Thursday, December 21, 2017
Shocking and distressing
I’m shocked and distressed to note that certain rational, fact based, reasonable comments are disappearing from certain blog posts. I guess that it’s evil to limit speech in certain contexts, while completely appropriate in others. I guess it’s even better to lament the (false and unproven claims) alleged limiting of speech, while simultaneously engaging in the very act you decry. But, I guess I just don’t go off on bitchy rants about made up things often enough.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
59 comments:
I noticed (saw in my email) that you posted a comment that didn't show up on my blog. I responded to your comment (which I read in my email), then noticed it wasn't there. I didn't delete it. I don't delete comments without a reason. Usually that reason is either spam or attack comments, and here lately, to try to get people to quit dodging questions and answer them directly. But not in this case, since you weren't attacking anyone other than me and there were no outstanding questions I was trying to get answered.
fyi.
Dan
Whatever you say.
I say, don't be a dick. Don't be a jackass. I explained to you what happened. I have no reason to lie to you and I have not lied to you, so don't be a fucking asshole.
Or do. Your call.
Ah. Once again we see Dan behaving here in a manner he'd never tolerate at his own blog. Talk about attacking people! His hypocrisy is epic. And then, of course, he lies about when and why he deletes comments. He deletes them because he cannot respond to that which exposes his indefensible positions, arguments and comments, then he'll mischaracterize what he deleted. His other common tactics are to simply ignore that which he can't contradict honestly, or he'll dismiss the comment (or links within it) as "inane and inept" and leave it at that, as if it's true simply because he said so. Then he dares call us nasty names.
That's not an attack. It's a descriptive helpful tip. He brought up a concern about a comment going away on my blog. I came to his blog to let him know what appears to have happened (or at least, that it wasn't me deleting him that was the problem). He dismissed the helpful note.
That is being a jerk. I suggested to him that he'd be better off in life NOT being an ass-wipe. But he can be a douche if he wants.
No attacks, a helpful suggestion with some real world facts that he petulantly dismissed.
See the difference?
Of course, being something of a DB yourself, I'm quite sure you don't.
Your comments, the false claims about my motives, are an attack. They're false, they're arrogant in your assumption that you know better than I do my motives, and they're demonizing.
By all means, Marshall, one day present links to a rational, intelligent person making an adept argument and I'll be glad to consider their thoughts. I love good reasoned positions.
You just never offer them.
I did not “dismiss”, anything. I acknowledged your response. The fact that you feel the need to attack and rant is just one more instance of you not living by the rules you demand of others.
By the standard of behavior you demand of others, I should delete your expletive filled rant of a comment. But I won’t, it’s such an excellent example I think I’ll leave it. Not only will I leave it, I’ll make sure to save it in case you get embarrassed and delete it yourself.
You might note, that I used the word “disappearing” to describe what’s happening. I used the word, because the comments are posting, then they disappear. If they were not posting, which happens, I wouldn’t have said anything.
So, what you meant to say, then, was, "Oh, thanks for the explanation. I didn't know what was happening and now I do..." or words to that effect.
"Whatever you say..." is dismissive. Perhaps you don't understand the nuances of communication. But now, you know. When people say, "Whatever..." that IS a dismissive response.
You're welcome.
If you perceive it to be dismissive, then that’s the only thing that matters. Now, the fact that you chose to overreact, ignored. The fact that you didn’t read what I originally wrote, and ignored my clarification, SOP. The fact that you behaved in a manner that would have gotten Art or I deleted at your blog, ignored. The double standard, par for the course.
You do understand the distinction between “didn’t show up at all” and “ showed up then disappeared”, don’t you?
"By all means, Marshall, one day present links to a rational, intelligent person making an adept argument and I'll be glad to consider their thoughts. I love good reasoned positions."
Which is exactly what I do, Dan. Indeed, I could describe pretty much all of your posts as irrational, unintelligent arguments...which they typically are...but I choose to respond to them as if you're sincere and argue against them, pointing out their flaws. You just dismiss, delete and act like a petulant child taking his ball and going home.
The fact is that I don't necessarily consider the links I provide to be absolute facts, but simply contradictory positions with supporting evidence included in most cases. You don't demonstrate the integrity, and certainly not a shred of grace, to respond in kind. Instead, you lie about what you deleted and act as if you were justified in doing so. Get a spine...and some class.
