The $50 Lesson

Subject: The $50 Lesson

Recently, while I was working in the flower beds

in the front yard, my neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog.

During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day.

Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, “If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?”

She replied… “I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.” Her parents beamed with pride!

“Wow…what a worthy goal!” I said. “But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that!” I told her.

“What do you mean?” she replied.

So I told her, “You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I’ll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out and give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.”

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?”

I

said, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”

Her parents aren’t speaking to me anymore.

67 Comments

  1. You know what Eric, based on your credibility, rather a lack thereof, I am guessing that you fabricated that entire story.

    That said, the message is a reasonable one in theory, although the reality probably is that the homeless man is more than willing to work but is unable to find a job!

    Contrary to the oft cited demonization of Americans in poverty, many of our poor are working, almost 60%, and many have more than one job, but still unable to get out of poverty.

    In the same cite, comparing many developed nations, the chart (2010) indicates that the US has the largest per cent of working poor for all those in poverty.

    These facts should put to rest our editor’s oft repeated assumption that those in poverty are lazy and shiftless. Not true, Mr Editor!

  2. That said, the message is a reasonable one in theory, although the reality probably is that the homeless man is more than willing to work but is unable to find a job!

    Funny. Last summer, my condo complex replaced all the shingles on all the buildings. The work crews were all (most likely illegal) Mexicans. And they worked their asses off!

    Now, if illegal Mexicans are able to work, and get jobs, then why aren’t the millions of welfare bums and moochers in this country, who are legal citizens, able to do the same?

  3. Perry engages in the usual slander and character assassination:

    You know what Eric, based on your credibility, rather a lack thereof

    Funny, but YOU’RE the only one here whose been caught in a bald faced LIE. Multiple times. So don’t talk about MY credibility, you cretin!

  4. Irony:

    Wagonwheel, it’s a tired and retarded email message that’s been passed around non-thinking wingnuts for years.

    And look who couldn’t read the post and see the words “Subject: The $50 Lesson,” quite indicative of an e-mail message.

    All it does is show what assholes they are.

    LOL. We’re linking to Kos now. ‘Nuff said.

  5. Not even Eric chose to defend himself re my allegation of his deception.

    Nevertheless, another phoney, Hube, steps in here to his defense.

    Hube, you should know better!

    You people are indeed whacky liars, uncovered by PiatoR. Job well done.

  6. Only a left winger could take a simple story and rearrange it in an entirely self-serving way.

    Of course, the left winger never does explain why it isn’t a good idea to hire the homeless guy in the first place as opposed to being on the dole. IOW, he misses the point of the story entirely. Rather than a job and an honest wage, the left winger would rather patronize the homeless guy, tell him what a “Victim” he is, how it’s all “Society’s fault”, and then leave the homeless guy no better off than he was before.

    But, hey, in left wing world, “Kompasion” is great. And if you can successfully fake it while blaming everything on Republicans, then so much the better!

  7. Not even Eric chose to defend himself re my allegation of his deception.

    Because your “Allegation” was pure bullshit. As usual.

    Nowhere did I claim that story was an actual news item. It was just a story, a parable if you will, to demonstrate the difference between Republicans and left wingers. Even Pho, who isn’t exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, had sense enough to pick up on that.

    Which means your either a dense fool, or a slimy liar. Probably both.

  8. BS Eric. You plagerized. You offered no attribution.

    You were caught in a lie, not surprising, because you make stuff up all the time. To you, a citation is a dirty word.

    “Pho” picked up on the fact that you are a phoney, as demonstrated once again. He caught you red-handed.

    What a schmuck you are, Eric!

  9. BS Eric. You plagerized. You offered no attribution.

    There WAS no attribution, numbnuts! That’s because the story had no source, it simply was passed around on the Internet.

    Ever pass around an Internet joke? Ever give “Credit” to the originator of that joke, when there was no originator to be had?

    I would like to dismiss you as a simpleminded fool who lacks all common sense, but that would be too innocent. You are instead a filthy liar who slanders others and engages in character assassination because, without that, you have no way of making an argument.

