Dear readers,
You may comment here all you want. You may do something that scares me and that is to disagree with my opinions. That’s OK. I really don’t have a “Terms of Use” list thingy like some bloggers as I think this blog thing is really over rated anyway.
Some bloggers are out to make a buck off their sites, some are trying to inform their readers on local issues, some national issues, and all that is OK. I just write what I feel. Yes sometimes I ramble and drift and sometimes I feel I hit my subject matter right on the head. No body is grading this so that’s OK. It’s just a blog and with the simple stroke of a key, I could delete the whole thing. Gone!
Why this little letter? Well The Peoria Chronicle has determined that a commenter by the handle of “kcdad” is a troll. No, not the little doll with the colored hair we had as kids, but, and hold your breathe, an INTERNET TROLL! Oh my God. The humanity and the sorrow. This “troll”, kcdad has been banned from expressing his/her opinions on the Peoria Chronicle. Why? Is this Russia? Is this China? Was it because Billy Dennis complained he couldn’t get one of his mis-spelled comments in edgewise as long as kcdad commented? Nope, apparently kcdad made too much sense and that irritated the blog owner.
kcdad had some interesting opinions, many of which I started to agree with my self. Oh sweet Jesus, I hope I’m not banned. That’s all they were, just opinions and some actually made a person think. I don’t recall where they were ever cruel towards any one person like some commenter's at the Chronicle have been. Those people haven’t been banned. Why? Sharon Crews, a retired teacher is well known throughout the blogs by anyone who reads them and when she posts on a subject, especially at CJ’s blog (if you can call it that now) her comments and their length make the Dead Sea Scrolls look like a Steak N Shake menu yet she hasn’t been banned. How about when the school board was shortening the school days? Commenter Diane posted daily with her opinion and was she banned? I guess it’s a matter of who the blogger likes and dislikes. Free speech?
Well today is my last day to make a comment on CJ’s site. What’s the use? If I state an opinion that is what he considers off topic, it will be deleted. If I make a comment that goes against his beliefs, or comment on every post, I’ll be banned and considered a troll. I really don’t think that what was intended when blogs were invented. Now we got people that have blogs, with “Terms of Service” rules and they add to them to fit their needs basically just to rid their sites of opinions they don’t like. Huh. Terms of service aren’t needed. If you don’t like something posted on your blog, delete it. If you want you can moderate all comments and if there is something you don’t like, it’ll never see the light of day. I have deleted a few comments over the years mainly because I won’t have people slamming my employer or commenting on my workplace. I don’t bite the hand that feeds me.
Maybe these people need to get off their high horse because 10 minutes out of Peoria, no one has ever heard of most of us bloggers. If the Peoria blog network disappeared tomorrow, the country would move on as always. Not a light would flicker in Bloomington or Albany, or Minneapolis or where ever.
kcdad, you are welcome here as are all commenter's. I don’t mind being told I’m full of shit and I love it when people agree and I’m not always right either, but I write from what’s inside me. Like it or leave it. I believe in free speech and believe it or not, I do learn that I am wrong sometimes from my commenter's. But….these are the days of our lives….
65 comments:
I really enjoy C.J.'s site but banning kcdad is a move I don't agree with.
I'm ok with removing KCDad.
Certainly he had a lot to say but all too often he just dragged posts way off topic, over n over again. The depth he was willing to take his views suggests that he really should have his own blog. There, he and anyone else can elucidate upon the finer points of right versus left, christian versus non-christian, and whatever else their hearts desire.
Me... I would rather get back to the discussions of what CJ posts about.
Where is the outrage over the gutting of the police department?!!
I agree wholeheartedly with CJ's decision. Free Speech? Go to kcdad's own blog and get all the free speech you want. CJ, like you or anyone else, is free to delete comments, ban people, whatever he wants to do on his blog. You are obviously free to no longer comment there.
Is this Russia or China? What an ignorant comment. It is not for CJ, you or any other individual to allow free speech. You write as if you believe CJ is acting holier than thou and turn around and claim to uphold the virtues of free speech. Please.
While I see that you comment on other blogs, you do most of your writing on your own blog. Why doesn't kcdad do the same? Why did he choose CJ's site for the majority of his comments vs somewhere like yours?
I'll miss you one CJ's blog but I know where to find you if I want to see what you have to say. I know where to find kcdad's blog, too. And to think I never would have known had it not been for CJ.
My blog originates from the hinterlands of Tremont so isn't even on the blog dial of most of the area. I "try" to be polite with comments outside my own blog but sometimes just mentioning a dissenting opinion can be considered impolite. I hate to see people banning each other or fomenting discontent ... but honestly I think most of it just comes from a healthy difference of opinion that turns personal. The printed word is devoid of facial expression and tone of voice ... it is easy to "read" more into some things and completely miss the point at other times. All in all, I just try not to take anyone too seriously, especially myself
I'm glad he's gone! He was insulting, degrading and constantly going off on his own personal rants taking readers off topic on practically every thread. If what he said was so worthwhile, there should be a line of people waiting to post at his blog.
