A blog about News and Politics.
|
What the Fairness Doctrine REALLY means IT IS ALL OVER The question I want to hear Wednesday Let's talk about Sarah Palin, from somebody who knows her This town hates tall, skinny, boys! "Seven Questions for Liberals" Having problems getting your children to do chores? News from the Executive Branch ~7/20/07 Bush admits Administration broke the law... Father's day, and lessons he taught me November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Ah, the dulcet tones of the two-faced hypocrite......
Once again, Sam Heath has chosen the low road. In his latest blog, he actually invited people to post responses, with the conditions that they be on-topic and not a personal attack on himself. After posting exactly what he requested, I was deleted. I then posted a question, asking how my first post was found lacking in the requirements, or if his deletion was based on a personal animosity towards me as a person. He then, promptly and predictably, deleted that question. Posting a final time, I asked that he stop this double-standard of asking for a discussion of the topic at hand then deleting the very thing he asked for, and asked him to uphold the very concepts of free speech, discourse, and intellectualism that he espouses in many of his blogs. This final deletion has forced me to take this issue to the community at large in the form of this blog. I do this not to make a martyr of myself, but to show those defenders of Sam that he is not the man he claims to be. He is not the "lover of ideas" as he calls himself, but a self-absorbed lover of self. He cannot stand those who show his ignorance, or hypocrisy. He claims that those who are "partisan" or "uneducated" are beneath him, yet cannot refuse an opportunity to be either, or both. His latest claims of being "bullied" ring hollow, as his exercise of power over those who attempt to discourse within his blogs cannot be categorized as anything but. His cheap theatrics are the sad machinations of a lonely old man, desperate for attention. In ignoring his future posts, I resolve to allow his blogs to degenerate into love-fests of complete agreement and self-congratulation. He may cultivate a cult of personality to the point of obsolesence and obscurity. While it has always been my wish to engage in enlightened discussion of any topic he chooses to raise, his insistence of complete and utter obedience to his whims and opinions has pushed more than a few in this community away, to his detriment. If he wished to continue to call himself a "scholar", he may want to take a refresher course in professional and personal ethics. A true scholar would not be so afraid of differing opinions and opposition. You can call a cow patty a rose, but that doesn't make it smell any better. A hypocrite by any other name would still be as wrong.
And so, I bid Sam adieu. May the chorus of voices in your head never stop singing your praises.
[For those who will post telling me to quit whining or to get a life, let me say that I wrote this blog because the area in which it belongs, namely Sam's blog, will not allow it to remain. I write this to Sam, and his defenders against "bullies". By deleting opposing viewpoints (as is his right under his blog), Sam has created the facade of complete agreement; the most dangerous type of censorship possible: the erasing and re-writing of history theorized by George Orwell in 1984. To then claim to be a lover of speech, ideas, and history is to be a hypocrite of the worst type. It is my most sincere hope that others with more influence and access should convince him of the errors of his ways, and request that he exercise the very ideals he currently and hollowly advocates.]
47 comments from 12 users
1
posted by
mattloch
on Jan 3, 2007 at 01:42 PM
My final post to Sam, which he deleted, goes thusly: "Sam, your false facade of intellectualism and modesty belie a small and petty man behind the curtains. You claim to be a "lover of ideas" and actually go so far as to request a discussion on the subject at hand, and when I attempt to do so you delete my post. Your claims of being "bullied" are as hollow and false as your head. You've never had any intentions of engaging this community in discussions of any topic, despite your claims otherwise. Your flowery prose and lofty subject matters cover a stinking soul and rotting intentions. You are a hypocrite of the darkest stripe. You professed love of freedom and expression are false fronts in your personal vendetta against anyone who fails to see the world through your blood-colored glasses. You are a wolf in sheep's clothing, a velvet-tongued devil with nothing but contempt to your fellow man despite any statements to the contrary. You may delete this post, you may report me to the moderator, but doing so will only force me to take this discussion to a separate and dedicated blog, one which even your most fervent of defenders will be hard-pressed to support your decisions. You can either follow your own rules, which you have clearly stated and claim to follow, or you can go down the dark road of censorship and dictatorial totalitarianism and further marginalize yourself from the rest of this community. Rest assured, the choice is yours, as will be the consequences. Fare thee well."