  10. You were caught in a lie, not surprising, because you make stuff up all the time.

    Got any PROOF I ever told a lie? Made stuff up? Any “Citations” to back up your claims”, Mr. “Citation, please”?

    Of course you don’t. You are just being full of shit, as usual.

  11. Now hurry up and get out your Bible and get on your knees, you sinner!

    You mean, the Bible that you don’t believe in? That you dismiss as “Myth”?

    Well, that Bible says God hating scum like you will burn in Hell for all eternity. And when you are there, and I am in Heaven listening to Van Halen and Led Zeppelin, you will be screaming for me to piss in your face to put out the fires tormenting you.

    Of course, I will just pour some gasoline on you and toss a match instead.

  12. You people are indeed whacky liars, uncovered by PiatoR. Job well done.

    Again, it seems you were the only one incapable of figuring out that it was an e-mail message, Perry. Which certainly is not surprising considering your reading/comprehension skills. Did you miss the very beginning: “Subject: The $50 Lesson,”?

    To you, a citation is a dirty word.

    It must be for you, too, since you outright lied about me outing DE Liberal’s Jason … refusing to provide a cite and instead offering up the pathetically lame “But I remember it well.” LOL …

  13. Amazing it is to see Eric squiggling like a worm, and Hube struggling mightily to defend him. How ridiculously funny is this? LOL!!!

    It certainly isn’t funnier than you not being able to figure out that it was an e-mail message, that’s for sure!

  14. E-mail message or not, Hube, it was presented without attribution, which I’m sure you will agree that this is clearly an act of plagiarism, of which I’m not the least bit surprised considering the perpetrator.

  15. E-mail message or not, Hube, it was presented without attribution, which I’m sure you will agree that this is clearly an act of plagiarism, of which I’m not the least bit surprised considering the perpetrator.

    Indeed. He should’ve just said “I can’t provide a source, but I remember it well!”

  16. Eric wrote:

    That said, the message is a reasonable one in theory, although the reality probably is that the homeless man is more than willing to work but is unable to find a job!

    Funny. Last summer, my condo complex replaced all the shingles on all the buildings. The work crews were all (most likely illegal) Mexicans. And they worked their asses off!

    Now, if illegal Mexicans are able to work, and get jobs, then why aren’t the millions of welfare bums and moochers in this country, who are legal citizens, able to do the same?

    It’s because they don’t want to. Since the government will pay them not to work, why should they?

    Around the Philadelphia area, if you have a house built, the odds are that the landscaping, the frame carpentry, the concrete work and the roofing were done by Hispanic labor. (Note: I didn’t say Mexican, because there is a substantial Portuguese component to the concrete work.) Yet I was continually hearing complaints, “Oh, there are no jobs!”

    Well, there were jobs, but all of those jobs required a willingness to actually work for a living. I’ve roofed one house, and it’s hot, sweaty, nasty, hard work, but it’s still honest work. I’ve poured plenty of concrete in my life, and it’s hard, dirty work, but it’s still good, honest work. It’s a lot more useful for employers to have American labor, because Americans understand and speak English, and there are no worries about immigration showing up and decimating your workforce and you facing big fines, but they wind up with Hispanics, because those people will actually show up for work every day, and work all day.

  17. Lordy, this accusation of negligence on Eric’s part by Perry and the Troll, has a genuine Alice in Wonderland feel to it.

    Who was it that I recently spent almost a week trying to get to cite the authorship of a phrase which he had, and with a supposedly authoritative flourish, deployed as a description of the scientific method as it relates to objectivity? That is to say, a partial and truncated quote which he edited and punctuated to deliberately convey a meaning opposed to the actual sense of the full passage?

    Why, that was none other than Perry! … of course!

    And Perry/Wagonwheel has still not admitted where he found the original textual material, though we probably know; nor has he explained why he edited and re-punctuated and tried to pass it off in the first place.

    It would be bizarre beyond belief if we didn’t witness similar things out of the lefties regualarly.