Yes, Diane posted alot over at CJ's during the last year, but she stayed on topic. She didn't go off about her religious beliefs every time. Sharon Crews needs her own blog, no doubt about it.
I think it's a breath of fresh air that CJ finally banned him. As for you not posting over there.... I will miss your comments!!!!! I try to get over here as often as possible, but when you post something at CJ's, I have usually enjoyed it! I like that you present the other side to things. It is much needed. So, please, reconsider. Presenting the other side is one thing.... trying to take over someone else's blog on a daily basis is quite another.
Well I think that whatever CJ wants to do at CJ's blog is fine and I think I stated that. I do believe that to have a "terms of use" on a blog is a bit too much. As for kcdad, sure, he took over a lot of posts. So what? Some of his stuff I agreed with but when he touched on religion, well, that chapped some asses and I think it chapped CJ's. Now CJ never used the word ban but to me his post it was implied kcdad was. I think if you open yourself up and have a blog, then you must take what comes with that to a point. Apparently CJs point was reached. I can't speak for him but I can't see banning someone who simply had a series of opinions. Like Sharon Crews and Diane and others and even myself. I think Sharon is very compassionate about her feelings on different issues and maybe she should have her own blog but I would never stifle her. Diane also and yes I came down hard on her but I did it for an altogether different reason. As for comparing CJ to China or Russia, yes, that was a stretch but as I wrote, I write from my feelings inside at the moment. Take it for that or leave it.
Randy: Forgive me if this comment isn't lucid. I'm still pretty well medicated.
"Trolldom" is in the eye of the beholder. Like pornography, you know it when you see it.
Trouble is, some people see it when others do not.
Whenever I went to C.J.'s site, saw discussions that had had drifted from the one the site owner intended to other areas, And the person doing this was kcdad.
And the way he did it always seemed, in my opinion, generate bad feelings by making other commenter and the posters feel like they did something wrong my posting their opinions, like they were idiots for disagreeing with kcdad.
And to clarify, I never had any trouble posting to C.J.'s site, although I did frequently take issue with some of kcdads' statements.
You scoff at the idea of having a terms of use or rules for commenting. Good fences make for good neighbors. Most people know how to have police conversations. Some people do not. Sites that have a LOT of comments (C.J. has many more than I these days). I find that heavily commented sites tend to attract folks who are commenting to draw attention to themselves more that to have a role in conservations.
I think kcdad would still be commenting on C.J.;s site if he had come out of the way to be more police and be less confrontational, and less insistent on having the last word (which is something that really irritates me on my site).
Anyway, thanks for your post and the opportunity to discuss this issue.
I borrowed my terms of service from Diane, I liked it so much. It's plain and simple and to the point.
"Don't be a jerk!"
I think that pretty much defined kcdad, but after all, he went after me for saying something as simple as, "My prayers go out to the Dahlquist family." Jesus, if one didn't pray the way he wanted or act the way he wanted, he got all medieval on your ass. Then Sharon would chime in with her usual.... Kcdad, I agree with you! Go back and count how many times she typed those words. It has to be hundreds.
And he had been warned on more than one occasion by CJ. When he warns me, I try to shape up! LOL Almost every thread was turning into an argument instead of a discussion. Kc likes to pimp people, he gets off on it. Let him do it at his own blog.
I'm puking here, Em, that you didn't see it!!!!!
Interesting post, here Randy. Lots of opinions and insight.
Em, you said you draw a line yourself. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. kcdad should have done the same, if he wanted to continue commenting on CJ's site. He wanted an audience and CJ's site gave him that, but ultimately he abused it.
(Incidentally, my "what an ignorant comment" was a homage to kcdad's style - a failed attempt at irony).
As for CJ's rationale for banning him, I think it had far more to do with kcdad's combative and demeaning style and insistence on turning every single discussion into one about communism and Christianity, rather than his actual views on either subject.
On a lighter note ...
http://tinyurl.com/yzgf5e3
I have mixed feelings about this issue as I rarely ever remove a comment from my blog. And I did leave Billy's blog network because he banned people (my reasoning was that he didn't just ban people from commenting on his blog, but from all Blog Peoria blogs, including mine.) While I felt he had the right to do that, I also felt like I no longer wanted to be a part of his network as a result. I think the kcdad thing is similar, CJ has a right to ban him, you have a right to disagree and not go to CJ's blog anymore and to write a post about how you disagree. No platform for discourse is perfect, there will always be issues (and, unfortunately, jerks, LOL) and I think each person decides how they will deal with it; if kcdad was causing CJ more stress than the value of his comments warranted, then I can respect that.