posted by
mattloch
on Jan 3, 2007 at 01:44 PM
If you want to know what my original post to Sam was, the one which he deleted unfairly, went: "What kind of numbers do you have to support the argument that prostitution is a significant contributing factor to the overcrowding of America's prison system, Sam? I would certainly agree that private drug use should be downgraded (unless combined with things like DUI or other situations which put others at risk), and certainly possession of marijuana should be decriminalized, I would posit that it isn't "emasculating political correctedness" that prevents a discussion of this issue, but instead the political right-wing that labels anyone willing to discuss such solutions (or even admitting that there is a "problem" in the first place) as being "soft" on crime, and therefore unfit to come to political power. Starting with the "War on Drugs" and "just say no" in the '80s, this militarization of a social problem served only those with a paramilitary agenda, to the large detriment of society as a whole. The same "pro-law enforcement" candidates portray their opponents as naive, ignorant, or working for the downfall of Western society. After 20 years of this madness, the passage of medical marijuana laws in several states show that society is ready for a change in the nation's drug policy. Unfortunately, with this president and his Attorney Generals (Ashcroft, and to a lesser degree Gonzales), they've made things worse, not better. Imprisoning people for selling pipes over the internet is not a wise allocation of resources, especially if the highest priority is this misguided "War on Terror". " Can anyone tell me what in there could rationally be called a personal attack or off-topic?
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Jan 3, 2007 at 02:15 PM
Well, I'll certify that your first question to Sam was on topic and non-abusive. I saw nothing wrong with it. Gotta admit it's weird... Never have I been so alienated by someone with whom I agreed oftener than not.
posted by
libbuster
on Jan 3, 2007 at 02:20 PM
C'mon, Mattloch, he's been more than tolerant.......after all, if not for the unending and forgiving tolerance of the right, how on earth could we possibly put up with a person such as yourself?
posted by
dusty1215
on Jan 3, 2007 at 02:42 PM
Tolerance..by mucus? get real..the man is a walking bag of slime. If you guys are tired of Sam's obvious control-freak personality..why do you keep going over to his blog and commenting? Let him talk to himself for awhile..or folks like mucus..a real gem if there ever was one. posted by
mattloch
on Jan 3, 2007 at 02:45 PM
Now now Random. That was the nicest thing Mocus has posted for quite some time. It was almost complementary. He didn't make any homosexual references, no scatological comments, nothing that could even be considered rude. And you've gone and ruined all that good will. Almost tempts me to use the dreaded <delete> key on you.....
posted by
randomfactor
on Jan 3, 2007 at 02:52 PM
Actually, he was quite nice the other day, polite even, in asking me a question about the Ten Commandments. Perhaps it was my delay in answering him that caused him to descend into gibbering idiocy later that same day. Mucus *IS* attempting to behave, at least until the fourth beer... . As for his re-entry into the homophobia closet, I suspect that is due more to a knuckle-rap than a desire to behave. . However, you're mostly right. I'll save you the trouble. posted by
mattloch
on Jan 3, 2007 at 03:06 PM
Great, now you've stuck me in quite a pickle. My post responds to yours which no longer exists. However, I don't want to delete my post, which should stand as a testament to Mocus' reformed ways. What to do, what to do.
posted by
anonymous
on Jan 3, 2007 at 03:14 PM
Matt, in the final analysis aren't we all just lonely old men looking for attention, you Whippersnapper? (just kidding). In all honesty, you wax most eloquently on the subject of Sam Heath. I've read this over and over, I can't get enough. I'm glad you directed me here from your other blog. I'm going to sit back and watch the fireworks. This conflict between you two reminds me of the conflict between General Winfield Scott and Nicholas Trist during the U.S. / Mexican War. It made for great theater when they were exchanging written barbs but when they finally met in person they became great friends.
posted by
dusty1215
on Jan 3, 2007 at 03:15 PM
Reformed? Did he get a frontal lobotomy?
posted by
randomfactor
on Jan 3, 2007 at 03:49 PM
I rather suspect the "bottle-in-front-of-me" approach is more likely for Mucus than the "frontal-lobotomy" one. *ARE* there any neurosurgeons in Bakersfield trained in microsurgery technique?
posted by
dusty1215
on Jan 3, 2007 at 04:02 PM
I wouldn't know Random..and thankfully do not need to know.
posted by
tonyh
on Jan 3, 2007 at 05:28 PM
This is a Personal Attack, and you're wrong for it.
