Translate

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Arguing With Liberal Academics

Being one of the few (open) conservatives at UC-Irvine has its advantages, like discussing the issues of the day with liberals. Take yesterday, for example. I was having coffee on campus in a group of four teachers. One of them started going off on the Tea Party and how "hateful" they were.

"They hate everybody!"

I asked the lady this: (I am paraphrasing.)

Going back to all the town hall meetings and subsequent tea parties, how many violent incidents have taken place around the country?

Answer: I don't know. I don't know of any.

Me: The answer is none. The only exceptions I know of were in St Louis, Tampa and Thousand Oaks-all started by pro-Govt health care types-namely the SEIU union goons.

Next question: Do you know any tea party events where violence or violent revolution was advocated or ethnic slurs were used?

Answer No.

Me: I don't know of any either.

Conclusion; "OK, I was wrong about the tea party."

You see, it's all very easy.

51 comments:

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Why do I have a feeling that there's more to the conversation than this? Hate is not exactly the same thing as violence. Hate groups hold nonviolent rallies quite often.

As for me, I try to hold my judgment on the folks who go to the Tea Parties. When I see clips of them on TV, they strike me as a lot of uninformed simpletons. (One of them claimed that you could "get an education" watching Glenn Beck's show - which is only something a completely uneducated person would believe.)

However, I've read enough in my local paper and elsewhere about the demographics that make up the Tea Party, and they don't seem to all be like the ones I see on TV. The loudmouthed ignoramuses just make for better television, I guess.

Gary Fouse said...

"When I see clips of them on TV, they strike me as a lot of uninformed simpletons."

Funny. When I see them they strike me as everyday folks, mostly middle aged and elderly-productive working, tax-paying citizens. We must have a different perception.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

How are these two ideas mutually exclusive?

Gary Fouse said...

Lance,

FYI that conversation I related lasted less than 5 minutes.

Do I detect a feeling of condescension toward everyday folks-especially those who don't want to pay more taxes?

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Gary, stop using this phrase "everyday folks". It is meaningless. I'm an "everyday" folk. My male friend who dresses like a woman is an "everyday" folk. My wife's ultra-conservative cousin is an "everyday" folk. We're ALL "everyday" folk. This is as meaningless as Palin's "real Americans" load of crap. If anybody's being condescending, it's you.

I have something against people who complain about being taxed too much when they received a tax break, and when it's pointed out to them, they refuse to believe it. I have something against people who think that health care reform is some sort of plot on the level of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. I have a problem with people who use words and don't seem to know the meaning of them.

If that's what being "everyday folks" is all about, then Thor help us all.

Gary Fouse said...

Lance,

The problem is when you refer to tea partiers as simpletons, that what you are doing. You sound like Olbermann or matthews.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Reread my entire reply. I was referring to the specific ones I saw on TV, but I assume that they don't even necessarily represent all of them.

The people I have seen are simpletons though, when all they do is regurgitate Glen Beck and use words incorrectly. I don't care if they're "everyday folks" or visitors from Mars. If they're saying stupid things, then it makes me think that they might be stupid.

I'm starting to think that your philosophy is that it's worse to call somebody stupid or a liar than it is to be stupid or a liar.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Why does she bother about the Tempest in a Tea Party anyway? They are a loud-mouthed self-righteous minority, whose strength at the polls amounts to an unknown plurality of a majority of 15% of habitually Republican voters in Texas, etc. Big deal. By mid-November, they will all be wondering where the party went.

T.E.A. stands for Texas Education Administration.

Gary Fouse said...

Have you ever considered that perhaps the media seeks out the ones who look and sound the worst to "prove" their point (the ones you see on TV)

Let's face it; you guys just want the tea partiers to shut up and keep paying more taxes to fund all your liberal programs. It is beyond condescending.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Let's face it; you guys just want the tea partiers to shut up and keep paying more taxes to fund all your liberal programs. It is beyond condescending.

Gary, you can never seem to deal with the actual thrust of an argument or another person's point, can you? If anything is condescending, it's this notion that there's something noble about being uneducated and uninformed on the issues.

These Tea Party people can speak up all they want. Where have I ever implied or said that they should shut up? They say their peace, I give my reaction. This is such a typical "conservative" reaction. "We should be able to say whatever we want to say, and if anybody speaks up to point out our mistakes and fallacies, we're being oppressed."