Jennifer: To clarify, I did ban one individual from the entire Blog Peoria site. I rescinded the ban later. I did so because at the time I decided to ban her from MY site, I mistakenly thought that was the only way to do it. I have since figured out how to block a commenter more effectively from one particular blog. This person is no longer banned from Blog Peoria and occasionally comments on the original Peoria Pundit site.
I'd like to think things have calmed down a bit.
Ugh. I hate the idea that all this nonsense could start up again.
First of all, I am guilty as charged by all of you that had a criticism of me--that I talk/write too much is not a new "sin" for me and that I can be lured into any discussion about religion in general or Christianity in particular is another "sin." I agreed with kcdad on many issues because I really agree with him on many issues--and when I don't agree find that his insights are worth considering--I confess that I do not understand the strong reactions against kcdad--he truly is a very decent person. He marches to a different drummer that many obviously find offensive--both the drum and the drummer. I guess I have always been drawn to people who dare to go against the status quo to challenge us to look at ourselves and our beliefs--if our beliefs and opinions cannot stand that kind of scrutiny, then we really don't stand on very firm ground. People like kcdad expect us to fight back--but to fight fairly. I am sure kcdad could fare better if he were a bit more diplomatic. I guess I find it easier to look past the bombastic. That we both "like the sound of our own voices" is all too obvious. Of course, there are many important issues about which I disagree with him totally. MAWB, I am sorry that he offended you and that I, in turn, offended you by agreeing with him too often. I believe I have often agreed with you, also. Randy, I definitely have gained a respect for you--inspite of the well-deserved criticisms you have occasionally thrown at me--but I appreciate the kinds thoughts, also. I have been pleased to learn that we agree on so many issues. I especially appreciate your attitude toward kcdad. We will probably all meet more often on this blog.
"People like kcdad expect us to fight back--but to fight fairly."
He didn't fight fairly. He called people names, he insulted them, etc. etc. And the stuff he said about the Polansky affair was just plain creepy. CJ made the call to ban him. It's his call. There's more on this topic at Peoria Pundit, also.
MAWM, I have always appreciated and agreed with your point of view. On this one, I just can't--we just see kcdad and his viewpoints so differently. C.J. has a right to do exactly what he did--I have no desire or inclination to quarrel with him. As for not fighting fairly, you just reminded me on this blog of when he offended you. I think you said I agreed with him--did I agree that you shouldn't pray for the Dahlquist family--I honestly thought that it was BAM that had some misgivings on that subject--are you sure I am the one who took kcdad's side in that argument? I can't imagine why I would have criticized you for praying for that family. Refresh my memory please.
No, Sharon, you skipped right over that one as if it never happened. Then when CJ called him a troll for doing it, you came out in defense of kc, along with several others, including Karrie Alms and Diane.
MAWB and Sharon, I am the one that took offense to what the Dahlquists did after standing up and next to those young men. I, however, don't recall saying anything about you praying for them.
In regards to calling kcdad a troll, I will admit that I came to his defense first! He is a rough around the edges kind of guy. I have known him for many years and it has taken a while for me to get comfortable with his style of banter and debate. It is because of him that I have learned alot about myself and the beliefs that I hold (or thought I held).
I'm sorry that he offended you to the point that you would actually be glad that someone did what you were unable to do. I always thought the world would be a very boring place if we were all alike and had the same beliefs and thoughts and the same way of expressing those.
To each his own.
Beth, I should have made it clear--I wasn't trying to deflect "blame" from myself. As I recall, I may not have agreed (actually, I think I didn't want to have an opinion at the time) but I understood your reasons for questioning the Dahlquist legal action--I just didn't remember attacking MAWB for praying (seems out of character for me) or agreeing with kcdad's comments on the subject. Also, at the time I didn't know that "troll" was blog jargon--I thought it was a most offensive name to call anyone. I don't think you need to apologize for defending kcdad. He truly is your friend whose name you know and friends don't turn their backs on friends.
JON: "It is not for CJ, you or any other individual to allow free speech."
Allow?
Is that what you really meant to write?
MAWB... you are too funny: "I think that pretty much defined kcdad, but after all, he went after me for saying something as simple as, "My prayers go out to the Dahlquist family.""
THAT is exactly the point... you announce (as if EVERYONE believed like you) how deep and sensitive and caring you are because YOU PRAY. BFD. There is nothing simple about that statement UNLESS you meant absolutely nothing by it.
It is a meaningless platitude that only pumps up your image to yourself and to others that presume that YOUR PRAYERS have any meaning to the Dahlquists, or anyone else. Jesus! Why do you think he taught his disciples to pray in their closets???? It is NOBODY'S business whether or not, or what you pray. DO something... in the words Of Lerner and Lowe's song... "Don't talk of love, show me!"
Get off your hypocritical high horse and be real. Either you believe your prayers work wonders or you were just blowing smoke... which is it?
