Our first banning

On Thursday, December 27th, I wrote:

The final word: knock off all threats, suggestions, intimations, whatevers, that koolo or any other poster or commenter here should be reported to the police or to his employers, period. Eric thinks I should just ban you, permanently, and after twice suspending you (Wagonwheel) for 15 days for this type of behavior, you have not learned your lesson. This is the last warning! Once more, and I shall take Eric’s suggested action, and impose a permanent ban!

At 5:45 PM EST today, you posted yet another comment referencing a commenter’s position and employment. When Hube protested, John Hitchcock — who saw it before I did — sent the comment into moderation. Then, at 6:03 PM (in another comment Mr Hitchcock sent into moderation), you protested your innocence in the same manner you did so often with koolo (seemingly having finally driven him away), by saying that, now, Hube’s behavior would cause no problem for his employers, where before, it would.

I have no idea what part of This is the last warning! Once more, and I shall take Eric’s suggested action, and impose a permanent ban! is so difficult to understand. Yet you persist, always attempting to stretch the envelope, always trying to see just what you can get away with.

Well, if you were somehow unable to understand the meaning of that very unambiguous sentence, no one else is, including your Editor, the man who wrote it. You had a final warning, not even a month ago, but just couldn’t help yourself. And I am bound by the words I wrote, and have taken the action promised. I very much regret having to do that, but that is what you have pushed me into doing.

53 Comments

  1. Mr Hitchcock, that’s not necessarily a good thing. We had two visitors from the left, WW and the Phoenician. The Phoenician is good for looking up stuff on the internet, but, other than that, he’s just an [insert slang term for the sphincter here]; he simply has not crossed, or even attempted to cross, the line WW has. Wagonwheel, on the other hand, actually did try to provide some debate, and that will be missed. I wanted this site to be far less rancorous than the old one, and that hasn’t worked out as well as I had hoped.

    OK, OK, let me tell the truth here: it hasn’t worked out at all. :(

    Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find us (both!) some decent commenters from the left, those who will engage in debate without animosity.

    I do, however, like the word picture provided; modern art, indeed!

  2. I, too, would like decent commenters from the Left, but I believe Perry and the New Zealand Socialist have kept those decent commenters away. Jeff, aphrael, and an old used-to-be sporadic commenter on my site, named Matt, are the types we truly want. They debate in good faith and don’t resort to cheap crap like the two that have been filling this site with bile.

    It is my contention that the disease-ridden nature of Perry and the self-declared troll from New Zealand has kept honest Leftists away more than anything else. And with the terroristic threatener now gone, it may open up this site for reasonable Leftists.

  3. FWIW I’d keep an eye out on Dredging Up Crap, er, Bridging the Gap to see if Perry attempts to continue his revelations of personal information there.

  4. I have mixed feelings on this.

    It seems that Perry had a split personality. A very split personality. Koolo used to call him “Passive-aggressive Perry” and he was right. One side of him could be reasonable, even pleasant at times. That, apparently, was the Perry who met with Dana, Hoagie, and maybe a few others for lunch a while back. Dana seemed to take away a good impression from that meeting.

    But the other side seemed to nurse a very vindictive grudge toward certain posters here. When you cross the bounds of cyberspace and start threatening to take your Internet fights into the real world, to threaten people’s jobs, careers, reputations, etc., well, I would say that’s pretty unhinged. Even Pho, unpleasant as he is, seems to abide by the ethic of “What happens in cyberspace, stays in cyberspace”. And Perry’s excuses and “Rationalizations” for such behavior were entirely self-serving in nature. He simply couldn’t grasp the fact that what you do off the clock is different from what you do on the job. The notion that he had the “Right” to appiont himself the Blog snitch, the rat fink, to tattle on someone just because they might have been rude to you on an Internet site, is just repulsive. And the fact that he lied about his behavior after being caught, demanding “Citations” when all the proof was there in print for everyone to see, just added insult to injury. Indeed, I imagine he is now sulking in his home in DE, feeling very much the “Victim” (as all left wingers are wont to do) and blaming everyone for his misfortunes but himself.

    Dana and John are right. We do need some debate around here, if it’s just us conservatives agreeing with each other, this place can be rather dull. But we can’t have “Debate” that becomes so personal that it threatens to spill over into real world consequences for people’s lives and reputations.

  5. I have no idea what just happened. You had a post here before Should Perry be banned on which I commented twice that I thought not. Then Bamo! he pulls this once again. I just don’t get it.

