Is Racism Dead?

So is it your ageism showing in your view of racism?

Racism is not dead, it is just another facet of being judgemental. Just another type of bigotry. There are countless types of unquestioned stereotypes that people use. I do find it interesting that mike works a little, 'people dislike President Obama because he is black' See, I am pretty sure that using statements like that is a form of bigotry/racism too.

Michael, perhaps you could clear up a question I have. You witnessed a womans rant, but you failed to specify what her rant was about. You only stated that she said people shouldnt be allowed. Allowed to do what? Clarification please.

Good catch doodle. She said that people of different races shouldn't be allowed to marry or even date. She went on to call people of races other than caucausion "those people".

Michael, I find interesting your words in the first paragraph. Consider, please:

Ln 3-6: people are coping out for saying simply 'there are races of people,' by simply recognizing that fact.

Ln 6-7: You then say the (perfect) answer is exactly what the 'cop-outs' say.

Ln 7-8: IMO, you act as if Racism might be the only prejudicial factor needing overcoming to have a perfect world (here I stretch a tad, but not much).

I believe you addressed both sides of the coin, and belittled 'heads' though you wanted 'heads' to come up.

I agree there still is racism, though not as heinously offered as sixty years ago, but a number of 'other' racism factors have come to light. One factor has the wonderful name of 'xxxxx Pride,' all kinds of 'xyxyxyx prides;' with many of them reversing racism on those who originally had racism, let's say White/Black, is now OK to be Black/White, because someones Grandfather, or mother, suffered under 'racism.'

In Para 3, last two lines, you say: 'To make the claim that racism is dead because an African-American was elected president is both simple and a little silly.' Do you see how you fit reverse racism into your words, by forgetting to mention that #1, BHO is not African-American any more than he is White-American (presuming your use of 'African-American was used because his skin is dark). If BHO is, IMO, 'American,' where is the need for you to fight racism by noting race??

Probably the finest Love Story in the world is found in the Bible, by reading Song of Solomon, where Solomon is mixed in color, and the woman of his dreams is very dark of skin, and says so herself.

Giant steps have been made seeing racism removed from our society, and no guilt trips, or rehashes by finding hokey-pokey blame is going to be an asset to the situation. Like the Biology of life, let it find it's own buoyancy line.

She was a family friend.

Wallis

"Children of two races were typically among the more popular kids in the school (according to their family's income of course which is the story for most children)."

What in the world does this mean?!? Is it your elitism or your snooty classism coming out? Is it that only rich kids are popular in your view? Or is it that minorities are poor? Good lord Mike, quit spewing your unthinking bigotry and hate!

I am not really joking btw. This whole blog is condecending, inflammitory, and sorta stupid. Too bad you don't have your multiple personality KOS Krew to try and fan the flames, eh mike?

To a very small degree, Michael has actually told the truth in this column. "Racism" is often held up as white-hating-black, and that has certainly declined in the US in the last few decades. However, racism, as actual hatred or intolerance for people of any other race...not so much. In various areas, hatred of whites is common, hatred of Asians is common, hatred of Hispanics is probably still common.

Unfortunately, the hatred for SOMEONE seems to be a common human vice. It doesn't need to be based on skin color, by any means.

I think it would be very easy to make the case that Mike suffers from (and teaches) hatred of conservatives, especially outspoken white conservative Christian women.

I think it would be easy to make the case that Mike suffers from (and teaches) hatred of conservative Christians in general.

No one would need to make any case that Mike suffers from and teaches hatred of "the right." Most of his blogs are devoted to a blind, unthinking hatred of anyone from "the right."

QUOTE: "Let us get down the brass tacks here. The right is waging a war on anyone in America they deem to not be of their mindset.

>>>

The right needs people to be in a constant state of fear.

>>>

The right also can not stand history and will attempt to change it at every opportunity in order to paint themselves in a better light.

The right does not deal in fact, they deal in hate-mongering, personal attacks, fear mongering, flat out making crap up.

They consider poor people to be lazy and the scourge of this great country of theirs.

>>>

Just a few of the people that will no longer appear in my blog are Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly. Their words and actions over the last few years have lead to innocent people being killed. Their rhetoric over the last few years have been the final straw that have lead unbalanced people to take actions that they probably would not have without that rhetoric."

UNQUOTE

Michael,

I need to apologize to you for poking at you for being ageist. I realize you are not ageist and I shouldn't have said that. I wasn't thinking, I had forgotten you have married a grandmother and an ageist person wouldn't do that.

Oh Brave New World! With a Bokanovsky process which enables a single egg to spawn up to 96 children (identicals) and one ovary to produce thousands of children, Michael, your Utopian society can be realized! Moreover, with these processes, we can limit cognitive and physical abilities as well as the scope of their ambition and desires! We will no longer have a need for this blog!!!!!! The Epsilon minus semi-morons will be happily doing their most basic duties as the Betas remain grateful that they do not have the difficult positions/duties of the Alpha pluses. Society will be harmonious just as you desire! The government gets to determine exactly what everyone learns and does throughout their whole life through teaching by sleep hypnosis. No one in society questions it unless they are a savage and those are put on reservations or sent away to islands. Just think of the possibilities! Wait, someone already has!

Nope, racism is not dead. Something we can agree about.

That said, racism in the US is far less prevelant than at any other time in our history.

Have you noticed that we all tend to associate with those who are like ourselves? I think we do this because we are most comfortable with those who are like us, in skin color, in religious belief, in political belief, etc.

At social events like a family reunion, the women and men will self-segregate. People will form groups by age. They do it by race, too.

In cities you typically find racial segregation not by force but by choice. You see Chinatowns, black ghettos, WASP neighborhoods, Mexican barios, etc. It's move comfortable to live next to folks like yourself.

I don't view this as racist but merely people seeking comfort. But others might disagree.

If you draw a circle with a 90 mile radius and McCook as the center point I was born in and lived the first eighteen years of my life within that circle. I still have about fifty relatives living in that circle. I am a White Male born in 1946. If today's definition of Racist would have been applied to 99.99% of the adults I knew when I was growing up they would have fit the "racist" definition. Up until 1964 when I graduated from High School the only "Black" person I knew was a kid a few years younger than I that had a Black father. We didn't know we were racists but we were. We used racial terms all the time. Some of you older folks have used the term N****r in the wood pile, N****r shooters etc. I remember seeing signs in a couple of the area business places with signs saying something like "N****r don't let the sun set on you in this town". I never heard any of my adult relatives using the N****r word and IF my Dad or Mom heard me use it I would get a whipping but if somebody told a funny racial joke we would all laugh at it.

In 1964 I left the area to go to College at a private school near Lincoln. My first experiences with races other than White! During the summer between my Freshmen and Sophomore year of College I stayed in the area to work construction. Our College had a barracks style hut that we rented very cheap. In my unit I was the only White kid. We had two Samoans, one Hawaiian, two Nigerians, three Israelis (one Greek,one Jewish and one Arab Christian)plus a Black kid from Alabama. That was an intense education in race relations LOL. John K, the kid from Alabama, was my exact opposite. He grew up in an all Black area in rural Alabama. After we knew each other for several days we were comfortable talking about any topic. He told me some real horror stories about things that had happened to his family in Alabama. The real horror stories about racial hatred were the two Nigerians. They were both Black but from different tribes. The rest of us were so concerned that they would kill each other that we had the College Dean find separate living quarters for them. It was a real education and has changed the way I view things.

Boomer, I completely agree with you. Humans have always done what is most comfortable for them. This includes your descriptions of neighborhoods. People didn't move to Chinatown or Germantown because it was cheap or seemed like a good place to live. They moved their because they recognized that there were other people like them in that neighborhood. There is no racial overtone to that what-so-ever, in my opinion.