    Speaking of gun control and moral garbage and lefties … here’s an example of their view of truth and responsibility:

    ” ‘”I believe the ends justified the means. Even if we were hoaxed, there was a bigger picture, a more important picture, and it wasn’t about one set of pictures.’ “

    Piers Morgan lately of CNN, quoted by The Guardian newspaper of the UK.

    The questions: Given what Piers brazenly said about the (liberal) ends justifying the means, why should anyone believe that Piers Morgan was in fact an “unwitting victim” of a hoax?

  18. Wagonwheel says:
    Friday, 18 January 2013 at 09:10

    E-mail message or not, Hube, it was presented without attribution, which I’m sure you will agree that this is clearly an act of plagiarism, of which I’m not the least bit surprised considering the perpetrator. …

    I guess you understand that you and the troll therefore stand condemned as guilty of plagiarism on your own testimony. Or else you have an insanely defective memory.

  19. DNW enters on the offensive:

    I guess you understand that you and the troll therefore stand condemned as guilty of plagiarism on your own testimony. Or else you have an insanely defective memory.

    Oh really? And you expect any reasonable person to take you at your word? (Wingnuts don’t count!)

    And even if true, you then excuse Eric for his plagiarism? Of course you do, as a member of the wingnut tribe on here.

    I consider your word generally to be no more trustworthy than Eric’s. Obviously your main thrust is to slime whoever is not enamored with your extremist ideological leanings.

  20. Wagonwheel says:
    Friday, 18 January 2013 at 11:49

    DNW enters on the offensive:

    I guess you understand that you and the troll therefore stand condemned as guilty of plagiarism on your own testimony. Or else you have an insanely defective memory.

    Oh really?

    Yes, really.

    And you expect any reasonable person to take you at your word? (Wingnuts don’t count!)

    People, reasonable or otherwise don’t have to. They have your own words in this thread, as well as my link above to your little adventure in plagiarism.

    And even if true, you then excuse Eric for his plagiarism?

    It is both true and also the case that I make no excuse for, or judgement as to, Eric’s formatting or presentation.

    He can explain that. Based on the look of the posting and what Eric has said about himself, I did not personally take it that he was presenting a real life flower-bed gardening event, but re-presenting a theme or parable that had been circulating somewhere.

    What I do find absurd is that the Phoenician who has been caught out posting unattributed text as if it were his own, and especially you who have engaged in the practice during the last 30 days, then trying to leverage an attack on Eric off of a charge of “plagiarizing” what you yourselves claim is a widely circulating e-mail.

    Of course you do, as a member of the wingnut tribe on here.

    I consider your word generally to be no more trustworthy than Eric’s. Obviously your main thrust is to slime …

    As I was just saying about the Alice in Wonderland atmosphere that accompanies your indignant blathering …

    ” …whoever is not enamored with your extremist ideological leanings.”

    Trust Piers Morgan do you?

  21. Perry gets desperate:

    E-mail message or not, Hube, it was presented without attribution, which I’m sure you will agree that this is clearly an act of plagiarism

    You DO realize that jokes, stories, photos, and the like get passed around by email ALL THE TIME, and there’s no “Plagiarism” because: 1) The original source is usually anonymous, and 2) The material is in the public domain, not copyrighted or anything.

    Of course, you are: 1) such a dimwit that you can’t grasp this concept, and 2) your usual lying self, making up false allegations for your own self-serving purposes.

  22. I consider your word generally to be no more trustworthy than Eric’s.

    Funny. You can’t come up with a single LIE that I have told. Indeed, when challenged directly by me to do so, the response from you was – Silence.

    You’re full of shit, Perry. And now you’ve been exposed as someone who is full of shit. And maliciously full of shit at that.

  23. Obviously your main thrust is to slime whoever is not enamored with your extremist ideological leanings.

    This is the point where I remind Perry of the sliming he has done here regularly in the past, calling people terrorists, traitors, racists, and the like.

    Of course, Perry, in his usual, self-serving way, will conveniently forget he ever said such things.

  24. Now we have DNW prevaricating:

    Lordy, this accusation of negligence on Eric’s part by Perry and the Troll, has a genuine Alice in Wonderland feel to it.

