The West Memphis Three

The pressure on law enforcement officials, to solve a horrendous crime, is enormous. Sometimes, they need to put somebody in jail for the crime so badly, they will put anyone there.

In this case, they got those boys to confess to a crime they didn't commit. They ignored some evidence that pointed to others, while creating other evidence that fitted their prosecution.

If you are ever arrested, you should say nothing, and demand an attorney. As the West Memphis 3 found out the hard way, you can dig your own grave (with a lot of help from eager law enforcement officials).

"Innocent Man" by John Grisham is a great nonfiction book about 2 guys who got railroaded in Oklahoma for another such crime. Grisham's latest book "The Confession" is a fictional account of such a travesty of justice.

The three in Memphis had to admit guilt even though they are not guilty, in order to get free. And they have a 10-year suspended sentence hanging over their heads. If they screw up on much of anything, they go back to prison for another 10 years. If they are convicted of another felony, I believe they go back in for the remainder of that 10-year sentence.

Is this justice? No, but it's the way our justice system sometimes works.

I agree, if they are innocent (and it certainly appears that they could be) it is good that at least they will be out of prison for something they didn't do. I hope that the case is reopened and perhaps they can fully clear their name. It is always a shame when the criminal justice system fails.

It does show, however, that apparently Michael has a history of jumping to conclusions and going overboard in his beliefs. But there is hope! He has changed his mind at least once!

Seems I remember a lacrosse team from Duke that were sentenced by the media and by a DA before the investigation was over. The DA (or was it a chief investigator - I'm going by memory so I may be mistaken) eventually was dis-barred and dismissed from service. The media never did go back and apologize or clear up the havoc they wrought upon the lives of these innocent young men (at least they were innocent of the crimes for which they were accused).

That being said - seems DNA and radio-carbon dating can be subjective.

Wasn't it just in the last few weeks that the media and the lefty-crats convicted Tea Party advocates of being terrorists? And claimed that the country was being held hostage?

Maybe jumping to conclusions and leaping on the media bandwagon should be added to the Olympic games. We'd get some gold medals for sure!

I remember that blog. I purposely stayed away from that thread because I believed that there was ample rope for the author to fix around his own neck.

As for this specific intance, I wonder if the "3" had a public defender, or if they hired their own representation? If the case was indeed circumstantial, you would think that would be grounds for a repeal. Again, I don't know the specifics of the case, but 3 convictions could easily be 3 appeals...what are the odds of that type of travesty of justice being just a coincidence?

It's a long drawn out story Mickel. They were convicted on the basis that they had admitted to the crimes (only after several hours of intense interrogations with no lawyer present). The DNA was suspect from the beginning but the jury still convicted them.

They have been appealing the guilty sentences from the beginning but judges have not been willing to listen to the cases. Their was a hearing set for either this week or next week.

It is still unclear to me exactly why they decided to take the guilty pleas. It could be as simple as the reasons given (it meant they would be released and that Damien Nichols would not be put to death), I really don't know.

Here's the deal, I have already apologized and retracted my statements from my blog, but if you feel the need to keep bringing it up over, and over, and over again there really is nothing I can do or say to stop you.

However, I will keep reminding you that I have retracted those statements and apologized for the statements.

Really, Didymus? Really? You are going to sit there in judgment over me over a thought process I had when I was a young teen? Wow, your criticism of me really does know no bounds does it?

Next, I guess you will criticize someone who used to be scared of the dark as that clearly shows some history in your opinion.

Michael,

"Really, Didymus? Really? You are going to sit there in judgment over me over a thought process I had when I was a young teen?"

I can't speak for Sir Didymus, but as Ocho just mentioned, again, you have continued to jump to conclusions as recently as this year. I think it is fair for him to use your admitted occurrence of jumping to conclusions as a teen in conjunction with your recent history of jumping to conclusions to establish a trend.

Michael - I saw a film that starred Daniel Day Lewis, where he played an Irish young man who was framed for a terrorist bombing. The title somewhat escapes me but I thought it was called "In the Name of the Father" or something like that. Completely fascinating movie, I think you would enjoy it.

Heh heh heh....*plays fiddle*

Michael,

Yes, I was being a bit of a jerk, but it amused me that you apparently consider a 14-15 year old a child and not be able to form their own opinion about the scary ole bogeymen. But, maybe that was just you. You can proclaim it as an ad hominem attack, but it isn't...I agreed with your argument, I just wanted to pull your leg to see if there were bells on it. Yup, there were!

