Monday, December 21, 2009
Tolerance is sometimes a vice
Tolerance is sometimes a vice?
When I put something up on this blog, or read posts on other blogs, and the comment threads are filled with comments that run the gamut from humorous to toxic--that's okay with me. What's not okay is when threadjackers descend on blogs to push their own narrow agendas and try to turn someone else's platform into their own bully pulpit.
Anyone who disagrees with me, here or elsewhere is welcome to do so. When their disagreements are based in honest argument I will either agree, disagree or ignore them. When they are obvious trolls I will do what I can to chase them off. By "obvious troll" I mean those commenters who have no desire to do anything but disrupt the thread to the point of having other commenters give up and walk away.
Many of the trolls have their own blogs which, of course, they invite people to visit. This particular bait is not tempting to me. If they had a legitimate point I wouldn't be calling them "trolls" in the first place. Since they are trolls I see no reason to advance their hit counts.
Occassionally, readers of my blog will notice that I have deleted a comment. Those comments are deleted because the people who have made them have been told that they would be.
So, here's the short rules list. Say what you like when you visit my blog. Profanity, obscenity, personal insults--all fine, as long as you have a legitimate point to make. Personal threats--not so much. Those get screen capped and sent to other folks so that there will be a record.
What prompts this post is my visits to a couple of other blogs. Both blogs are written by very intelligent and high-minded ladies who encourage diversity of opinion and do not simply excise those comments that they disagree with. Both of them also allow commenters who are, imo, trolls of the first order. I have no problem arguing, or even being wrong, when arguing with someone who is better prepared and relies on incontrovertible facts to buttress their arguments. When the arguments are based on opinion, anecdote, quote mining and cherry picking there is no point in arguing as they already "know" the truth and are attempting to convert people.
That's all I got for the moment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
76 comments:
You know I keep going back and forth on this. I came *this* close to banning one of my trolls about a half dozen times this weekend. Literally had the page up, the IP address loaded, and all I needed to do was click. Couldn't do it. Don't know why except I think banning them gives them the attention they crave and they'd just send more of their troll progeny over.
I'm thinking "ignore" is the best approach. Then they are left to ranting that "no one will talk to me!" Which makes them look ridiculous.
Southern Beale:
I agree with you that banning them gives them some attention. I also agree that ignoring them enrages them. The problem,however, with those tactics is that other commenters tire of threadjacked trolls and simply stop offering comments or even reading them when they see a troll's handle.
I've never banned anyone, including the urmoron, "number9". I will, usually, just delete their comments and I will keep a record of any threatening language.
With people like Weer'd Beard and mike w., there is no "discussion" and they have both made it pretty obvious, even with their own words, that they have little expectation of convincing any of the readers of your blog that they are right. They are simply being cyberbullies. Their links are to information that is either from pro-gun sites or cherry picked from other places. They have zero respect for people who disagree with them.
Jim and Sevesteen are different cases. I disagree with both of them, on most everything. Otoh, I am as polite to them (I think) as they are to me.
We all can do precisely what we want on our own blogs and you run a great blog. I certainly won't stop coming because of idiots like mike w. and Weer'd Beard.
This is a long standing problem and in the end I agree that when it is mindless ranting, the comment should be deleted without fanfare or explanation and the troll should be ignored.
Engaging them in pointless conversation only encourages them. Some of these people are potentially dangerous and we are all at risk from the unbalanced types, so further enraging them is probably not a good idea.
BTW-I am one of those people who simply "walk" away from a blog site once it becomes a troll fest. My time is limited and too precious to waste it on ignorant drivel.
But I agree that each person has the right to run their blog as they see fit. There is no right or wrong way; mostly it is a matter of personal preference and convictions.
Demo: And now you know why I retired from the blogging game.
Oouch. I get the message. But can't make promises. This is a conflicting issue for me, as you know.
Just in case you wonder, I do use the "reject" button, I really do. Perhaps not as often as I should...