Oh,yeah.. Thanks Emerge... I appreciate your openness, willingness to think and consider odd ideas and fortitude. It isn't easy giving heretics a voice.
OOPS... I want to thank you, Emtronics, fo r offering me this look at what effects my words and ideas are really having... I have to say I don't mind people disagreeing with me. I don't mind peole arguing with me. It is only when people like MAWB refuse to consider ideas that are different than that with which they are comfortable, and they resort to platitudes and cliches, I just get angry. I think through my ideas and question my beliefs so that my ideas outnumber my beliefs and quiet them. As I have said before, I really don't care what a person believes, at all. When it comes to beliefs, just SHUT UP. I love hearing people's ideas, their thoughts, their feelings... I tell my students all the time: I don't care WHAT you think... just THAT you think.
Who's passive/agressive now?
The troll reappears - I guess you came here because so few went to your own blog. Nobody commented on anything but your damn "explanation" for why you got kicked off CJ's site, and that was pretty much me and Sharon (surprise). I hope you've come here to give Em the treatment you gave CJ. He already said he doesn't give a shit.
MAWB - remember what Em said? Pray all you want, screw kcdad.
Yep, this is just like that "experiment" CJ had - only Em doesn't have any terms of use and likes the salty language.
All this "beliefs are irrelevant" and "i want to hear what you think" is crap. Like most terms, you define them how you see fit. Here's what I THINK - you BELIEVE that MAWB refuses to consider other ideas - so you should SHUT UP on that topic. Or MAWB THINKS that her prayers are meaningful regardless of what YOU THINK.
You want ideas? Take your superiority complex and shove it up your ass. You like calling people names? Bring it on shithead. Only do it with people who ask for it.
Doesn't it make you feel sad that you went to all this effort to create a blog, draw attention to yourself, but so few come over to visit? I've asked you several times, why do you post most of your comments on other blogs than your own? Can you answer this time or does the truth hurt?
Dear Jon:
"shove it up your ass."
"shithead."
I wonder... have I EVER used language like that on these blogs?
You seem like a real likable fella. Maybe I'll see ya Sunday at Godfather's.
"Doesn't it make you feel sad that you went to all this effort to create a blog, draw attention to yourself, but so few come over to visit?"
No. I am not surprised that people don't want to question their unexamined beliefs. It seems, that people have to be dragged kicking and screaming in order to see things differently.
I actually didn't start that blog for interaction so much as I wanted to record my feelings, thoughts and observations for later reference. I really do appreciate the comments and reactions i get, don't get me wrong.
Oh, so it's the language that offends you? It's the intent, you moron. Whether you call people a shithead or treat them like you think they are one, it's doesn't make a lot of difference. Yes, I'm doing the same thing right back at ya.
You seem like a swell guy, too. I saw your comments to MAWB on Billy's site. Got me thinking. Does your daughter visit you? Are you married or divorced? Do you have any true friends, or do you look down on them with disdain because you don't feel they can match your intellectual superiority? Oh, where's BAM and Sharon? Tell us, what do you think of them, friend? Do you respect their intellect as much as you respect your own? Have you ever been wrong? Have you ever admitted it?
"No. I am not surprised that people don't want to question their unexamined beliefs"
Funny, as you have previously said, "Beliefs are irrelevant - keep them to yourself."
Was there just a typo in one of those statements, or are you going to make up some asinine argument that you aren't contradicting yourself?
You see, this is the sort of thing that would get you banned from Peoria Pundit. If this makes me "high and mighty" so be it.
You see, this is the sort of thing that would get you banned from Peoria Pundit. If this makes me "high and mighty" so be it.
Jon, I hope C.J. clarifies that he is not in the habit of using the kind of language you just credited to him. Please, Jon, show me some sign of your intelligence--I thought I saw that in you before you started this really weird vendetta.
That's the point, Billy, though I did see that you let pass the following on your blog:
"MAWB: You are one crazy broad…
You are so passive aggressive it is scary… do you have any grown children? I wonder if they left town and don’t maintain contact with you anymore…"
What's the difference here? That someone gives it right back to kcdad in his own style?
Sharon, once again you look right past kcdad's regurgitated attack on MAWB. Also, if you re-read what I said, I am claiming that the language is different than in CJ's experiment as Em doesn't seem to mind.
Sorry, Jon, your pronoun-antecedent agreement or lack thereof confused me--now I realize that you were attitributing the crude language to Em, not to C.J. Also, count the number of times Jon has posted a comment compared to the number of times kcdad commented--most have the impression that kcdad was overdoing it but those who responded took up just as much blog space and were just as quilty of hijacking C.J.'s posts. I have already admitted my role in being off topic--but I'll do so again to make you happy.
My oh my, I can feel the hate here. Salty language? What's that? Yes I use the F bomb when I post and we are all big kids here so we've heard these words out in public before. I certainly wouldn't say; "Hi preacher! How the fuck are ya?"