    Who was it that I recently spent almost a week trying to get to cite the authorship of a phrase which he had, and with a supposedly authoritative flourish, deployed as a description of the scientific method as it relates to objectivity? That is to say, a partial and truncated quote which he edited and punctuated to deliberately convey a meaning opposed to the actual sense of the full passage?

    Why, that was none other than Perry! … of course!

    And Perry/Wagonwheel has still not admitted where he found the original textual material, though we probably know; nor has he explained why he edited and re-punctuated and tried to pass it off in the first place.

    God I hope you are not an attorney, DNW, because we already have too many who behave like you, a prevaricator.

    To prove plagiarism, one needs to do what PiatoR did with Eric’s plagiarism, which is to show the original source. You did not do that! My words in the post you cited (see above in the quote for the link) are my own. Obviously, while you might be conversant in such as Philosophy, you are obviously not in Science, in which I am, as Science is my education and career.

    Is this the mark of your ethic, DNW, in which you would make an allegation of plagiarism without one iota of evidence or justification? How much of what YOU write is plagiarism, I must now ask?

    Or perhaps, in spite of all your lofty rhetoric, you are actually pretty ignorant, or maybe evil is a more apt word.

    On this matter, DNW, you have overstepped, which then calls into question all the rest of the high sounding garbage you post on this blog. But do not worry, your own tribe is enthralled.

  25. This is the point where I remind Perry of the sliming he has done here regularly in the past, calling people terrorists, traitors, racists, and the like.

    Of course, Perry, in his usual, self-serving way, will conveniently forget he ever said such things.

    Unfortunately for you and your tribe, when I see it I refer to it, then call you folks out, contrary to lots of the behavior of many of your tribe when you just explode out of thin air.

    It’s as if you all had a dysfunctional relationship with your own parents, and have yet, supposedly as adults, to get over your anger and rage. Grow up and man up, man!

  26. Unfortunately for you and your tribe, when I see it I refer to it, then call you folks out

    Is that your excuse for saying hateful things to people you disagree with? And then you have the gall to whine when other people say things you don’t like about you and your ideology.

    You’re a phony, Perry. A hypocrite. You accuse others of things, then do the same (and far worse) back at them.

  27. It’s as if you all had a dysfunctional relationship with your own parents, and have yet, supposedly as adults, to get over your anger and rage. Grow up and man up, man!

    Says the “Man” who is so full of hate based merely on Internet conversations that he accuses one poster of felony tax evasion and threatens to destroy the career of another.

    You’re pathological, Perry. You should invest some time with a good psychiatrist to figure out where all your hate and rage come from.

  28. “Unfortunately for you and your tribe, when I see it I refer to it, then call you folks out, contrary to lots of the behavior of many of your tribe when you just explode out of thin air.”

    So for you and your cult it’s okay to ruin a man’s reputation, hurt his family and end his career because he exploded out of thin air, on the internet, in words not deeds? Typical Nazi.

    You have no evidence Koolo’s ever done anything wrong but since you don’t like his politics you choose to try and ruin him. Talk about manning-up.

    But you and your cult have done a good job. Koolo no longer posts here, Ropelight’s on his way out, Hube basically left. Seems to be a pattern. If you don’t like their politics shut them up. How tolerant.

  29. Perry lies again:

    To prove plagiarism, one needs to do what PiatoR did with Eric’s plagiarism, which is to show the original source.

    Actually, Pho did no such thing. He did not find the “Source”, nor did he find the author. All he did was find a left wing site that quoted the story, then tried to “Deconstruct” it in a typically self-serving way.

    Christ, Perry, it’s bad enough that you lie so regularly, but do you have to make your lies so obvious?

  30. Eric, you are not even a good joke.

    You copied and pasted a piece as your own, without attribution. That’s plagiarism, Eric!

    Now go back to tending your flower beds – its a better place for you to be!

  31. Eric: Look at the positive — you’ve never threatened anyone here and you’ve never made an accusation about wrong-doing (criminal and otherwise) about someone here. This makes you magnitudes more of a human being than you-know-who.

