I haven’t check back into this thread because I’m not really not much interested in hurling insults, even in the Pit. I’d pretty much said all I had to say on the subject, so there wasn’t much more to do except engage in name calling.
After checking in to see if anything had changed, I noticed that little gem. I have a proposition for you, Merijeek. Report a few of my most egregious posts to the mods and see if you can get me warned for trolling. If you can’t, then I submit that you are talking out of your ass. Alternatively, open a Pit thread about me and see how many posters you can get to agree with you other than **rjung **and his ilk. If you do neither, I’ll assume you are either a coward, a liar, or both.
Of course, even if Merijeek goes through with this proposal and reaps a hundred posters in agreement, John Mace will simply lump them all as “rjung and his ilk,” collectively dismiss 'em, then proclaim victory.
And for the record, I do not think John is trolling. I think he’s just a typically inane right-wing apologist(*) whose principles change according to whose ox is getting gored.
Well, see, anybody who does agree would, by your own definition, be part of that “ilk”, so you’d be able to claim vindication no matter what was said about you. Nice try there, though.
The allegation against you isn’t trolling but thoughtlessness, but apparently you’re too fascinated with the new rule even to understand that, much less consider it.
Eh. He stopped being worth reading a long time ago. Even humper is worth reading for the monkey-flinging-feces entertainment value. I can’t even John’s posts anymore - unless someone is quoting them.
They’re pointless, really. His only position is that he doesn’t have a position, and therefore his non-position is superior to all those who hold a position. Nitpicking arguments may entertain him, but it doesn’t entertain me.
Naturally, whenver I do see one of his posts quoted my observations are reaffirmed. Still hasn’t changed. Too bad.
Nope. I’ll be happy to give you a list of plenty of folks in advance who I wouldn’t lump into the “ilk” all of whom have I’m usually on the opposite side of in debates. Folks like LHoD, Hamlet, Daivd Simmons, minty green, Miller, etc. If you really want to do this, I’ll expand the list.
I hesitate to step into this mess and get hit with some of the mud that’s being flung back and forth, but I can’t help myself.
I don’t know how John has behaved in other threads or whether he is generally an unthinking partisan. But in this thread he has made a reasonable argument. People can consider his words and disagree, of course, but I don’t see how you can legitimately accuse him of being a knee-jerk defender of O’Reilly or O’Reilly’s tactics. (And that assessment comes from someone who considers O’Reilly a lying ass in general who ought to make a clear apology in this particular case.)
).