Re: OT: Roger Ebert on bullies.

Robatoy wrote:
<SNIP>

Tim does exactly the same thing that O'Reilly and other bullies do.
Exactly the same. Same modus operandi. Textbook bully tactics.
So Upscale is correct. Tim is talking into a mirror.
OK, cite a single instance of "bullying" (as defined by Ebert) in
my post above. You can't.

You TELLING me I can't?

I am defying you to do so because I know you can't.

I criticize what I perceive to be
the much greater dishonesty of the left when blending news and
commentary.

Divisive rhetoric. Misdirection. Straw, by the ton.

Bull, more bull, and yet more very nonresponsive bull. You
cannot comment on my *perception* - you can disgree with it,
but calling it all the things you have is not a response, it
is (as it your constant custom) a giant rhetorical dodge.


I cite factual demographic information.

WTF? Man, you're really reaching.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=demographic

When I say "...the population is self-identified as 40% conservative,
20% liberal ...." this is factual information, demographic
in nature. It could be wrong or out of date information (in which
case I'd welcome an authoritative correction), but it is not
"reaching" in any sense of the word, at least not among
competent English speakers.


I comment
upon my experience in actually listening to O'Reilly for the
first time.

There you go. You have given O'Reilly your blessing. I'm not surprised
as you two have so much in common. Loofa anyone?

Ah, I see you have emptied your bag of ideas and are back
on the personal attack. I have not given him my blessing. I
merely note that I have actually listened to him at some length -
something his loudest critics seem to almost never do - especially
here.


I comment on the boring and vulgar nature of his
ideological opponents.

So you support a bully. And you are one and act like one.

Wrong on both counts. O'Reilly sometimes says and does things
with which I agree. Often he holds positions with which I
disagree. But I've also made it clear that I object to his
shoutdowns (for much the same reason I object to your use of
foul language, your not-to subtle anti-Semitism, your gratuitous
and intentional ad hominem arguments and so on - because
it's bad manners and doesn't move the discussion forward).

You can't handle somebody in your face and telling you are a bully.
So, we are blessed with more of your rhetoric, straw men, red
herrings, almost truths and misdirection.
Then, as soon as somebody tells you to go *** yourself, it HAS to
come from a Leftist, right?

I just *knew* you could control yourself. We're what - 3 posts or
so into this exchange and you're off to the vulgarity races.

That was MY comment on the boring and vulgar nature of you as an
ideological opponent.

As I said, nothing speaks louder than letting your side have their
free speech without exception. You routinely start threads, can't
defend your position, and resort to school yard name calling and
mud throwing. N.B. That I disagree with righties just as strongly
and, with only one exception I can recall, have never seen this
kind of behavior on their part. It's interesting that you on the
radical left (and yes, that's what you are no matter how much you've
claimed otherwise in the past, your defense of the far left speaks
volumes) - the great self anointed defenders of free speech -
protest the loudest when you actually encounter someone engaging
in such free speech. You can't defend you ideas? Don't start
threads stating them and expect to go unchallenged.


Your inability or unwillingness (I don't know which) to respond to
such a post thoughtfully does not constitute bullying or anything
else on my part - it reflects a rhetorical inadequacy on yours.

Why waste more beautiful words when a simple '*** you' will suffice?

Because I am a mannered adult. Because I debate ideas not people.

Your man Cheney has said that bad word before. So has your hero Bush.
Somehow I don't think Obama uses it much. Hmmmmmm.

So, Chuck, now explain where the person of Tim and the messages of Tim
differ. Tim relies heavily on the fact that bull*** baffles brains.
I rely heavily on the fact that a good many on the left don't have the
factual content, courtesy, and intellectual skills to debate ideas
fairly.

'Fairly' in your lingo means: as long as they agree with your
assessments.

No, "fairly" in the context of being honest in the debate, sticking
to the topics, not diluting it with your personal assaults.
Let's see if we can give you an object lesson from which you
may learn. In the previous political thread here, I had
an extended discussion with Mr. Huntress. We disagree pretty
fundamentally on the issues in question. We managed to disagree
politely, with respect for each other, and along the way, I at least,
learned some new things. There was no profanity, personal assault,
or cheap shots that characterizes so much of what you post. We left
the discussion still disagreeing but without the rancor or hard
feelings that, again, seem to be what you strive to achieve.
THAT is what "fairly" means.


This is demonstrated on the Wreck quite regularly. The
quickest way to undermine defenders of left ideology is to let them
speak freely. They inevitably devolve into profanity, personal
attacks, and denial of factual statements.


More Left/Right divisive rhetoric. This is getting soooo boring.

However boring, it is fundamentally true.


Good thing I'm not allergic to straw or I'd be sneezing my ass off.

Would you LOOK at the time?? My adhesive has set up, so gotto
run...till next time when I have some extra time.

If you're going to continue this, at least you could learn to
swear with some slight hint of class:

http://www.trevorstone.org/curse/

.... At least it may increase your vocabulary.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
.

Loading