  32. Note how the viral email readily proved that even a child can understand the value of work, that even that child will decide that she should be able to keep the compensation from her work instead of handing it all off to someone who did not do any work, and all the resident lying Leftists could do was distract everyone’s attention from the very factual points made in the viral email.

    The lying Leftists could not argue against the points made, including the difference between Big Government Leftists and freedom-loving Conservatives and Libertarians, nor could they call the little girl a hateful person; thus, they distracted all of you, and sent you chasing their multitudinous fallacious and hate-filled blatherings.

  33. To Perry,

    Perry says,

    ” My words in the post you cited (see above in the quote for the link) are my own. “

    No doubt any of the words in the post which actually were yours, were yours. That form of claim when phrased as a statement, is called a tautology. It merely repeats the subject term in the predicate.

    However, the words that were apparently not yours and falsified, and which you refused to cite or attribute despite repeated requests are:

    “Scientific objectivity means that independent observers, using the same procedures, will come to consensus.”

    This is interesting. Because after you had refused open requests to cite that enblock material – which was not enclosed in quotes but merely offset – a quick search showed that the same phrase was available on WikiAnswers as part of a longer sentence and a passage which both tended to the opposite implication you claimed for it.

    So, unless you can provide the source for your exact phrasing which I have provided in quotes above, the conclusion to be drawn is either,

    1. that you were presenting material not your own as your own, and falsifying it,

    or

    2. if granted the benefit of a doubt as to whether you were claiming it for your own, you nonetheless falsified the text when you presented it here in order to falsify the record.

    Thus, your falsification act would obtain as the case even if you had been the original author of the WikiAnswers text, and were “merely” quoting yourself.

    In fact, if you had written the original WikiAnswer text, your recent use of an enblock offset in producing it here would make the situation worse since the bare offsetting implies some kind of external textual authority …

    To the readers in general,

    In was, and has been Perry’s aim to undermine any “absolutist” i.e., “tyrannical” reliance by conservatives on, or any reference to, some independent reality, or objective referent which it is intellectually obligatory for any rational man to admit.

    Science would seem to be a problem for this view; especially when advanced by a “scientist”.

    Thus, in hoping to emphasize the role of “consensus” in the formation of realities, and avoid references to an objective and independently existing phenomenal reality, Perry wrote enblock: “Scientific objectivity means that independent observers, using the same procedures, will come to consensus.”

    When repeatedly asked to cite his scientific authority for what looked to be Perry’s reproduction of some authoritative statement on the scientific view of reality, Perry refused.

    Was Perry quoting himself? Werner Heisenberg? Some postmodernist? Perry would not say.

    But WikiAnswers had the following material online:

    “Scientific objectivity means that independent observers, using the same procedures, will come to consensus regarding the phenomenon they are studying. In other words, personal opinions, values, and biases will not change observations recorded with scientific objectivity.”

    And again, a comparison with Perry’s material:

    “Scientific objectivity means that independent observers, using the same procedures, will come to consensus.”

    Notice what is missing: ” …regarding the phenomenon they are studying. In other words, personal opinions, values, and biases will not change observations recorded with scientific objectivity.”

    Unless Perry can explain all this away, he is prima facie guilty of both plagiarism and a textual fraud which gave the plagiarized material a sense almost opposite to that carried by the presumptively original and unedited material.

    Now if, on the other hand, it was WikiAnswers plagiarizing Perry’s academic publications, Perry could clear it all up with a simple cite. But for many, many, days now, he has refused to do so.

    Why?

  34. Perry lies again:

    blockquote>You copied and pasted a piece as your own, without attribution. That’s plagiarism, Eric!

    I told you before – there WAS no attribution. It was an anonymous email, like millions of other emails that people send each other on the Internet.

    You know this, but keep lying anyway.

    Pathetic.

  35. Eric: Look at the positive — you’ve never threatened anyone here and you’ve never made an accusation about wrong-doing (criminal and otherwise) about someone here. This makes you magnitudes more of a human being than you-know-who.

    Perry is simply a pathological liar. Slander and smear mongering are his stocks in trade.

    Typical left winger.

