Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

What a laugh! "I didn't say it," he says. Rerun the tape, Roscoe.

I think maybe the Rev. needs a physical examination because he is obviously suffering some memory loss and poor judgment which could be related to early symptoms of dementia.
 

As someone with experience in public relations, you sure are nasty to people whose posts don't track with your own. Two words here: Bite. Me.
 

Me neither.
 

Shaking head at Anonymous's statement. Makes no sense except to be hostile.
 

My sentiment is that the anonymous idiot is referring to a post made by Teditor, not Toper. You know, the one in which I wonder about whether Anon is a member of the Nazi Party, Ku Klux Klan or some other whackjob organization that considers itself "Christian." Heck, maybe he's Fred Phelps hisself. It don't get much whackier than Phelps, and I've met the man face to face.
 

Whoa. The closest I can come to meetin' scary folks in the line of duty is ... two or three convicted murders in Texas. You might have me beat, tho. Those guys were in custody. Phelps is runnin' around loose.
 

Phelps was running for governor of Kansas in 1990 and bicycling across the state as a campaign strategy. I was editor of the weekly newspaper in Atwood, home of the incumbent governor, Mike Hayden.

As Phelps worked his way west to east from the northwest corner of the state -- Atwood's dang close to that corner -- his advance team plastered pamphlets all over town: On car windshields, on store fronts, on whatever wasn't moving and some things that were.

In some of the sheets, he talked about how God doesn't like this and God doesn't like that and that God definitely didn't like Mike Hayden. Of course, I've got people all over town bringing this stuff to me. By the time he rides his bicycle to the front door of the newspaper, I'm ready for him.

He pops into the office, and I invite him to sit down at my desk for the interview. He tells me all sorts of BS about how he loves western Kansas and that he's just out for everyone in the state and this and that. He tells me he loves Mike Hayden like a brother and if he didn't run against Hayden, he'd love to have him as his Lt. Gov.

When he's done with his BS, I start popping off questions, included was this one: "You call yourself a man of God who is as honest as anyone could ever be, but in our interview, you contradicted everything you had in your advance pamphlets and things that have been quoted in other publications about the governor. Which Fred Phelps statement is the truth?"

When I wrote the story, I made sure to write about the conflicting statements. When he read the story the next week, he sent me a nasty e-mail saying that God hated me, too, and that the newspaper I edited was sinful.

I kept that letter a long time, but it's been long gone in one of several moves. Darn.
 

Oops, truth be told, no e-mail was sent. That technology didn't reach Atwood, Kan., until this month. :-) It was a letter, though, and the return address was from Phelps' church in Topeka.
 

Wow. You definitely win. And you need to call me at work tomorrow.
 

What in the world for? Got any good gossip?
 

Tell me, do you folks ever get sick of patting each other on the back? or would it be having your noses up each other's butts?
 

Hey, Anon, I've got something I'd like to stick up your butt, and it ain't my nose. How big a boy are ya? Since ya seem scared to tag your name to your crap, I reckon you'd be scared of a good a** whoopin', too.

(The preceding is a copy of Roy D. Mercer and intended for the comical use of this audience. Of course, Anon might be willin' to take that whoopin'. I'd be happy to oblige.) :-)
 

Big word for a panty-waited, limp wristed lib. Hey, would you bring that flock of hens with you? (you know, the gals that NEVER find fault with anything you have to say?)
 

Oh, don't give poor ol' Anon any grief. Fact is, the answer is, no, I don't ever get tired of hanging out with friends, even those I disagree with. Especially them, without whom I wouldn't learn a damn thing.

If Anon wants to call that butt-sniffin' that's her perogative.

And, further fact is, this space is open to all anons, so she can stay incognito if she wants -- 'cause we are all incognito, on purpose.

But the fact remains:

This is, through Google's graces, MY house. And Anon's barbs and non-sequiturs (sp?) survive at my discretion. She's just takin' advantage of my good nature and tolerance.

None of which precludes me from saying; Hey, you, get the hell off my cloud.

