Thursday, March 23, 2006
Free press for ER
One, he has blogged a whole rant about something I wrote over here.
Two, he never named me as as the blogging culprit.
He quoted me directly, so that makes him a petty thief. And there's a lie or two in it about me, which makes him worse.
Cracks me up. What I wrote was not directed at him, did not mention him -- and should not have concerned him, at least no more than the heartburn I get from reading his crap from time to time.
Here's Mark's rant.
Here's what prompted it, with full context, which, or course, Mark ignored.
Mark. Get. A. Life.
If you hadn't said anything to point it out, no one but the regular readers of yours and Mark's blogs would have known it was you to whom Mark was referring. Since he was purposely not revealing the identity of the blogger who insulted the President, I don't know how a quote makes him a thief. Not to mention, if what you said should not have concerned him, then why does what he say (when it's not about you) concern you so often?
I'm not taking sides, I like you both for different reasons. Agree to disagree without being disagreeable.
How about some more Ice-T pictures? ;)
Anon, bite me. You must be a masochist to keep coming back here. Go away, stay away, fly away, drift away -- whatever, just do it.
One of the big casualties of these last few interesting years has been Truth, or to be a bit more realistic and kind, Agreed Upon Facts. Everything is up for spinning.
The last presidential election held enough ambiguities in the process of the swing state Ohio that a congressional inquiry began. There have been hundreds of lawsuits, and thousands of complaints. The fact that the media has chosen to gloss over this is no guarantee that all was Kosher.
Most of the other "facts" that Maness chose to throw out there are far from settled, but they have been ridiculed sufficiently by people he believes, so it's a done deal, to him.
Look; I used to think that engaging the other side of the ideological spectrum was a noble pursuit. Now, I just think I'm tired of it. A number of them have admitted out loud how they use Haloscan to turn dissenting comments into 'positive' comments (Gayle?), and folks like the Lone Ranger are all too happy to point out that progress only comes when people like you and me are killed.
So I say forget it: for the same reason I don't argue with barking dogs, either. I read Mark's thing because I need to not just hear what my friends think. I read the Cap'n's thing because, although I rarely agree with him, he makes well reasoned arguments and seems like a decent guy. I read Mike's thing for cheap laughs.
Again, excuse the going on and on.
anon, i'm yer huckleberry. nothing i enjoy better than tearing a new one for a smug, self-righteous jackass like you. my keyboard's got so many notches on it, a strong breeze could blow it into smithereens. still, always room for one more notch.
The last few comments I left on yor blog: On your post entitled, "I am Ice-T's Lord and Saviour" I left this comment: "ER, that is a very good analogy. This is not a criticism, but I noticed you borrowed a phrase from Carl Sandburg. Only he was talking about fog." Which you failed to thank me for, but you did acknowledge that you did get the phrase from Sandburg.
On your post entitled, "My Um.. Hillbilly name", I said simply, "Colonel Bull" To which you replied, "fits you!"
On your post entitled "Buffaloed? or Lenten Cheating?" I left the comment, "I woudn't eat buffalo, myself. Not because it resembles beef in any way, though. I just don't care for the taste. Too gamey. I don't know. Maybe gamey isn't the right word, but I don't know a better one right at the moment.
Why not eat chicken or turkey?"
You did not acknowledge, and I didn't mind that.
Now, as to what kinds of comments you leave at my place:
On my post entitled, "Massacre of Iraqu's by U S Marines, in which I fairly presented both sides of the issue and even added, I won't dismiss this out of hand, referring to the assertion that the Marines were guilty, you commented, "Of COURSE you would dismiss it out of hand, Mark. You're still in denial about torture at Abu Ghraib -- with how many people convicted already?
You won't accept the truth now. Why should we expect you to accept any future truths?"
You made two assumptions, both false, about what I think. But I didn't object.
On my post entitled, "How has the war changed us?" in which I graciously said, "I also think, that even if Bush had lost the election and Kerry was now our President, we would still be waging war against terrorism. In spite of what Kerry and the other Democrats who now say they oppose the war say, I think in a time of crisis such as this, Americans who love freedom rise to the defense of the country. Even Liberal Democrats",
You said, "Mark, your self-imposed blindess and willingness to believe the best when confronted with the worst are astounding. And it's not worth "skewering."
As anyone reading this can plainly see from these quotes, you've been spoiling for a fight. Well, you got one. And then you want to pretend you are the innocent victim.
I didn't intend for this to turn into a playground fight over who tagged home plate first, but even after I stopped fighting you pushed me down into the dirt twice more.
I was attacking the statement, not the author. I found it highly offensive and insulting. I respect President Bush, and when he is attacked I take it personally. I suppose I should have ignored your offensive comment as I have been doing lately, and kept the peace, but it angered me, and I responded.
So, we both got something off our chests, and now, hopefully, you feel better. I know I do. Sometimes a nice temper tantrum is therapeutic.
try that crap argument with me, a-hole. i've got a long memory....
BTW, I'm no prude. In fact, I've fought the of profanity my whole life -- but I've so far managed to keep this place fairly clean, for the sake of tender eyes that peruse this place.
Seems silly. But I try to be generally inclusive -- for real, not just to others like me and those who agree with me -- and cussin' repels some people.