  36. It seems to me that Perry has one, and only one, way out here.

    Perry must show that the author of the WikiAnswers text had plagiarized and modified through extension and elaboration, a sentence Perry had previously published in the shortened form he presented here.

    He can do this by citing text title and page number and date of authorship.

    Claiming to have been the original author of the now foreshortened WikiAnswer material re-presented here, will not do however. This is because fraudulently quoting [truncating] your earlier self in a manner meant to mislead readers now, is still a violation of the canons of ethical authorship.

    Title and page number, Perry. It’s your only way out.

  37. DNW, I hate to tell you, but you are wasting your time. Perry simply will not acknowledge error, let alone a bald faced lie. Indeed, I caught him in a lie yesterday (see my Friday, 18 January 2013 at 14:23), exposed the lie, and the only response from Perry was to ignore his own lie and instead double down on another lie.

    The man is pathological. It’s no wonder he denies absolutes. In a world where everything’s relative, lies and truth can intermingle freely. Rather convenient for the left winger.

  38. DNW alleges without evidence:

    It seems to me that Perry has one, and only one, way out here.

    Perry must show that the author of the WikiAnswers text had plagiarized and modified through extension and elaboration, a sentence Perry had previously published in the shortened form he presented here.

    He can do this by citing text title and page number and date of authorship.

    Claiming to have been the original author of the now foreshortened WikiAnswer material re-presented here, will not do however. This is because fraudulently quoting [truncating] your earlier self in a manner meant to mislead readers now, is still a violation of the canons of ethical authorship.

    Title and page number, Perry. It’s your only way out.

    DNW, aren’t you mature enough to not play this silly game, one of many which you attempt in your obsession to slime those with whom you disagree ideologically?

    In order to be credible, you must produce my statement alongside the text and cite which you allege I have plagiarized?

    You have not done that, now have you DNW. Or have I somehow missed it? Whichever, post your evidence or shut the hell up with your idiotic allegation of plagiarism!

  39. Perry lies again:

    You copied and pasted a piece as your own, without attribution. That’s plagiarism, Eric!

    I told you before – there WAS no attribution. It was an anonymous email, like millions of other emails that people send each other on the Internet.

    You know this, but keep lying anyway.

    Pathetic.

    Eric, do you understand what plagiarism is. I think you do, but you are attempting to wiggle your way out of the truth.

    Even if the piece was anonymous, you must then attribute it as such. Not doing so shows that you have committed plagiarism. Otherwise readers will assume that you are the author, which in this case you are not the author.

    You committed plagiarism! PiatoR provided the evidence. You were caught.

    Case closed!

  40. DNW, I agree with Perry. You absolutely MUST post what Perry said and what Perry’s source (that Perry adamantly refused to give) said — like you did above, before Perry demand you do so — or else, how can we know the abysmal liar Perry is once again lying abysmally? I mean, seriously, DNW. Just putting the information that Perry demands of you up before he demands it of you is not enough. You have to put it up 50 times a day, and within Perry’s own comment, else you never put it up in the first place.

    And here, I thought you knew these things.

  41. That was a nice sneak attack right there, Perry, noting what I teach and what level. Those slimy tactics must be in YOUR DNA. I have e-mailed Editor asking him to delete the reference. (I know contacting you directly is meaningless, because when I did with regards to a certain relative, you ignored the requests — twice.) I could have retaliated using your full name and other personal information, but after your perpetual convoluted nonsense, it really isn’t worth it anymore. You’re merely a parody of a human being, who doesn’t know in the slightest how to act like he demands of everyone else.

    And you’re right — whenever I stop by I will continue to point out your slimy double standards. And face it — everyone knows you threatened me. And Koolo. And accused Hoagie of felony activity. It’s in your DNA. There’s no use attempting to point out every time I pop in what a scumbag you are for doing what you did; you just never get it. As many of us have noted, I or anyone else could have made the same exact threat to you — y’know, contact the police because we’re concerned about your family’s well-being based on your behavior here — but we never considered such. Because we’re sane. And we’re much, much better people than you.