Now, whose back, or butt, is next? For pattin' or sniffin' or kickin' -- as one poor sap illy advised by his handlers once famously said: Bring. It. On.

Oh, one more thing, Anon:

Jesus loves you!
 

teditor@cox.net. That's how you can reach me.

Panty-waited. Hell, son, I waited a long time to get into some girls' panties. Sure was worth it, though.

Limp-wristed? You ain't seen me, have ya? I'm big enough to plow through a purty big crowd, and, again, would be happy to do so with your'n.

Lib? Fella, I haven't voted for a Dem for president, EVER. Maybe I should've, but I never have.

Lib? Nope. Conservative? Nope. Moderate? That'd be closer. I consider myself a moderate Republican.

Now as far as my views toward you, wimpy anonymous, they're pretty moderate, too. You don't mind comin' on folks' blogs and sayin' a truckload of crap, but you ain't got the cajones to back it up. Type all ya want, because the rest of us who like to come here know what a true wimp ya are.
 

So, you're neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm?
 

I just ain't all that political. Lukewarm would be about right.

And I've got the nuts (and bolts) to put my name to my prose.

But like the boss says, I've wasted too much time with your banter on this blog. Wanna e-mail me? Goat head. I'm sure we'd have a neat conversation.

:-)
 

But see, this is my point:

No one's name is on any of this. "Anonymous" is as fine as "ER" or "Trixie" -- sorry to drag you into this, Hon --or "Bitch, Ph.D." or "Teditor" or whatEVER.

So, in my self-butt-kissin' yet self-defecating judgment: BAM goes the gavel.

Attacks based on any commentor's anonymity in this forum are BS and ruled out of order.

It don't take even partial identification for any of us to be able to tell who amongst us is showing her ass.

And now, I am headed off to read some Ray Bradbury fiction, or some 1840s-1850s political writing -- I haven't decided yet.

Y'all have fun!
 

Oh, lighten up, ER. I was smilin' as I wrote that stuff. He called me panty-waited and limp-wristed first. :-)
 

ER. This is my real name and I think that if anonymous, whoever he/she is, has a blog that we can visit and snipe at in return, then anonymous should have the cajones to comment under a name we can link to.

And I agree that Roberston is an idiot. And I am a Christian. And I have serious doubts that he is.
 

"My sentiment is that the anonymous idiot is referring to a post made by Teditor, not Toper."

I happen to be referring to Toper.

I am also NOT the same Anonymous idiot as the one talking about noses up butts, though I might on occasion agree with that person's sentiments!

All you self-congratulatory folks who have a "name" are way out of line assuming someone remains Anonymous just to flame other posters. This blog gives you three choices: an identity associated with Blogger, some other online identity or Anonymous. If you don't have a blog, you default to Anonymous.

Now, if this blog ain't open to people who don't have a blog, then just SAY SO. BE DIRECT. Don't talk about this anonymous idiot-stuff loud enough for us to hear and try to figure out what you mean.

Teditor, you are a riot!
 

Seein' as how this my joint, through Google's graces, Anons are welcome.

I'd rather there not be as many drive-by potshots. But, yea and verily, I am a merciful and tolerant host.

And, I'd rather all y'all quit harrassing Anonymouses for being anonymous.
 

Maybe, as in the immortal words of (dang it, I can never remember his name) in "The Paper":

"It was your turn!"

Actually, I think your confidence -- which approaches cocksureness -- pisses people off. Which is their problem. I sometimes cause the same reaction in people. Wishy-washy people can't people who know what they stand for.
 

It's not what he says, per se, it's the way he delivers it. In a nutshell, he assumes everyone else comes from his same point of reference, which he assumes is correct. (We all do this.)

But if someone calls him on it, then that person isn't intellectually sound unless he/she can back up with footnotes everything he/she says. Whereas, his attitude seems to exude, what HE says is FINE just like it is (no explanation needed -- but if you need it, then you are intellectually inferior).

I don't know where it was, but I was playing with the literal use of a statement he made about national policy.

WHAM! Comes the retort that that was a "nice spin" and that what he MEANT was ....

Way testy.