    Eric, a while back Hube, Perry, Dana and I had, what I thought, was a very friendly pleasant lunch. We talked, like civilized human beings, ate and parted what I thought were friends. I just can’t figure where this personal stuff comes from. I realize leftists are emotional but between the constant name calling and threats I just can’t understand it. I mean, I can understand calling me or you or even The Editor and “extremist”, or “radical” or even a “wingnut”. It’s political banter. But when we become hate mongers, racists, cowards, idiots or weasels then it goes from political to personal. Then it’s easy to go from personal to threatening. Once one dehumanizes the opponant by constantly calling him some piece of crap it’s easy to not care if he’s actually harmed by what you say or do.

  6. Once one dehumanizes the opponant by constantly calling him some piece of crap it’s easy to not care if he’s actually harmed by what you say or do.

    Do you remember when NZ had that major earthquake and various Conservatives expressed concern for the New Zealand Socialist’s well-being? Remember how he returned that concern? I do. The New Zealand Socialist, far from being appreciative, spewed forth bile and blatantly and outright rejected all well-wishes from the Conservative American regulars. His hatred of us is so extreme that even when it was possible he could’ve been harmed by the quake and we expressed concern for him, he could not get past his abject hatred to even politely declare he was “fine thanks”. No, he had to hatefully tell us to mind our own business or somesuch rot.

  7. But when we become hate mongers, racists, cowards, idiots or weasels then it goes from political to personal.

    He did worse than that. He called John a “Terrorist” multiple times, has called us traitors and unpatriotic, and then had the gall to demand “Civility”.

  8. You have a point there Eric, I didn’t appreciate being called a traitor or unpatriotic. Especially after being shot twice in Nam. I don’t think my patriotism or loyalty is up for debate. And again, calling John Hitchcock a terrorist is his emotionalism going off the deep end again. Completely uncalled for.

    Mr. Hitchcock, as far as the NZ goes I think he just plain hates America, Americans and everything we stand for. I think there’s nothing more he’d like than to see our country collapse. Which is why I cringe when WW would agree with him. I don’t believe WW is unAmerican, just wrong. There’s a difference. But when he would side with someone who demonstrates such malevolence toward our country one has to think where he’s at.

  9. Editor says:
    Sunday, 20 January 2013 at 08:17

    Mr Hitchcock, that’s not necessarily a good thing. We had two visitors from the left, WW and the Phoenician. The Phoenician is good for looking up stuff on the internet, but, other than that, he’s just an [insert slang term for the sphincter here]; he simply has not crossed, or even attempted to cross, the line WW has. Wagonwheel, on the other hand, actually did try to provide some debate, and that will be missed. I wanted this site to be far less rancorous than the old one, and that hasn’t worked out as well as I had hoped.

    OK, OK, let me tell the truth here: it hasn’t worked out at all. :(

    Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find us (both!) some decent commenters from the left, those who will engage in debate without animosity.

    I do, however, like the word picture provided; modern art, indeed!”

    I agree with the sentiments of most here that banning Perry was an unfortunate necessity. If you allowed him to continue on as he was doing, it would stimulate some activity, but not necessarily the most desirable kind.

    Since your aim is not to perpetuate this blog as a forum for squabblers, having us chase Perry around in circles to no effect is not a solution.

    As you say – it hasn’t worked out.

    And frankly, while becoming frustrated enough to take a couple of breaks from posting here, I had contributed to it myself by wrongly imagining that I at least, as if I had special powers for doing so, could get lemonade out of lemons by trying to engage Perry on what were clearly his – often enough announced – philosophical presuppositions.

    As everyone has observed: Round and around we tediously went, mostly for naught except for a handful of eventually unequivocal conclusions. Satisfying for me maybe, but conclusions which Perry then shrugged off as if they had never been gained.

    I’m not sure that the goal of having the kind of conversations with the left you wish to have is even possible.

    Almost everyone who tries remarks on the phenomenon in the same way, and reports the same outcome.

    It is almost as if so-called progressives do have a fundamentally, and radically different mind or psychology. Their thinking patterns are different, their evaluation of success different, and their emotions are triggered in a different way.

    Conservatives, and to a lesser extent libertarians, seem to have trouble processing this difference as real.

    When reality is viewed as subjective, reason as tactics and strategy only, the truth as consensus narrative, and the terms of right and wrong, and good and evil as meaningless except as subjective expressions of approval or disapproval, then what is there really to discuss with a person holding to that view: that he is wrong? How could he be wrong according to his own beliefs concerning value, and on what possible evidence?

    If Joe decides that his appetite for constitutional liberty is small, that the constitutionalist’s “negative liberty” of self-direction, the freedom to be unmolested or coerced or compelled by government, is unimportant compared with a system of socially managed opportunities for directed organic and social fulfillment … what’s to argue? That he should prefer vanilla to chocolate or strawberry?

