Wait a minute. Not but a few posts ago, you tried to deflect the matter to that Wizard of Space and Time, the mysterious ‘Juan’. Well, regardless of who posted their amazing first-person account over at The Prolitariat, I am a bit amazed that you would expect any person, much less one who does’t ‘lean to the left’, to just accept it as true.
If you post something about the sky being blue or the sun rising tomorrow, sure, it could be unreasonable to outright reject it. But your persecution complex aside, I am not going trust a blog entry the same as I would trust a story from CNN or LA Times or another established news venue. No reasonable person would. Sure, they are imperfect, but plenty of people keep an eye on them, (witness the CBS ‘memogate’) Your blog is just a convenient forum for you to ‘publish’ your views, not subject to the same journalistic scrutiny as would be a major paper or news show. And like I said, I am not going to wade through all of the crap that blogs spew out in order to get to the occasional nugget of truth. However offended you may be, your blog is no exception. Why would it be?
No, I didn’t “try to deflect” anything, I simply clarified what would have been self-evident if you’d bothered to properly research the website you were defaming. I did not write the particular entry we are referring to, as I’ve said, but I am vouching for it, as I have seen the email and I know Juan.
Besides that, you’re amazingly continuing in your straw man attack that I am asserting that you should just accept it as true. That’s not what I’m saying, and I’ve been very clear about it, so reread my posts as necessary. What I’m saying is that your blind rejection and negative rhetoric towards my website were not justified and are indicative of bias.
No persecution complex I’m afraid, though you seem to be continuing your own complex of unnecessarily using demeaning rhetoric. But in any case, while the assertion made by the aforementioned entry in my blog was not necessarily as evident as “the sun will rise tomorrow”, it’s still pretty damned self-evident to anyone who pays attention to politics and the internet. The word I’ve been using is plausible: it’s a plausible assertion. I’m not saying you should blindly accept it as true, I’m not saying that my website is the Word Of God, I’m saying that you cannot blindly reject it and doing so indicates prejudice.
I am not claiming to have the same clout as “professional” news sources (though they have their flaws as we both seem to acknowledge), and I’ve already amply acknowledged the flaws of the blogosphere, but both are irrelevant to the issue at hand. I’m not claiming my blog is an exception, and I am not taking offense either, simply correcting your fallacious assertions. As I said, my website is my little corner of the web and you slandered it, so I found it incumbent on me to correct you. And yet again, I would like to remind you that the original assertion is correct.
To summarize, that was never the issue. The issue was your slander, your puffed up rhetoric, your dogma, your blind rejection, and your fallacious negative assertions. Had you simply said “well okay, that’s interesting, but I’d like to see an official news source on it too”, I would never have posted. But no, you went into a tirade against “leftist” blogs, insinuating that they are somehow all fallacious and that being partisan precludes one from being truthful.
I would like to say once again: respond to my actual assertions. You are doing better at putting actual substance rather than just rhetoric in your posts, and I thank you for that, but I would be immensely appreciative if you stopped responding to assertions I didn’t make, especially when I’ve already specifically said that I’m not making them.
It very much was the issue. rjung should know better than link to a blog (that linked to another blog), when providing a cite. He complained the loudest back when Dearly Departed Comrade December (a former poster here), used to link to LGF. But rjung likes to keep things ‘interesting’, and often pulls little stunts like that.
Heh, for someone whining about ‘unnecessarily using demeaning rhetoric’, you sure seem to love the stuff yourself. Imagine that…
Sorry if you feel all offended that I don’t place the same credibility on your blog as I would a respected news outlet. You can go on about clout, but that has nothing to do with it. It’s about credibility and verifiability. Your blog is no more credible than any other lefty blog, and while it is perhaps ‘verifiable’, why would I waste my time trying to fact check your blog? Why not just provide a link to a widely-respected news source? As for the ‘plausibility’ bit, I put nothing past the opposition for this election. If it could possibly be construed as negative towards Bush/Republicans/conservatives, and it comes from a admittedly left blog, I ain’t buying it. Again, why should I? Too many reputable news sources out there, sort of minimizing the need to believe someone who ‘saw an email with their own eyes’.