And AGAIN, I must point out that I give the Tea Partiers the benefit of the doubt. I actually agree with you that the TV networks probably deliberately seek out the most inarticulate/ignorant ones in the bunch. It's THOSE people that I'm talking about.

Gary Fouse said...

"If anything is condescending, it's this notion that there's something noble about being uneducated and uninformed on the issues."

That's the problem, Lance. You all think the tea partiers are a bunch of uneducated rubes. They are not.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

That's the problem, Lance. You all think the tea partiers are a bunch of uneducated rubes. They are not.

Holy crap, Gary, read my comments. I was referring to the ones that I've seen on TV. Twice...TWICE I've pointed out ON THIS VERY THREAD that I don't think that the ones I've seen on TV are necessarily representative of the entire movement.

Flippin' Jesus on a unicycle! Can you ever have an argument without putting words in your opponent's mouth?

Anonymous said...

"Next question: Do you know any tea party events where violence or violent revolution was advocated or ethnic slurs were used?

Answer No."

Wow. Wrong. Really wrong. Remember when the health care bill was being passed? And tea party protesters stood outside the Capitol and called Congressman John Lewis a "nigger" and Barney Frank a "faggot"? No? They also spat at a black caucus leader. Maybe doesn't qualify as violent, but certainly hateful.

In case you think these cases are the product of the "lamestream media," you could simply check out the many denouncements that have been made of those actions by GOP representatives, such as Mike Pence, from Indiana: "Asked about the racist and homophobic shouts from the crowd at Democrats Saturday, he was pretty blunt. "I crossed the bridge in Selma with [civil rights leader and Democratic Rep.] John Lewis a couple weeks ago," Pence said. "I denounce, in the strongest possible terms, the kind of language and statements that have been reported."

You might spend just a tad more time, you know, actually researching your bold proclamations and blog topics before you publish them for public consumption.

Anonymous said...

I can see why you love and defend the tea party, Gary. Like you, they are full of conservative rage toward Obama, Pelosi, all democrats, etc. Like you, they love signs that can fit on talking points (however, I must admit you're a much better speller). Also like you, they're extremely short on specifics, logic, and reason. You point out to them that their arguments don't really make sense, and they continue to be emphatic and sure of themselves. It reminds me of this exchange, from a few weeks back:

"The fact still remains that you don't understand the issue, and you have basically admitted that you have no desire to understand it. Yet you will still have opinions about it. Do you really not see how silly that is?"

"No, not really."

Recognize it? The second guy is you.

Anonymous said...

"Let's face it; you guys just want the tea partiers to shut up and keep paying more taxes to fund all your liberal programs. It is beyond condescending."

Another Fouse special: A talking point generalization with no substance. As Lance pointed out, what is objectionable is that these people have a platform made of misinformation and strawmen. I hate to bring facts into this, but they complain they are overtaxed. However, the federal income tax rate is it at one of its lowest points in history, and MUCH lower (15%) than it was for nearly the whole of Ronald Regan's term: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

Before you accuse me of getting those stats from some liberal think tank, note that the website I cited prides itself on "advocacy for overburdened taxpayers."

Furthermore, Obama has not raised taxes one iota during his tenure. Why are all these people coming out NOW, all angry about being taxed? The rate is the same as under Bush. They never protested then. Why not? Is it because they're not really concerned with the factual issue, but their ideology and dogma?

I'm not sure what "liberal programs" you're referring to; again, I'd love some specificity. Do foreign wars count as "liberal programs"? Because we sure spend a ton of money on those, with no measurable results. Where are the protests over the billions of dollars that's costing us, if these people are so concerned about wasteful spending?

Gary Fouse said...

"Next question: Do you know any tea party events where violence or violent revolution was advocated or ethnic slurs were used?

Answer No."

"Wow. Wrong. Really wrong. Remember when the health care bill was being passed? And tea party protesters stood outside the Capitol and called Congressman John Lewis a "nigger" and Barney Frank a "faggot"? No? They also spat at a black caucus leader. Maybe doesn't qualify as violent, but certainly hateful."

Au cointraire Anonyme,

I remember those accusations well. The video, if you watch it and listen to it over and over and over-as I did- looks like they guy accidentally sprayed spittle at Cleaver while yelling. As for the N word and F words allegedly directed at Lewis and Frank, they are not heard. Andrew Breitbart offered a multi-thousand dollar reward to anyone who could produce the tape. As far as I know, it was never collected.

Pence: "I denounce, in the strongest possible terms, the kind of language and statements that have been reported."