Elizabeth:
I'm sorry if I seemed judgmental of your or Southern Beale's policies. I was only using your blogs as a sort of comparison. You are both quite patient and courteous to the majority of the folks that you disagree with. I think that your policy is a good one, although at times I wish I could get a comment on the thread sooner. Moderation is a great policy and I know you use it judiciously.
Dave von Ebers:
Your blogging was of a very high order and I miss it. I post less often than I would like to, partly because I'm busy with the house stuff. Then again, I'm a single guy with no kids or dependent family and really have no reason to stay home in the evening.
rockync:
I sometimes feel the same way as you do, but I don't see where letting morons clog up the threads without any challenge furthers the debate. Of course I have to admit that trading insults with folks is a good way to work out frustration, at times.
Thanks to everyone for their comments.
Demo,
Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate it. Maybe someday I’ll get back to it, but for now I’ve got too much on my plate. But if I ever do go back to blogging, I’ll undoubtedly have to figure out how to deal with the trolls. One major problem I had was that one of the regular conservative commentators over at my place was a cousin of mine, and another was a long time friend – which made for some awkward moments.
In any event, Demo, old pal, if I ever blog again you’ll be the first to know!
(Actually, I think I meant “commenters” not “commentators” …)
Merry Christmas, Terry!
So glad we got to do some quality eating and drinking at Greene's before the holiday
Don't worry, DC, I didn't see your post as judgmental. Not at all. :)
Trolldom confuses me, what can I say.
Logisate!
I disagree with everything you said, you Commiesympomuslibertarboxitarian. One thing you leftwingers hate more than anything is America, and that's why We the People are and always will be Right.
Even if we can't govern and we want to snuggle with the Boy's Choir and couldn't name the Ten Commandments if you held a gun to our heads.
Merry Christmas, Democrat!
the Reverend Jerry Gloryhole:
And a Merry Chrismakwanakahnalia to you as well, good sir!
Elsewhere, Adam Felber wishes us all a Merry Christmas.
Cheers.
Happy Holidays to all my Left-Wing Commie friends!
I dunno, Demo.
I think they do themselves more damage with their "why won't Southern Beale talk to meeee!" comments. That's all they've got if you don't engage them and eventually they do go away. it just takes a little self discipline.
Their point is to disrupt (and yes I've seen allegations that they are actually paid to disrupt and discourage lefty blogs... as much time as my 3 trolls spend over at my place I have to wonder if it's not true...).
But anyway, now that Haloscan is going kaput (er, I mean "enhanced" at a price of $10.99 a year), I'm going to have to go to some kind of moderated commenting anyway. So who knows.
Southern Beale:
You're probably a lot closer to the truth than I am. In any event, have a happy holiday.
A problem that many advocates of particular positions have is similar to gay rights in earlier days--People marching in leather BDSM gear doesn't represent the majority of LGBT, but the "normal" LGBT people aren't nearly as visible. Both groups are needed for progress. Some "in your face" advocacy is and was counterproductive, but if all in your face activities were avoided, little progress would have been made. There are a handful of pro-gun advocates who use tactics I'm not comfortable with, that I think are counterproductive. However, if all pro-gun advocates were like me, (or all like the handful, for that matter) we wouldn't make much progress.
The frustrating part of this for me is that there are certain parts of gun control that I can't understand anyone supporting unless they are either ignorant about the facts in question, or believe that any step towards near total elimination of guns is good. I'm honestly trying to find if there is a third option that I've missed. It appears that those on my side who aren't as polite as I are part of the reason that there's no actual discussion, or at least that's the excuse.
Sevesteen:
Thanks for stopping by. I have to take issue with the notion that if all "gun rights" advocates were like you then you wouldn't make any progress. I and many, many others are not interested in taking away anyone's rights to own firearms. I'm not even particularly concerned that people want to own firearms that are rough equivalents to military weaponry. What I am unalterably opposed to is the notion that arming the citizenry will result in less crime and a more polite society.