Why would you assume that I would make fun of a 14-15 year old that was genuinely afraid of the dark? I would assume that they were abusing psychoactive substances or have a mental health issue. I would at the most suggest they seek treatment.

As a side note,I would like to say that I wouldn't argue with Henry Rollins if he told me someone was innocent, that guy is one bad mamma jamma.

Mickel,

Indeed you are correct, the film is called "In the Name of the Father" about Gerry Conlon. I agree it is a great film and urge everyone to watch it.

Henry Fonda was in "Twelve Angry Men" years ago. One sensible man on the jury caused the rest to see they were about to convict an innocent man.

Boomer...there was an old war film starring Kirk Douglas that had a similar type of controversy, i.e. one man going against the grain. My man-brain can't remember the title, but I remember being fascinated by it. It was set in WWII and I think ol' Kirk was having to defend an officer that wouldn't obey orders due to moral conflict. Anyhoo...it was a good film. A guy might be able to google that one.

I have seen "In The Name of the Father" Mickel it is a great movie. So is "12 Angry Jurors", one of my favorite older movies. The remake, predictably was horrible.

Found it: Kirk Douglas in Paths of Glory. This from the IMDb:

The futility and irony of the war in the trenches in WWI is shown as a unit commander in the French army must deal with the mutiny of his men and a glory-seeking general after part of his force falls back under fire in an impossible attack.

Anyway, I enjoyed it.

Did you guys hear about the DC earthquake? Apparently it was Bush's "fault"....

That's odd Mickel I have been hearing since the earthquake that Obama literally caused it and it was in conjunction with the gays. Funny how people try to find groups of people or just one person to blame for a natural disaster.

Michael - Notice the word "fault" in quotation marks...akin to a "fault" line such as that is found to generally be associated with earthquakes?

It was a joke...

By the way...Democrats confirmed that the earthquake was actually caused by Obama's $14.6 trillion dollar check bouncing!!

Michael,

"I have been hearing since the earthquake that Obama literally caused it and it was in conjunction with the gays."

WOW! I am forced to think that Arkansas must be home to some of the stupidest and most closed minded people on earth. Between the things you say and the people who literally think Obama and homosexuals caused an earthquake...all I can say is I'm glad I don't live there.

Mickel,

I'm not sure if you came up with the "fault" joke or read/heard it somewhere but I thought it was pretty good, and yes I recognized it as a joke immediately, I'm sorry that Michael is so small minded he can't.

I know it was a joke Mickel but thanks for explaining it to me. Mine too was a joke, do I need to explain that one to you?

You know it's bad enough that Mickel thought I was being serious and apparently too stupid to see his post as a joke that he had to explain it, but then SW comes right in behind Mickel and trashes an entire state of people because of his perceived notions of me. Very classy and typical SW.

You also apparently don't pay any attention since the person who blamed the earthquake on homosexuality was a Jewish Rabbi from New York, not from Arkansas:

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/nom-speaker-blames-east-coast-earthqua...

But hey, you needs any facts when you get a chance to insult an entire state of people. First it was Arkansas Tech University, now it's the entire state of Arkansas. Seriously SW, what is your issue with Arkansas?

Michael,

I just assumed it was your family friend that said that homosexuals caused the earthquake. Or does she not live in the open minded bastion that is Arkansas?

"Funny how people try to find groups of people or just one person to blame for a natural disaster."

I agree 100% with this though. Just look at Globalwarming/coolingclimatechangeextremeweather.

Michael,

I'll have to ask that you forgive my confusion, I was basing my comments on what you actually said, not what you apparently thought you meant again. Once again, I must caution you to be careful with your language misuse.

"Mine too was a joke, do I need to explain that one to you?"

I'm not sure about Mickel, but I would appreciate you explaining what in your comment was a joke.

Lets look at what you actually said:

"That's odd Mickel I have been hearing since the earthquake that Obama literally caused it and it was in conjunction with the gays. Funny how people try to find groups of people or just one person to blame for a natural disaster"

When you say that people are saying that someone "literally" did something it appears to me that you are not saying it in jest. Let's look at what the definition of "literal" is. From dictionary.com I will cite the 3rd entry for literal since I think it comes most closely to your use, if you disagree feel free to inform me of what use you intended. Literal: true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual. Hmm, funny there isn't anything in the definition that would lead one to believe literal has much to do with joking does it?