So would I, but it simply has not been substantiated unless I missed the report, which surely the msm would repeat over and over and over.

Spend a tad more time and find something that can be substantiated. The fact is that eMSM and the Dems have hung a label on the tea party that is grossly inaccurate. And you are eager to buy into it.

Gary Fouse said...

Anonymous: Yes, I know the 2nd guy is me. It's not a gotcha moment. Like many liberals, you are unable to fathem my humor.

As to taxes. You are quoting federal taxes and ignoring state taxes. If you lived in Calif you would pay more attention to that issue. We pay taxes every toime we sneeze and Sacramento always wants more.

As to Fed taxes, you have conventiently ignored the fact that the Bush tax cuts are going to expire soon. Do you really think Obama and the Dems will extend them?

Get ready for your tax hike.,

Anonymous said...

The mainstream media did not create this story. They merely quoted SEVERAL Democratic congress members who said they heard chants of the "n" word. One of them was respected civil rights hero John Lewis, who marched with MLK. This was backed up by numerous other witnesses.

So, let's play occam's razor, shall we? What's more likely? That myriad congressman and witnesses decided to defame a group of peaceful protesters by fabricating racist/homophobic insults out of thin air, knowing that the media would report it, hoping to win some kind of political leverage in order to pass a bill that was already done? Or that a bunch of older, angry white people (overwhelmingly the tea party demographic) might just have a racist/homophone amongst them?

If that's not enough logic for you, watch listen to this. It happens in the beginning and then is repeated at the 1:47-1:50 mark. Listen carefully. You'll hear a very clear "nigger!" along with some not-so-clear yells. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/20/90772/rep-john-lewis-charges-protesters.html

Anonymous said...

As to your second point about taxes: When these people go out to rallies and decry Obama to be a socialist, they aren't complaining about STATE taxes. I'll make a claim that I have no way of proving (which will put me right in line with you and the tea partiers), but it's based on the numerous interviews I've seen with these people.

If you polled tea partiers and asked them the following two questions: 1. Has Obama raised taxes? and 2. Are federal income taxes higher now than they were under Reagan, I guarantee you both responses would overwhelmingly be "yes." And they'd be wrong.

It's a movement based on feelings and frustrations, not facts. Their mantra seems to be, "I'm entitled to my opinion, whether it's informed or not." Which, again, puts them solidly in your camp.

Anonymous said...

And as to your last claim about state taxes being too high, well, you know what they say about assumptions and making an ass out of oneself, don't you? I am a lifelong California resident.

And while some of our sales taxes are exceedingly high, our property taxes are exceptionally low (esp. considering the value of our homes) because of prop 13. Many long-term corporations pay very little in state taxes because of it. Even with all the sturm and drang about California's economic woes, companies keep flocking to our shores. Tesla motors is the latest example.

But I don't need to tell you this, do I, my fellow Californian?

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Like many liberals, you are unable to fathem my humor.

Gary, you should leave the humor to the professional comedians unless your intention was to lampoon yourself. It is a "gotcha" moment because that argument essentially ended with you admitting that you didn't have any facts to back up your points. Your only defense by that point was a wise-ass remark.

Gary Fouse said...

Anonymous,

Since you a Californian, why did you neglect to mention that so many people and businesses are leaving California because of the regulations and taxes? Prop 13 was passed in 1979 and saved thousands of people from losing their homes because they could not afford the rising property taxes.

Don't forget the high prices we pay for gas because of the environmental ingredients that have to be added.

Calif is a textbook example of how not to run a state.

Gary Fouse said...

Anonymous,

Thank you for the reference on the Lewis incident. I am unable to pull it up. Do you have another url?

As for Lewis, I have said that I am inclined to take his word because he is respected person. I suggest you read my initial posting on this incident.

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2010/03/time-to-show-our-anger-at-ballot-box.html

Anonymous said...

As to my link to video of the tea party shout-down, did you try just cutting and pasting it? I just did from this page, and it worked.

I'd like to summarize the interaction on this topic, if I may:

1. You write a blog boasting that "liberal academics" couldn't give an example of violence or ethnic slurs amongst tea partiers.

2. I bring up a few examples, including that longtime civil rights activist John Lewis saying he was called the "n" word.

3. You call those reports "unsubstantiated" and imply that they've been fabricated by the mainstream media/dems in order to "hang a label" on the tea partiers.