No, it was never the issue that I was addressing. It may be an issue you feel is important and it may be an issue you want to talk with rjung about, but in that case, take it up with him. I simple came here, as I said, to clear up a bit of slander about my website.
I’ve not claimed to be perfect, but I would suggest that you embrace the demeaning attitude with more righteousness. Furthermore, the assertions I made which you listed, while negative, are not the same as “demeaning rhetoric” particularly in that they were substantive.
Wow, straw man yet again. Nowhere have I said that: I’ve clearly and repeatedly said I am not offended by what you are saying, I am simply clearing up your misstatements.
No, it isn’t. It’s about slander and prejudice. Reread my posts as necessary, and avoid the straw man fallacy.
See, that’s precisely it! That’s precisely what I’m taking issue with. What about righty blogs? What about blogs in general? The venom in your words and the bias in your stance is readily apparent. I’m not asking you to fact-check my blog, I’m not even asking you to trust my blog, I’m just saying that your blind rejection is damned revealing.
Because firstly, it wasn’t necessarily, secondly, I didn’t write that actual entry, and thirdly, I don’t think the NYT article even existed at the time that the entry was written. If you felt like being a positive contributor rather than a biased and negative naysayer, you could always post the link to the source in a comment on my site. But I suppose actually being constructive would be too much to ask.
Again, this is precisely the problem: this whole perception of “the opposition”, and how you “put nothing past them” - get over it. We’re all human beings, and despite some of the rhetoric you hear coming from both “sides”, neither “side” is inherently disingenuous.
And again, I’m not asking you to blindly buy it, I’m clearing up your slander and saying that it reveals personal prejudice. Though again, your focus on this supposed deviancy of the left yet again reveals your bias: why not suspect rightist sites in the same way?
Again, that’s not the issue, and again, the whole “reputable” thing is yet another can of worms.
But lest I get into epistemology, let me close again by saying this: reread my posts as necessary, as I don’t like repeating myself, and only respond to my actual assertions. You are now responding substantively, but often to assertions I’m not even posing.
Hehehe, you don’t like to repeat yourself? Well that’s rich! (Admit it, you just learned about logical fallicies in class, didn’t you? Insert ‘damned revealing’ joke here!) Even after all those nice, long, persecution-complex filled posts I still don’t have an idea what your ‘actual assertions’ are. (Was it your was your laughably ironic bits about ‘prejudice’?) If it makes you feel better, I most certainly am ‘slandering’ your blog, but don’t let that go to your head. There are already about 3 gajillion other lefty blogs out there, and I pay yours no special heed.
No, it’s true. I don’t like to repeat myself, but some people on occasion necessitate it.
Yes, I learned about logical fallacies in classes (though not “just” exactly). Nothing wrong with that, at least I’m familiar with them.
Hrm, well it might be revealing of anti-intellectualism, but I’d need to know a bit more about you to be sure.
Firstly, as I said, this has nothing to do with persecution. I simply came here to clear up misstatements you made about my website. Secondly, I have made my assertions quite clear, and since I truly do not want to repeat myself, I suggest you instead reread my posts as necessary.
That had to do with it, though there was little to no irony involved.
I am not asking for any special heed, simply a basic modicum of respect and intelligence. But again I remind you, this has nothing to do with my personal feelings: I am simply here to clear up slander about my website.
And Daniel, shrug, while I may explore other parts of this board in the near future, I’m not a huge fan of dedicated “fighting” forums as they almost inevitably degenerate. Granted that is their purpose, and granted this exchange is degenerating already, but I don’t particularly want to push it further down that slope. If it comes to that point, I will simply offer Brutus his stab at a “closing statement” and bid him adieu, as everything I have already stated will stand for itself.