    You could try and argue, and many regularly do, that what he craves is an illusion, that it doesn’t work, that the 20th century was one long experiment in proving it. To which he will reply: that kind of sharing was defective, it was really state capitalism, not true socialism and compassion … real progressive community values have yet to be implemented.

    Actual communication regarding shared presuppositions and the resolution of questions through the instrument of reason as applied to an objective reality, is per hypothesis, their hypothesis at least, impossible, and therefore pointless. Reality, on their view, awaits free-form creation.

    Rhetoric, as a part of social war by other means, is all that remains for the civic arena.

    The whole “reason project” is overthrown for the battle over ruling or reigning narratives. And I think that we have recently seen that a number of liberals are beginning to be more open about their deepest assumptions, which are astoundingly enough, completely illiberal.

    The Internet, that exemplar of a system designed to facilitate and ease communication despite any obstacles or disruptions, may have been instrumental in demonstrating the fundamental impossibility of communication, when it comes to evaluation questions.

    That said, and the deep communication problem aside, I do think that much of the oxygen that has been used up here in disputes between Perry and the regulars will become available for visitors who just wish to have a say without having to witness the apocalypse played out around every comment.

    And that can only be a good thing.

  10. “John Hitchcock says:
    Sunday, 20 January 2013 at 09:32

    I, too, would like decent commenters from the Left, but I believe Perry and the New Zealand Socialist have kept those decent commenters away….”

    I agree after a fashion. The manner being that the regulars on this blog from the non-progressive side would retaliate on par; which only motivated the left to increase their level vitriol and personal attack.

    If Dana agreed to be a whipping boy, or encouraged us to allow him to do it, he might get more left wing traffic.

    In fact I have noticed that when he restrains himself to policy wonking and absorbs derision and sneers and insults to his intelligence without responding in kind, the left seems to feel that a balance has been attained. In other words, he should haul rocks, they should throw rocks.

    Where this happy system of inclusion breaks down, is when someone makes a generally derisive remark about the left, which seems to agitate leftists in a way that their jibes about right-wing nuts and Neanderthals doesn’t reciprocally bother conservatives.

    Conservatives don’t seem to care what liberals feel, and shrug it off as the jabber of always arch and emotional if not hyperventilating, liberals; whereas liberals seem to believe much more in and feel much more the supposed wounding power of words.

    I don’t get it, but then I’m not a progressive. And my advice to them to go jogging or buy some barbells in order to improve their mental balance, has not been gratefully received.

  11. Speaking of Gap Bridging as someone did, I just now figured I’d see if the Old Gap Bridger had taken what was left of his gifts and begun to exercise them in his own ( figuratively speaking, since it’s paid for by Dana) forum.

    Turns out that Perry must have taken to heart Dana’s expressions of disappointment the other day at providing Perry a web site which has lain fallow for 4 and more months. Thus, on the 17th, Perry blogged. Or Perry re-blogged. In any event Perry posted an article: “What Angers Republicans?” which Perry noted, was a posting that had earlier appeared on Delaware Liberal on the same day. It also earlier appeared elsewhere, having been posted on the 14th of January.

    Apparently memes circulate and are repeated quickly in the progressive world.

    Now, the gods must be smiling on Dana during his hour of trial, because of all the subjects in the world which the Ole Gap Bridger could have chosen to post, he chose to re-post a list of “Things You Can Say to Anger Republicans”.

    Note please, these are not things that anger Republicans, but a recommendation of ninety-nine things counting embarrassing deletions, (100 originally) to say in order to anger Republicans.

    What then, more than this “lame” litany of jibes could more clearly exhibit, and in a more timely fashion, the very crux of the problem one confronts in attempting a rational exchange with a “progressive” mind?

    Of course the Delaware Liberal blogger Perry relied upon, “Delaware Dem”, was merely re-blogging something someone else had written and which Delaware Dem thought “… too good not to pass on mostly in full.”

    However, admittedly, unfortunately, Delaware Dem is forced to acknowledge “Some of them were kinda lame, so I left those out.”

    The original-original (I take it) author of this supposed “Humor” piece was the decidedly not-so brilliant or even humorous Stephen D. Foster Jr.’s “100 Things You Can Say To Irritate A Republican” . Not so brilliant we say, because after all, even by the Delaware Dem’s generous reckoning some “were kinda lame”.

    Perhaps it was # 100 that Delaware Dem had in mind:

    “100. Republicans are idiots and arguing with them is a waste of time!”

    hahahah That Stephen D. Foster Jr. … what a wit! Not.