I appreciate your argument that some people are idiotic in thinking that banning firearms will result in the same state of affairs.
Please don't think that I am anti-gun. I am, quite simply, anti-idiots with guns who think that I, and others, are deluded or cowardly for thinking that guns are not the proper tools for ensuring societal harmony and etiquette.
I didn't mean to turn this into a discussion of gun rights, I was trying to...discuss the discussion, I guess.
What I am unalterably opposed to is the notion that arming the citizenry will result in less crime and a more polite society.
That isn't the sort of idea that I have an unalterable opinion on, since there can be evidence in either direction. I think the evidence is pretty strong in one direction, but my mind could be changed with enough credible opposing evidence.
If I'm going to advocate a particular position, I feel a duty to not only look for evidence in support, but also to try to find contrary evidence.
As a moderator on a bunch of forums, the best advice I can give for dealing with true trolls, leave them be. Any action you take that they are aware of will just encourage them. Deleting comments, setting them to invisible, etc is just adding fuel to the fire. Now, if you have specific guidelines for inappropriate posts, profanity, etc, use those rules as reasons for deletion, but never say you deleted a post for 'trolling' or that'll be a big win in their mind.
Now, that said, many times what one person perceives as 'trolling' is an honest attempt to continue the discussion by the poster. Text sucks for conveying context and level of emphasis/emotion so while the poster may hear it in his head as coming off level, some readers may hear it as a blast from a megaphone, etc. This is the net, there isn't a licensing scheme in place, there is no expectation of mastery of the written word, nor is there any expectation of perfect reading comprehension... unless you want to go to full moderated commenting with EVERY comment needing to be approved before showing up, you'll have to be flexible and thick skinned and roll with the punches less you drive yourself insane. : )
Kurlon, et al:
Tom's post at 12:52 PM was deleted.
I genuinely don't give a fuck about listening to dickheads spout their bullshit. He's welcome to all the "wins" he wants--he can trumpet them on his own blog, which I would not waste my time going to--but not here.
It's not about being flexible and thick skinned, at least not here. You can come on this blog and call me shit eating paedophile--if the insult is somehow related to the matter at hand. You can't come
here and attempt to bully others into silence by displaying your "superior intellect" via cherry picked facts and figures and bogus analyses about whatever your pet peeve might be.
Sevesteen and I have disagreed on a number of threads to the point of, at least me, being intemperate in my replies to his comments. However, I don't think he's an idiot or a jerk. Commenter Tom is certainly welcome to say anything he likes on any subject. The comment will stay there, at least until I see it. It will stay longer if it's got substance about something, whether I agree with it or not.
Comments like "you're a loser" accompanied with a re-hash of the same talking points as tossed around by the likes of Weer'd Beard, mike w., Boomer Lad and their ilk will be deleted. I really don't care if it puffs up their fragile egos to be "persecuted" by having their comments deleted. They act like punks (or, as I have told a few of them, loudmouthed assholes) and they will be considered as such.
If it makes them happy to be able to run back to their blogs or elsewhere and say, "Boy, did I punk that democommie guy!", I'd say they need to get out more. Then again, maybe they are afraid if they go out that their moms will sneak a peek at their online activity and unplug their boxes.
Elizabeth runs a fully moderated blog. It is a bit of a nuisance to make a comment and not see it on the thread for hours, at times. However, she doesn't delete comments with which she disagrees--unless they break her rules. Most of her commenters are civil, or they stop showing up.
Can the people ostensibly on my side at least attempt to further the discussion instead of looking for excuses to taunt? We've got facts on our side, let them be the ones that call names and make dick jokes.
Sevesteen:
The short answer to your question:
"Can the people ostensibly on my side at least attempt to further the discussion instead of looking for excuses to taunt?"
Not likely. Weer'd Beard and mike w. are clones of the reichwingers I run into on other sites. They don't want a debate, they want people to accept their specious arguments and when that doesn't happen they get silly and call them names.