Still, a long time ago while going through some training for my job, I took a class on perception and how a person sees things and how things are seen differently by other people. We were put into situations where we were to perceive what was happening at an "event". Guess what? We were wrong 90% of the time. What I am saying here is everyone has an opinion and that's fine. I don't think stifling an opinion is a good idea although I can choose to ignore them or take heed. To simply hate a person by only reading printed type is a little beyond even my standards. I'd like to met that person before I decided. I know that by having my blog, people have drawn conclusions of what type of person I am. Is that fair? No, it's not but we are all only human and we tend to form an idea of what a person is like without as so much even knowing or meeting that person. I have met in person a lot of the people who post here and to date I have found them to be caring, warm, people with families and ideas on how they perceive the world around them. Yes even Billy whom I love to torment.
Hell, I've lost myself here. What I am trying to say is simply this. I don't know kcdad nor Jon nor half the people who comment here and else where. I don't hate any of these people, I simply ignore them if I don't like what I am reading from them. Some have enlighten me and some scare the hell out of me. So, before we start calling each other "shitheads", I think we can do better. I simply don't think a person should be banned from a blog for posting comments. Yeah, name calling and cussing rattles a few bloggers and they make up their rules of use or terms or whatever and some moderate their commenter's where some comments never see the light of day. Me? This blogging thing has been a place for me to vent, express myself, bullshit, and have fun. If I learn something, then bonus! Cool down people....take a pill, pour yourself a drink if that's your vice, whatever, but here I never get too serious with myself. People who really know me, know (at least I hope) I am a caring person with a big mouth.
By the way, before the heat runs to your heads, think of this: What is sharper? A carving knife or a keyboard?
Please count, Sharon, but see if I was on topic, such as with the Polanski affair. Oh, I deviated a little once the topic became kcdad's hypocrisy - once CJ himself started that thread. I got in to one of those many communist/Christianity discussions once - and it was about communism and the topic was "kcdad's world view".
Does hi-jacking a blog mean you post a lot, or that it is off topic?
Jon, Thank you for pointing out the truth. I had never commented or responded to anything kcdad had typed before he attacked me at CJ's. And, I have rarely typed anything since that he hasn't attacked and that Sharon hasn't overlooked. What was that comment about the captive and the captor? It fits!
Sharon, you need to read Jon's comments again. He did not attribute the language to anyone else. He pointed out that kcdad's intent is the same.
Em, what you write is so true. I remember harassing you and calling you Uncle Em long before we met! Because, I knew you could take it! I liked that you pointed out the other side to things. But, I don't remember you ever attacking anyone. It is all in the intent as Jon said, and it's how its put forth.
Then we did meet! And the rest is history!
I have no idea who Jon is either, but thank God someone sees it besides me. And whoever Desiderata is also.... thank you!
MAWB: I was referring to Jon's "I hope you've come here to give Em the treatment you gave CJ. He already said he doesn't give a shit." I thought Jon was attributing the last comment to C.J.--and I thought that comment would be out of character for C.J. Jon, you definitely are allowing kcdad to define who you are.
Interestingly, I don't hate kcdad - I do think it was a shitty thing to attack MAWB yet again, so for that act, I think he is a shithead. Normally, I wouldn't say that to someone, I'd just turn the other cheek. But when it happens over and over and over by the same person, well...let's just say that there are several different ways to deal with a bully and I think kcdad bullies people all the time.
That said, I do think he is an intelligent person with interesting thoughts, but it all goes back to treating people with common decency and respect, or the lack thereof. I don't mind what his views are on communism or Christianity - sometimes I'm interested and might inquire - I might question his logic even. The difference between questioning and abusing is in the eye of the beholder. But everyone has a line, CJ's was reached as was mine and others. Me? I'm just having a little fun treating kcdad the way he treats everyone else. If he thinks it's effective on people like MAWB, maybe it will be effective on him?
Sharon, I don't think I'm allowing anyone to define who I am. I am well aware of what I'm doing and why. If you see it differently, that's fine.
Let's look at my attack on MAWB on this thread...
1ST POST)"I'm glad he's gone! He was insulting, degrading and constantly going off on his own personal rants taking readers off topic on practically every thread."
2ND POST) "Don't be a jerk!"
I think that pretty much defined kcdad, but after all, he went after me for saying something as simple as, "My prayers go out to the Dahlquist family."
3RD POST)"He didn't fight fairly. He called people names, he insulted them, etc. etc. And the stuff he said about the Polansky affair was just plain creepy."
4) I finally responded that her prayers were useless... except they made her feel good. "Get off your hypocritical high horse and be real. Either you believe your prayers work wonders or you were just blowing smoke... which is it?"
What was her purpose in saying:"My prayers go out to the Dahlquist family."
5)then Jon and MAWB
$%^&*#
and
"Who's passive/agressive now?"