    Or maybe:

    97. Democrats want to take care of the sick. Republicans take their credit cards and then deny them medical attention.
    98. Republicans say teachers are union thugs, then proceed to rape and mug the entire middle class on behalf of corporations.

    Or maybe:

    “94. Democrats will be working hard to bring jobs to Americans, while the Republicans tea bag each other in the middle of the aisles.”

    Yep, “100 Things You Can Say To Irritate A Republican” is humor or advice just too good for a liberal to pass up … for the most part.

    From the vapid and laboring mind of Stephen D. Foster, to the excited ear of Delaware Dem, to Perry’s attention and an ultimate reposting on the paid-for-by-a-conservative “Gap Bridging” blog.

    More Gap Bridging style humor and inadvertent psychological revelation can be found at the following Stephen D. Foster special report: “The Enemies Within: The 20 Most Dangerous Conservatives And Their Organizations”

    Yeah, what’s that saying … “Know your enemy”?

  12. I’d love to be on that list of the 20 most dangerous Conservatives. It would make me proud to know I’m having that much influence in saving this nation our Founders and Framers gave us through their sweat and blood.

  13. DNW wrote:

    If Dana agreed to be a whipping boy, or encouraged us to allow him to do it, he might get more left wing traffic.

    In fact I have noticed that when he restrains himself to policy wonking and absorbs derision and sneers and insults to his intelligence without responding in kind, the left seems to feel that a balance has been attained. In other words, he should haul rocks, they should throw rocks.

    I pretty much do agree to be the whipping boy, and never rarely return insults in kind, and when I do decide to use an insult, I try to be creative about it; I am not always successful in that endeavor. William Teach has, as part of his “code,”

    Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors.

    I can live with that one!

  14. DNW noted that WW made his first post on his site in five months, but it would seem to me to be inappropriate for us to comment on his writings on his site here, being that he is now unable to respond. I have not taken down that site, nor do I intend to do so, and anyone who wishes to engage WW in further debate is certainly encouraged to visit his site.

    Let me be clear here: as Hoagie noted, I have met Perry, and I do like him. But I cannot allow myself liking a person personally to destroy this site.

  15. Perhaps it was # 100 that Delaware Dem had in mind:

    “100. Republicans are idiots and arguing with them is a waste of time!”

    hahahah That Stephen D. Foster Jr. … what a wit! Not.

    Or maybe:

    97. Democrats want to take care of the sick. Republicans take their credit cards and then deny them medical attention.
    98. Republicans say teachers are union thugs, then proceed to rape and mug the entire middle class on behalf of corporations.

    Or maybe:

    “94. Democrats will be working hard to bring jobs to Americans, while the Republicans tea bag each other in the middle of the aisles.”

    Yep, “100 Things You Can Say To Irritate A Republican” is humor or advice just too good for a liberal to pass up … for the most part.

    From the vapid and laboring mind of Stephen D. Foster, to the excited ear of Delaware Dem, to Perry’s attention and an ultimate reposting on the paid-for-by-a-conservative “Gap Bridging” blog.

    More Gap Bridging style humor and inadvertent psychological revelation can be found at the following Stephen D. Foster special report: “The Enemies Within: The 20 Most Dangerous Conservatives And Their Organizations”

    Yeah, what’s that saying … “Know your enemy”?

    Has ANYONE ever met a Happy Progressive Liberal?

  16. Editor says:
    Sunday, 20 January 2013 at 16:48

    DNW noted that WW made his first post on his site in five months, but it would seem to me to be inappropriate for us to comment on his writings on his site here, being that he is now unable to respond. ”

    That’s a very scrupulous attitude. And although I am not sure I fully understand the principle as it might apply to say, “any subversive liberal whatsoever”, I can see that given your personal history with Perry, you would wish to not only live up to your own principles regardless, but to concede him a certain courtesy as well.

    You may even think of it as basic fair play.

    It’s probably worth pointing out too, that although my comments leveraged off of “his” site and the material he had most recently posted there, in order to comment on the underlying divergence between the progressive’s on the one hand and the conservative’s or libertarian’s mentality on the other, I in relatively short order shifted to what I thought of as the principal focus: to the mindset of the actual author(s) of the material.

    Although I don’t share your exact sense of lost collegiality, I do – the specifics of his case considered – view kicking someone who is down as generally to be avoided. Unless you are going in for the kill. And even then, there’s not much joy in it.

    “I have not taken down that site, nor do I intend to do so, and anyone who wishes to engage WW in further debate is certainly encouraged to visit his site.”

    He might find people doing that. It could even benefit him in a way he might not now imagine.