"Is it your elitism or your snooty classism coming out?"

Is that a serious question? I am in the lower part of the middle class. I highly doubt I can be described as elitist or snooty, but I guess since you don't like (or more apparently don't understand) my statement you go ahead and label me.

Unable to actually refute what I have said you devolve into name calling and calling my blog stupid. That's not the best method in the world, but I understand it works for you.

The sad fact of the matter is the more money that a family has the more popular their kids are. It has nothing to do with race (as you independently claimed), it has to do with money. Minorities can be rich just as whites can be poor. That is all the statement meant.

"This whole blog is condecending, inflammitory, and sorta stupid."

Can you be a little more specific, Didymus? Your statement seems very vague and actually very lean (actually missing) a point other than showing that you have nothing to say and decide to belittle and demean. So what is your point with the statement? Who am I condescending? Racists? Who am I being inflammatory towards, people who go on a racist prejudiced statement, and then claim they aren't prejudiced?

What's your point?

So is it your ageism showing in your view of racism?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Jul 6, 2011, at 3:47 PM

Michael,

I need to apologize to you for poking at you for being ageist. I realize you are not ageist and I shouldn't have said that. I wasn't thinking, I had forgotten you have married a grandmother and an ageist person wouldn't do that.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Jul 7, 2011, at 9:23 AM

Do you have a point SW? Anything to add? Or are you just once again belittling and demeaning and making fun?

I don't think any of your statements has anything to do with my blog or any real validity? Does it add anything or is it just a belittling to belittle?

Michael,

Actually my initial post was meant to show you that in your complaints about a form of bigotry, you resorted to a different strain. You made several comments about older generations being full of hate and racism and that only younger generations would be able to be less racist. That smacked of ageism to me. Later I remembered that you married a grandmother, a person not of your generation, and I realized that you probably aren't an ageist so I apologized. I thought you could appreciate my apology, but apparently not. I am not above apologizing when I realize I've been wrong, as you are. Or is it that you've never realized you've been wrong before?

I don't know who all of "those people" who say that racism is dead to which you refer. I would disagree with them and add, as others have, that bigotry can exist in many forms and will continue to do so.

One form is the "intellectual" elitism that you appear to try to project on your blogs. I think that is to what Sir Didymus was referring.

Any other crude jokes you would like to direct at my wife or are you done?

Michael,

I'm not sure to what "crude jokes" you are referring. All I know of your wife is from what you say about her, so I don't have any reason to direct jokes at her, if anything I should praise her as a saint for putting up with your character flaws. I'll admit that I tease you regularly, but I wouldn't say anything about your or anyone else's families. You give me plenty of fodder with your hypocrisy and inane statments.

Michael,

Your response to my post is very predictable. Let me try and clarify, since you didn't really try to clarify your own writings. I was referring to your apparent classism in posting:

"Children of two races were typically among the more popular kids in the school (according to their family's income of course which is the story for most children)."

You then go on to refute this by posting:

"The sad fact of the matter is the more money that a family has the more popular their kids are."

That is Classism. It shocks me that you believe this. That popularity depends on financial circumstance is arguable to say the least. Maybe you equate sycophancy with popularity. That sounds like the cry of someone that wanted to be popular but felt held back only by his economic situation. You don't have to be in the upper class to suffer from Classism. Just like you don't have to be any specific race to be a racist.

I guess my whole point was trying to point out that bigotry is alive and well and someone that acts as you do would be a poster child for it. You go so far as to lie about what I said to try to make me look like a racist. All you do is attack. You accuse me of resorting to name calling when I could not refute your blog. I agreed with the loose principle of your blog. I didn't try and refute it. Please show me where I said that Racism was dead? And what was my argument for the "death nell" of racism?

This whole blog is Condecending and stupid because I have yet to hear anyone claim that racism is dead unless it is a stutter step to decry 'AHA! those who don't like President Obama are racists then!' It is a really cruddily crafted trap usually put forth by bigots. That is why the question is inflammitory. It is like junior high debating material. If I am wrong, please find me a credible source that actually claims that racism is dead. I too want to know of all "those people" are.

I especially like Mrs. Smith's list of your bigoted statements. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. I will always answer.

Michael,

I am sorry, I didn't point out your elitism. Please re-read your armchair historian rant and try and figure out why I would infer that you are elitist. Bigotry, Michael, Bigotry.

Michael,

Did you talk to your family friend about your concerns when she expressed her racist opinions? In re-reading your blog, it seems that you did not.

It looks like Michael is researching all of those sources that claimed racism was dead. I eagerly await his findings.

SWNebr Transplant,

It appears that michael is far to cowardly to confront us here so far away, I don't see how he would work up the intestinal fortitude to speak with a family friend. Of course, he might have just made the whole thing up. He lies sometimes.

Yes, that was a bump, I am waiting for michael to explain his lies. I would bring Frings, but I do so hate to get crumbs in Ambrosious' fur.

I didn't make it up. Try another baseless claim, you make a lot of them.

Michael,

Can you prove that? I can prove you lied about me. One line 'nuh uh you are' statements just prove how infantile you are. Which "baseless claim" are you referring to? I will apologize profusely if you can point just one out. You seem to have a problem differentiating between questions and statements.

And it is quite rich for YOU to be attempting to take someone to task for what you percieve as baseless claims. It truly "humors" me.

Of course, he might have just made the whole thing up. He lies sometimes.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sun, Jul 10, 2011, at 11:34 PM

That was easy enough.

How about this one:

Bigotry, Michael, Bigotry.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Jul 7, 2011, at 11:00 PM

Or this one:

Good lord Mike, quit spewing your unthinking bigotry and hate!

I am not really joking btw. This whole blog is condecending, inflammitory, and sorta stupid.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Jul 7, 2011, at 12:56 AM

Or this particular classic:

That sounds like the cry of someone that wanted to be popular but felt held back only by his economic situation.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Jul 7, 2011, at 10:58 PM

And the coup de grat:

"You go so far as to lie about what I said to try to make me look like a racist."

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Jul 7, 2011, at 10:58 PM

I never did what you claim I did. Yet there you are making a baseless claim that I went so far as lieing about what you said.

That was all just from this blog, Didymus. Your gulf of baseless claims about me is a long and deep one.

Here is a perfect example: The blog is even entitled "Racism is Dead"

http://proudconservative.com/blog/archives/2009/09/racism_is_dead.html

I don't believe the author is a racist. He misstates (possibly purposefully, I don't know) and distorts the facts that he presents, but I don't believe him to be a racist. But he is wrong, racism is not dead.

This one is a bit more interesting. The author here claims that racism isn't dead but that isn't solely coming from white people. The writer actually makes the claim that black people are (purposefully?) extending racism because of the way they dress and how they live culturally. I don't see this person as racist. A bigot, but not racist

http://tacodave.blogspot.com/2008/11/racism-is-dead-long-live-racism.html

Then of course is this one:

http://newsone.com/newsone-original/faraichideya/tea-partys-allen-west-instituti...

Michael,

I believe you have been guilty of a mistake that you often say "conservatives" do. I think you read the title of blogs and not the content.

First off, I expected more of a response that two blogs and one article that I'm not sure where it comes from. I expected some actual evidence of someone who's opinion matters declaring that racism is dead. Basing that opinion on a couple of blogs would be tantamount to me basing my opinions of Liberals based on what you say. I hold most Liberals in higher regard than I do you.

The first blog you cited, the author doesn't say that the type of racism you described by your friend is gone. He clearly states: "Don't get me wrong, there are still a bunch of morons out there who base their beliefs, actions and yes , even hatred on skin color."