Does anyone else see the anger coming from their defensiveness directed towards me? It doesn't hurt me, don't get me wrong... what in my post elicited that kind of hysteria? Does getting angry make you feel better?
http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/28441-hell-an-excessive-punishment/page__st__400__start__400
Is this the same Kcdad stirring stuff up on another blog?
Why are you only starting here? You know the whole history. You know, where MAWB simply said "my prayers go out to the family" and then you challenged her integrity and criticized the name she uses. Here, on this post, you criticize her praying again. "YOU PRAY. BFD" and "It is a meaningless platitude that only pumps up your image..."
You sense anger from me? I'm laughing my ass off watching you act like a conceited jackass yet again.
Yes, let's analyze it. Did her initial statement affront you in some way? Do you think your reply pissed her off? Who gives a crap if she wants to pray for someone? And, really, who CARES if she expresses that thought.
Oh, of course, kcdad CARES. He has to teach her that her prayers mean nothing because he says so. And he has to degrade her in order to do it. Yep, that's the difference. Attacking someone for a largely meaningless comment, or attacking someone for treating others like shit.
So, yea, I'm degrading your ass right back, you pompous jerk. Hmm, am I angry with you, or making fun of you?
Speaking of which, I loved that post on your blog from Ahmed Tuhla - and especially your response. I guess you thought that was real. I honestly don't know, but it sure seemed like someone was yanking your chain.
Unlike you apparently, I take people at their word... good or bad, I presume the words people use are intentional, and not just emotional platitudes or twisted manipulations in order to humor oneself.
You can't make fun of me, you can only embarrass yourself. Keep spitting and fuming... you ARE making fun FOR me.
Notice how atheists are just as sensitive when someone questions their beliefs that aren't based on reality...
I'm an equal opportunity critic.
Hmm, if you punch the bully in the nose, he starts being polite and all...
I thought that link MAWB provided was terrific. I noticed how very few people were complaining about your IDEAS - they were mostly complaining about your STYLE and TREATMENT of OTHERS. Why were you kicked off that blog again?
I'd like to take you at your word. Here's one:
kcdad: "Sharon will come around eventually. I know how difficult it must be to realize that a 45 year career really didn’t accomplish much other than make her feel good and provide a good income and retirement for her."
later,
kcdad: "I stated it the way I did originally because I needed to get your attention."
or about Polanksi,
"You might want to learn a little about the “rape” before forming your opinions."
and later,
"The issue isn’t rape"
and finally,
"I pointed the “facts” about the rape because that is what is motivating all this hysteria."
Boy, I'm glad you always know what is motivating people or how to get one's attention. After all, that's what it's all about isn't it? Manipulating us lesser minds to see the "truth" or whatever you think that is?
Thank Goodness for free speech. Thanks Em.
Love ya.
Jon, why would I allow kcdad to define my career or be hurt by or angry about the above "ever-so-old" comment? His judgment wasn't even about me--it was about the system of which I was a part. We never have come to complete agreement about the system--but enough so that I can appreciate his point of view even when I don't share it. Attacking my ideas is not the same as attacking me. I have to be careful on that point, also--because I sometimes forget that not everyone sees it that way (when I disagree with a person's ideas).
Sharon, let me refresh your memory about your initial thoughts when seeing that quote:
"I’m confused–this seems to be a quote and if it is about me, it is a bit of the “most unkindest cut of all”–ettu, Brute–depending on who Brutus is"
and then
"I could be wrong, but I doubt that Kcdad would repeat that comment today"
In any event, it's great that you are not offended by it now or perhaps then. As kcdad said, the point was to get your attention. Apparently so he could "teach" you something.
I always wondered what kcdad was trying to "teach" George after George commented that he lost half his family under communist rule. As 11bravo put it:
"Sharon, plain and simple communism/Communism killed George’s family and KC attempts to “one up him” by talking about how his dad lost his job in some kind of backward attempt to defend communism/Communism."
Again, Sharon, it's not kcdad's views on communism, teacher's unions, Christianity, etc. It's the fact that he feels compelled to treat people like morons - say outlandish and personally insulting things, all so he can get their attention to "teach" them something.
You keep saying you don't recall the original attack on MAWB - here's some more:
MAWB: "KC, why do you question my prayers?..."
kcdad: "I don’t question your prayers, I question your integrity..."
and then:
kcdad: "...Come on MAWB, You used that meaningless platitude to make yourself sound sympathetic … in reality it only made you look pathetic..."
I could go on and on (and already have) with examples from The Peoria Chronicle.
You should check out that link MAWB provided to the ex-Christian blog if you want more examples. They weren't complaining about what he was SAYING, they were complaining about the way he TREATED them.
This isn't anything new. CJ's wasn't the first blog kcdad was banned from.
Jon: Nor will it be the last.
People have tried for centuries to silence those who speak the truth...