    Let me be clear here: as Hoagie noted, I have met Perry, and I do like him. But I cannot allow myself liking a person personally to destroy this site.

    I think that people who visited here and were put off by the strident conflicts, which had become incredibly personal, may start to return.

    Of course, blogs if they are to generate any traffic, need an angle, and management, and in some sense a public raison d’etre. Although not a lawyer or a political insider or an aggregator, you have the commonsense or main street theme which should do you as well and better than any site set merely set up to vent ideological bile.

    I don’t think that you necessarily have to be in the professions or politics to have a reasonably successful public issues blog.

  17. Yorkshire says:
    Sunday, 20 January 2013 at 16:53

    Has ANYONE ever met a Happy Progressive Liberal?

    Only when they feel that they have succeeded in revenging themselves on nature by gaining power over people who wouldn’t normally pay any attention to them.

  18. DNW wrote:

    That’s a very scrupulous attitude. And although I am not sure I fully understand the principle as it might apply to say, “any subversive liberal whatsoever”, I can see that given your personal history with Perry, you would wish to not only live up to your own principles regardless, but to concede him a certain courtesy as well.

    You may even think of it as basic fair play.

    It’s the latter: basic fair play, and I would apply that thinking to anyone else similarly situated. If a person is not allowed to comment here, is not allowed to defend himself, then he shouldn’t be attacked.

  19. It’s the latter: basic fair play, and I would apply that thinking to anyone else similarly situated. If a person is not allowed to comment here, is not allowed to defend himself, then he shouldn’t be attacked.

    While I would agree with that in a general sense, except that the reason Perry isn’t allowed to comment any more is entirely his own damn fault. Fair play should be extended to those themselves who play fair. Perry played foul, and deserves whatever he gets.

  20. I pretty much do agree to be the whipping boy, and never rarely return insults in kind, and when I do decide to use an insult, I try to be creative about it; I am not always successful in that endeavor. William Teach has, as part of his “code,”

    Unfortunately, this approach will only be seen as weakness by our ideological enemies (and they ARE our enemies). Their goal is nothing short of the destruction of all the values we hold dear – individual liberty, limited government, belief in God, etc., and they will lie, cheat, steal, and ultimately murder to achieve their nefarious ends.

    Your approach is like that of the British Redcoats who thought it “Unsporting” for American riflemen to pick off their officers at long range, whereas they only had short range muskets. It should be noted that, sportsmanship or no, they lost the war. Our approach should be more like Truman, who wasn’t afraid to use the atom bomb to bring his enemy to their knees. Our approach to the left wing scum should be equally vigorous.

  21. Well, look at it this way: if we comment on articles on WW’s site here, where he is unable to respond, all it does is provide traffic back to his original. That sends him more readers.

    It has been said that all publicity is good publicity, because it means that people are talking about you, rather than ignoring you.

  22. i must differ with DNW on two points:

    1. Our enemies are NOT liberals nor are they “Progrssives”. They are certainly not liberals in the classic sense, as in Jefferson or Adam Smith. Nor are they liberals in the JFK sense, either. No, they are left wingers. Let’s call them that.

    2. Further analysis of the left wing “Thought” process (to the extent they think at all) is generally futile. It is enough to know that they embrace an evil ideology that is alien to every ideal this country was founded on. They hate our guts – quite literally, as Perry’s behavior to Koolo, Hoagie, and Hube shows. We are at war with them, total war, and the war will end only when their ideology has been totally annihilated. You don’t “analyze” plague rats, you wipe them out.

  23. “I’m not sure that the goal of having the kind of conversations with the left you wish to have is even possible.”

    DNW, did you really write that? Conversations? Puleeze! I’ve been noticing lately the libs are using the word “conversation” to replace debate, arguement or even discussion. I have a “conversation with a friend, a family member or even a woman I’m trying to bed. Not with a leftist. Have you EVER had a conversation with a leftist? I’ve tried, it never ends up a conversation.

    Don’t let them redefine our language. If you don’t believe me listen to any talking heads show and count the number of times they use the word “conversation” to describe any political discourse in which we, conservatives and libertarians, are supposed to LOOSE.

  24. Sorry Mr Editor, when Eric stated “Unfortunately, this approach will only be seen as weakness by our ideological enemies” he is on the money. If one was courteous to Stalin, one still got shot. They are left wingers and by being so are anti freedom pro big government.

  25. Sorry Mr Editor, when Eric stated “Unfortunately, this approach will only be seen as weakness by our ideological enemies” he is on the money. If one was courteous to Stalin, one still got shot. They are left wingers and by being so are anti freedom pro big government.

    Yes, yes, Dana, to Hoagie you listen! These left wingers are trixies, lying, treacherous, thievsies, they are!