posted by
randomfactor
on Jan 3, 2007 at 05:37 PM
If you're speaking of me vs. Mucus, you're half right, Tony. It *IS* a personal attack. . If you're speaking of this blog as a whole, I think you're wholly wrong. It's an attempt to allow two-way communication on a topic where Sam doesn't allow that. . Granted he has the *POWER* to censor his own blog. If he deleted *ALL* comments and merely left his dulcet prose to stand on its own, I would find that less objectionable--merely equivalent to many right-wing "blogs" which don't allow comment. But to invite comment and then censor it is to invite others to comment elsewhere. posted by
Beelzebub
on Jan 3, 2007 at 05:41 PM
Yeah, Sam's a confused, rambling do-gooder &%#@(), who doesn't know WTF he's scribbling about usually (yes a fundie quoting atheist-socialist Dashiell Hammett! what a f-n schmendrick) : but then anyone sympathizing with muslims is not, like, providing much assistance to the forces of rationality. Neither a GOP'er or Demo be.
posted by
tonyh
on Jan 3, 2007 at 06:01 PM
I don't see it that way. When I see childish name calling in the blog heading, I call that a personal attack.
Be that as it may, I also read Sam's post. I believe the sentence was “While the media has paid some attention to the overcrowding in California jails and prisons it is obvious the problem is one of drugs and prostitution for the greater part.”
Mattloch, have you ever been to Night Court in any major city? If so, you’d know that several nights a week it looks as though they keep the doors open for the soul purpose of processing Prostitutes. Cops bring them in, process them and put them in a holding cell (in Jail). Several hours later, they see the Judge for a hearing. Some are fined and released, some are held over. Either way you cut it, they’re back out on the street in three days or less, unless they’re charged with something other than Solicitation. Sam’s right. It ties up a lot of jail and court resources for what seems to be nothing. Trust me, Night Court is a busy place and, if you’ve got a sense of humor, it’s a real hoot to watch. Almost everybody that works nights in this system slowly comes to feel like they’re wasting their time.
He probably deleted you because once again, you demonstrated, through your response, that you didn’t pay attention to what you read. Rather than immediately firing back, perhaps you should re-read and take some time to digest first.
I’m a little sensitive on this subject today because I just had to let an Engineer go for the same thing. This guy didn’t know how to LISTEN. He’d take in about half of the information and run off half-cocked. This last time cost us over $200,000. This guy is 35 years old and I’ve been working with him for a little over 2 years. Over those 2 years, his inability to LISTEN has cost us almost $1,250,000. You’d think that a 35 year old College graduate would have mastered the skill of LISTENING…..
posted by
mattloch
on Jan 3, 2007 at 06:01 PM
Tony, do you think I'm wrong because of the names I've called him, or because I've called attention to his antithetical behavior?
posted by
tonyh
on Jan 3, 2007 at 06:04 PM
I've got a genuine problem with the name calling.............. posted by
mattcub
on Jan 3, 2007 at 06:37 PM
Each and every post here is a display of name calling, except for tonyh...and as I agree with him, I have a problem with that. If the viewpoint or ramblings of another is not in your best interests, find other intrests. I understand the need to have your viewpoint heard and I understand the problems someone may have with disagreement. However, as long as the site allows the "delete" key, each of the blogs have to be looked upon with a little bit of distrust or doubt. How do we all know what has been and not been "edited for content."? Although I cannot condone censorship in any form, another Blog with your point of view on any given subject would be more appropriate than this.
posted by
tonyh
on Jan 3, 2007 at 06:44 PM
Thanks for the support mattcub. I realize that there are a lot of lurkers and appreciate your stepping up to defend my point. I don't have a problem with genuine disagreement, but I don't think that there's ever a need for it to turn aggressive. posted by
NancyII
on Jan 3, 2007 at 06:57 PM
Doesn't anyone here realize that the more attention you bring to Sams blogs the more people will read them? Everyone always wants to know what the brouhaha is all about so you're defeating your purpose. When you insist on continuing way past a rational point it DOES look like bullying no matter what you say. For crying out loud..give it a rest. This is an amazing spectacle by a bunch of grown men. posted by
mattloch
on Jan 3, 2007 at 07:02 PM
Tony, as you've pointed out, there is a difference between jail and prison. While prostitution may keep night court busy, I'm just not hearing about a large problem with chronic overcrowding of overnight beds in City and County jails. (At least, not outside LA County and other places, but they've got gang activity, drug use, and property theft that makes them busier.) According to FBI data, there were 84,891 arrests for prostitution and commercialized vice (2005). That's arrests; in other words, your "night court" scenario. The total number of arrests for crimes that year totaled 14,094,186. That makes prostitution 6.02% of the overall arrests that year. Even assuming they constitute a higher percentage of crimes of require "night court" hearings, even assuming they take up jail space to a greater degree of other crimes, Sam's theory still doesn't hold water. Decriminalize it because it's a "victimless crime", legalize and regulate it because of experiences other Western democracies have with the same thing; there are many reasons to address the issue, but jail space isn't one of them.