Whether it was the prophets, the revolutionaries of our history, Martin Luther King Jr or even me. It seems some people would rather be comfortable watching the shadows on the wall, than see the light outside the cave.
Now before you get all excited, I am not putting my ideas up there with Martin Luther King Jr or compare my courage with his. I am simply stating that I present ideas and questions you would rather not acknowledge exist.
Even if I am kicked off every blog or discussion forum I participate in... since when has the majority opinion ever been the "right" one?
I still haven't seen an explanation as to how MAWB (or anyone's) prayers are in any way helpful to any discussion. I still haven't heard anything that explains WHY anyone would think writing such a thing would be meaningful. You can keep getting upset about how I criticized her but I don't see any discussion of the statment she made.
The big difference between me and you is that you respond from emotion, and I respond from reason.
I am reminded of the story of the two Buddhist monks who come across a woman afraid to cross a stream. Although they had vowed never to touch a woman, one monk carries her across, to the horror of the other. After leaving her on the other side, they continued on their way. The second monk goes on and on about how immoral the first monk was for breaking his vows. The first monk said: Friend I put that woman down 2 miles ago... you, it appears, are still carrying her around with you.
Kc, I do not have to explain my prayers to you. I made a simple statement and for whatever reason, you were so threatened by it that you felt the need to call out my integrity and call me pathetic. You claim to be all about Jesus, but you put down my prayer. Where is God in that?
If you didn't see any discussion of the statement I made, why did you feel the need to discuss it?
I think you are the one that is still carrying me. You couldn't stay away. I thank Jon for coming to my defense. He sees the truth in what you did.
My gut feeling is that you are so miserable that you have to put others down to make yourself feel better, and for whatever reason, you have chosen me. I will not comment to you any longer. I am finding this a bit creepy.
Oh sure, you respond from reason. When I asked you why you called David Jordan an "ass" and an "idiot", you said:
"Jon, I am usually very patient with people who don't see things the same way I do. I tried very hard with David... but his reiteration of Rush's talking points OVER AND OVER is very maddening."
That ex-Christians blog has some great quotes about you. Here's one I found timely:
"Demanding that you audience stop reacting emotionally is pointless because it ain't gonna happen. Do you really think that you are a singular bastion of pure reason and logic on this board?
Get over yourself, you have reacted just as emotionally as everyone else here. if you can't see that then you are the least rational person here."
and later:
"You really need to consider the way you speak, it IS important. When you say things like this you are GOING to make people angry. It has nothing to do with whether or not their world view is cogent or not, they are reacting to your behavior.
I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand this."
and this -
"You poke someone in the eye, you call them losers, you proclaim they are stupid and you are smart and then you wonder why they are angry? And then adding insult to injury you now insinuate you are here to help us see the light like every proselytizing xian who ever visited. You are the one who is deluded here not us."
Wow, Jon. I am impressed. I particularly like how you take people's reactions to my posts rather than the posts them selves... BRILLIANT!
Do you really not understand anything about arguing a point? No one is arguing that some people find me offensive. No one is arguing that I make people uncomfortable... How about addressing the issues and not the reactions of "other" people? (Or by finding other people who react the same way you do it somehow makes yours reaction legitimate?)
MAWB"I made a simple statement"
Maybe so. It was a simple little statement with no meaning behind it like saying 'God bless you' when someone sneezes. I probably should have just ignored it, but in discussions about the senseless death of a young man and grief his family must feel, "God bless you" just doesn't fit.
"You lost your arm in that car accident? I'll pray for you."
FOR WHAT?
Except, of course, your statement was intentional "MY PRAYERS GO OUT TO..." like somehow that is going to make EVERYTHING better. You have the one true God's ear, you have the power and the faith. AND you said it FIRST!
"You claim to be all about Jesus, but you put down my prayer. Where is God in that? "
The Kingdom of God is like The Rich Corporate Executive who stood up in church and announced "I am praying for you. I pray all the time. I even pray for the poor beggar in the street. Thank you God, that I am not like him." He then dropped an envelope with $5 in the offering plate.
Tell me about all the times Jesus talked about prayer, or it is told that he prayed in the Gospels...
now compare that to all the times he did something. Please do not start an argument over the scriptures unless you are ready to continue it. I challenge you to find one time in the scriptures that Jesus prayed about something and then left it at that... that he didn't us the prayer as a preparation for something that was needed to be done. (You know, like a karate student getting ready to break a brick)
The posts themselves are irrelevant. I could agree with your posts entirely - some times I do - but I disagree with the way you treat people to make your point. You must think the way you treat people is OK because you do it again and again. You continue to justify your treatment of MAWB. Of course, you don't want to talk about that the way you treat people. You don't want to talk about the morality of talking down to people. Do you?
You really can't comprehend this, can you? The issue is NOT what you are arguing. It is the WAY you argue it and treat people.