4. I bring up the illogic of that claim, and the disrespect that it does to people of Lewis' reputation and character.

5. You agree that Lewis is telling the truth, pointing to YOUR OWN BLOG (where you instruct tea partiers/conservatives to not behave that way) as evidence that tea partiers did, in fact, use racial slurs.

You know that picture of the yokel with the hayseed in his mouth you're so fond of posting? I'd like to post it right here.

Gary Fouse said...

Nice try Anonymous except you are distorting the order and timing of what I have said.

My intial reaction was to condemn the actions that were alleged because I tended to take a man like Lewis at his word.

later, I updated the story to the effect that the spitting incident appeared to be accidental and there seemed to be no tape with the n-word audible.

Now you point me to a site that I tried to find confirmation unsuccessfully. Help me out here. If it's there, I will condemn it.

As for the hayseed comment, I think you are betraying your own prejudices here.

Anonymous said...

Forget the tape. Do you or do you not take Lewis at his word? Is he lying or not? Because there are only two possibilities:

1. He's telling the truth, and your thesis about no tea party ethnic slurs is proven incorrect.

2. He's lying, which contradicts your earlier blog about taking him at his word. It also puts a pretty huge black mark on a respected civil rights leader.

So which is it?

Gary Fouse said...

Anonymous,

Where did you learn the debating tactic of putting words in somebody's mouth? Where have you read anything from me slamming Lewis?

I think I've demonstrated that I have an open mind on the incident. I would like to see the tape before I make a conclusion.

Anonymous said...

And what words am I putting in your mouth, btw? I'm citing YOUR BLOG ENTRIES.

Anonymous said...

Maddening.

It was a simple, logical question. Let's go on the assumption that there is no recorded evidence of slurs (even though the video you can't seem to play, that I just got by searching google, seems to verify there were). As I wrote, forget the tape.

Do you believe Lewis is lying for political gain or not? If you say he's lying, you are clearly disparaging his character. If you think he's telling the truth, you are contradicting your thesis about tea partiers not being racist.

It's that simple. Either he's lying, or it happened. Which do you believe? Just a direct answer, please. No more evasion.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Where did you learn the debating tactic of putting words in somebody's mouth?

I remember when I was a kid, there was this anti-drug commercial where a father walks in on his son and hands over some drug paraphernalia. He tells his son that he found it in his room, and he demands of his son, "Where did you learn how to do this stuff?"

The son responds, "You, all right! I learned it by watching you!"

But back to the point, the Anonymous one didn't even do that. He's pointed out the double-think in your own argument. You are left with two options - either Lewis told the truth or he is lying. Either way, that contradicts one of your arguments.

Gary Fouse said...

Hey Anonymous,

You are getting awfully boring. Don't you think you would rather be reading the Daily Kos?

Lance Christian Johnson said...

You are getting awfully boring. Don't you think you would rather be reading the Daily Kos?

Is this another example of your "humor"? You know, when you dodge the point?

Gary Fouse said...

Lance,

Both of you are trying to paint me into a corner of saying Lewis was lying, which I never said. What I said was that I respected him thus was inclined to believe him. Yet, I have not heard the word in the tapes I have reviewed. Anonymous' video in McClatchey doesn't open. What I have been able to find are articles that dispute McClatchey's.

Here is a point, I am still not clear on; did Lewis himself make the claim or was it Emanuel Cleaver who says he heard it directed at lewis? If so, there is some doubt after viewing videos are congressmen entering and leaving the capitol. Cleaver claimed he was a few steps behind Lewish when he heard the word. That would have to be entering the capitol during the spitting incident. Leaving the capitol, he is not seen behind Lewis.

At this point, I don't know the truth. Do you?

Lance Christian Johnson said...

I was going to refer to a particular post by Anonymous, where he/she makes it as clear as possible. But now I see that it'snot there. You didn't delete those posts, did you?

Anyway, it couldn't be clearer. If you think he's telling the truth, then those Tea Partiers were definitely hateful and racist.

Gary Fouse said...

Lance,

I have not intentionall deleted anything recently though I did have some problems publishing some comments over the weekend. It may even be on another thread.

Until I see a video where the n-word is thrown out, it is not so clear as you state. But one knucklehead does not discredit everybody. If I see it and hear it, I will condemn whoever said it.

Anonymous said...