The second blog, you agree doesn't claim racism is dead so I'm not sure why you included it. However, since you did, I will have to point out some problems I have with your comment. You seem to be saying that the reason this blogger is wrong is because he doesn't think that only white people can be racist. This is a sad cliche that you are resorting to. Anyone can be racist, not just white people, sorry to be the one to break it to you. I have a "friend" who is an adoptive parent, I have been with his family and have heard a woman who is black telling him and his wife that they have no right to be raising thier daughter, that she needs to be with a black family. I find her comments racist, do you disagree? In talking to my friend he told me that he's heard much worse.

Finally, in your last article, I find it interesting that you are a better judge of institutional racism than people who are black. This must be sorta like how you know much more about "conservatives" and how they think than they do huh?

I'm curious and you didn't ever answer, what did your friend say when you confronted her about her racist comments?

Michael,

What is a grat? I looked it up and only found Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts.

Michael,

I would like to notify you that you are wrong. You did lie about me. Allow me to attempt to educate you. I will capitalize the part that is a lie, then will explain it. Hopefully you will understand.

"It has nothing to do with race (AS YOU INDEPENDENTLY CLAIMED), it has to do with money."

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Jul 7, 2011, at 3:00 PM

The lie is this, I never claimed it. I simply asked you a question. A claim is a declaritive statememt, and a question is an interrogative statment. It appears that you tried to paint me as a racist. See how that works? That negates your "coup de grat" It also adresses the umbrage you took at me saying that you lie sometimes. Because, you see, you did at LEAST once. I can use your own words to prove it. Here you go, the first part is a quotation from another poster, so I will put it in brackets.

"[I think that in order for someone to lie they must have the intent to mislead or misrepresent. Do you agree or disagree?"]

I completely disagree. Someone can unknowingly lie. If what they are saying is not the truth but they are posing it as the truth (whether they know it to be truth or not) is a lie.

Let me clarify this statement. If someone is putting out information that is false but they are claiming that it is fact, that is a lie.

If someone is unknowingly putting out information that is false but they claim that it is fact, they are mistaken."

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 5:29 PM

See what I mean?(interrogative statement) Or are you going to claim(declarative statment remember)that you never made that statement?(interrogative statement)

Perhaps you don't understand what baseless means. Don't make me quote Inigo Montoya AGAIN. If I state that you are a bigot, it is perhaps arguable, especially by fringe type bigots, but not baseless. To clear this up here is the definition of bigot according to the World English Dictionary:

A person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race.

I would say that that seems to fit you perfectly. I will use one of your own quotations to try and help you understand. (thanks Mrs. Smith!)

"The right does not deal in fact, they deal in hate-mongering, personal attacks, fear mongering, flat out making crap up."

Alot of folks, I imagine, would see how a reasonable person could imagine that you exhibit signs of bigotry.

I hope that that clears up why you are wrong. So no apology from me. I know that you have a hard time admitting you are wrong. You usually just stop posting. For gosh sakes, you probably don't appriciate my writing lesson! If you want to stop making baseless claims learn to communicate effectively.

I await your accusation of my bigotry towards liberals/left/or anyone that isnt on the right. It would be laugable, because I have very good friends that are about as liberal as you, they just aren't closeminded.

Ochosinco,

Good gravy! I just realized that we can lay Michaels confusion of question and statements at your feet! If you didn't end so many of your posts with "Just Sayin'" Michael might have been able to differentiate between the two things! Shame on you goodsir! You have done an aspiring profesional historian untold damage!

(I just thought I would offer Michael an out so he can claim to be mistaken...Oh, crud, his personal belief system will not allow him to.)

It's funny Didymus you give examples as to why you believe me to be bigoted against Conservatives, but you cover yourself against the same being said about the same type if bigotry you may have against liberals by saying you have liberal friends.

I guess, according to you, as long as you have friends in those categories you can't be bigoted against that group. That would make your claims of my bigotry towards Conservatives wrong, because I have quite a few Conservative friends.

Ding ding ding! Took you a while Michael! :)

"The right does not deal in fact, they deal in hate-mongering, personal attacks, fear mongering, flat out making crap up."

I wonder what you consider conservative? Do your herd of conservative friends know that you apparently consider this to be fact? If you feel this way about your "friends" how do you treat people you don't like?

I don't know if I have ever said anything like that about liberals. I don't expect you to have as much on me as I do on you, but look around at some of my posts. I wouldn't have to explain or excuse any of my comments about liberals to my friends that are more left than right. To be honest, I don't know what I have said that would compare to what you have said about the right.

I would really appriciate it if you would show me how I am being bigoted. Pointing out all your fallacies and falsehoods doesn't count. Unless you are saying that you as a single person are a whole culture or race. I usually make an attempt to examine myself when a legitamate flaw is pointed out. I would at least apologize. I surely wouldn't just stop talking or focus on a minor point to make into a big point. I like to think that I wouldn't stoop to lying.

You are blinded by your dichotomous thinking.

You are probably going to think that I am bigoted towards liberals, thats fine,I can't stop you. It doesn't upset me or make it true though. You show so many unhealthy thinking habits that I find it hard to take anything you say without a grain of salt.

Plus, you lie.

Michael,

"It's funny Didymus you give examples as to why you believe me to be bigoted against Conservatives, but you cover yourself against the same being said about the same type if bigotry you may have against liberals by saying you have liberal friends."

I think Sir Didymus may be on to something with noting your dichotomous thinking. Just because you are a bigot, doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with you is equally bigoted as your reflexive response seems to indicate. He calls you a bigot because you have made many bigoted statements about conservatives, MrsSmith outlined a few. I don't think anyone who is still posting on your blog has made the same type of bigoted expressions that you have. Take me for instance, I don't like the way you try to pontificate about Liberal/Conservative thought, and I especially don't like your hypocrisy, but I don't feel that all Liberals think and behave as you do. So I call you out regularly, but I haven't tried to apply my view of you on to other, rational, Liberals.

Nice long statement Didymus but you completely circumnavigated my point. You said that you couldn't be bigoted against liberals because you have many liberal friends. By your own definition I can not be bigoted myself against conservatives because I have many conservative friends.

Let's just forget for a minute that you are guilty of circular logic fallacy. Let's even, for a minute, forget that instead of focusing on what my point actually was you "focus(ed) on a minor point to make into a big point." Let's just forget to those two points.

You want to call me a bigot, that's fine. If you want to focus on what I have said about conservatives and Republicans and call that bigoted that's also fine. However, you leave out all of the context to make that point and that's where your problem comes in. I have not answered MrsSmith's challenges because she has proven in the past to leave context out or misrepresent information to prove her point. There is the famous instance where she used a poll of college professors about their political beliefs to "prove" that public school teachers are liberal.

Then you come in and begin parotting her ad nauseum, because you think it proves your point. In a way you are a complete mirror of SW. Just say something enough times and it becomes fact, in your mind at least.

What you leave out of the context have been my clarifications throughout all the quotes. I have long stated that I don't have a problem with a majority of conservatives or Republicans. They are mostly just like me; rational thinking people that only want the best for their families, their town, their state, their country.

The conservatives and Republicans that I do call out and make those comments that you and MrsSmith have continually posted as proof of my bigotry are the ones that only care about their bottom line. They don't care about the people that have elected them, they are only working towards the next election or trying to get ratings. In case you haven't figured it out yet the conservatives and Republicans that I am talking about (this is where that whole context thing comes in that seems to have alluded you for your point making) are the national politicians and talking heads. The ones who for eight years under Bush continually voted to raise the debt ceiling but now suddenly raising the debt ceiling would destroy this country. Don't give me that tired line of Sam's about them waking up from some mystical fog, because that's just ridiculous.

They do it for one reason and one reason only. They do it for preparation of the 2012 election.

"So I call you out regularly."