Just because he wasn't (in my mind, from my perspective) clear about what he meant (he KNEW, he just didn't say it -- what? am I supposed to read his mind? how arrogant is that?), do I deserve to be called "intellectually dishonest" or some sort of thing?

No, in my opinion, I don't.

Then I learn he has experience in public relations.

In my mind, from my perspective, someone with experience or training in public relations "should be" a little more attuned to the fact that you need to tune people in to your message -- not to assume they already know what it is, and if they don't, you thumb your nose at their intellectual capacity (or beg them to scratch your intellectual itch).

Arlington Group? Go here: http://www.arlgroup.com/ArlingtonGroup/home.aspx?page=Main

So you've got a lock on the name and the mission? And Pat Robertson wasn't invited?

Fine. Do what you want.

That's not the issue.

MY issue is that I just stand amazed in the presence of people who claim to be so religiously righteous, so intellectually sound and erudite, but have so little CLUE exactly where they do stand in the scheme of things.

That's OK, too.

Perhaps not yours to know.

But also -- not yours to tell me where I am not, either.

That's all.

You just need a reality check.
 

I have noticed my friend Nick does tend to trot out the phrase "intellectually dishonest" when someone disagrees with him.
 

The explanation above was offered so you could quit saying "huh?" as to what I meant about you being "nasty," Toper. And I get a response from you that includes not only referring to me in the third person, but the implication that I am so dumb I must not speak English as a first language.

I think you proved my point. But whatever, you win. That's what you want isn't it? So take it. WIN. WIN. WIN. !!!

It's all about winning.

Here's the exchange in question:

Comments:
In all fairness, Roberston ain't really the one who brung Bush the White House. The Christian Coalition really is no more (and he's not involved anymore, anyway) and he doesn't have the communications or grass-roots networks to really make a dent -- beyond talking about it on the 700 Club.
# posted by Nick Toper : 10:41 AM
Well, he is a figurehead -- a hoary one now, perhaps -- of the conservative evangelical cohort that is a core group of the Republican Party. And that's what I took the writer to mean.
# posted by ThePress : 11:02 AM
True enough, but to put it in Dukes of Hazzard terms, he's a lot more Enos than he is Roscoe in social conservative circles. He's not even a member of something called The Arlington Group, the loose coaltion of evangelical leaders (Dobson, Colson, Falwell, Family Research Council, American Family Association, etc.) that coordinates policy and political strategy at the national level.
# posted by Nick Toper : 11:08 AM

{some posts removed here to keep the thread of thought in question flowing)

Isn't it just like a loose group of evangelical leaders to distance themselves from one of themselves, as it suits them?

BTW, WHO KNEW these guys are the ones who coordinate "policy and political strategy at the national level"???? We're led to believe that is Karl Rove and Karen Hughes!!! LOL!!
# posted by Anonymous : 1:55 PM

I didn't say anything about kicking Robertson out of a group for anything, I said that when it suits, evangelicals seem to distance themselves from one of themselves ("The Christian Coalition really is no more (and he's not involved anymore, anyway)..." You go on to say: "He's not even a member of something called The Arlington Group, the loose coaltion of evangelical leaders...."

I note you say "not EVEN (emphasis mine) a member of something called The Arlington Group..." To me, that qualifies as "further distancing yourself as it suits."

Again, I didn't say you kicked anybody out.

More recently, I included a link to The Arlington Group (the "other one," I guess) just to show that your position that you are the only one who knows what he is talking about and everyone else needs to provide footnotes (see your later response to the above exchange under "dance with the one that brung you") may mean that you don't have all your facts together, either. Just because you refer to The Arlington Group doesn't mean that everyone else who refers to The Arlington Group is talking about the same thing. Intellectual honesty would entail covering your bases.

I am not going to debate anymore with you. You demonstrably get on a roll when you feel you are encountering no opposition, so I'll let you roll on.

I have my right to sense that you are nasty to people who don't agree with you, and you rarely prove me wrong. I'm pretty secure in my intellectual integrity, so anything you say in response will be noted, with the attendant grain of salt.

We're the salt of the Earth, you know.