As to the location of the rabbi you speak of. In your post you said you heard, I assumed that meant that you actually heard by use of your ears. You didn't say you read or saw, if you had, I would have inferred that you read or saw a news piece about it, much like the one you posted. Again lets turn to dictionary.com to find a definition of "heard". I will cite the 2nd entry for heard, again if you prefer another definition let me know. Heard: to learn by the ear or by being told; be informed of.

However, in fairness to the new information I possess, I will amend that New York, as well as Arkansas, must have some of the stupidest and most closed minded people on earth. There, are you happy now?

I didn't see in the article you linked any reference to Obama causing the earthquake in conjunction with the homosexuals, can you point me in the right direction. Or is that what the people you were talking with were saying?

I have already addressed my problem with ATU, but to refresh your memory, I am concerned about the quality of the instituion, it's admission standards, and the poor quality of it's presumed graduates.

Mr. Pot,

btw, I forgot to mention:

Nice job on the character attacks. For someone who hates them as much as you say you do, you sure are pretty good at them. Your hypocrisy is showing again, maybe you should see if there is a medicine or procedure you can undergo to help keep that in check.

It was a joke SW. Is your disdain for anything I type so deep that you are actually over analyzing a joke or is this just your attempt to gloss over the fact that you said people from Arkansas were stupid?

Face it SW, for all your railing about other people's shortcomings in regards to being openminded, you are so closed minded that you called an entire state stupid based off a joke and your assumptions solely on me.

Michael,

I just assumed it was your family friend that said that homosexuals caused the earthquake. Or does she not live in the open minded bastion that is Arkansas?

"Funny how people try to find groups of people or just one person to blame for a natural disaster."

I agree 100% with this though. Just look at Globalwarming/coolingclimatechangeextremeweather.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sat, Aug 27, 2011, at 4:51 PM

First, I have already said who made the original comment and even linked to it. It is directly above your quote. You either didn't see it or completely ignored it so you get an insult in.

Secondly, to the last part of your statement; the last time I checked global warming/climate change is not a person so there is no possible way you could agree with me 100%.

I would suggest SW, that you retract and apologize for your statement regarding the intelligence of people from Arkansas considering it was based your own preconceived notions and not based on facts.

Michael,

"Is your disdain for anything I type so deep that you are actually over analyzing a joke"

Partially yes, especially when your "joke" is not made in any way that is indicative of intended humor. Mostly I just want to show you that you misuse language "orphan" that is to say frequently. I can't help it if you neither understand language nor humor derived from language.

The fact remains you said "literally" which precludes the possibility that a statement may be facetious. Furthermore, you provided evidence to support half of your claim that some idiot said homosexuals are to blame for earthquakes.

Which part of the same sentence am I, or anyone else, to understand is a "joke"? The part that you use language to indicate that you are speaking to actual fact or the part of the sentence that you support with documentation to show it is fact? Where is the "joke" in this? That's why I asked you to explain your joke, which you neglected to do.

"you called an entire state stupid based off a joke and your assumptions solely on me."

You lie. I did not call an entire state stupid. You are once again misrepresenting what I have said. Please apologize for lying about me yet again.

Michael,

A couple of points.

"I would suggest SW, that you retract and apologize for your statement regarding the intelligence of people from Arkansas considering it was based your own preconceived notions and not based on facts."

My notions aren't "preconceived" I had no notions about people from Arkansas until you have provided me evidence from which to draw conclusions, so you are lying once again.

You're quite the homer there aren't you? All up in arms about my "closed mindedness" about Arkansas but have no problem with my "closed mindedness" about New York.

In will neither retract nor apologize for my opinion of the people in Arkansas, I will however amend my statment if it will make you happy. I'm sure Arkansas is home to some of the smartest and most openminded people on earth, as well as some of the stupidest and most closedminded. Unfortunately for me I have just never had the opportunity to have interaction with the former.

Sheesh, Michael, either lay off the character attacks or take down your blog reviling them. The way it is now, you hypocrisy is almost painful to observe.