What’s amusing is that Dan doesn’t seem to realize that the issue isn’t so much the failings of Trump or Moore, it’s the fact that he is seemingly “unaware” of the idiotic lies that Pelosi and others tell, them finds excuses to ignore those on his side and his blatant double standard when it comes to the behavior he demands from others.
Well, he claims he opposes the same bad behaviors within his own tribe, but I just can't recall any similar expressions of outrage and disgust on his blog. That is, no posts dedicated to the bad behaviors of his own like he is so quick to post about center-right figures. One might think he's hypocritical. I've asked for links to such posts, but none have been forthcoming as of this writing. I'm beginning to think they don't exist and we must satisfy ourselves with his word that he's done more than give lip service to the notion when we bring it up.
He’s certainly never leveled the excesses of vulgarity and expletive at anyone on his side of the aisle as he does to those on the right.
That's because people on my side are not defenders of racists and child molesters. Your side has grown disgusting and you're embarrassing yourselves and the church you represent.
I respond with "vulgarity" (i.e., strong cuss words) because your behaviors are vulgar (i.e., defending people who molest women and children, defending chronic stupid liars, defending those who attack the disabled.) and your side make people want to vomit. Do you understand the difference?
You do understand the distinction between “didn’t show up at all” and “ showed up then disappeared”, don’t you?
No. Tell me.
If I had to guess, I'd guess you're vaguely implying without manning up and coming out and saying it, that I deleted the comments. But it's hard to tell because you always tend to stay in the milquetoast range of vague accusations.
So, by all means, TELL me what the distinction is. Or remain vague. It's what you do.
Please, put up or shut up. Either demonstrate that I’ve defended the molesting of children, or the actions of someone who has actually been proven to have molested children or stop the incessant lies. If your going to lie to protest lies, does that even make sense.
The distinction is that occasionally Blogger won’t let my comments post and I have to rewrite them. What happened at your blog, I’d that the comments posted, then disappeared. You claim that it’s coincidence, I have no way to know exactly what happened. I’m sorry that my being precise confuses you so. I’ll try to take a page from you and shoot for less precision and more ambiguity.
Indeed. To pretend that criticizing the types of hateful comments Dan posts about people like Trump or Moore, comments posted without any basis other than the fact that allegations were made ("I find them credible", as if he gives a crap one way or the other, while outright rejecting comments of others who defend the people as NOT credible simply because they defend these guys...yeah. Sure.)
If either Trump or Moore were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the allegations leveled against them, I have no problem with seeing them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I don't know how much more plain I can make it.
But unlike Dan, I am unwilling to crucify anyone based on mere allegation and definitely take great pains to stray from that principle just because I have some personal distaste for someone. One might even call that "embracing grace". But Dan assumes the allegations are true simply due to his hatred for these men, Trump for being crass and an adulterer, and Moore for unapologetically speaking the truth about islam, homosexuality and the U.S. Constitution.
I have no way to know exactly what happened.
I told you exactly what happened. That's when you got all dick-ish.
Marshall, given the many women who have testified against H. Weinstein, do you think it's likely he's guilty of at least some degree of sexual harassment, if not outright assault?
If you're not a moron, you should say Yes, it appears he's guilty of something. This isn't to say that we're convicting him, just acknowledging that it's looking very likely that he's done some wrong towards women.
Likewise for Trump and Moore.
Unless you're a moron. Or a person who is fine with defending sexual predators.
But we've already established that, haven't we?
Unless the predator is a perceived liberal.
Yes, you told me “what happened”, that doesn’t allow me to know what happened, all I know is that you’ve given me an explanation that doesn’t exactly square with what I saw. Even so, I acquiescenced to your explanation and accepted it. Until you started the expletive filled rants, then I became suspicious. But that’s fine, if you can’t express yourself any better than that, it’s ok.
Now that we know that at least some of the Trump accusers were offered money, that raises more questions about veracity.
What you saw was that the comments were there, then they weren't. You didn't see anything else beyond that.
What happened is that it was an apparent blog bug, because I didn't delete them. THAT is the reality. As I already told you.