    And to top it off, you outright LIED about me “outing” someone I dislike in an attempt to assuage your own guilt.

    I care not one iota what you think of my improvement; any such measure is only because the realization has set in that you’re too far gone to have even a remotely sensible conversation, and it isn’t worth any further hassle, really. You’re good only for a cathartic effect after a long day or week, and/or to occasionally point out to any newcomers here what a snake you are, so they can tread carefully.

  42. I highlighted that part of the comment, Hube, then sent it to moderation for the Editor to deal with. And, yes, what Perry did was an affront to all that is honorable, and he should be permanently banned for his continued evil behavior, intimidation tactics, and terroristic threatenings.

  43. DNW, I agree with Perry. You absolutely MUST post what Perry said and what Perry’s source (that Perry adamantly refused to give) said — like you did above, before Perry demand you do so — or else, how can we know the abysmal liar Perry is once again lying abysmally? I mean, seriously, DNW. Just putting the information that Perry demands of you up before he demands it of you is not enough. You have to put it up 50 times a day, and within Perry’s own comment, else you never put it up in the first place.

    And here, I thought you knew these things.

    A cite is required, John. There was none.

    I did post that piece as a quote without citation, so that was an oversight, a mistake, but certainly not plagiarism, which is what Eric committed as he did not even use quotes. Note that on this blog the use of blockquote serves as a substitution for quotation marks.

    The case which DNW is trying to make against me does not stand up, because he cannot prove that I may have taken that quote from another source.

    Moreover, even if I did select the quote from a longer statement, commenters on here do this on here all the time. Not only that, the missing piece, assuming I extracted that particular sentence, does not change the meaning of the piece I may have extracted.

    Regarding my refusing to give the quote, I did not see that it had been raised as an issue.

    This is all an effort by DNW to play his usual sliming game, in this case presenting a weak case with missing citations, and with unprovable assumptions.

    If you are an attorney, you ought to be ashamed. Come to think of it, whatever you are, you ought to be ashamed!

    Now have at it some more, wingnuts!!!

  44. Paranoia sets in one more time. I revealed no detailed information about your personal job information, not even close to your detailed outing of a Delaware Liberal poster.

    Again, with the lies about me outing someone, and again with the job description.

    otherwise how would I ever have known?

    As you’re fond of pointing out, did we not once have lunch (with Hoagie and Editor)?

    Hitch or Editor — please delete the job reference … again.

  45. And to prove I did no such thing to any DE Liberal person, read this.

    John. I understand your feelings about DL. I by and large share ‘em. They’re complete tools.

    That said, I think it was wrong to use donviti’s real moniker. It’s an unspoken rule in the blogosphere not to reveal names (if known) as there may be needed reasons to use a pseudonym.

    I’ve had my knock-down, drag-’em-outs with them, but revealing names never occurred to me. It may have occurred to them, but they never did it.

    Again, what you did was wrong.

  46. If that isn’t sufficient, then try this:

    I just posted at DP. John was wrong to use donviti’s real name. I don’t care how big of tools the DLers are, as you said Steve, there are legitimate reasons for using a pseudonym. Calling people names on blogs, acting like assholes constantly, using lousy spelling(!) … none of that necessitates such a revelation.

  47. Y’see, Perry? You just spent a ton of time ripping DNW for supposedly treating you unfairly for not providing a cite. Yet, you accuse me of committing possibly the biggest sin in the blogosphere — outing — and you can offer not a single shred of proof. You recently admitted you cannot do so — only that “you remember.”

    However, if I continued to complain about this, you’d accuse me of stalking, bullying, extremism, etc. and ultimately would threaten to report me … again. Such is the irrationality of dealing with you.

  48. OK Hube, I’ll take your word for it, as it appears that I’ve made a mistake about your outing a DL author. Sorry!

    But take note, I have not outed you, as John Hitchcock outed me. And not a word from you on that occurrence.

  49. OK Hube, I’ll take your word for it

    You don’t need my mere word. You have no proof, and I’ve backed up my defense.

    But take note, I have not outed you, as John Hitchcock outed me. And not a word from you on that occurrence.