Michael,

I apologize in advance if you take this as an attack on your supposed intelligence. There is a little thing called 'tense' that modifies verbs. When I stated that I "assumed" the 'ed' part of the word changes the verb in to a past tense form. If I said I "was assuming" that would be a present tense form of the verb assume and your criticism of my post would be warranted.

As to the second part of your criticism, "globalwarmin/coolingclimatechangeextremeweather" is a part of nature, therefore it is a natural thing, and is arguably a natural disaster. And, as you should know people and groups of people are being blamed for it.

I would also like to point out, if you were "joking" why did you back it up with a factual story? If I stated "you can end up paying almost 300 grand if you shoot an armed buglar" and then follow it up with a link such as.... http://www.gazette.com/articles/jury-123946-burglar-lot.html I couldn't say I was joking about the actual statement, could I?

It is okay, not everybody has a sense of humor, and some folks are utterly devoid of that trait. It doesn't make someone less of a person. It doesn't even make a person less amusing! Of course, people will laugh AT them rather than WITH them.

Sir Didymus,

I'm sorry to have to go all syntax police on you but in the spirit of fairness...

"If I said I "was assuming" that would be a present tense form of the verb assume and your criticism of my post would be warranted."

I believe "was assuming" would still be past tense, in the understanding I have from your usage, I think that would qualify as past continuous use, or possibly past perfect depending on if you continued to assume after a point of interruption.

For present tense the simplest form would be to just say "I assume"

*wink*

Regardless, you really shouldn't be too surprised that Michael has difficulty with conjugation, look at how much trouble he was with language in general.

SWNebr Transplant,

Thank you for pointing that out! I probably meant to type "am assuming" but "I assume" would definately be simpler.

"In will neither retract nor apologize for my opinion of the people in Arkansas, I will however amend my statment if it will make you happy. I'm sure Arkansas is home to some of the smartest and most openminded people on earth, as well as some of the stupidest and most closedminded. Unfortunately for me I have just never had the opportunity to have interaction with the former."

That is exactly the response I expected out of you. You denigrate an entire state based on your preconceived, baseless opinions about me and instead of apologizing for those statements you mock. You truly are a sad individual.

"I would also like to point out, if you were "joking" why did you back it up with a factual story? If I stated "you can end up paying almost 300 grand if you shoot an armed buglar" and then follow it up with a link such as.... http://www.gazette.com/articles/jury-123... I couldn't say I was joking about the actual statement, could I? "

Wow, Didymus I was unaware that in order to tell a joke you couldn't use factual information. Thank you for setting me straight on that. Of course, all those comedians who use real world examples are in for quite a shock.

Oh and as for your quote and link. You could come back and say that you were joking, it wouldn't be very funny or make much sense, but you could still say that you were joking.

By the way SW, you can focus all you want on character attacks, it doesn't take away from the fact that instead of apologizing for rude and baseless remarks you decided to mock. So go right and and keep taking focus away from your own comments (as is typical in the SW fashion of "debate") I will keep right on reminding you and everyone that you "think that Arkansas must be home to some of the stupidest and most closed minded people on earth."

Hmm, good thing you don't label people but only let them label themselves.

Michael,

"That is exactly the response I expected out of you. You denigrate an entire state based on your preconceived, baseless opinions about me and instead of apologizing for those statements you mock. You truly are a sad individual."

Wow, this has got to be some sort of record for you, a number of continuous character attacks (which you say you hate, apparently you don't hate them when you are directing them) without responding to arguments or requests.

Furthermore, you are once again lying. Why do you continue to persist in your lies when you have clearly been shown to be lying, even in this case by your own citations.?

"By the way SW, you can focus all you want on character attacks, it doesn't take away from the fact that instead of apologizing for rude and baseless remarks you decided to mock.'

I don't focus on your character attacks to detract from my statements, I do it to show you as the hypcrite you clearly are. Can you justify your continued character attacks in light of your stated opinion on such tactics?

I have proclaimed my opinion clearly, there has been no attempt to hide or detract what I say. Why do you think there is?

"I will keep right on reminding you and everyone that you 'think that Arkansas must be home to some of the stupidest and most closed minded people on earth.'"

Will you also remind everyone of your opinion on character attacks and explain why your engaging in them is not hypocrisy? That's really all I'm asking for here.

I tried twice to amend my comment in a way to make you happy, yet you continue to lie about what I said and attack my character. Do you hate me so much that you are incapable of reading what I type?