I don't think I've made a dick joke about either one of them. It's not nice to make fun of the mentally disadvantaged.
mikey, mikey, mikey:
You're still just a loudmouthed asshole.
You really should save yourself the work of repeating your bullshit over and over again, especially here. I actually read your posts and, golly, they were exactly the same tired crap as you have been trotting out over at Southern Beale's blog ever since I read the first one there.
I know that you think you're smarter than, wittier than and morally superior to folks that don't think the 2nd Amendment is the only one that needs to be defended. That's your privilege, enjoy the delusion.
Two more comments by Loudmouted Asshole mike w. deleted. mikey, when are you going to get it through your single issue dominated thick skull that I have no desire nor intention to discuss anything with a loudmouthed asshole? You keep telling me you want a discussion when what you really want is to dominate a conversation--not at all the same thing.
It appears to be impossible for you to absorb and process the information that I keep putting out that for you at Southern Beale's blog. You're a single issue dickhead who thinks that trumpeting your "case" louder will make it more persuasive. Here's a flash for you, that's a FAIL. I keep telling you that I don't care what you do with your guns and yet you feel that you still need to pound your chest and make folks notice what a man, a smart man at that, you are. You're a punk who needs to learn that your ideas are not the only ones that matter. Grow up or don't, but do it at your own blog or one of your echo chambers.
If you really want to discuss the issue, go to the Brady Center's blog and talk to those folks--they're sort of single issue, too. You're probably very simpatico in that regard.
Poor mikey. It's apparently a VERY steep learning curve for you, young fella.
You might have noticed that Sevasteen's comments, with which I do not particularly agree, have been left on the thread. It's not because I like him (although I don't dislike him, either); it's because he's not a twit like you. You're beginning to pout, it's really quite unseemly.
I know you have lots of like minded friends who will give you a virtual tough guy punch in the shoulder and tell you, "Go get 'em, tiger!", so you should go play with them. All you'll be getting here is more frustrtation.
You may have noticed that I don't come to your blog or any other blog that's run by someone with your narrow worldview. The reason for my not doing so is that I like wasting my time on my own terms.
Just because Southern Beale is too much of a lady to just tell you to fuck off should not be taken as tacit approval of your idiotic rants.
I suppose I really am wasting MY time at this point, but I have a hard time heeding the admonition in the following proverb.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
LAmw:
Look, I gotta go out and run the snowblower to clear my driveway, then go the lumberyard and run a few other errands. After that I will be going to drink a few Dogfishhead Ales or maybe Ithaca Apricot Wheats and have some nice, spicy wings. So, I'll be gone for at least a couple of hours. Who knows what sort of havoc you can wreak in that time. Feel free to type anything you like, knowing that as soon as I see it, it will disappear.
You lost the possibility of having any discussion with me, about anything a long, long time ago, sonny. I have to have at least a tiny bit of respect for the intellect and honesty of folks with whom I have a discussion. You're not even on the "needs improvement" list in that regard.
Well at least I can respect your choice of beer. DFH makes some excellent brews.
Dogfishhead IPAs are some of the best beer out there.
As for the Apricot Wheat...I can't agree with that one.
I'm not a fan of IPA's in general (blasphemy I know) but I do like some of DFH's other offferings.
It's pretty cool having DFH in your backyard.
See, there's an improvement. Only your posts about everyone but you being wrong about guns will get deleted.
Ithaca Apricot Wheat is good to counteract the DFH IPA. I usually do a couple of DFH and then an Ithaca and then--I'm done. One DWI 27 years ago was enough to convince me that public (or private) drunkeness was a really bad idea.
Come back anytime you want to discuss beer, rum, scotch, food or any number of other subjects. Gun stuff will continue to be sent to the oubliette of lost comments.
Gun stuff will continue to be sent to the oubliette of lost comments.
I suppose that also applies to any other topic which you lack the intellectual ability to discuss.