    LOL … yet you again post what I teach and what level. Beautiful.

    At any rate, that’s between you and Hitch, but considering you’ve already used your full name before while blogging, and considering your insanely slimy behavior here and elsewhere, perhaps you can tell us under just what obligation is Hitch to not do so?

  50. However, if I continued to complain about this, you’d accuse me of stalking, bullying, extremism, etc. and ultimately would threaten to report me … again. Such is the irrationality of dealing with you.

    Hube, when the fact is that you were bahaving much as you describe, with all sorts of colorful vocabulary thrown in on a daily basis, this is simply unacceptable behavior of a school teacher because of the rational conclusion that said behavior would similarly occur, by you, in your classroom, unless you are a multipersonality individual, in which case that being also inappropriate.

    But you’ve changed for the better, admit it, therefore no longer a concern.

  51. At any rate, that’s between you and Hitch, but considering you’ve already used your full name before while blogging, and considering your insanely slimy behavior here and elsewhere, perhaps you can tell us under just what obligation is Hitch to not do so?

    So now you are forgiving Hitch for doing exactly the same thing which you do not want done to yourself. That’s irrational, Hube, and hypocritical as well. I have not used my full name on this blog, which according to you should be respected. Hitch did not respect that, and in fact revealed more than my full name. But that’s OK, right Hube, because he belongs to your tribe?

    Fair and balanced, like Fox, that’s you!

  52. Offending comment sent into moderation until such a time as the Editor amends it or deletes it or releases it.

    Offending commenter sent into moderation until such a time as the Editor determines what to do with the totally out of control commenter. (At this time, a permanent banning is the only viable option, in my view.)

  53. Let the record be clear:
    I did not “reveal” anything about Perry that wasn’t already “revealed”.
    His last name? He revealed that himself.
    His state of residence? He revealed that himself.
    His city of residence? I got that information on either this site or the previous site, publicly provided by the Editor.
    Any other personal information about Perry, other than he’s in his 70s? I don’t have that information so I never revealed information I don’t have.

  54. So now you are forgiving Hitch for doing exactly the same thing which you do not want done to yourself. That’s irrational, Hube, and hypocritical as well. I have not used my full name on this blog, which according to you should be respected. Hitch did not respect that, and in fact revealed more than my full name. But that’s OK, right Hube, because he belongs to your tribe?

    Yes, Hitch has done so, and Dana has edited it and warned him. When was the last time Hitch has used your full name on this blog, BTW? Nevertheless, as I said, I feel little sympathy for you considering the fact that you’ve threatened people in here. Numerous times. And accused another of felonious activity.

    If you believe you were treated unfairly by Hitch (even though Dana deleted it, as previously said) considering what you’ve done, again, that is a serious problem you possess, and one no one can change but yourself. It is the ever-manifesting Perry double standard. And it’s become way beyond tiresome.

  55. Even if the piece was anonymous, you must then attribute it as such.

    Sez who? You? On what authority? No one made YOU boss of this blog!

    You committed plagiarism!

    You can repeat this self-serving lie as often as you like, but it’s still a lie. And of course you lied about what Pho actually did as well. And, when I exposed this lie of yours, the response from you was – typically – silence.

    Anyway, the point of your self-serving lies is to duck the moral of the story I posted, which makes your side look bad. It’s awfully convenient that you want to chicken out of talking about that by constantly deflecting with lies about “Plagiarism”.

  56. Hube, when the fact is that you were bahaving much as you describe, with all sorts of colorful vocabulary thrown in on a daily basis, this is simply unacceptable behavior of a school teacher

    Christ, what a load of self-serving, self-justifying bullshit! Who are YOU to decide what is “Unacceptable behavior” in a school teacher or anyone else? Especially when your OWN moral behavior is as low as worm turds!

    Has it ever occurred to you that a teacher can do things outside of a classroom, on their own time, that would be totally unacceptable inside the classroom? Things like smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, engage in sexual activity, etc. Things which, if done on their own time, are NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS !!

  57. Pingback: Our first banning « THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.

Comments are closed.