Your problem SW is that you call me out regularly on things I have never said. I have even documented where you completely made up a quote and attributed it to me and then acted like you were standing on some moral issue against me, when in fact you were standing against your own, made up, words.

Michael,

well, can you tell me how I have behaved like a bigot towards liberals? It is very easy to show your bigoted behavior. Again, just becasue I confront you on your actions does not mean that I see you as the spearhead of all liberals/democrats/leftish people. I am guessing that many leftish people would feel the same way as I do about you. I don't seem to see any of the people that you are seeming to imply that I am bigoted towards posting here....

Your thin excuse that I misunderstood you is amusing as well. When you apply the actions of a few to rant about the many you are being dishonest. You do this. ALOT. To be honest, most of your bigoted statements are in conjunction with this.

I am fairly confident in stating that you will never understand what I am trying to say. You could wake up and figure it out, but It would suprise the heck outa me. You seem to want to focus on one section of a post and rant about it than to ever try and have dialog. Or you play laughably simple straw man games.

To sum it up, just because some of the members of a group that you are bigoted towards are bigots, does not mean that you yourself are not a bigot. I have told you this before, two wrongs do not make a right. But two Wrights can make an airplane.

Am I kind of a jerk towards you? Yes, I occasionally am a jerk. I feel that I am justified, and I am certain you do not feel that I am justified. But you know what? Just because I am a jerk to you sometimes doesn't mean that I am wrong. If you look back, the more you evade and attack the jerkier I get.

Hope you have had a good weekend, and I wish you good luck in getting your paper off of the shady DVD site. I hope you are able to comprehend what I and some other posters are trying to point out.

Michael,

I know we disagree but when did I make up a quote and attribute it to you? Like Sir Didymus I can point out when you've lied about what I've said, but if I've been mistaken, I'd appreciate you pointing it out. Remember that's why I like to ask you questions, so that I know what you think, rather than guessing like you do so often.

Michael,

When you say something like this: "I have long stated that I don't have a problem with a majority of conservatives or Republicans." Yet almost every other thing you talk about on contradicts that statement, it makes it seem to me that you are being dishonest. Kinda reminds me of people who say "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" but then continue to make racially insensitive remarks, presumably because their "black friend" insulates them from claims of bigotry.

Michael,

I've found something we agree on!

"In case you haven't figured it out yet the conservatives and Republicans that I am talking about (this is where that whole context thing comes in that seems to have alluded you for your point making) are the national politicians and talking heads. The ones who for eight years under Bush continually voted to raise the debt ceiling but now suddenly raising the debt ceiling would destroy this country. Don't give me that tired line of Sam's about them waking up from some mystical fog, because that's just ridiculous."

You're right those Republicans are just playing politics trying to play to their base and get elected, it reminds me a little of Democratic Senators who voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling in 2006 but now are all in favor of raising it now. Do you know of any Democrats who did that?

Michael,

I also want to make sure I have the "context" of what you are saying right: you are only bigoted towards national conservative and Republican politicians, but not the conservative and Republican politicians at the state and local level. Do I have it right now?

Interesting political quiz from Pew. It is quite accurate:

http://people-press.org/typology/quiz/

http://people-press.org/typology/quiz/?result

This was my answer.

Wallis

Libertarian.

Wallis

I don't doubt that you found this quiz interesting, Michael. The questions fit into your thinking issues perfectly. I was libertarian by the way. Guess I am not one of those ebil ebil conservative/republicans eh?

Staunch Conservative!

While the little quiz is kind of fun, I don't know that I agree it is quite accurate. By changing only one response, I switched from libertarian to solid liberal.

I see why Michael liked it though, the questions are so black/white and irrational that I imagine they reinforce his view of the world.

Wow I post a link to a political quiz that I think people might enjoy and yet two posters still felt the need to take pot shots. It's kind of sad, really.

Michael,

Your violent imagery and language is shameful. I notice that you didn't post what your results were.

CPB,

I am not too suprised at your results. :) I will exhibit some tolerance and not attack you just because you have a different view than I do. *wink*

I guess I am a Lib...wait, Libertarian. I think that "quiz" only goes to show that not even the person writing the quiz can keep their political bias out of it. Those questions are leading and incomplete.

Do you love little baby kittens? Do you hate little baby kittens and wish that they be drowned because they make too much happiness?

Do you think the price of wheat in China is too high? Do you think the price of wheat in China is just where it should be.

Are you an open-minded, accepting, people-loving, money-giving, free-thinking person? Or are you a homophobic, religious, selfish, Capitalist pig?

Heck, these questions are easy to write. Anyone want to help?

have to agree with speak-e-z; I too, felt the questions to be misleading and incomplete. btw, staunch conservative here (according to the quiz)

speak-e-z,

That's what I was talking about Willis! The questions were full of extreme positions, which is why I think Michael and Chunky Peanut Butter appeared to enjoy it. They both seem to deal in extremes and absolutes, so the irrational questions probably appeal to them.

In playing with the questions, it appears that only a single answer in any direction can drasticaly sway the results. I don't find that accurate Michael, but you need to realize disagreement is not "attack".

I guess when the results don't match what you believe you are then the quiz is biased and not dependable.

Pew has continually released polls that are respected, but I guess if a couple of posters claim that the quiz questions are biased and skewed then everyone else MUST be wrong.

"I see why Michael liked it though, the questions are so black/white and irrational that I imagine they reinforce his view of the world."

You need to realize that when you include me into your criticsm of a quiz and make a personal attack on me for the sake of it THAT is an attack not disagreement. It has nothing to do with the quiz in question. If you would have simply said that you felt that quiz was biased and you felt it was extreme and left me (or any one person out of it, that had nothing to do with writing the quiz) out of the post, then I could see your point that you were simply disagreeing with quiz. However, that's not what you did, and that's never what you do when you claim to just be disagreeing.

Even when you tried to "clarify" your stance as simply a disagreement you still found a way to take a cheap shot at me and Chunky Peanut Butter. That's not disagreeing, it's using a disagreement to take a cheap shot at those you view as more "extreme" and "absolute" than yourself.

If you had read the disclaimer at the start of the quiz, PEW made a point to state at the very top of the page that "Even if neither statement is exactly right, choose the response that comes closest to your views."

You are apparently incapable of posting without taking some kind of cheap shot at me.

The site did not ask you to pick what you believed but pick what's closest to what you believe. They chose the most extremes because they realize that most of the people would fit somewhere in the middle.

Naturally if you chase a couple of answers it can drastically change what you believe, the question is why would you want to? Are you unhappy with what you believe?

The quiz is not complete, it should have more choices and it is accurate from my standpoint. Whether it is for you or not really doesn't bother me. I thought it would be something interesting and something to give everyone a break from the monotony of the postings. I guess you just weren't having any of it.

Whether there was any real question of what category I fit into when I took this quiz; it was Solid Liberal

"In playing with the questions, it appears that only a single answer in any direction can drastically sway the results."

It's very odd, SW. I took your suggestion and changed two of my answers (one more than your suggested drastically swaying single answer) and my results stayed exactly the same, still a Solid Liberal.

Michael,

Are you accusing me of lying ("lieing")?

I can't help it if correctly identifying you as an extremist qualifies as an attack in your view. You make extreme statements and say that you are proud to be an extremist, my noting that because of such an extreme position, these questions would appeal to you. I hope Chunky Peanut Butter, doesn't agree with you in feeling that noting his extreme views is an attack, he has often seemed proud of his conservatism, there is nothing wrong with thinking anything you want to, I just happen to disagree with him in many cases. He probably thinks I'm spineless or weak willed or something, and that's fine too. I imagine these questions made as much sense to him as they did to you.