Michael,

"You could come back and say that you were joking, it wouldn't be very funny or make much sense, but you could still say that you were joking."

Are you speaking from personal experience here? I'm curious because this seems to be exactly what you did the other day.

See, Michael....I was actually responding to your second sentence in your response to me...which upon reading is still completely devoid of an inkling of humor....to me, anyway.

Re-reading what I wrote...please point out to me where I was vicious enough to warrant your vitriol. Your comment, is hard not to take personally.

But as you say...I guess I'm too stupid to get it.

Michael,

I must admit, you are pretty amusing.... Here I am laughing at you rather than with you.

"Oh and as for your quote and link. You could come back and say that you were joking, it wouldn't be very funny or make much sense, but you could still say that you were joking."

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 11:06 AM

You do realize you just stated if I did pretty much what you did with your "joke", it wouldn't be very funny or make much sense.... It did make me laugh at you though. I guess the fact that I wouldn't say I was joking or expect it to be taken as a joke in a situation described above is just one of the many differences between you and I. Just one more thing I ought to be thankful for I guess.

Michael,

I realize this may take an open mind to grasp, but SW's statement is true for almost anywhere. Let me try and enlighten you I will put the pertainant word in parentheses.

"WOW! I am forced to think that Arkansas must be home to (some) of the stupidest and most closed minded people on earth. Between the things you say and the people who literally think Obama and homosexuals caused an earthquake...all I can say is I'm glad I don't live there."

I would like to point out that he said nothing about Arkansas being home to ALL the stupid closeminded people, or that ONLY stupid closeminded people live in Arkansas. I am willing to say that you could use that phrase and put any geographic place in place of Arkansas and it be true.

It is impossible to Michael-proof a statement with you. If there is the possibility that some idiot would take offense or be damaged by something said, you sure seem to step up and be injured. If you were like that with other dangers as a toddler you must either have a plethora of scars, your parents must have coated the house in foam, or you were raised in a giant plastic ball. I suppose if it were true, the last would explain some things about your reactions.

Sorry to butt in. Sir Didymus, while I completely agree with your clarification of SW's statement, I think there's still a legitimate gripe that Mike has with said statement. As far as I could tell, there was nothing linking Mike's statement of people blaming Obama and gays for the earthquakes to people in Arkansas. SW did say he thought Mike physically heard it, but last time I checked, Mike lives in Nebraska. If he doesn't, then the MPCC staff page is in dire need of an update.

At that point, any other reasons to think people in Arkansas said that are conjecture. That isn't to say that there aren't people in Arkansas who would make such a claim involving earthquakes, but it's up to SW to provide evidence of that behavior to give substance to his claims.

bjo,

If I may... I believe you are confusing Michael Hendricks, the author of this blog, with his father Mike Hendricks, instructor at MCC and author of "Mike and Night". That should clear up any lingering confusion you have over linking my tongue in cheek comment about some residents of Arkansas.

When Michael first made his comment, he said he "heard". Using the most basic usage I interpreted "heard" to mean that he was speaking to someone or overheard a conversation in which someone claimed Obama was responsible for the earthquake in conjunction with homosexuals.

When he insulted me for taking him at his word, rather than being able to read his mind to know that he neither meant that he "heard" nor was the person who floated the idea was a rabbi in New York. Apparently Michael thought the inane ramblings of a relatively unknown person in another state than any that were in the scope of the conversation up to that point, should be common knowledge to readers of his blog. I don't know, perhaps he feels a kinship with other inane ramblers.

Well, that answers a lot of questions for me. I had assumed that Mike had a blog in addition to his printed opinion pieces, rather than his son doing the blog.

I apologize for stepping into the conversation without knowing that. Your statement makes more sense to me now. Thank you for the clarification!

As an addendum, I apparently did not read the Father's Day entry which would've easily separated the two in my mind. Now I really need to apologize for not paying enough attention!

bjo, you ought to lurk around this blog for awhile. One can learn a lot from the posters on here. It has recently been a good experience for all in the areas of grammar and a blog or two back, word usage such as "floccinaucinihilipilification" and "ad hominem". I thank all of you for expanding my vocabulary and for proving that there are still a few who recognize grammar! If nothing else, it's entertaining!

bjo,

No need to apologize, honest mistakes and incorrect information are easily rememdied. I'm not above being corrected when I am factually wrong, as some people around here apparently are. There is really only a problem when a person persists in lies or refuses to use what is between the ears.