Mighty convenient for you. Since you can't dominate the discussion on the merits of your position you'll just dominate it by force.
mike w:
I know you're a smart enough guy to understand that my warning about deleting any comment about teh gunz, from you, Weer'd Beard or others who take your "no compromise, no way, no how" stance is made in absolute seriousness.
Your supposition is wrong. It's got nothing to do with intellectual ability on my part. Bring something else and if it's an honest argument we will see what we will see.
Boys, what part of "I will delete any post about guns" don't you understand?
It's not a question of whether your positions are unassailably logical--they are not.
What I see are posts by "true believers" who won't admit that their positions might be just a little extreme. It's not so different from the ones I see at other blogs from KKKristian KKKretins. Since they have "faith" that trumps ANY evidence it's a complete waste of time to talk to them on the subject of religion.
Now, if I'm on somebody else's blog and they have people whose positions on some subject are contrary to mine I can either play the game or walk away. Here, I have a third option.
mike w., have you noticed that there are virtually no comments other than yours, Weer'd Beard's (the few that weren't deleted) and mine? I mean it's not like I get a gazillion visitors anyway, but this thread has been seen by a number of people who see it for what it is, a pissing contest. It's really not about being right or wrong, it's about who gets to have the last word. That would be me, on this blog. You can piss and moan about it, or you can continue to waste your time and brilliance on me because, I assure you, I read each and every comment before I delete it. So far I haven't felt the telltale quiver of my lip, that quiver that presages the torrent of hot, angry tears that I will cry at the end of my day when I realize that I am WRONG, OH SO WRONG!! Nope, not yet.
Yep, Mike, that's right, 3 more of your comments have been deleted. They were actually pretty much repeats of repeats of repeats.
You really like to harp on that CA gun law thing. I would have to go back and reconstruct the entire thing, which I have neither the time nor the inclination to do. IIRC the information on CA gun laws that I was looking at was from just before some fairly large changes in CA's laws. So be it. Trust me, bub, compared to NY and MA--two states I'm fairly familiar with--they're relatively lax.
You wanta keep beating that "I'm smarter than you are" drum? Go for it. Calling people idiots and cowards will generally not get them to enter in serious debate with you. Otoh, wasting your time writing comments that will just get deleted is a great use of your time.
mike w.:
I don't know about you, but all this deleting of comments is just wearing me out. I'm going to bed, but you keep at it as long as you like.
mike w.:
Would it help, even just a little bit if I said it again. Well, what the hell...
Every fucking comment that you put on this blog--that addresses your obsession about firearms and your delusional fantasies about any serious government attempts to take them away from you--will get shitcanned. Screen cap them, if you like so you can show them to your friends at the range.
I get the feeling that if you knew where I live you'd be pounding on my door, demanding satisfaction at dawn. You really need to find another hobby, if this is one, because you're not going to get me to play your game. Meantime, you must be missing some swell times with your gunbudz.
Weer'd Beard:
Um, no. I would not be interested in feeding into your or mike w.'s persecution complex about having your gunz taken away by the gummint.
No no no! I was talking about how Socialists are thin-skinned children who are quick to call names and avoid discussion, squelching the opposition whenever possible.
No, no; you were talking about mike w.'s comments which are ONLY about the gun issue, regardless if he actually uses the "g" word.
As I told him, bring something other than gun issues if you want a "good faith" argument.
Deleting comments is a common sense policy when dealing with people who have nothing better to do than clutter others' blogs with juvenile taunts and otherwise pointless verbiage.
Free speech means you can plant whatever inane sign/comment you like on your own lawn/blog, but it does not give you the right to do so on another's.
DC, delete at your will and whim. It's your blog. (That's why comment moderation is so useful. :))
This particular post wasn't about guns per se, it was about running a blog and dealing with perceived harassment by single-issue commenters whose issue is usually guns. I'm subscribed to email comments, so unless DC is somehow deleting before they make it to email, I'm getting the full feed. None of what I've seen deleted was either on topic or civil.