Because the questions were so extreme as you point out, those of us who aren't into extremes found the choices to be bordering on ludicrous, or at least I did. I have a hard time making a choice between two equally ridiculous statements. You ask if I am unhappy with what I believe, which is certainly not the case, rather what I believe in many cases approaches the middle that the choices don't allow. When both choices are equally bad, how do you choose one? Would you rather choose poison X that has no taste or pain associated with it to die, or poison Y that has no taste or pain associated with it?

"I thought it would be something interesting and something to give everyone a break from the monotony of the postings." Don't misunderstand me, I thought the quiz was an entertaining diversion and said so earlier. Although I'm not sure what monotony you are talking about, do you mean the tedious way you refuse to answer any questions and disappear for a while when questions are asked only to try to change the subject when you finally respond?

You ask why I would change my answers, the reason is quite simple, rather like yourself. I am filled with an insatiable curiosity. I was interested in what types of answers would lead the program to change the classification. Naturally, when you answer all of the questions in the extreme, changing two answers wouldn't have much of a drastic outcome. But when you are in the middle, a single change can move your classification by many degrees.

"You are apparently incapable of posting without taking some kind of cheap shot at me."

You are either lying ("lieing"), speaking hyperbole, or stupid. There are many times I post in which I don't take cheap shots at you. Although to be fair, as easy as you make it, perhaps you should call them free not cheap as there seems to be no cost involved, even a "cheap" cost.

"Are you accusing me of lying ("lieing")?"

No I am not. I am simply pointing out that you twice said that all you had to do is change one answer and it drastically changed what your political ideology was, but when I changed two answers (double what you did) it didn't change ideology one bit. No accusation, just a simple point.

"I can't help it if correctly identifying you as an extremist qualifies as an attack in your view."

I never said that PEW quiz was attacking me. This is yet another made up quote by you. My point was, and see if you can actually stay on my point instead of making up your own one, that I posted a quiz that I found interesting and that was accurate from my stance. You obviously did not like the quiz, but instead of going simply after the people that made the quiz (which you did) you also decided to point out my extremism (in your opinion). What does your belief in my extremism have to do with what you see as a bad quiz?

To follow that statement I would also like to add that simply taking a cheap shot, a pot shot, attacking someone's character just because you believe it to be true does not in any way take away from that statement being cheap shot, a pot shot, or attacking someone's character.

I ask you, what does this statement:

"I see why Michael liked it though, the questions are so black/white and irrational that I imagine they reinforce his view of the world."

really have anything to do with the quiz itself except to give you an opportunity to call me irrational?

And what does this statement:

"They both seem to deal in extremes and absolutes, so the irrational questions probably appeal to them."

really have to do with the quiz except to once again not only call my character into question but also CPBs? Not only that it gave you an opportunity once again to call infer that I am not only irrational but that irrationality appeals to me AND CPB. Those are nothing but character attacks and cheap shots that have nothing to do with a disagreement.

People have disagreements all the time, most people don't sink to calling other people names and then claim that because they believe their attack to be right then it can't be considered an attack.

"Would you rather choose poison X that has no taste or pain associated with it to die, or poison Y that has no taste or pain associated with it?"

It's a great example, to be sure, but could you please elaborate on what specific questions you felt were so bad as to warrant comparing them to taking poison x or y? Please, don't take the easy way out and simply say all of them. Give me some examples.

As I stated the writers of the quiz purposefully gave only two choices and they were both (again) purposefully on the extremes. I don't know the exact reason why they did this, there are certainly areas of gray on some of the questions, however, doing it in this way forces the person to pick a political stance that best matches or comes closest (even in this case the person may not like either choice).

Which brings me to an important question. You say you consider yourself to be middle of the road on many questions. Would you consider yourself to be a libertarian?

Now let's wrap it up with your finest example of proving a point for me. You quote me:

"You are apparently incapable of posting without taking some kind of cheap shot at me."

Then follow it up with this gem:

"You are either lying ("lieing"), speaking hyperbole, or stupid."

You couldn't even make it to your counterpoint against my statement without taking a cheap shot. I have always thought it was funny that when people really have no leg to stand on they will often sink to the level of calling someone's intelligence into question. I had thought you better than that, apparently I was wrong. Granted, this isn't the first time you have called me stupid on this blog, but this is the first time that I can remember after I point out how you are completely incapable of addressing me without taking a cheap shot, your comeback is not only a cheap shot (helping to prove my point) but calling my intelligence into question.

Again thanks for proving my point. Oh and again do you consider yourself to be libertarian if you could just clear that up that would be great.

Michael,

Do you realize that it could be said that you are lying again? You need to rethink what you type. I would suggest not using words that you do not understand fully. It would probably help you if you worked on your vocabulary, not to mention your syntax and grammar. I am hoping that my new found classification of Libertarian by PEW research will cause you to at least consider my advice.

Perhaps you could clear up something for me? What do you think that the PEW quiz has to do with the topic of your blog?

Michael, Michael, Michael, *sigh*

You say:

"I never said that PEW quiz was attacking me. This is yet another made up quote by you."

I never said the PEW quiz was attacking you, how self-centered are you that you think everything, apparently even an online quiz is capable of attacking you personally. Another point, expressing my opinion is not "making up a quote" as you have said more than once. If I attribute words to a person that they didn't say, that is "making up a quote". I think Sir Didymus may be correct and you just have a very poor grasp on English rules.

You ask if I consider myself a libertarian, and I do not. There are some areas of Libertarian thought that I agree with and others I feel they are completely off base. Just as I feel about almost every other political group. I consider myself an individual who thinks about issues on thier own merit rather than what an overarching group thinks. Always happy to answer a question, feel free to ask anytime.

I didn't call you stupid, regardless of my personal beliefs, I left a range of posibilities open, I leave it to you to decide that which is apropos. If you feel stupid is the appropriate term, again, I have no control over what you think.

"after I point out how you are completely incapable of addressing me without taking a cheap shot, your comeback is not only a cheap shot (helping to prove my point) but calling my intelligence into question."

I'm sorry you don't appreciate my humor. You see, I thought it would be funny to take a "cheap shot" on cue. I did get my desired effect in your predictable response.

Michael,

Some of the worst questions in my opinion were: 2,8,9,10,11,12,14,17,19

I would be happy to discuss any or all of them in greater detail if you wish, but I'm not going to expand on them all at this point if there is no desire for discussion.

Michael,

I would also like to direct your attention to the above post, as well as this one, that doesn't take any "cheap shots" at you. Perhaps you should reconsider your language choices.

You will have to be a bit more specific than just numbering them SW as the order changes everytime you click the link.

"I'm sorry you don't appreciate my humor. You see, I thought it would be funny to take a "cheap shot" on cue. I did get my desired effect in your predictable response."

The predicted response I was waiting for as well. When in doubt, pass it off as just a joke. Fortunately (or unfortunately which ever one you would like to choose) when your complete lack of control from taking cheap shots or making fun, or questioning one's intelligence is not pointed out you keep it going. When it is pointed out you always fall back on the "joke" defense.

"I didn't call you stupid, regardless of my personal beliefs, I left a range of posibilities open, I leave it to you to decide that which is apropos. If you feel stupid is the appropriate term, again, I have no control over what you think."

Another typical response from you. When your childish name calling is pointed out you hide behind this defense. The "I wasn't calling you one of these names, I called you all the names, so whichever you choose to pick is really your fault" defense.

"I can't help it if correctly identifying you as an extremist qualifies as an attack in your view."

Well let's see here SW. You love calling me an extremist. You consider that the PEW quiz proved that for you, so by using the quiz you can hide behind it's qualifications. Have it your way though, change the meanings of your responses so that you can continue hiding behind yours or someone else's words.

Ah, Didymus, right on cue with the parroting of SWs claims without really adding anything to it.