  26. Eric, are you pullin’ a Yoda on me?

    Courtesy is like respect, earned. One may be polite to a lady or gentleman in a cultural and social setting however, when the motivation of anyone becomes limiting our Liberty courtesy goes out the window. One could be the most polite person on earth and say “thank you” as he’s loaded on the cattle cars. Also, I find it difficult show courtesy to someone who is not so to me. That’s like telling me your face beat the shit out of another guys fist. Face it, we loose like that.

  27. Hoagie says:

    Sunday, 20 January 2013 at 21:22

    “I’m not sure that the goal of having the kind of conversations with the left you wish to have is even possible.”

    DNW, did you really write that? Conversations? Puleeze! I’ve been noticing lately the libs are using the word “conversation” to replace debate, arguement or even discussion. I have a “conversation with a friend, a family member or even a woman I’m trying to bed. Not with a leftist. Have you EVER had a conversation with a leftist? I’ve tried, it never ends up a conversation.”

    Yes I used the word. And, you are probably right that the left has adopted the word as some kind of substitute for “dialog”. As in for example a “dialog [conversation] that allows us to settle on a joint narrative”, or as in ” … a national conversation about gun violence”, or some similar jargon filled horseshit.

    But no, that’s not how I meant it. I actually had in mind the much mentioned lunch you fellows had, and a more traditional sense of the word.

    “Don’t let them redefine our language. If you don’t believe me listen to any talking heads show and count the number of times they use the word “conversation” to describe any political discourse in which we, conservatives and libertarians, are supposed to LOOSE.”

    I have to admit that I pretty much avoid the half-wit talking heads, as I am sick of their “narrative framing” which they all excitedly do.

    Speaking of half-wits, have you taken a look at Piers Morgan’s curriculum vitae? “Harlow College” is reported. Look it up if you want to fall off your chair laughing.

    Creative Arts

    Catering and Hospitality 9 courses: “Basic Cooking” “Sausage Making” …

    Construction

    Engineering and motor vehicle

    Hair and Beauty (17 courses offered) …

    Journalism and Media. (Search 7 courses: “Entry Requirements: A minimum of 5 GCSEs at grade C or above including English Language. Or First Diploma in Media with Merit and a good reference. Or First Diploma in a related subject at Merit Level.”

  28. Progressives believe their world is invincible and superior. The only people they manage to believe that are themselves. To the rest, they come off as just arrogant. Today we were shown that again at the intersection of North, East, South, and the imaginary West Capitol Streets in Washington, Disease.

  29. Yorkshire says:
    Monday, 21 January 2013 at 19:23

    Progressives believe their world is invincible and superior.”

    I’m hoping that Piers Morgan’s CV was misrepresented by Google or incomplete. I didn’t look it up by the way, it appeared in the margin of a search page on a comment he had made: The I believe that the “ends justify the means” affirmation he was quoted as giving out.

    I had just looked up Harlow, since I had never heard of it. Turned out Harlow (as opposed to say Harrow School) is kind of a cross between a YMCA adult education facility and a community college for hair dressers.

    The reason I am hoping the Google entry was incomplete or inaccurate and that Morgan really went to Harrow School and Cambridge, rather than to something or other grade school and “Harlow College” is that if he did get hired by CNN with both the shoddy reputation he had and that ‘Harlow’ CV, then this country is in way more trouble than we think. My goodness, what must the degrees of so many lesser mental lights in the jabbering class look like?

  30. Eric says:
    Monday, 21 January 2013 at 20:18

    Progressives believe their world is invincible and superior.

    They’re not “Progressives”. They’re left wingers.

    I posted something for you on TBD. Thought you’d get a kick out of it.

  31. DNW: CNN cares little about Mr Morgan’s college or scores. It is their belief, based upon his previous television jobs, that he is capable of bringing in viewers to CNN, and that is the only criterion on which CNN, or any television or radio network bases, or will ever base, their judgement of a particular performer. If CNN sees Mr Morgan maintaining an audience, he’ll stay; if Mr Morgan’s ratings decline, he’ll go.

  32. Your very realistic Editor says:
    Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 04:57

    DNW: CNN cares little about Mr Morgan’s college or scores. It is their belief, based upon his previous television jobs, that he is capable of bringing in viewers to CNN, and that is the only criterion on which CNN, or any television or radio network bases, or will ever base, their judgement of a particular performer. If CNN sees Mr Morgan maintaining an audience, he’ll stay; if Mr Morgan’s ratings decline, he’ll go.”