On a side note, sorry to hear about your engineer. Hope things work out better with the new one.
posted by
tonyh
on Jan 3, 2007 at 07:05 PM
Nancy, You've just pointed out what several of us (silently in these blogs) have seen...............They're actually going to great lengths to prove Sam's point. ;-<) I just can't seem to stand by and let it go on without stepping in. Perhaps with age, comes even more self control........Your thoughts? posted by
mattcub
on Jan 3, 2007 at 07:15 PM
Mattloch's last post was an example of the point I was trying to make earlier. A post with facts supporting an idea or support of a point of view. His post would make a very good blog to defend that point of view. However, this forum did not start out for that reason and it is unfortunate. Blog to your heart's content Bakersfield, but make a point, not an accusation. posted by
tonyh
on Jan 3, 2007 at 07:19 PM
Mattloch, FBI statistics only address federal stuff. The majority of it falls under the individual states................Sitting on a bench in the main hall of a court house in a major city will show you what I've seen. It's absolutely rediculus. From that vantage point, you don't know if they're state crimes or federal, but you see the volume and the look of doom and gloom on the faces of the people who actually work the system. Then, go outside and smoke a Cigarette at 1:30 a.m. with the people who work there. You'll hear all about the feeling of uselessness. A lot of them feel like revolving door operators. This system, from what I've seen, has GOT to cost a lot of money to operate. The gang related, DUI, and miscellaneous stuff doesn't hold a candle to the the Solicitation, Pandering, Drug posession/dealing stuff..I realize that a lot of those crimes are probably also gang organized/related, but it doesn't always get exposed in court. That's why it flys under the FBI radar. Seeing is Believing............ posted by
NancyII
on Jan 3, 2007 at 07:20 PM
I've expressed my thoughts here many times. This has all the earmarks of a vendetta and all because someone deleted posts. From the beginning I've seem people not just disagree with Sam but insult him and his intellect. I don't know anyone's IQ on this blog but I don't really care. Being smart and being intelligent aren't always the same thing and I have to wonder what makes everyone here think they're smarter than Sam? AND..who cares? I'm not impressed by IQ but I am impressed by people who practice what they preach. I don't care what anyone thinks about bigotry, racism, religion or any other topic. It doen't give the rest of the people the right to run roughshod over others because they hold a vastly different view of life than the poster. I don't care if not saying anything almost made Hitler king of the world..that's not what's going on here and all the talk didn't make it so. Geeez..if you folks don't like what he says then stop reading it. Stop drawing attention to it. Stop acting like little boys in the sandbox demanding someone give you your way. A little advice to Sam...drop the personal stuff too. This has been going on for way too long....you guys all need to go to your neutral corners and let it go. You may not agree with Sam but don't spout the right of freedom of speech and then condemn him for exercising that right. Careful that you don't get branded with that "H" word. posted by
tonyh
on Jan 3, 2007 at 07:22 PM
Incidentally, I hate having to can someone....I like people, in general, too much. Unfortunately, it's a for-profit business and not a social club. This doesn't happen very often with me. Usually, I can fix them over time. When I can't, I take it as a personal falure.
posted by
tonyh
on Jan 3, 2007 at 07:27 PM
Nancy, YOU GO GIRL! You're exactly right............................... I LUUUUVVVVVVV me some Nancy!!!!!!! posted by
mattloch
on Jan 3, 2007 at 07:28 PM
I understand that Tony. I could have said my piece without the name-calling. But if Sam can call people "bullies", and people agree with the characterization, does that mean he's called people names, or simply identified them? At what point does identification become name-calling? I believe that each and every "name" I've called him in this (and even other posts) are simply qualities which he has displayed prior to me identifying them. I may even agree with your characterization of this blog being aggressive. However, I have yet to hear you call it unjustified, unwarranted, or unsupported. Mattcub, thanks for speaking up. I agree with your identification of the problem. The only thing we have to go on is trust (Well, there are ways to find deleted posts other than that, but I'll discount those for the moment) and one's word. I've written this blog to show that Sam is not a man of his word, and therefore cannot be trusted. Everything he says should be taken with a piece of salt the size of the Exxon Valdez. I wanted to show the rest of the community (that may not be aware of it, either because they've recently joined, or they have blinders on) that Sam's posts should be ignored. They aren't worth the hard drive space they're stored on. I've tried to keep my comments on subjects of other's choosing, because that guarantees that they already have an interest in it. My tastes can be rather.... esoteric. Plus, I've been accused of bringing up subjects just to hit people with trick questions and hidden knowledge. But I still appreciate your comments. Nancy, I'm hoping to bring this problem to light, so that the number of hits to Sam's blogs drops to 0. Like I've said before, when he talks about growing up, I leave him alone. When he openly advocates homicide, I'll speak out.