You can defend your pet subject whether it is guns or something else, or point out the logical flaws of a blogger without being an ass or a troll. You can even point out that certain questions don't get answered. Being an ass doesn't advance gun rights at all--instead it lends credence to the view that gun owners are asses.
Elizabeth:
I've thought of using comment moderation, but then I would have to spend a lot more time checking to see if there were comments in the box. It's sort of like sitting on the porch, scowling at all of the dog walkers who walk their dogs over to take a dump on MY lawn. As is I just go out in the morning and deal with the odd mess. Of course if I ever find out who's doing it, they will be getting a "May Basket".
mike w. has been told several times that his comments about guns (or the comments about why I won't debate him about guns) will be tossed. I'm not sure how much plainer to make it.
Sevesteen:
I don't think most gun owners are asses. I don't even think that most gun owners who are adamant about their 2nd Amendment rights are asses. However, there sure are some gun owners that are asses, just like some gun control types are asses.
I think I need to write a post about something important, like how my beloved Cornhuskers are maybe back from the dead, after they whipped up on AZ tonight.
mike w.:
Blog etiquette generally require that one address people by name to avoid that sort of confusion. Since Sevasteen says he gets the mail notification he probably got it anyway.
I'm not threatened by your comments, I'm annoyed by the fact that they are a waste of time for both of us. You write them as if they would somehow be instrumental in effecting a change in my way of thinking about firearms and their use. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are a waste of my time in that I have to at least look at them before I axe them.
But it appears that you are childlike in your belief that saying you are right, and saying it often--loudly and obnoxiously--will make that a fact. It won't.
mike w.:
Are you just so fucking stupid that plain english does not impinge on your thought process?
I've told you I won't debate you on the issue of guns because you're intellectually dishonest. I've told you that I won't honor your comments with an answer and will erase them when I see them. What part of the "We won't be having a conversation on this subject" isn't getting through to you?
I will give you the "Jehovah's Witness Pest Persistence Award", but not another forum for your bullshit.
Your plain facts are offset, mitigated or simply debunked by the "plain facts" of others. I suggested to you, the other day, that you take your "debate" to the folks at the Brady Center, as they are probably interested, in a morbidly fascinated sortaway, in dealing with an obviously obsessive Type 2A. But, you don't have to go there or anywhere else--you just can't stay here.
Rats!
I forgot to put a name on that last post. I think you knew it was for you, mike w., since nobody else has commented on this thread, besides me in the last several days.
mike w.:
When I feel that I'm dealing with rational people I'm happy to talk to them. You are a long way from rational on the subject of guns. You are also juvenille in the extreme. I picture you as getting red in the face while pounding on the typewriter keys. Give it a rest before you infarct.
mikey, mikey, mikey:
You say:
"In order to determine the rationality of others you'd have to be capable of rational thought yourself.
That has clearly proven elusive for you."
Which is, as you are fully aware, completely untrue. You are certainly qualified to talk about irrationality, particularly on the subject of gunz--which you are quite irrational about. As I have pointed out, on several blogs and in numerous comments; I have NO problem with guns--just a problem with idiots who think gunz IS what the Constitution is about.
Otoh, in order to like using people as a verbal punching bag, you have to be a bit of a masochist, yourself. This has been amply demonstrated by your continued pointless trips to this thread.
Here's some guys you might like to visit: http://gay.americablog.com/2010/01/nrcc-gop-body-devoted-to-electing.html
They appear to really like their gunz.
Oh, golly, mike w.! You support Gay Rights as much as Gun Rights? Then you will, no doubt be able to point to the literally hundreds of comments you have made in support of them, at Southern Beale, here and other blogs. I'm not really keeping count of the comments from you that I've deleted, but it numbers in the dozens, at least, and nary a one about Gay Rights.
Ooooooooooooooooooh, mikey, I'm gonna have to call "bullshit" here. In other words, what you're saying is, you were lying? Thanks.