You claim that I am lying (and I'm sure that you will also parrot SW and state that you never made the claim just asked the question, again have it your way) yet you offer no other information.

I have stated why I posted the quiz in the first place.

Michael,

I apologize, I forgot that it randomly arranges the questions.

1. This country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment/This country has gone too far in its efforts to protect the environment

2. Government is almost always wasteful and inefficient/Government often does a better job than people give it credit for

3. The best way to ensure peace is through military strength/Good diplomacy is the best way to ensure peace

4. Government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest/Government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest

5. Homosexuality should be accepted by society/Homosexuality should be discouraged by society

6. Poor people today have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return/Poor people have hard lives because government benefits don't go far enough to help them live decently

7. Immigrants today strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents/Immigrants today are a burden on our country because they take our jobs, housing and health care

8. The government should do more to help needy Americans, even if it means going deeper into debt/The government today can't afford to do much more to help the needy

9. Using overwhelming military force is the best way to defeat terrorism around the world/Relying too much on military force to defeat terrorism creates hatred that leads to more terrorism

There you go, I would be happy to discuss any you choose, let me know

Michael,

"When in doubt, pass it off as just a joke"

There is no "passing off" just a joke which you didn't appreciate, no problem.

"When your childish name calling is pointed out you hide behind this defense. The "I wasn't calling you one of these names, I called you all the names, so whichever you choose to pick is really your fault" defense."

Again, not a defense, simply pointing out the situation. You could have complained that I was calling you a liar or that you were just exaggerating, but no you choose to feel I'm calling you stupid. I think this may be due to some unresolved inadequacy issues you may have.

"You love calling me an extremist. You consider that the PEW quiz proved that for you, so by using the quiz you can hide behind it's qualifications."

No, this is just another instance of you not understanding. Your statements show you to be an extremist, the quiz doesn't prove it, it corroborates. I've identified you as an extremist months if not years ago. You say in your avatar you are an extremist, I don't know why it is now suddenly offensive to you. Besides since you earlier were on me about my feeling that the quiz isn't accurate, how could I in good conscience claim to use something I don't feel is accurate to justify it being the basis of my opinion. You aren't thinking rationally here.

Ochosinco,

"It is just part of one of your other demonstrated needs, the need to put a label on everyone"

Very astute, I hadn't really thought about it but I think you may be on to something here. There have been many times I have chastised Michael and others for labelling others, and I try to only use the labels that people self identify. I could see why he might feel a need to have label's to affix. With labels, people lose thier individuality and can just become an amorphous group of "they" for him to attack. You see it above with his intense desire for me to identify as "libertarian".

Michael,

Which part was I "parroting"? I was commenting on the post directly in front of mine. Was there a post that was deleted? I was merely stating that you were making the same mistake that you did earlier with me. I thought you could use some advice as to avoid similar episodes of apparent dishonesty in the future.

Although, to be honest I do share the amusment that SW expressed in the fact that you did not choose the option that would allow you to look like a rational human being. I suspect that it was because of that lack of vocabulary and understanding that I spoke of earlier.

I am curious that you seemed to attempt to take me to task on not adding anything. Do you feel that this particular blog really adds anything beyond the fact that you have racist family friends that you apparently did not stand up to in person?

Here's the funny thing about hypothese, such as the hypothesis that Michael regularly lies or is a hypocrite, that seems to escape Michael; many different people can make the same hypothesis at different times. They can often do it independently without any knowledge of the other person (or people) even knowing that they are working on the same hypothesis.

It does seem possible that Sir Didymus and I have noticed a penchant for lying and mangling English simultaneously and independently, without either being a parrot. Sort of like when Wallis and I both commented on his hypocrisy without it being a coordinated effort. Some things are just so readily apparent that they need little promotion to gain traction.

"I have chastised Michael and others for labelling others, and I try to only use the labels that people self identify."

Funny, I don't every recall calling myself Mr. Pot, hypocrite, and liar and yet you routinely put those labels on me. It also brings to mind the labels that you have put on other liberal posters in the past. Once again you are guilty of claiming that you don't do what others do when you actually do it more than most.

"4. Government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest/Government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest."

I don't remember this choice. Could you please explain the difference in government regulation being necessary versus government regulation being necessary?

But all kidding aside, what are you specific problems with the questions other than they are extreme. I have read on this site a couple of posters (one of them having serious qualms with how extreme he felt the quiz to be - no not you) put forth the idea that "The best way to ensure peace is through military strength". They even went as far as saying that we would not know peace today without military strength.

"Michael regularly lies or is a hypocrite"

This seems to be a hypothesis you are developing. I hope you aren't borrowing it from anyone, as Didymus seems to have a huge problem with that. Care to elaborate or back it up with facts? Again, with facts, not just merely your opinion.

"I have noticed a penchant for lying and mangling English."

You know for someone who misspells at the rate you do I think it would be wise not to call into question your idea of mangling English. Especially when you have the same penchant for mangling English.

Just sayin'

You see it above with his intense desire for me to identify as "libertarian".

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Jul 20, 2011, at 3:20 PM

Um, yeah, SW, there you go again putting words to me that never came out of my mouth. You really can't help yourself can you. You stated that the quiz identified yourself as a libertarian, so I simply asked if you saw yourself as a libertarian. I'm sorry if you think that asking if you identify as a libertarian because you stated that a quiz identified you as such somehow became a desire for you. I didn't know a simple question could confuse you so much that you would go on to claim that I had a desire to label you as a libertarian.

"I think this may be due to some unresolved inadequacy issues you may have."

You really can't stop yourself from character assassination can you? But thank you for, once again proving my point that you are unable to go for long periods without a character attack.

"I could see why he might feel a need to have label's to affix."

Could you please point out, anywhere, where I have affixed labels on anyone, SW? I mean, we all know your penchant for affixing any and all labels that come to your head to people that don't agree with you, but please point out to me and everyone else where I have labeled someone?

"how could I in good conscience claim to use something I don't feel is accurate to justify it being the basis of my opinion."

Another classic case of you completely ignoring what you have said, just in order to claim you never said anything. Seriously, SW, if you are using a quiz to collaborate that you believe me to be an extremist, then your above statement has absolutely no merit. If you can't justify using the quiz in good conscience, then explain how, in this very same post of yours, did you use it?

Oh and least we forget, another one of your character attacks that you claim you don't use:

"You aren't thinking rationally here."

Just so you know where I am coming from on this, this is the definition of character attack I am using:

Character Attack -- attacks that are directed against a person rather than his/her arguments.

http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-distract-charattack.htm

When you use language such as telling a person that they aren't thinking rationally you are going after that person and not his arguments.

When you routinely call the person a liar, you are going after that person and not his arguments.

When you call someone's intelligence into question, you are going after the person and not his argument.

When you call someone inadequate in some area, you are going after the person, not his argument.

So SW, for clarification when you go around claiming that you are just trying to foster good debate, anytime you throw in a character attack just to goad that person into an argument any points that you have made against their argument becomes mute.

Have I been guilty of it? Absolutely. I have made every attempt to stop and only focus on people's arguments, you however, will not even admit to such; much along your same defense on labeling people. You label people that don't agree with you and then when you called out for doing so, you come up with classics like you only label people that have labeled themselves first.

In short, you are extremely guilty of those acts you have a penchant for calling other people out for, your problem is that to this point you won't admit to doing any of it.

You aren't the only one by any stretch of the imagination, SW. As I said I have had a penchant in the past for doing the same. So, no you aren't the only one, you are the most guilty of doing so and then magically forgetting or ignoring that you have done so when you go after other people for doing the same thing.

Michael,

Why would I think that someone borrowed a hypothesis from me? I pointed out that by your own standards you lied about me. It was fact. I have never said that you lie regularly. Although that argument could be made considering you lied twice in one blog thread.

