
Huh?
"but you seem not to be bothered when a group of vile-mouthed bullies attack me?"
I don't even read that blog, so I am not familiar with the incident. I'll take your word on it. You didn't even provide a link to it, and sorry if I am not going to bother to slog through the 499,000,000 entries that come up when I google for the Lisa blog.
"It's a double-standard that you and others are blind to."
So we're all out to get you. Yeah, right.
And despite your claim of "
I. Did. Not. Say. WILL. Attacked. Me."
you DID say: "You [meaning Will] and the other commenters at Lisa's blog apparently have no problem with attacking a woman", which, in light of the information we have here (which is missing the context of the secret Lisa exchange) DOES have you specifically accusing Will of these attacks.
My reading comprehension is perfectly fine, thank you.
Will: "I guess that Lisa's point was that if in fact she (Mrs. Fluke) COULD afford it, then why was she crying poverty about having to spend so much money on birth control (providing testimony with obviously inflated costs) in front of the entire country?"
That was the challenge I gave to Lisa: Prove that Ms. Fluke was crying poverty about spending money on contraception.
Lisa could not because Fluke never did. Fluke spoke about a friend of hers, a lesbian, btw, who was having female problems not associated with birth control, but which the birth control pill addressed.
That's all I did, and then her bullies came on and attacked me.
dmarks, obviously my comment to Will was that he and others condone ad hominem attacks, not that Will attacked me.
No, dmarks, neither you nor anyone is "out to get me."
But you're the first one to come to my blog to point out that someone is using the race card when you believe that is happening.
I don't condone ad hominem attacks, Shaw. I don't condone that guy calling you "vermin". I don't condone Lesley Parsley calling Sarah Palin "a worthless piece of excrement". I don't condone that guy on Lisa'a blog calling Mr. Obama "Idi Amin". And I don't condone you saying this about Lisa - "Nice try moron. But the name of my blog is "Progressive EruptionS." You don't have the brains or the wits to do a funny parody. No surprise there." Hell, I don't even condone some of the stupid crap that I say at times.......As for Mrs. Fluke, did she not complain mightily about having to dish out $3,000 for birth control and how that was becoming a major burden?
". And I don't condone you saying this about Lisa - "Nice try moron. But the name of my blog is "Progressive EruptionS." You don't have the brains or the wits to do a funny parody. No surprise there;
Will do you actually read the comments I make?????
That comment was NOT directed at Lisa!!!!!!
It was directed at the creep who was using my blog name and commenting under it!
Can you understand why there is so much anger on the internet.
You misREAD that comment. I did NOT call Lisa a moron!
That comment was directed at someone who was imitating my blog and who was anonymous!
I give up.
I. Just. Give. Up.
Your criticisms and trying to equate lierals and conservatives now come under some scrutiny, since you got that comment, which you thought I made in reference to Lisa, COMPLETELY WRONG!
There is no hope.
"But you're the first one to come to my blog to point out that someone is using the race card when you believe that is happening."
And that clearly happened when you posted a piece by someone who said that Herman Cain should not run for President because he was black And you agreed with the sentiment and defended it.
Shaw, I apologize for misreading the comment. I did think that you were directing it at Lisa. My overall comment, though, about there being more than enough idiocy, mean-spiritedness, and dishonesty to go around - that I continue to stand by.
dmarks: ...you posted a piece by someone who said that Herman Cain should not run for President because he was black And you agreed with the sentiment and defended it.
I don't recall the specifics, but I'm pretty sure you've mentioned this here before. I called you on it then. You linked to a post on Shaw's blog, which I read... and found you were totally wrong in your assesment of the situation. Nobody said Cain shouldn't run for president because he was black. And Shaw didn't agree with it because it wasn't said.
You didn't call me on it, really, as you misread everything involved.
I consistently oppose all racism, including anti-black racism. And this includes the racist smears against Herman Cain, as well as those against Obama.
dmarks: You didn't call me on it ... I consistently oppose ... the racist smears against Herman Cain [from the Left].
Yes, I did call you on it. We discussed this before. I remember you claimed that Shaw agreed with something racist said about Herman Cain, I asked for a link, you gave a link to a post on Shaw's blog, I looked at it...
...and what I discovered is that it was YOU who "misread everything involved". The article Shaw was talking about included ZERO racist smears against Herman Cain.
Post a Comment