    That I would think you would admit, is a different question from the public perception of his presumed intellectual credentials and competency. Which, slight as it might be, appears to be itself nothing more than a pathetic facade anchored to an accent that sounds “posh” to some American ears.

    Unless Google is wrong, the guy seems to have gone to the equivalent of a adult education trade school for service workers such as cooks and hair dressers and tour guides.

  33. I’m hoping that Piers Morgan’s CV was misrepresented by Google or incomplete.

    Right, but why should we care about Piers Morgan? He’s on a low rated network, and the only reason he was brought in was to replace Larry King, the only “Talent” that network ever had. I mean, does anyone watch Anderson Pooper or the guy with the beard?

  34. that if he did get hired by CNN with both the shoddy reputation he had and that ‘Harlow’ CV, then this country is in way more trouble than we think.

    I don’t think this country’s “Troubles” are affected much by a foppish Brit on a low rated network. Again, why should we care about him?

    No, we should take heart in the fact that the Wall Street Journal has eclipsed the New York Times as the country’s newspaper of record, and that FOX News gets ratings far in excess of the other cable “News” shows.

  35. Eric says:

    Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 11:29

    that if he did get hired by CNN with both the shoddy reputation he had and that ‘Harlow’ CV, then this country is in way more trouble than we think.

    I don’t think this country’s “Troubles” are affected much by a foppish Brit on a low rated network.

    He’s symptomatic of it; that is to say, propaganda spouted by idiots as if it ought to be taken as the received wisdom, or “consensus view”.

    As you point out they lack audience. So … what’s the motivation for paying him to shill in the first place? It’s because he shills.

    Apparently they have money to burn when it comes to undermining our liberties. He’s not the issue, he’s a symptom of it.

    “Again, why should we care about him?”

    About him personally? Not at all. About the phenomenon of morons being paid to hector the public behind the guise of journalism, we should care to the extent that we care about the mainstream media getting away with pulling Emperor’s New Clothes routines.

    And probably to the extent that laughing at their ridiculous nudity occasionally constitutes justice; because – as we can see by their insane focus on GWB’s academics – it’s a criterion that’s obviously hyper-critical their own senses of self-validation.

  36. Eric says:
    Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 11:24

    I’m hoping that Piers Morgan’s CV was misrepresented by Google or incomplete.

    Right, but why should we care about Piers Morgan? He’s on a low rated network, and the only reason he was brought in was……..

    ……. he has a British Accent which some very shallow people mistake for intelligence.

  37. DNW wrote:

    That I would think you would admit, is a different question from the public perception of his presumed intellectual credentials and competency. Which, slight as it might be, appears to be itself nothing more than a pathetic facade anchored to an accent that sounds “posh” to some American ears.

    Unless Google is wrong, the guy seems to have gone to the equivalent of a adult education trade school for service workers such as cooks and hair dressers and tour guides.

    And Rush Limbaugh is a college dropout; so what?

    Of course, Mr Limbaugh is self-employed, and succeeds or fails on the basis of his talent alone. CNN would certainly like for its hosts to have an impressive résumé, but that would just be for show; they, too, will succeed or fail on the basis of talent alone.

  38. As you point out they lack audience. So … what’s the motivation for paying him to shill in the first place? It’s because he shills.

    Right, but if he’s on a low rated network, his shilling doesn’t matter much. He’s only reaching a few people.

    And, besides, much as with MSNBC, their audience, small as it is, already pretty much agrees with them, so it’s not like they are actually gaining any converts.

  39. I was concerned that the unfortunate necessity of banning WW would have a negative effect on traffic, but such hasn’t been the case thus far. We have, however, seen a decrease in comments.

    The Phoenician seems to have disappeared again, but he has not been banned; this does not disturb me in the slightest. But, what we need now are liberals who will be able to debate the issues intelligently, without resorting to name-calling and personal attacks.

  40. But, what we need now are liberals who will be able to debate the issues intelligently, without resorting to name-calling and personal attacks.

    Yeah, and you might as well ask for a leprechaun to bring you a pot of gold, for all the good it will do you.

  41. PPS: I don’t think there are any “Liberals” left, they’ve all become left wingers. I just saw O’Reilly interview Steffy Steponaphallus, and O’Reilly correctly pointed out that where Clinton (Steffy’s old boss) was a moderate liberal, Obama is a hard left winger. That’s who runs that Party nowadays, the sensible “moderates” are all pretty much gone.

  42. Dana says,

    “And Rush Limbaugh is a college dropout; so what?”

    Limbaugh is not a poseur, and I am not defending him.

    And more to the point, to quote myself:

    ” … because – as we can see by their insane focus on [George Bush's] academics – it’s a criterion that’s obviously hyper-critical (to) their own [liberals] senses of self-validation.”