Ok, let's try this one last time. Here is John Lewis, discussing hearing racial slurs hurled at him (you'll have to wait for the 15-second ad): http://www2.counton2.com/cbd/news/national/article/black_congressmen_say_racial_slurs_during_health_care_protest_reminder_of_6/122487/

So, there it is Gary. The choice is this: Is John Lewis lying? Or did tea partiers use racial slurs?

Either way, one of your blog's thesis will be contradicted, which I know is not an ideal choice for you. But it would be brave to finally answer the question on where you stand and stop evading, no?

Oh, and just for fun, at the bottom of this page, there's a five minute montage of various tea party signs. Some are flat-out racist, some are more nuanced, and most are just angry, hyperbolic, and hateful: http://www.examiner.com/x-15870-Populist-Examiner~y2010m3d21-Tea-Party-protesters-shout-nigger-and-spit-on-lawmaker

Gary Fouse said...

Anonymous,

Thanks for the link. I was able to open it. What Lewis said was commendable. I do not question his honesty in any way. The statement-which i will post- implies the use of the n-word, but here is my question; Did Lewis himself cliam that he heard the n-word or was he relying on what Cleaver said? In order to put this to bed, I would want to see and hear the actual video where the word is audible and Lewis' specific statement on what he himself heard.

It may all be out there-I don't know- I welcome input from the readers.

Now, if someone said it, shame on him or her but it still seems to be a matter of debate. Assuming someone said it- does that discredit everyone who was in that crowd? No. Does it discredit tea partiers in general? No.

You pointed out the presence of official signs and posters. An Oregon website was discovered to be engaging in encouraging people to go to tea parties and bring offensive signs and say offensive things in order to discredit them.

I have been to one tea party. The speakers made it a point to tell the crowd that bigots and haters were not welcome, nor were offensive signs.

What I think is going on is that you are trying to paint protesters as racists. Are there going to be a few in any large public gathering, sure. But it doesn't apply to the movement as a whole.

Anonymous said...

If you're any kind of man, on some level you must be ashamed of your behavior. Don't get me wrong: There is NO shame in having differing political views or realizing during the course of a debate that you've flatly contradicted yourself. It takes a brave soul to admit that one is wrong or might have made a mistake, or that the other person has pointed out a flaw in your argument.

By repeatedly dodging, obfuscating, and refusing to answer direct questions, you are already being intellectually dishonest. You love to spout your opinions, but you can't defend them when challenged.

Much more damning, you have censored the opinions of others, and amazingly, you have done so RETROACTIVELY. This re-writing of history is shocking, coming from someone who prides himself on American values of freedom and transparency.

Of course, you end with one of the great American traditions: The Cover Up. You claim you're not sure where all the comments that made you look bad went, that it might be a technical error, you can't recall, etc, etc.

Even if I disagreed with nearly everything you wrote before, at least I respected you enough to take your opinion seriously and debate openly with you on its merits.

Now? I see that you are just the frightened little man behind the curtain, frantically pulling levers and trying to hide the fact that you're terrified of being exposed as not being the great and powerful intellect you puff yourself up to be.

I know this comment has virtually zero chance of seeing the light of day, so I'll have to rest with the satisfaction that you have read it and hopefully have had to examine yourself at least a tiny bit. Again, that's if you have any sort of integrity at all, which, at the moment, is very much in question.

Anonymous said...

I give up.

I doubt you'll even publish this, but there's no way I can just let this slide. Your hypocrisy seems to know no bounds.

You enter into a debate, one that you so obviously lost that instead of answering a very direct question, you sidestep it with an ad hominem attack about me reading some liberal newsletter (which I actually had to look up; I had no idea what it was).

Next, you censor all of my comments and many of your own responses so that you don't look defeated and silly. When confronted with this, you pretend you don't know what happened, even though the odds on ONLY my posts being deleted while others are left are pretty astronomical, eh? What kind of glitch is that, exactly? You look even more like an incompetent version of Big Brother since Lance quotes your ad hominem comment which now no longer appears on the thread.

Luckily, I had the entire conversation cached and have saved it as a word document. Lest there be any doubt as to how far Gary Fouse will go to keep up the facade that he's never lost an argument or censored a point of view that shows his hypocrisy, I have concrete proof. I'll publish the whole thing in my own blog, and unlike you, I won't edit a thing.

Anonymous said...

Whoa! You published it. Way to prove me wrong. I'll admit, you surprised me. Kudos.

Now make with the spin...

Gary Fouse said...