posted by
mattcub
on Jan 3, 2007 at 07:36 PM
Sam's post's should be ignored? Should we also ignore the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln, Bush, and Wallace? You get my point...I would never place these individuals in the same boat, but by Constitution, they have the right to say what they think. I never have to agree with anyone, but I must agree with their right to say it. If we fell that Sam's post should be ignored by declaration, then we are practicing the same censorship we all are against. We don't have to agree, but we must agree on the power of speach.
posted by
mattloch
on Jan 3, 2007 at 07:42 PM
Sorry Nancy, I've never said he shouldn't say those things. I've never intended for him to become a free speech martyr (through deleting other people's posts? How is censorship free speech?). I've always tried to "practice what I preach". I've never claimed otherwise. Everyone says "if you don't like it, write a blog of your own", and that's what I've done here. If Sam can rail against those he finds distasteful (from the president to pedophiles), why can't I? Just because the person I choose to write about is an active member of this community? Why should that exempt him from the same treatment we give non-members? This blog is the last one I'll write on the subject, because I'm not reading any more of his blogs. I just wanted others to know what is happening as well, and be aware of another member's behavior. (Kinda hard when someone deletes your reasons over on their blog...)
posted by
mattloch
on Jan 3, 2007 at 07:48 PM
Mattcub, there's a difference between deleting works from history, and choosing not to subject yourself to certain writings. I've never said Sam's works should be deleted, just ignored as the ramblings of a diseased (or perhaps just a confused) mind. I choose not to read erotic child pornography. While there may be some redeeming quality about that kind of work (simply by existing, it makes a powerful argument for Free Speech), that doesn't mean I can't find other (more worthwhile) things to occupy my time with.
posted by
tonyh
on Jan 3, 2007 at 08:01 PM
Mattloch,
Apparently, you find few things more important to occupy your time with. You seem to spend a lot of it bashing Sam’s posts.
If you care to look back at his blog, you’ll see that I actually disagreed with him. My post didn’t get deleted. It’s still there for you to read. Attitude is everything. I actually quoted Aristotle. “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it” There’s a lot of truth to that……
My personal opinion on this situation is that, due to your previous attacks, general tone and propensity to go off half cocked, your credibility with Sam is blown. You’ll most likely remain Persona Non Grata without some sort of truce or perhaps an apology. Again, attitude is everything……
posted by
anonymous
on Jan 3, 2007 at 08:13 PM
Matt, the problem is you two are very much alike. You're both highly intelligent and hold strong opinions that are diametrically opposed. You actually want to engage Sam in discourse, so try to avoid the personal attacks (though I do find them entertaining, really, I'm impressed). Perhaps you need a change of tactics (though it may be too late). If Sam becomes condescending or obtuse, then deflect it dispassionately and get back on point. You know that when he sees your name on a post that he is going to be defensive so don't try a frontal attack, try a softer more lateral approach. Just a suggestion. Hey, do you know the difference between a P.H.D. and a large pizza? The large pizza will feed a family of four!
posted by
tonyh
on Jan 3, 2007 at 08:29 PM
anonymous, Sometimes you're right about the alphabet soup. In Sam's case, it's only an augmentation to a long and eventful life. I believe that he's seen and done a lot of things over the years. This accouts for much more than your average academics. Take time to research his history and you'll see what I mean. That's why I've come to respect and seriously consider his views. His degree from the School of Hard Knocks carries the most weight with me......He ain't your average Professor......Trust me. posted by
NancyII
on Jan 3, 2007 at 08:45 PM
"I've never said Sam's works should be deleted, just ignored as the ramblings of a diseased (or perhaps just a confused) mind" But Mattloch...that's the point ..you aren't ignoring them. posted by
anonymous
on Jan 3, 2007 at 08:46 PM
tonyh, I was just trying to interject a little levity into this thread. Your response to my post just goes to show how sensitive we have all become. Believe me, I meant no disrespect towards Dr. Heath. I am sincerely trying to suggest a means of sealing the breech so that we can all benefit from a logical debate between these two without it devolving into a personal slugfest. Truely, if I had gotten under someone's skin as much as Dr. Heath has Mattlach's, I would feel that I had won. Mattloch, you should consider that. There is a game called "Dozens" that ghetto kids play and it starts with "Yo Mamma....." Its a call and response. Call, "you mamma so fat she has her own zip code." Response, "well, you mamma so fat...." You get the idea. The first kid that loses his temper, loses the game. Just trying to be helpful.