But you prefer to be a dick about it, NOT accepting it but dismissing it with a "whatever..." like a middle school boy.
I’m reporting what I saw and am unable to definitively know with 100% certainly what happened next.
But on the subject of being lying and being a dick. You just did your “jump through hoops and I demand that you agree with my hunch” in order to comment. So I acceded to your demands, you deleted the comment, then told a blatant, bald faced lie about why you did so. You are left with two back to back comments that demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are willing to tell stupid and easily disproven lies when you think it benefits you.
But you just keep pretending that we’re the ones being (good lord man, act older than 13), “dicks”.
The fact that you invest time in childish “insults”, lies, demands that people agree with you, and expecting that others spoon feed you everything, tells me everything I need to know about your character and honesty.
Since when is lying and name calling in any possible way considered “respectful”? Let alone avoiding answering questions.
"Marshall, given the many women who have testified against H. Weinstein, do you think it's likely he's guilty of at least some degree of sexual harassment, if not outright assault?"
Which one of them waited forty years? They are not comparable in the least simply because they have all been accused. What it "looks like" doesn't matter. What can be proven does. Until the latter is achieved, we wait to cast judgement.
"Unless you're a moron. Or a person who is fine with defending sexual predators.
But we've already established that, haven't we?"
No. We haven't. Not even remotely. What has been established is that you're totally cool with lying that it is. We've been quite clear that we reserve judgement on those YOU attack until proof is provided, while you refer to that as defending sexual predators.
We've also established that you want these guys to be guilty, because you hate them. Constantly referring to them as sexual predators without proof is a hateful act.
Here's the irony with regard to Trump. It's quite telling, referencing your character, that while you constantly whine about him being a liar, you totally believe all his talk about how he acts with women. If that is not a sign of your own low character, I don't know what it...except for that support of your for sexual immorality and the killing of innocent children.
You are left with two back to back comments that demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are willing to tell stupid and easily disproven lies when you think it benefits you.
1. I have not lied. I have not, as a point of fact, made a claim that I knew to be false. You are mistaken.
2. Thus, your own claim that "I am willing to tell stupid and easily disproven lies..." is, itself, a false claim. I can demonstrate it by simply asking YOU to demonstrate that I lied. IF it's "easily disproven" then disprove it. You can't. It's a false claim. I have not lied.
3. At best, what you're likely able to prove is that you have failed to understand a point I'm making. Or, perhaps, that you fail to understand reality and what you think is real and factual is neither.
But, by all means, disprove something I've said. IF you can, then I can apologize and correct the false claim, as I always am willing to do if someone can prove I've said something wrong.
I'll wait.
1. In your comment of 6:54 pm, you gave me a choice. I could either spoon feed you links to recent well covered news stories, or I could agree with your opinion about Trump mocking the disabled. I chose the latter option.
In your 6:56 am comment, you proudly stated that you deleted the comment where I did what you asked, and agreed with the principle that it’s wrong to mock the disabled.
Ergo, either you lied when you offered me two options or when you gave the reason why you deleted the comment. It’s right there in black and white, and captured as a screen shot in case you decide to delete something.
2. It’s right there on your blog for anyone to see. The fact that your denying it just increased the stupidity of your lie.
3. Or that you are guilty of a stupid lie, or stupid mistake.
I don’t believe there’s a chance in hell you’ll acknowledge, let alone apologize. More likely it’ll be more expletives, childish penis references, and excuses.
I did not see anywhere where you agreed that Trump was mocking the disabled. I did not see it in my email nor did I notice it on the blog. Did you save the comment?
Is it possible you (as you are wont to do) agreed SO VERY VAGUELY that it was not clear that you were agreeing that it was wrong to mock the disabled?
And no, it's NOT right there for all to see.
My 6:56 comment says that I deleted a comment, but not a comment where you agreed it was wrong to mock the disabled, which is what Trump was doing.
If you saved the comment and want to share it so we can look at it, we can talk. As noted, it's not in my email, nor is it in my trash. What I DO have in my trash is THIS comment...
" Craig has left a new comment on your post "Eight Words to Embrace":
I guess making false statements, trying to speak for Jesus, and deleting comments for reasons other than the ones Dan claims is the new way to show grace.