I like how you try to pull me into a conversation to apparently lessen by association another person's point when you seemingly have no refutation of my contentions.

And finally, I am amused that you attack someone that points out that you appear to have but a rudimentary grasp on the english language as written. Especially using their own errors to try and disprove the spirit of the statement. Classic! And, yes, I enjoy using fancypants words and syntax when needling you. I would think that as a graduate student you would have a better grasp on language. But you manage to fairly consistantly demonstrate you inadequacies.

Regarding my post above about character attacks, here is a doozy from Didymus:

"Although, to be honest I do share the amusment that SW expressed in the fact that you did not choose the option that would allow you to look like a rational human being. I suspect that it was because of that lack of vocabulary and understanding that I spoke of earlier."

The whole paragraph is one character attack after another. Yes he does mention about some option I didn't choose to look like a rational human being but never actually specifies what that option is.

He then goes on another character attack about my lack of vocabulary and lack of understanding. Mind you this is in the same exact paragraph that he talks about some option I didn't choose but never mentions what that option actually is.

Also note his use of quotations around "parroting" as if this were a word that was unfamiliar to him, despite the fact that just a few weeks earlier he, SW, and Ocho went on long series of posts about how another user was parroting my posts and vice versa. Suddenly when his word is thrown back at him (as it were) he suddenly doesn't recognize the word and has to throw quotations around it.

To get to your question Didymus, the parroting came in after SW accused me of lying and then you accused me of lying about the same thing, i.e. you were parroting SWs claim. No I do realize that SW attempted to turn that around and claim that you two were independently working on a hypothesis, but it's parroting.

Which brings me to another point for you SW. You are constantly chastizing me for not answering fast enough or simply ignoring posts. In this case Didymus had suggested that because I had borrowed (his word) my hypothesis the graduate college that I am attending might have a problem with it. When I pointed out to him, correctly, that people working on hypotheses often are working on the same area or even the same hypothesis, your response is to openly mock that idea.

For someone who says that they believe in good debate to mock another debater apparently for no other reason but to mock just doesn't fit. Just to stop you from claiming that you never mocked (and have never mocked) here is your mockery of my answer to Didymus:

Here's the funny thing about hypothese, such as the hypothesis that Michael regularly lies or is a hypocrite, that seems to escape Michael; many different people can make the same hypothesis at different times. They can often do it independently without any knowledge of the other person (or people) even knowing that they are working on the same hypothesis.

It does seem possible that Sir Didymus and I have noticed a penchant for lying and mangling English simultaneously and independently, without either being a parrot. Sort of like when Wallis and I both commented on his hypocrisy without it being a coordinated effort. Some things are just so readily apparent that they need little promotion to gain traction.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Jul 21, 2011, at 9:40 PM

Finally to ocho, I would have thought by this point you would have realized why I stopped responding to you months ago. Here is the reason. All you do is character attack. There isn't a person you won't attack. You rarely make a point without character attacking. At least SW can go some length of time without attacking someone's character, but you are completely unable to do that.

WARNING: Unfortunate character attack

I believe that you are nothing more than a troll whose sole purpose is an attempt to bring other posters down to your level. I don't care to meet you at your level of constantly attacking so I choose not to respond to you, except of course for this time which is to simply explain to you why I stopped responding to you.

Michael,

Actually I was accusing you of lying in the post when you wrote:

"I never said that PEW quiz was attacking me. This is yet another made up quote by you."

I don't know where he made up a quote. But I don't see him acusing you of lying between our respective posts.

And I put parroting in quotation marks because I was using the term you did. Just like when I use humors incorrectly. See?

If you want debate, debate. You seem to pick one piece out of a whole statement and focus on that. You rarely defend your positions. You claim that someone is just calling names, insulting you, or some other diversion. Apparently your new favorite is Character attack. If you are so thin skinned as to not ignore extraneous remarks, then you might want to give up on debate.

And why should I point out the option when it was right in front of you? Heck SW stated it in language most could understand. Here, I'll show you:

"You could have complained that I was calling you a liar or that you were just exaggerating, but no you choose to feel I'm calling you stupid."

Now, use your vaunted research ability to go back and eliminate which option was calling you a liar, and the one that is calling you stupid. There! You now know what hyperbole is! Seriously Michael, if you don't know what a word means, investigate it before flying off the handle.

Well, I am going to toddle off and let you continue your apparent meltdown. Do me a favor and try to actually debate some of the points made in above points, or at the least answer a couple questions.

"If you are so thin skinned as to not ignore extraneous remarks, then you might want to give up on debate."

Let me put it to you this way Didymus. If you made this statement in an actual debate class you would receive an F, because it is nothing more than a character attack. It has no merit. It doesn't prove a point for you it just gives you an outlet to attack. Classy, though. Always fall back on the thin skinned argument.

"or at the least answer a couple questions."

The personal attack before aside, did I not answer your question about borrowing hypotheses? See here is my problem, when I do actually answer your questions, you ignore them and attack my character and then demand that I answer questions.

"Seriously Michael, if you don't know what a word means, investigate it before flying off the handle."

Here you go again. What word is that you think I don't know what it means? Hyperbole? Stupid? Liar? Seriously what word are you talking about?

And why should I point out the option when it was right in front of you? Heck SW stated it in language most could understand. Here, I'll show you:

"You could have complained that I was calling you a liar or that you were just exaggerating, but no you choose to feel I'm calling you stupid."

Ahh mockery you gotta love it (was that mockery? I apologize for my own actions.

Let's forget for the moment that you are treating me like an idiot. You didn't post that in your original post. You could have been talking about anything because you left out the main point.

For the record Didymus I never accused SW of lying. I accused him of crediting words to me that I never posted. He didn't lie about his claim, he made it up.

Michael,

Tee hee! You learned a new term I see! So, if you percieve a character attack you are not going to answer questions or engage in discussion? I am sorry Michael, but this whole line of your apparent new obsession in crying CHARACTER ATTACK cracks me up. You seem to be calling people out on activities that you engage in regularly. It comes out sounding somewhat like a whinefest to me. Tell me, is pointing out some of your ostensible attributes a character attack? Or is it only when there is some debatable point on the table? Is acusing someone falsly a character attack? I would think that pointing out some issues that directly affect a point would not be considered character attacks. To my way of thinking if it relates to the discussion then it relates to the discussion.

What I was referring to as questions perhaps wasn't as clear as it could be. Challenge might have been a better choice of word. Before you disappeared for a while and came back with a change of topic you accused me of being bigoted towards liberals. I am still curious as to what you are basing this on. I can readily show some of your bigoted statements. This initial blog was about racism, which is merely one small part of bigotry. I didn't think it was about what label a short quiz would put on you.

This seems to be a tactic you enjoy. Argue, attack, then stop posting when somene puts you in your place. I have very little respect for you because you rarely admit that there is merit to someone elses point of view, and you seem to attack a portion of a statement rather than the spirit. You take things out of context at times and then rant and rave about it.

Sorry Michael, but I do think you need to relax some. It doesn't sound like your thinking is that clear. I shouldn't have to constantly explain what I am talking about when responding to the last post that you seemed directed at me. If it wasn't directed at me please don't use my name.

Basically Michael, if you are going to espouse outrage in character attacks, please get out of the glass house.

My worthless 2 cents: as I was reading a response above, I got a visual in my head of a teenager with hips rigid, cocked to one side, hand on extended hip, other hand up and away from body, finger pointed at communication partner, jaw jutted forward, eyes narrowed, saying, "oh no you di'in't!"