Hey, btw, try to keep in mind that your "safeword" for getting comments to stay on the thread, here, is NOT "gun", ummmmmkay?
Uhhh what exactly are you calling BS on?....
mike w.:
"Uhhh what exactly are you calling BS on?...."
You said that you support Gay Rights as much as Gun Rights. Show your work.
mikey:
Keep putting n' that "gun" word in there and keep watching them there comments disappear.
"Go read my blog adn tell me if there's anything to suggest that I wouldn't support gay rights."
Uh, No. If you want to cut'n'paste stuff from your own archives with dates, etc., and drop them off over here, so that I can let some disinterested third party check their veracity, I'll see what I can work out. As Saint Ronnie the Miscommunicator said, "Trust AND verify.". Chances of me coming to your blog, ever? nahgonahappin.
You really like beating on that California Gunz Law, a whole bunch. I think it's beginning to get a little pathalogical.
mike w.:
As I have told you before, we are not ever going to have a discussion about guns, on this blog. You seem to be immune to logic in that regard, so you keep trying to have that discussion. You are wasting your time.
Otoh, you have not seen fit to provide those comments proving that you are as supportive of Gay Rights as you are of Gun Rights.
As for the "G" word. Of course not Demo. Why would you allow discussion on any topic where you can't control the message by brute force?
I mean you're not going to win ANYONE over with your intellect and reasoned, well-cited positions that's for damn sure.
Oh, mikey, you done fucked up.
"Unlike Liberals, we Libertarians do not pick & choose which individual rights are worthy of supporting, we support ALL of them."
Maybe not so much that you spend hours and hours railing about how the gummint discriminates against teh GAY? but, sure, you support ALL Rights. So, you can provide numerous concrete examples of said support?
"As for the "G" word. Of course not Demo. Why would you allow discussion on any topic where you can't control the message by brute force?"
It's not "brute force", pal, it's editorial control. I know it pisses you off, but I really don't give a fuck what you think. Your single issue dedication would be admirable, if it were about an issue that was important. But, it's only important to you and others who share your delusional fantasies about rising up against the gummint that would violate your right to commit violence against those who would violate your rights.
"So, which of our Constitutional Rights and important and which aren't?
Silly me, I thought they were ALL important."
That is not even close to your claim that you support Gay Rights as much as you support Gun Rights.
But, since you insist on wasting your time, and mine, with your comments here, I'll just have to keep deleting them.
For a guy who is so insistent about other people providing all of the "facts" you are curiously reluctant to back up your own assertion that you support Gay Rights as much as you support Gun Rights.
Editorial control means, in a nutshell, that I don't have to inflict your bullshit on other people who come here. You may type whatever you like and simply watch it disappear, every time it has to do with your fetishization of the 2nd Amendment.
I keep telling you that you're wasting your time trying to get me to play your game. You insist on doing it anyway. I will continue to exercise editorial control. When, if ever, you gain the understanding that I have zero interest in letting you or anyone else rant about your pet peeve and "win" by commentbombing a thread.
Go play with your friends at Free Republic or wherever it is you get your political indoctrination.
mike w.:
And two more posts gone, down the drain.
"I have all kinds of interests Demo, as should be obvious by many of my blog posts."
Oh, tres tragic! I don't go to your blog! So, I will never know about your support of Gay Rights.
"And why do you keep failing to answer simple questions, provide simple facts, or back up your positions with substance?
Is it really that hard for you to do?"
Oh, mikey, mikey, mikey. It is not that is so hard to do. It is that arguing with "true believers" such as you and your friends is a complete waste of time. Unfortunately, you still haven't figured that out, so you keep coming here to try and draw me out. Poor, poor, pitiful mikey.
Shorter mikey response:
I bin deleted! I hatez bein deleted!!
mikey:
You have a really bad habit--well, two, actually--of continuing to comment on a thread when you've been told it's a waste of time AND sneaking around until you think nobody is looking and leaving one of your turds in the punchbowl. You are such a lameass.
Post a Comment