Posted by Craig to Through These Woods at December 22, 2017 at 6:23 PM "
As you can see, that came in at 6:23. I have no other comments in my email or my trash since that time.
So, again, no, it's not there. Feel free to actually demonstrate that I lied. Or admit you can't.
As to "spoon feeding links" when someone makes a claim, it is on THEM to support it. I don't have to go out and find evidence for your claims, YOU need to support it.
No, I didn’t have the chance to save it. It’s convenient that I aceed to your demand that I parrot your opinion, and if I do so you won’t delete the comment, I do what you demand, you delete the comment anyway, and by way of trying to cover your ass, you falsely characterize what I said.
1. You lied about the criteria you would use to delete.
2. You lied about why you deleted it.
3. You lied about the content.
I guess I was right about there not being a chance in hell you’d be an adult about this.
No, I’m still not going to spoon feed you links to stories that are all over the news. Your unwillingness to exert the effort to google isn’t my problem.
Hell, I did a post about a particularly egregious and stupid lie on your side, not to mention the bribery attempt.
You can't and haven't demonstrated that I lied.
You can't and haven't demonstrated that I lied because I did not lie to you.
Your failure to understand is not an indication that I lied.
Are you at least willing to admit you can't prove your claim?
You are left with two back to back comments that demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are willing to tell stupid and easily disproven lies
A rational person would generally think that if something was easily disproven, you could, you know, actually disprove it.
I didn’t have to, the actual words in your comment do all the proving I need.
I love how you just can’t, under any circumstances even begin to admit even the possibility that you could be wrong.
I’ve already laid out the explicit contradiction in your two comments. The fact that one comment or the other is patently false is plain.
It’s interesting that you try the “you can’t prove it” ploy, because there’s a lot more proof of your lies than of anything else. I think it’s safe to say that I might have a better idea of what I wrote than you do, especially given your quick trigger finger on the delete button.
The irony of you and your “stupid lies” crusade when we look at this incredibly stupid lie is one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a while.
?
YOU SAID you could demonstrate it easily.
I'M SAYING it didn't happen and I'm noting that you can't and haven't proven it.
Therefore, YOUR CLAIM is false, or at least unsupported. You, as a point of fact, have not "easily disproven" any "lies" I've made. You simply haven't, not in the real world.
Do you recognize reality?
In looking at your words, I don't think you do.
I'm sorry. Good luck in life.
I’ve used your words to demonstrate the inherent contradiction between what you said you would do and what you did. You’re self esteem must really need some support if you can’t just admit what’s right there.
Maybe you should look at your words.
“Craig, if you truly want to comment here without manning up and providing links as politely requested, you can answer this question:...”
I answered your question, which you deleted. Your explanation was.
“I deleted it. I requested that before you comment on anything else, you support your claims with a link/links and to keep you honest/pressure you to do it, I said that I would delete any comments that come in before, UNTIL you support your claim with a link or back off.“
I did what you demanded, you deleted my comment, you lied about why.
Read your own words.
Y’know, it’s funny, you have all the time in the world to argue about the clear fact that you lied about deleting the comment, but not enough time to answer rational questions posed to you quite some time ago.
Now, I’m pretty sure I know why, I just think it’s a great view into your character.
Again, you CAN NOT support your false and unsupported claim because I have not lied. That you SAID it was easy to demonstrate and yet, you can't/won't demonstrate says it all. Anyone can see it.
And I've read my words. Your repeating the quotes does not prove anything. What is missing are your words. THAT's the key point. You can't comment UNLESS you support your claims OR you acknowledge and denounce Trump's mocking of the disabled. When you got even close to doing so (however vaguely and in an extremely milquetoast manner, per your norm), I did not delete them.
You have not proved anything without your quote. See how supporting claims works? Read your words.
I'd ask you if you understand, but it appears you don't, so, again, I'm sorry you don't understand. Good luck in life.
I guess it was going to happen sooner or later. Dan disappears, starts arguing against himself. It’s time to go hide.
"1. I have not lied. I have not, as a point of fact, made a claim that I knew to be false. You are mistaken.
Funny. Dan never gives this consideration to Trump. Oh no. Trump is just lying all the time. He KNOWS he's speaking falsely. Dan, on the other hand, claims he made no claim he knew to be false. How convenient for him. Yet, we're to buy it while he doesn't even make an offer to Trump. He just KNOWS Trump is consciously and willfully seeking to deceive.