Feel free to jump in on any conversation, there is no need to feel shy. The more the merrier!

I tried twice to amend my comment in a way to make you happy, yet you continue to lie about what I said and attack my character. Do you hate me so much that you are incapable of reading what I type?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Aug 29, 2011, at 7:23 PM

Nice attempt at switch and baiting there SW but the fact still remains that you called Arkansans stupid and closed minded based your bias towards me and when asked to apologize and retract that statement, not only did you publicly state that you would not apologize and retract your statement, you put it into high gear and openly mocked people from the state of Arkansas.

I'm just simply asking you to apologize and retract your statement about Arkansans. If you felt it was necessary to "amend" your statement, even if in mockery, then you must know that your statement was baseless and wrong.

Why is so hard for you (someone who constantly demands apologies and retractions and has even stated that you do and have apologized) to apologize for such a baseless attack on an entire state of people?

in the immortal words of Charlie Brown, "GOOD GRIEF", Michael. The phrase IS: BAIT and SWITCH"!!! Do you even think before you start typing? I have defended you some in the past, but this time is to chastise. Did you go back and read SW's statement about the good folks of Arkansas? I know it is a matter of interpretation, but SW did not state that ALL people from Arkansas are stupid and close minded. The statement (para-phrased) was: Arkansas must be home to SOME of the most stupid and close minded people. As SW also stated, the same could be said of any state in the Union.

I know you take everything as a personal character attack (and yes, some have been), but I feel that you (unintentionally) invite most of it with your tone and retorts. And yes, also, you have apologized for some of the remarks. Lighten up, bro.

Michael,

There is no attempt at a bait and switch (nor switch and baiting for that matter). First off you are once again incorrectly using a phrase, but I take from later context that you meant something more like attempted misdirection on my part. If you think you used it correctly please let me know, hint: you may want to look it up before you try.

I haven't changed the subject without responding to issue raised by you, sadly I cannot say the same about your record of commmunication with me. Every time you have trotted out that old tired lie about me I have tried to let you know that you are in fact wrong. Apparently I will have to resort to my erstwhile assumption that you are too stupid to understand common language since Sir Didymus, bjo, and now doodle bug all seem to understand that you are lying. I'm afraid you are a hopeless case, but never fear I will keep on trying to get through to you!

How is repeating my comment with slight modifications putting "it into high gear"? If it was mocking in the second case was it not mocking in the first? Interesting things to ponder perhaps.

You are once again lowering my hopes for prestigious ATU. How is it that someone matriculated into a Master's of American History program as you say you are has such a dismal concept of language and our nations history? To wit:

"If you felt it was necessary to "amend" your statement, even if in mockery, then you must know that your statement was baseless and wrong"

Michael, lets have a little American History quiz. How is the Constitution of the United States changed? I'll give you a hint, our Bill of Rights is a common term for the first ten whats...?

If you said Amendments you are correct and perhaps win a major award. Now looking at Michael's definition provided above, we see he apparently feels the Founding Fathers and subsequent governments thought the Constitution was baseless and wrong. I'm sorry Michael but I can't accept your apparent story of American History, maybe the school you used to work for counldn't either and that's why they didn't renew your contract I don't know.

Once again I will turn to dictionary.com to show you a common definition of the word "amend". Here I cite the first usage listed: "to alter, modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from..." I will also cite the third usage: "to remove or correct faults in; rectify". I contend that the Amendments to our Constitution are not there because it was baseless and wrong as your words seem to imply, rather, those Amendments, like my own comments (that everyone who reads this blog except apparently you understands) exist to clarify a position or adapt to changing circumstances. This would be analogous to my new information about the rabbi in New York, a state that, interestingly, you appear to have no problem assuming is home to only stupid or closed minded people.

Michael,

How about a deal? If you apologize for lying about what I said and recognize how you were lying, I will apologize for my comment that has you in such knots.

doodle bug,

I see you also are capable of reading and comprehending. However, you do have at least one thing factually incorrect, it was Sir Didymus, not I, who said that the same could be said for any other state. I do however agree with that comment fully.

Michael,

Since I have responded to your complaint, several times now, can I ask you a question without you accusing me of switch and baiting you?