Keep trying to go after MAWB - especially after she told you point blank she does not want to talk to you. No wonder you seemed to argue that the Polanski girl wasn't really raped because there were no bruises, etc.
He said she said. Oh Christ what a bore.
Here is a good working definition of a troll: Someone who bores up a blog and wastes everyone's time.
Make your comment, rebut if you must, then move the Hell on.
Do you think there is anyone who gives a shit about all this except this collection of dumbasses who are pissed off that someone is wrong on the Internet.
Jon, people learn by example. Please be the example. I am almost to the point where I believe you could be called a troll--posting to seek an emotional response from kcdad and from the rest of us. I believe you are calling on us to hate kcdad--I've never in my life been asked to hate another person. Certainly, I believe your goal is to goad him into responding in such a way that he will be kicked off this site. Is that your goal?
Yes, Sharon. You said that before. It didn't work. I'm not calling on you to do anything. If kcdad wants to attack people, I'm going to attack him back. He doesn't seem to care. If he does care, all the better.
However, I think it interesting that you seem to be so upset by this. That you think what I'm doing with kcdad is so wrong that you have to come to his defense, but never saw, or never commented, on what kcdad has done to countless others.
Billy, yes, we know your opinion. This is Em's blog and he stated he doesn't care what people say - "comment all you want". I agree with you - this is a bore. I hope kcdad camps out on your blog now and does to it what he did to CJ's and others, just to see how you would handle it. Maybe he'll just stay here, 'cause Em said he doesn't care.
So, Billy, the real question for you, is once you've got a troll (kcdad, me, whomever) what do you do with it? Judging by your reaction thus far, it looks like you offer it its own room at your house - hoping it stays there and doesn't come too often into your own room?
Me? I really don't know. But, for now, I'm just going to give it a little of its own medicine.
Oh, and while I'm out trolling, I'll try and do it only where trolls are seemingly accepted. Don't worry, Billy, I won't troll around on your site, or CJ's, etc.
Sharon, you seem to be a very nice person and loyal to your friends. There are many different ways to address issues (if one even exists) - some lead by example, some lead an intervention, some lead with their left.
Now, I do often ask myself why I'm doing this. This easy answer is to just claim to defend people like MAWB. The other noble answer is to claim I really see value in what kcdad CAN do but see that he hurts himself, and thus his message, too much by his actions. Maybe I just like sparring with people and/or am killing some time. Maybe I am no better than kcdad, maybe I am no worse?
Defend her? How are you defending her? To defend her you would have to explain why saying (after someone lost a son): "My prayers go out to you" is in anyway generous, thoughtful or helpful.
What you are trying to do is to slay the dragon... there is a difference between offense and defense... ask any football coach.
I am still waiting for that explanation... maybe if I cross my fingers and pray for it...
Now I'm beginning to see why I didn't jump in to defend MAWB on this issue--I didn't regard it as very important or character-damaging. First of all, kcdad--once again--was really attacking an idea. I will concede that he did err in making it personal. As a Christian who believes in prayer, I fully expect many people who do not share my beliefs to laugh at me for believing that I can actually talk to God--but their derision doesn't mitigate the power of prayer or hurt my character. However, kcdad wasn't even (I don't think) scoffing at all prayer. He pointed out something a bit earlier that again makes senses to me--no apology for agreeing yet again. It's so easy just to tell someone you are praying for them without lifting a finger to help the person through a tough time--I understand that distinction and have been guilty of the same kind of "easy" way out, so to speak. But MAWB has more than gotten even for kcdad's comment about her prayer life--in fact, made some speculations that could almost be considered grounds for slander.
Randy, PS--perhaps after my other two responders have a chance to get the last word, maybe it's time to give us another topic (not related to kcdad) to see if we can set this topic aside and have a discussion about a topic of your choice--and maybe cover some new territory away from this very tired subject (to which I have contributed more than my fair share). Is it time for a 150 topic? :)
I might have to retract some of my earlier statements. I said I thought kcdad was an intelligent guy - now I'm doubting that.
Read the following and think real hard:
"You really can't comprehend this, can you? The issue is NOT what you are arguing. It is the WAY you argue it and treat people."
So what did you say to MAWB when questioning prayer? You questioned her integrity. You called her pathetic.
kcdad said "To defend her you would have to explain why saying (after someone lost a son): "My prayers go out to you" is in anyway generous, thoughtful or helpful.
No, here's the analogy: A man says his wife is stupid and beats her. A neighbor steps in to defend her. According to kcdad's logic, the neighbor would have to prove the wife wasn't stupid to defend her.
kcdad, you're making this too easy.
I stopped beating my wife...
This is living proof that some of you people need to spend less time on the computer venting and more time spending it outside doing something more constructive.
The END
Anonymous: (if that's your real name) I thought about what you said but then if we bloggers quit, what would you trolls do all day instead of getting away from your computer and doing something more constructive?
Post a Comment