7 Comments

  1. Since the idiot padawan of the idiot from down under loves demanding citations for everything, including demanding a citation proving he called for Dana to violate what he viewed was a First Amendment right to comment on all blogs, I found where he begged Dana to violate what the idiot padawan views as my First Amendment right.

    Perry says:
    5 November 2009 at 08:25 (Edit)

    Open note to Dana:

    This thread marks an unfortunate deterioration in the quality of the CSPT blog.

    This is not to say that there were not some intelligent comments made here, but there are several commenters here whose sole purpose is to bait their adversaries with outrageous, unsubstantiated statements and name calling.

    I am not suggesting censorship of any kind, however, I do think more control should be exercised over one of the originators, who is overwhelming us with mostly inconsequential nonsense, in my view. Limiting him to one topic per week would be most welcome.

    No, the idiot padawan was not suggesting censorship of any kind, except for that censorship that would prevent a certain someone (me) from posting more than one article per week. Dishonest, hypocritical in a single comment.

    Dana responded to the padawan’s idiocy thusly:

    I’m uncertain how “I am not suggesting censorship of any kind” and “Limiting him to one topic per week would be most welcome” work together.

    When I started CSPT, I thought that Ken and I would pretty much be the sole bloggers. I invited Art Downs to add a few articles, which he did, then Yorkshire and Eric. I have never limited what they can post, and have no intention of doing so.

    The freedom of speech does not, however, include the right to have anyone listen to you. The fact is that we really don’t listen to the vast majority of speech that exists out there. I hope this isn’t perceived as rude, but it seems to me that if you don’t want to read something by a particular person, the right way to do it is not to read it, far more than to ask me not to allow it to be posted.

    And the idiot hypocritical liar who is the padawan of the idiot liar from down under has been totally fscked by his own words.

  2. Note to Perry: There’s an old quote that says “Never argue with the man who buys ink by the barrel.” Let me update it for you.

    Never p!ss on the leg of a blog author who has a moderately photographic memory.

    You lose, as is normal for you.

  3. “Never p!ss on the leg of a blog author who has a moderately photographic memory.

    You lose, as is normal for you.”

    Well maybe I do lose at times due to a sometimes faulty memory. However, you lose too John, by being incapable of incorporating context with your “moderately photographic memory”, the result being that you lose a sense of human error and frailty, instead lashing out as though you are constantly at war with those with whom you disagree!

  4. Never p!ss on the leg of a blog author who has a moderately photographic memory.

    If you’re so smart, PB, why will no-one hire you?

  5. Hitch wrote, “Jeff and aphrael are very explicitly excluded from this NSFW lecture because they debate honestly and with intellectual integrity despite their leftward leanings.”

    The way I see it, aphrael usually, Jeff not so much, the others here not yet.

  6. Idiot liar hypocrite Dictator Perry, AKA Darth Supercilious, the padawan of the idiot from down under, lied thusly:

    lashing out as though you are constantly at war with those with whom you disagree!

    While ropelight quoted me thusly:

    Hitch wrote, “Jeff and aphrael are very explicitly excluded from this NSFW lecture because they debate honestly and with intellectual integrity despite their leftward leanings.”

    My statements do not match up with Darth Supercilious’s lie-filled accusations, as can be clearly seen in this thread alone.

    (And ropelight, for all his flaws, Jeff debates on this site with honesty most of the time. But I definitely agree with your measuring of “the others”.)

Comments are closed.