I hope that is as funny when you read it as it is when it goes through my brain.

gotcher pitcher and chuckled out loud

Dang it, i have taken the test 4 times and it still comes back... Troll! However that is better than a liberal so i don't feel too bad. ;)

On a more serious note

Racism...in this town McCook, is still alive and virulent. I have first hand experience with people of color, different language, country, gender. They report White Anglo Saxon People will tell them they have no business being where they are.

Racism isn't just black vs white

So i advise these people to ask the racist, where are your ancestors from? That will shut em up.

So ask yourself, where are your ancestors from?

Michael,

"Funny, I don't every recall calling myself Mr. Pot, hypocrite, and liar and yet you routinely put those labels on me."

I think I see your confusion....those are all unflattering names, not labels. You were right when you say I call you names(I think you've earned by your actions), wrong when you try to call those "labels". Those are all expressions of individual accomplishment. When I speak of labels I speak of a common name for a group of people such as "conservative", "liberal", "tea b*gg*r", "Nazi", "Communist", "the right", "the left" etc. Do you see the difference? I can make a statement that applies to a lable such as: "The right does not deal in fact, they deal in hate-mongering, personal attacks, fear mongering, flat out making crap up"; this is applying attributes to a large amorphous group that cannot possibly apply to every person who could be part of that group. When I call you Mr. Pot, I am referring to your habitual hypocrisy specifically, I am not attributing hypocrisy to a group of people who are identified as "Mr. Pot" so it is individualized and it is understood that I am

speaking of you.

"Especially when you have the same penchant for mangling English."

Now that is beyond the pale, comparing my occasional typos to your lack of understanding :P

"No I do realize that SW attempted to turn that around and claim that you two were independently working on a hypothesis, but it's parroting."

Hello again Mr. Pot, funny how when I was teasing you about your hypothesis, you come back and try to explain to me proper research methods, yet apparently this only applies to you. Were you "parroting" others in your paper? You didn't indicate that you were, you told me that you came up with the hypothesis independently, interesting that Sir Didymus and I are apparently in your view incapable of doing the same.

"Which brings me to another point for you SW. You are constantly chastizing me for not answering fast enough or simply ignoring posts."

Please show where I constantly chastize you for not answering fast enough? I'll readily admit that I often chastize you for simply not answering, especially when you finally realize how silly you look (IMO). This is especially apparent when you stop responding to people who are asking you genuine, if tough, questions and continue to respond on other boards or to other people.

"So SW, for clarification when you go around claiming that you are just trying to foster good debate"

For your clarification, I have given up seeking good debate with you for the most part. You have shown you either don't know how or choose not to debate. As soon as you want to debate an actual issue I'm happy to do so. Most of your blogs consist of you complaining, dare I say whining, about something evil conservatives are doing, while ignoring the hypocrisy of the other side. Then you usually devolve into personal examples of hypocrisy so I point out your bad behavior. Again, when you want to debate an actual issue rather than just try to "score points" let me know. A good way to start would be to actually answer questions that are put to you.

Michael,

"For the record Didymus I never accused SW of lying. I accused him of crediting words to me that I never posted"

Yes this is at least the second time you've mentioned this, could you please show me when I've credit words to you or "made up quotes"?

Mr. Pot,

"Ahh mockery you gotta love it (was that mockery? I apologize for my own actions."

Classy, so you complain that people mock you too much, then you mock others, while offering a "non-apology, apology". To let you in a little tip, this isn't live action, you have the opportunity to censor your words, if you think you're not a hypocrite, I can't think of a better refutation.

Finally,

Here is a good example of what I'm talking about in regard to your English usage.

"if you are using a quiz to collaborate that you believe me to be an extremist"

The PEW quiz CORROBORATES my opinion that already existed that you are an extremist. It did not form it. It doesn't "COLLABORATE" with me in any way. You say I mangle English, I admit I may mistype but I don't think you'll find many instances of my using incorrect words.

Also, remember when you used "accept" rather than "except", then there was the "death nell" of conservatives or whatever it was? You do stuff like this all the time, that is what I refer to, I try to ignore your basic typos that anyone can make, what I point out is incorrect usage.

Michael,

"But all kidding aside, what are you specific problems with the questions other than they are extreme."

Do you really want me to break down all of these questions or are there a few you would prefer to deal with? I"m concerned about typing a HernonHank response that is too long to be read.

http://networkedblogs.com/izZty

This is off topic but this is the current thread.

About 2 years ago a documentary called Gas Land came out. Mike commented. I told Mike the guy that made the film was making it up and I made statements of fact to back up my claims. Mike and et al "Called Me Out", "Took me to Task", etc,etc,etc.

The film maker admits he made it up.

Wallis

keep em going mike. Its fun to see people who think this is a waste of time respond to people they think are semi-literate and stupid. It never fails to amaze me that some posters write out long winded posts to people that dont read so goodly.

the equivilent of saying that your dumb and can barley read but im gonna explain, through typing out my point to you, why you are dumb and I am right.

very ironical

i agree with you dawg. have you read some of Michael's posts?

very ironic

Wallis I am not sure what you are talking about. I have never seen the film Gas Land. Are you sure I am the one that commented or do you possibly have me confused with someone else?

Also, remember when you used "accept" rather than "except", then there was the "death nell" of conservatives or whatever it was? You do stuff like this all the time, that is what I refer to, I try to ignore your basic typos that anyone can make, what I point out is incorrect usage.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jul 22, 2011, at 10:50 PM

Classic SW, he points out someone's issues with English and grammar. I point out his past issues with spelling, so how does he respond. One is more important than the other and it just so happens that the one issue that is more important than the other issue is the one that I make. Classic.

"Mr. Pot"

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jul 22, 2011, at 10:41 PM

"There have been many times I have chastised Michael and others for labelling others, and I try to only use the labels that people self identify."

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Jul 20, 2011, at 3:20 PM

Good thing you "only use the labels that people self identify..." and don't affix your own labels ... well except when you affix your own labels that people have never called themselves. You know, like when you continually call me "Mr. Pot". I know for a fact that I never called myself Mr. Pot so for you to label me as such would be a direct violation of what you claimed earlier in this very thread,. Then you want to sit around and call other people hypocrites.

Michael,

You just don't get it do you? I think you must be the only person around who can't understand. I'll try another approach.

A "label" doesn't have any inherent negative connotations. "Name calling" does. When I call you a name it is to share my negative opinion of you or your actions. Mr. Pot IS NOT A LABEL, IT IS AN UNFLATTERING NAME.

Do you think there is something inherently negative about being called a "conservative" or "liberal"? What about being called "hypocrite" or "liar"?

I can't think of any other way to describe it in a way that your simple thought process can comprehend. Maybe someone else could explain it better.

Michael,

"I point out his past issues with spelling, so how does he respond. One is more important than the other "

I fully agree. I believe mistyping or even mispelling a correct word is much better than using a word that doesn't mean what you think it means. In my opinion, one shows a lack of precision and the other shows a lack of ability. See my above note on corroborate and collaborate.

I think both are mostly mistakes by the user. Why you have the need to look at it as an indication solely on intelligence is beyond me. At the end of the day you are really just using it as a way to excuse your mistakes and indict me for mine.

Michael,

I disagree, there is a difference between misusing a word and misspelling it. If you use a word correctly, but mispell it it shows that you understand the meaning of the word, but have at worst a poor head for memorization. If you use a word incorrectly it tends to show that you do not understand the word, and are using it to try and speak(or write) above your comprehension level. That could show both foolishness and a lack of intelligence. You seeming to show floccinaucinihilipilification of the difference seems suggest that you are embarresed of the fact that it was pointed out. It isn't that hard to actually apologize when you choose the wrong word or make a word misusage.

Michael,

Plus, after your rant about character attacks, you seem to be engaging in a slew of them...

I am sorry, it should have been floccinaucinihilipilification AT the difference, not "floccinaucinihilipilification of the difference"