How do you square your repeated character attacks directed at me and other posters with your stated position on such tactics? Can you explain to me why this is not hypocrisy? Because it really seems hypocritical to me.

mea culpa! lol I should have re-read further.

Michael,

I've given it some thought overnight, and I've decided my deal offer was unfair so I will rescind it. I shouldn't base my actions on your bad behavior. You are right someone shouldn't use another's bad behavior as justification for their own good or bad. We should all just do as we know to be right.

With that in mind, I apologize to any non-stupid and non-closed minded residents of Arkansas who may have been offended by my remarks. I would hope they know that I did not intend them in my comment as I thought my words were clear when I said "some"; however, I also understand that some of their more stupid and closed minded peers would not have been able to discern the difference and I would not want the former to be wrongly insulted. You Michael, are free to speculate whether you should be included in this apology, I will reserve judgment.

I hope that since I have apologized you will see the error of your ways and apologize for your unjustified character attacks, specifically lying about what I said in this case. If you choose not to, we all will see what the content of your character is.

"With that in mind, I apologize to any non-stupid and non-closed minded residents of Arkansas who may have been offended by my remarks. I would hope they know that I did not intend them in my comment as I thought my words were clear when I said "some"; however, I also understand that some of their more stupid and closed minded peers would not have been able to discern the difference and I would not want the former to be wrongly insulted. You Michael, are free to speculate whether you should be included in this apology, I will reserve judgment."

That was one of the worst ... or best perhaps ... examples of a non-apology apology, SW.

You only apologize to as you call them the "non-stupid" and "non-closed minded" people of Arkansas. You go even further and only apologize IF they were offended.

You're not good at this sincere apology stuff are you?

Michael,

Maybe you can give me an example by re-posting one of your "sincere apologies" for me to see.

You could also apologize for lying about me and explain why your character attacks aren't hypocritical.

Michael,

I encourage you to actually read the last thing I posted. You continue to make yourself look like a fool.

P.S.

By the way you really need to look up the correct definition for not just amend, but baseless as well. In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."*

*Inigo Montoya is a fictional character from a movie called 'The Princess Bride' which was released in 1987 based on the book of the same title written by William Goldman in 1973. (just trying to help you out with quotations)

"Some posters took my statements about four particular conservative politicos and talking heads to mean that I was going after all conservatives. This was not the case. I offended some with my statement and for that I apologize..."

From "Opposing Viewpoints" posted on January 14, 2011.

Here's the key difference in a sincere apology and a non-apology apology. In a sincere apology the person recognized what they have said has in fact offended people and he/she apologizes that there were people offended. Example: "I offended some with my statement and for that I apologize."

In the non apology apology method the person does not recognize that there is really a true need to apologize to anyone but when he/she does they only admit that that there may have been people offended by their statement and the only apologize because some people MIGHT have been offended. Example: "I apologize to any non-stupid and non-closed minded residents of Arkansas who may have been offended by my remarks."

Naturally the non apology apologists can't quite let go of their original statement or honestly believe that anyone could have been offended by their statement, so they include the original offending words in their statement. Example: "non-stupid and non-closed minded".

There is a pretty stark contrast between a serious and sincere apology and a non-apology apology that really apologizes for nothing and typically continues using the language that offended in the first place.

Michael,

Now isn't this interesting:

"This was not the case. I offended some with my statement and for that I apologize, but I do stand by my original statement that those four in particular have been and are guilty of using extremely vitriolic and eliminationist rhetoric."

When I copy the whole sentence you use as an example of a "sincere apology" the part you left off here is where you continue to stand by what you are "apologizing" for. How can it be a sincere apology if you continue to do the thing you are apologizing for? How do you justify this as any different than: "the non apology apologists can't quite let go of their original statement"? It seems pretty similar to me. You apologize but still say you are right, does that negate your apology?

I think the difference between saying "who I offended" and "who I may have offended" is only semantics but if it will make you happy I will amend my apology.

I apologize to any non-stupid and non-closed minded residents of Arkansas who have been offended by my remarks. I would hope they know that I did not intend them in my comment as I thought my words were clear when I said "some"; however, I also understand that some of their more stupid and closed minded peers would not have been able to discern the difference and I would not want the former to be wrongly insulted.

