One thing I find very telling about Doc is that rarely anyone will help him defend his position. Not even the anonymous posters.

In Usenet, Doc would be considered a disrupter. His only intention is to derail the blog or thread without offering anything constructive to the conversation. The only thing he's good for is repeating the same rightwing talking points you can hear on OxyRush's show or Faux News. He rarely follows up what he says when challenged and when he's asked for evidence or proof, he starts ad hominem attacks.

He intentionally baits people and then pouts when his baiting elicits a negative response. I don't for a second believe he's a psychologist. A patient, yes.

I have a cousin like Doc. He's no longer invited to any family functions.

None of us are perfect Tom.  Or are we?  You must be without sin, because you've just thrown the first stone.  That's okay, for the most part, you missed.  At least you didn't hit any vital areas. 

None of us can live up to our own ideals, but we should still hold to those ideals and strive to make our behavior match those ideals. 

It appears you've pointed out a few chinks in my armor, Tom, but, chinks or no chinks, I'm back in the Bakersfield blogosphere battle, and this time I'm in it to win----not win in a selfish way, but in a collaborative way in which the ultimate victor, and the ultimate champion is civility.  I was tempted to get defensive when I came across this thread, but my memories of the good old days when Tom and I strived to see eye to eye far outshine any recent memories of a critical nature. 

We all take a risk when we hit that "submit comment" button, in terms of how our comments and blog threads will be perceived.  And I've said a few foolish things and jumped to a few foolish conclusions--------but none warranting the type of vitriol and verbal abuse that I've encountered here by those who hate me and form conclusions about me before even getting to know me. 

I don't hate those who hate me.  I don't wish evil upon those who wish evil upon me.  Jesus said to love our enemies.

Tom, I've never considered you an ememy, though you've clearly made an effort to distance yourself from me of late.  I've always respected your opinions and I've always admired your candor.  You just happen to come to the defense of the wrong people, and you just happen to target the wrong people.  I won't hold it against you.  God bless you!  

As for GrpThink's comments, I don't make it a point to hold grudges or to dig up hateful vitriol that commenting parties like GrpThink have made.  All I ask of those who have come upon his statement here, is to go back and compare the content of GrpThink's comments with my contributions.  When you compare our comments you will be clear in your understand of what is constructive and what is destructive discourse.   

so I hope I don't ruin things for people

That's my job according to Doc and Nancy.

But then, someone's got to call out the rightwing idiots on their B.S.

and this time I'm in it to win

The only way that will happen is if you start backing up the crap you spew and stop projecting on everyone as you're running away.

The proof will be in the pudding, so to speak.

...

Yes, I do want you to call me on my BS, if, in fact it is BS, and I want you to call me out on my "bashing."  So, please give me an example of when and where I have personally attacked or bashed anybody at this site.   Hardliner, you never fail to make me smile or laugh.  And you, my friend (if I may take the liberty of calling you a friend) are a prime example of somebody here who knows how to disagree, and to disagree without making disparaging remarks about the person you disagree with. 

please give me an example of when and where I have personally attacked

Too easy.

All anyone has to do is search your posts about Dusty. Just before you took your ball and went home (and then flip-flopped and came back), you were attacking her regularly.

If you intend to "and this time I'm in it to win", the first thing you might want to consider is being honest not only with everyone here, but with yourself.

GrpThink, you are the pot calling the kettle black.  I'd invite anybody to review the recent heated exchange between dusty and myself.  You will find no personal attacks whatsoever launched by me towards dusty.  Dusty was offended, not by a personal attack, but by a general comment that disrupted the thread she posted.  She was rightfully offended, as I was out of line, and I apologized again and again for offending her. 

"Some bloggers here, after the evidence has been provided to the contrary, continue their same allegations."

That's not necessarily a liar, but it is the mark of a bigot -- my descriptive noun of choice.  Bigots don't like to be deprived of their reasons to hate, so they'll blow off evidence that might do so.

Am I a total geek that my first thought on reading the title of this blog was "Doctor Who?"*

.

*(Don't ya just love rhetorical questions?)

The "history" you've directed folks to is highly selective, Tom for the purpose of supporting your argument.   It is not an adequate sampling of my contribution here, but you do make a few good points that I intend to give serious consideration to.  The problem is that you've singled me out for doing what so many others do, not that two or more wrongs make a right.  

Moreover, you've complained about me saying things to draw attention to myself, but then you've gone ahead and created a post specifically about me.  A bit of a contradiction, wouldn't you say?

"Some bloggers here, after the evidence has been provided to the contrary, continue their same allegations."

That's not necessarily a liar, but it is the mark of a bigot -- my descriptive noun of choice.  Bigots don't like to be deprived of their reasons to hate, so they'll blow off evidence that might do so.

I don't think this is necessarily an indication of a liar or a bigot, though I understand the temptation of folks to jump to those sorts of conclusions about those whom they really don't know on a personal basis.

Some folks here, including myself at times, due to time constraints, don't have the luxury of going into great detail so, right or wrong, we abbreviate, or to say things succinctly.  Sometimes I'll admit, I've provided little more than an adumbration of my views.  Many times I have bitten off more than I had the time to chew, and this is a valid criticism of me.  However, it is generally a matter of time contraints rather than purposely trying to deceive people or an example of bigotry. 

Moreover, the "evidence provided to the contrary" is often cherry-picked and those of us with day jobs, lacking the luxury of time to follow-up, ultimately suffer the consequences.   We can't be as thorough at fact-finding and fact-checking as we really need to be to be taken seriously. 

Moreover, person may appear to have all of their facts together, and when others lack the luxury of time to sort through their "facts," they get away with passing off "ostensible facts" as "facts."  What appears to be fact on the surface often fails to stand up to further scrutiny.   Unfortunately, most of us lack the luxury of time to adequately examine what is presented as "facts."  Yes, it's an excuse, but it is also a reality-based excuse. 

As for Mattloch, I've never experienced any of Mattloch's comments as a personal attack.  Mattloch, you are generally fair and not out for blood. 

So..... quite often somebody will make a statement or argument which I or others recognize. As such, we will move ahead to the point at which serious discussion takes over from rhetoric or sloganeering (your "bumperstickers"). Some people will not recognize this shift/move, and continue on their step-by-step progress. Our frustration comes when the person refuses to move forward with us to the meaningful portion of the discussion. More frustrating is when one side realizes the "game" is flawed at a "meta-" level, and attempts to move the discussion "above" the "gameboard" (quite often the philosophical, social, or biological underpinnings of the discussion itself).

It can be an exercise in "head, meet wall" when one person knows where the discussion is headed and the other doesn't, or refuses to come along. That frustration can result in name-calling, or at the very least a calling-out (does the word "obtuse" sound familiar?). When one person shows a constant record of feet-dragging, that is when it moves to Tom's "motive and knowledge". How many times do you need to document or link to a piece of information before it becomes futile? If the discussion has moved onto "I'll show you mine if you show me yours", then at least have the common courtesy to respond in kind. To blow past the other person's work and continue on your merry way is rude, and actually hurts the thread. Demanding proof, then ignoring the proof provided is the sign of a true jerk. Be prepared for some frustration on the part of the other party.