posted by
Beelzebub
on Jan 4, 2007 at 08:19 AM
Sam's writing is so bad that it almost makes Nancy's punkin' patch prose seem stylish in comparison....
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Jan 4, 2007 at 08:48 AM
Mattloch, It almost seems like you were suprised that Sam deleted you. If I do post on sam's little page, It will only be to another blogger rather than to sam directly. That's the only way to not get deleted. It ain't worth it folks. Hit the ignore button and move on.
posted by
mattloch
on Jan 4, 2007 at 08:55 AM
That's what I get for taking him at his word, Pete. Does it make me an optimist to continue to believe what he says, instead of expecting him to behave as he has in the past? Ah well, guess I'll never know now.....
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Jan 4, 2007 at 09:06 AM
Optimist wouldn't be the word I'd use. No offense.
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Jan 4, 2007 at 09:21 AM
A few rather unconnected thoughts: The "ignore it" argument has won me over. By talking so much about Sam's blogs, to the point of setting up separate discussion areas, we inadvertently confer upon Sam an appearance of importance that, in my estimation, he doesn't deserve. He's just another blogger. Perhaps we should go back to the "law of the blog jungle," with intervention by the Californian only in cases of vulgar language, libel, or threats. What seems to be arising from the moderated approach is Californian staff slowly finding themselves dragged into personal feuds -- and by trying not to appear to take sides, leaving one or both sides feeling shorted. Perhaps the moderated approach should be reconsidered. Finally, it's a bit of a chuckle that several here are investing just as much time in correcting what they see as Mattloch's wrongdoing as Mattloch is investing in Sam's perceived wrongdoing. And I write this as someone who has, in the past, acted on the urge myself. Welcome to the boat.
posted by
dusty1215
on Jan 4, 2007 at 09:36 AM
When you respond to someones worthless, ridiculous diatribes..you validate them.
posted by
mattloch
on Jan 4, 2007 at 10:33 AM
I've been trying for quite some time to respond to Sam's posts, to try to moderate his behavior. During that time, I've seen him gather some around him who now believe he can do no wrong. I didn't trust him to marginalize himself if ignored. I obviously felt the need to help him on his way. I agree that writing this blog has drawn attention to him that otherwise wouldn't have been; that was intentional, for ignoring him (or having responses deleted) gives the impression of acquiescence to the audience. If Sam was simply peddling his harmless "I remember the old days" tales, I would have left him alone. But he chose to write about dangers foreign and domestic, and advocated violence against other people. I couldn't in good conscience stand by to let that happen. People like that prey on the weaker-willed; Jonestown, Waco, the list of people ignored only to gather strength goes on and on. I fully realize that Sam wasn't writing to those of us who saw through his facade. He was writing to those who didn't, or couldn't. Those are the people that I was hoping to reach with this blog. I'll gladly take the heat from the community as long as that was accomplished.
posted by
randomfactor
on Jan 4, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Hardliner, I'd agree with your "law of the jungle" approach. Remember, a host site which censors *SOME* posts but not *ALL* posts for content reasons confers its approval on the content of those it lets stand.
posted by
antiextremism
on Jan 4, 2007 at 04:41 PM
C'mon now. Disagreeing with Sam IS a personal attack on him in his mind. If you ask him a question, you might as well be yelling god#@!$ you Sam! He doesn't want discourse, he wants 'yes' men to acknowledge his superior intellect and morality. Face it Mattloch, we're all just 'expletive deleteds'
posted by
dusty1215
on Jan 4, 2007 at 04:59 PM
Mattloch..you have a good heart and a good reason for putting up the blog to counter Sam's bs..I understand that..but with that said..you are still validating his crap. He got lots of hits today on his post..but not one response. He is talking to himself..which is the only person that should buy into his bs and bravado.
1
BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS: Loading Stories
Advertisement |