Although to be fair, I don't know for certain that I have offended anyone who needs an apology here. Why would a stupid and closed minded Arkansan need an apology? Why would they be offended? If the truth hurts, I sypathize but I can't apologize for that.

You didn't direct your non-apology to posters who didn't take offense, can you explain the difference?

Michael,

Here is another word to look up with "baseless" and "amend", try looking up "disingenuous". It seems to fit your behavior very well.

Although, to bring back up proper quotations, SWNebr Transplant did a smashing job of pointing out why you should know what the writer meant in context. See, you tried to quote yourself and show that you actually gave an apology. But... When the full context of the quotation is shown, it paints a different picture, and once again exposes your hypocrisy for those who might not be familiar with it. Of course, I imagine the percentage of people that are not aware of your hypocrisy is fairly small unless you take into account everyone that does not have any prior or current contact with you.

I am curious why you seem to be oblivious to my points. I imagine because you have a hard time attempting to twist them to your schema.

Great job of twisting all the original context out of my statement, SW. That deserves a standing ovation. See when you leave the context in instead of adding your own value into it, the statement has a completely different meaning that you or Didymus want it to be.

Let's take a closer look at my full statement provided by SW:

"This was not the case. I offended some with my statement and for that I apologize, but I do stand by my original statement that those four in particular have been and are guilty of using extremely vitriolic and eliminationist rhetoric."

The first part I am apologizing to those posters on this website and anyone reading the blog that were offended by my statements. However, my original statement still stands that the four that I was talking about do use vitriolic and eliminationist rhetoric. Why would I apologize to those four?

I wish, just once, SW that when you scold people for using statements out of context you would do the same instead of simply adding your own value to the statement and taking all the context out of the original statement.

Michael,

"See when you leave the context in instead of adding your own value into it, the statement has a completely different meaning that you ... want it to be."

Wow! This had got to be right up there with the most hypocritical things you've ever said. You have still refused to apologize for lying about what I said and "adding value" which started this whole exchange.

"The first part I am apologizing to those posters on this website and anyone reading the blog that were offended by my statements. However, my original statement still stands that the four that I was talking about do use vitriolic and eliminationist rhetoric. Why would I apologize to those four?"

Please Michael, I would really like you to respond to this. How is your comment here different from my apology that you attacked? Compare what you said directly above with: "the non apology apologists can't quite let go of their original statement".

I agree you shouldn't need to apologize to those four, any more than I should have to apologize to stupid and closed minded Arkansans. You remember, the people who when I didn't apologize to earlier you criticized. Do you have enough Windex to keep your domicile clean?

It's seeming more and more like Mike is standing up for people in Arkansas who would think there is a correlation between gays/Obama and earthquakes. I would think that a liberal would not be fond of people with such opinions, or at least scold people for calling them stupid for having such opinions. I guess one can ignore such things if it lets them continue to argue or belittle people. Then again, since he was lumped in with those people, it could be that Mike is wanting an apology for himself.

I'm not quite certain as to why SW's apology is a "non-apology" because he only acknowledged that people might be offended. No one has expressed offense over what he said, at least not on this blog, so I can't see how SW could be expected to assume that anyone was offended. All Mike has done is misinterpret SW's comment as a blanket judgement over an entire state's people, and proceed to chastise him over that in the same style that he is quick to point out or throw back at others, yet not admit to using himself.

What makes it more ridiculous is that such a comment might not have been made in the first place if Mike had not assumed that other people would recognize his "joke" as being based on the opinions of a rabbi on YouTube who was reported on. I'd personally argue that the place where he heard the quote was left out for the sake of trapping someone for more "character attack" fodder, but that would be assuming too much.

As I feel that this will probably be brought up in a response, I must say that I don't necessarily condone some of the less-than-respectful things SW and others have said during this discussion. I just feel that the author of a blog or other written/typed material should maintain more dignity than those that reply to his or her work, if only because I would assume that they get something more out of this than simple discussion or venting. I also have personally never gotten away with something by using the "they started it" defense. I don't see why it should apply here, when Mike has the same flaws that he accuses others of. At least I can be thankful that it isn't his father using such an argumentative, "fight-picking" style of discussion, especially considering that he's an educator.

I also find it silly that it is so hard to admit ones' faults. It's not as if being accountable for your actions will make you appear any worse than you already do by performing those actions.