  43. “I was concerned that the unfortunate necessity of banning WW would have a negative effect on traffic, but such hasn’t been the case thus far. We have, however, seen a decrease in comments.

    The Phoenician seems to have disappeared again, but he has not been banned; this does not disturb me in the slightest. But, what we need now are liberals who will be able to debate the issues intelligently, without resorting to name-calling and personal attacks.”

    You have set yourself a tough row to hoe here. A great many observers on the national scene would remark that the “time” for discussion has pretty much past, given the predicate of fundamental and radical constitutional transformation adopted as their agenda by the left.

    One normally supposes that a discussion about means focuses upon agreed upon ends.

    When you do not share ends, or notions of what means are in-principle justifiable in reaching them, there is not much to really debate.

    To user Hoagie’s analogy, if someone comes up to you and says that they want to become a “Borg” and that they will stop at nothing and never relent until you become one too … what’s to discuss? The rapidity with which it shall be accomplished? The vehicle you shall take to Borg-land?

    Suppose you try and point out to them that, “You will lose your soul, your individuality will disappear, you will be reduced to an instruction following element in a self-replicating system designed with no purpose other than the supposedly self-justifying purpose of it’s own replication … and at the end of the day all you will get in return are a liberation from self-responsibility and some number of appetite fulfillments during your period of calculated utility or allowed life.”

    And they say: “That’s exactly what I want! To die as an individual and be free of the trauma of being a self, while still having the opportunity to have my pleasure nodes stimulated for some as yet to be determined time!”

    What’s left to argue?

    What might Jews have had to discuss with Nazi’s, or the grass with a grazing cow?

  44. I can’t believe I did this. I went from a reference to the simple past tense as in a “time” parameter adjective:

    You have set yourself a tough row to hoe here. A great many observers on the national scene would remark that the “time” for discussion is past …

    … to a more past perfect construction employing a verb; yet did not change the word as in:

    A great many observers on the national scene would remark that the “time” for discussion has pretty much passed,

    Sorry.

  45. Suppose you try and point out to them that, “You will lose your soul, your individuality will disappear, you will be reduced to an instruction following element in a self-replicating system designed with no purpose other than the supposedly self-justifying purpose of it’s own replication … and at the end of the day all you will get in return are a liberation from self-responsibility and some number of appetite fulfillments during your period of calculated utility or allowed life.”

    And they say: “That’s exactly what I want! To die as an individual and be free of the trauma of being a self, while still having the opportunity to have my pleasure nodes stimulated for some as yet to be determined time!”

    I think you are missing the point.

    The left winger does not want to be part of the Borg, he wants to control the Borg. Again, I bring up the analogy to Orwell’s 1984. The left winger doesn’t want to be a prole. He wants to be Big Brother. Or, failing that, a member of the Inner Party, such as O’Brien. What the left winger wants is for US to be the proles.

    Dennis Prager, a radio host I respect greatly, often (erroceously, im my opinion) states that the Left’s ultimate goal is equality. He states that left wingers favor equality over liberty, whereas conservatives favor the reverse. In this assessment I think he is being much too kind. The left winger doesn’t favor equality at all. Oh, he may favor an equality of sorts for the proles, an equality in which his subjects are equally poor and equally lacking in basic rights. But for himself and his kind, they favor power. That is their ultimate end goal, and has been so as far back as Marx.

    Left wing ideology may seem illogical to conservatives, but it really is not. If you see their end game as gaining all the political power they can, then it makes perfect sense. With moral relativism they morally disarm their enemies, and with false claims of seeking “equality” they them give themselves a veneer of moral superiority, such that none can attack their means since their self-proclaimed ends are so “Noble”.

    No, the battle against left wingers isn’t an intellectual struggle. It’s a moral struggle.

  46. I went over to the blog site of He Whose Name We Shall In Fair Play Not Speak, which as we all know is paid for by He Whom We Will Not Mention Lest It Humiliate, He Whose Name We Shall Not Speak, and …

    And, and, I think I lost my place … but oh yeah, He Whose Name We Shall In Fair Play Not Speak lest he … yada yada yada has not yet taken the opportunity of his site provision by He To Whose Generosity We Shall Not Allude, in order to explain to the world He Whose Name We Shall In Fair Play Not Speak’s side of the banning issue.

    This may be because He Whose Name We Shall In Fair Play Not Speak, has been unable to gather his shattered wits together in the meantime.

    Or, more likely in my opinion, it is because trolls and provocateurs have no real interest in wasting their time on substantive comment or explication in the first place – when it was only the mask of such that they ever found obligatory.

Comments are closed.