In the meantime, Dan lies about Trump mocking the disabled, as my links explaining why he wasn't is another link he ignores.
Craig, one last thing: You have hours and hours a week to come to my blog and criticize me, call me a liar (when I'm not) say you can prove I'm a liar (when you can not) and otherwise berate me for daring to disagree with you. Hours upon hours, nearly every week. Nearly every day.
And yet, when the president mocks the disabled and when people like Marshall defend the president and claim that he's not, you can't spare one minute to correct Marshall.
Partisan, much? Inconsistent, much?
Again, good luck in your life. And seriously: Give yourself the gift of some reading comprehension classes in this coming year.
Exaggerate much? Berate others much? Lie much? Live in a fantasy world much?
Dan, your paranoia is becoming more and more obvious. This constant insistence that everyone is against you is just not born out by the facts. The fact that you choose to ignore what you say and what others say, in favor of what you choose to believe is said all in order to try to elevate yourself is just kind of sad and pathetic.
So you keep hindung from Truth, hiding from questions, and ignoring reality.
Again Dan pushes the narrative he prefers over that which is reality. Trump has NOT mocked the disabled. Dan blatantly lies that Trump did. Dan needs to do all he can to convince everyone Trump is evil incarnate, because Dan's own black, corrupt heart demands it. And, by golly, if you don't agree with Dan about what Trump is, does or says, you're defending evil Trump (and are thus evil yourself) rather than questioning Dan's allegations and bases for making them. Dan won't accept, or is too stupid to understand, that questioning his allegations is distinctly untelated to siding with the person against whom Dan expresses such graceless, unChristian hatred.
Okay, really, one last thing...
Trump has NOT mocked the disabled...
Craig thinks you're wrong. Take it up with him.
Dan blatantly lies that Trump did.
You mean, "Dan AND CRAIG blatantly lie about it..."
Dan needs to do all he can to convince everyone Trump is evil incarnate, because Dan's own black, corrupt heart demands it.
You mean "Dan AND CRAIG need to convince everyone of this because Dan AND CRAIG's own black corrupt hearts demand it..."
Craig, I'm guessing you don't see the irony of saying...
Exaggerate much? Berate others much? Lie much? Live in a fantasy world much?
Followed by...
This constant insistence that everyone is against you is just not born out by the facts.
Just to remind you of the facts...
I'm not paranoid. That word has a meaning.
I don't think and have not insisted that "everyone" is against me. I've never even come close to saying anything like that. It is, in fact an "exaggeration" or a "lie," that you just wrongly accused me of. Thus, the irony.
Narcissism, paranoia, I don’t know which. What I do know, is that most people don’t go to such extremes in order to avoid admitting that they could possibly be wrong. Yes, it is ironic when you lie in order to protest lies.
But, the fact that exaggeration, berating, and making up things to suit your own reality are your stock in trade makes me wonder what’s wrong.
The fact that you’ve spent so much time and effort in this stupid thread, while you’ve habitually run away from more substantial threads where you’ve been asked serious questions just raises more questions.
So, you JUST MADE a false claim - "This constant insistence that everyone is against you ..." and yet, I'm the one lying?
Come, brother, be rational.
What exaggeration? What "making things up..."? When YOU just either exaggerated or made something up. Perhaps you're reading your own guilt into my behavior. Maybe this is more about you than me? I don't know.
I just know that the facts are: I have not lied, contrary to your claim, that I have not insisted that everyone is against me, contrary to your claim and that it's rational to support your own arguments, rather than demand others do it for you.
Oh, and that spending hours upon hours of hounding a fella you disagree with for unclear and vague ideas, but not even lifting a single finger or raise a single argument in the face of a man who defends a man who mocks the disabled, even when you think he did (apparently, although again, your answers are so vague, it's difficult to tell).
What all these facts mean or say about you, I'm not sure I can say, but it doesn't look like it says much about your character.
Dan,
If Craig agrees with you that Trump has mocked the disabled, then he is wrong as well. I don't think he does agree. He can correct me if I'm mistaken. YOUR word is worthless given the constant lying you do.
Hours and hours, really? Have problems keeping track of time too?