Anonymous,

First of all, here are your comments. I am not going to bother explaining to you how I run this blog. This is a conservative blog that accepts disagreements as long as they are civil and not profane. As I told Lance, I did lose a few comments over the weekend due to a glitch in the server. I may have rejected one that was profane. I don't care what copies of threads you choose to keep. What are you going to do-sue me?

In regards to the Lewis issue, I am making an honest attempt to get up to speed on what did or did not happen that day. You are trying to get me to declare someone guilty without giving me enough evidence.

At this point, your comments are becoming ridiculous and tiresome. In addition, you keep hurling out accusations and insults behind the label of "Anonymous". You may not like what I say, but at least I put my name behind it. Actually, I think you have made a smart decision remaining anonymous. It is your right and no one would notice if you simply engage in honest discussion. When you throw out insults like that, it becomes cowardice.

I am going to try and determine the truth behind that incident, but I really don't need any more help from you.

Anonymous said...

I'm no coward. The only reason I've been posting anonymously is that you blocked my username (and I've NEVER been profane). In a deliciously ironic twist, YOUR cowardly censorship of my views has resulted in you characterizing my anonymous postings as such.

In another irony, I think we've finally come to some common ground: "What I think is going on is that you are trying to paint protesters as racists. Are there going to be a few in any large public gathering, sure. But it doesn't apply to the movement as a whole."

This is what Lance and I have been saying all along. You claimed that there have been NO recorded instances of racial slurs. We have said that there have been, and now you seem to agree (although you're "still investigating," like OJ trying to find the real killers). Neither of us has claimed anything like the majority of tea partiers being racist.

I would argue that there's a strong undercurrent of racism (Islamisism) in many criticisms of Obama, as those signs indicate (I don't really buy your conspiracy theory about some Oregon website), but that's really the topic for another blog.

Here's to civil discourse, sans censorship.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

In all honesty, I'm willing to bet that it's a glitch. I've seen some comments on your blog disappear, only to have them reappear later.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Just snooped around your blog some more. It's glitchy as hell. A post will say "18 Comments" but then when you click on it, there are 12. You have similar issues throughout.

I don't even know how you'd do that if you wanted to do it, and if you wanted to do it - to what end? I can understand how Anonymous thinks that it's all pretty damned fishy, because it certainly seems that way. However, I'm going to give Gary the benefit of the doubt on this one. I've never had you do that to one of our conversations, even the ones where I mercilessly annihilate your talking points.

And hey, Anonymous, there seems to be more than one of you posting here. At least come up with some kind of signature/pseudonym so we don't confuse you for somebody else. How 'bout "Shmoopie?"

Gary Fouse said...

Anonymous or Noaln or whatever your name is-

The reason I rejected your comments is because you are always so snide and insulting rather than engage in real debate. I really don't care to deal with you any longer.

Try the Daily Kos.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

The reason I rejected your comments is because you are always so snide and insulting rather than engage in real debate. I really don't care to deal with you any longer.

No offense, Gary, but this is another pot calling the kettle black situation. Maybe if you didn't have images of laughing monkeys and slack-jawed yokels, your blog wouldn't invite snide commentary. You're also rather evasive, which tends to elicit that sort of a response.

Gary Fouse said...

Perhaps, but I would have to be a masochist to keep putting up with that guy's personal insults. At some point I have to exercise my prerogative to X the guy.

Atticus said...

I agree with Lance. Your blog certainly doesn't depict you as being overly sensitive, and to my casual eye, there's a bit of hypocrisy in giving your opinion in a snide, sarcastic manner and not allowing others to respond in kind.

Care to give an example of a "personal insult" that this fellow used, banishing him to the dustbin of history?

Gary Fouse said...

Atticus,

What-do I have to explain myself to you? You can read the threads. There are more from several weeks or months back under the name Nolan. I'm not going to bother looking them up. Knock yourself out if you wish.

Sorry I can't please everybody, but this is a conservative, opinion-based blog. Disagreements are welcome as long as they are civil. But since it's my blog, I decide when to pull the welcome mat.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

I think that one of the problems is that some of the Anonymous posts are from more than one person. This particular Anonymous, from what I can tell, hasn't resorted to personal insults.

Once you got all mad at me, Gary, because you said that I was calling you stupid, but I wasn't. You may be a tad sensitive. (Is that a personal insult?)

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Oh, and in all fairness to Gary, it looks like all the posts are back up. I think it's safe to conclude that he didn't delete/censor them. Was it a rather strange and selective glitch? Yes. However, I think it's safe to say that's what it was.