Just because you won’t acknowledge the lie in your contradiction doesn’t mean it’s not there.
Over the years, you have spent dozens of hours upon dozens of hours writing at my blog and on YOUR blog complaining about me and my positions. Making claims like that I'm a liar, when you can't demonstrate it and, in fact, are mistaken. Are you suggesting that this isn't true?
In fact, most of your concerns about me "lying" are, instead, either instances of you making something up out of whole cloth or, at best, are cases of you misunderstanding.
For instance, in THIS case, I've said you spend hours and hours and I'm speaking of over the years. My guess (giving you the benefit of the doubt) is that you mistakenly thought I was suggesting you spent hours and hours THIS WEEK, but that isn't what I said.
As a point of fact, it takes time to read, ponder, write down responses to my opinions. Given the sheer number of words over the years, it HAD to taken you hours upon hours over the years. Do you see, then, that I have no problem keeping track of time and what has happened is that you have had difficulty keeping track of my meaning?
And do you also see that Marshall is NOT sure what your position is on the Trump/disabled mocking question. Perhaps you THINK you are being clear, but it's not clear what your meaning is. Thus, do you see how if even your comrades don't understand your meaning, how it's possible that you wrote something that others did not understand? And thus, the most likely explanation of why your comment was deleted (assuming I deleted it and that it wasn't a blogger error) was that you wrote something that YOU THOUGHT was a direct answer to my question but no one understood it that way? Thus, I have not lied, but only kept my word.
The opposite of lying.
And, by the way, a very Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Yes it’s probably been hours over the years, so what. It’s no different than the hours you spend.
I will say, that I’ve spent too much time on this thread pointing out your clear lies, and the fact that you choose to pretend that you didn’t say what you said doesn’t change reality.
Of course now you can’t even admit the truth behind your deleting of answers to your questions. What a classy move, ask questions then delete the answers.
No wonder your afraid to answer questions and call out bullying and lies on your side. We’ve literally got liberals bullying people to death to protest “homophobia”, and DFL congressional leaders telling stupid lies, and what does Dan have? Nothing, silence, head in the sand.
Just more bitching about me using your words to point out your lies and berating Art for what you perceive as his stupidity. Classy, you just exude grace, don’t you.
"Making claims like that I'm a liar, when you can't demonstrate it..."
This is itself a lie. I demonstrate your falsehood all the time. You simply reject th arguments and evidence contained therein as "hunches" and "your opinion" rather than to actually counter with evidence based arguments of your own. The "Trump mocks the disabled" is just one of the many lies you tell.
Indeed, Dan, you lie in every way one can...directly, indirectly, by omission of pertinent details and by hiding behind "I said it was my opinion" nonsense.
Art, if only it was as easy as just announcing that something wasn’t a lie and that magically being true.
And the unjustified deleting continues. Not surprised. I guess if you delete reality often enough, you can pretend it doesn’t exist.
Clearly Dan doesn’t have the spine to ban me, nor the intellectual honesty to acknowledge the fact that he’s deleting comments that are answers to questions he’s asked and direct responses to his comments.
Just to point out reality: I have deleted NOTHING. At least, not what you're speaking of here. When I delete you (because you are avoiding answering a question that I've specifically requested you answer and deleting is my only way to get you to give direct answers), I TELL YOU. In the case from today/yesterday, it is precisely as I've told you: Blogger is apparently removing those comments. They appear in my email, but when I look on my blog, they are not there. You say they were there and disappeared so all I can guess is that it's something happening with blogger. What I can tell you definitively and factually is that I did not delete that comment.
I've told you the truth. You can accept the truth or you can be boorish and make up a false claim and pretend like you know what I have done better than I do. It remains a false claim. Believe it or be not, that's on you.
Craig,
Dan may be telling the truth. I've had a couple of feo's comments show up in my email inbox, but not as a posted comment on the blog thread intended. I don't know why that happens.
However, in Dan's case, there's still the issue of him deleting comments he finds too troubling. He also uses deleting as a means to force agreement. Very dishonorable in my opinion, but that's how he rolls.
Given Dan’s willingness to post the comment in question I’m inclined to believe him.
Your last attempt to post at my blog didn't post there either. Don't know why.
No idea
Post a Comment