Monday, April 04, 2005

Responsilble Blogs and Posting

There is a profound difference between a well run factual Blog and the ramblings of
a delusion marntinet. There are plenty of opinions in Blogs but they should be based
in fact. The poster should stand behind his work and defend it. It is easy to cater to an empty head audience but a good blog has dissent. This is what distiguishes a good blog from that of a hack.

The comedic Recidivist claims I want to silence him and discredit him.I have never advocated silencing anyone. As an American I understand and practice the first amendment. I may disagree with a post but the discredit part comes from his own reactions to critique.He discredits himself by avoiding comments that challenge his
own posts. His readership is also not served by his totalitarian ethos. I have endured far more personal attacks than he has. There is no crying in the Blogosphere
and I have responded to those comments. He cries and then calls me a racist, bigot,
liar, hypocrite and tries to claim censorship. He provides no quotes for these claims
but that is the way he runs his blog all opinion and zero facts. He is now trying to
be a victim of a campaign to discredit him and silence him. How does one silence somebody in the blogosphere ? I suppose I coud list his site on Free Republic and encourage people to voice their concerns. However this would not be ethical and I would not do it . Even that would not silence a blog but it would annoy one.

Here is how a responsible liberal adresses critique. I am a fan of David Horowitz who
has read some posts on this blog. Http://

I asked seven tough but fair questions. The Chemist and a reader Rhetorician rose to
the challenge. No labels ,no crying and great reading.

1 Have you visited the Archives of DTN ?
2 How many Horowitz books have you read ?
3 Would a similar reference to a liberal as a blow up doll in my blog be sexist ?
(That was the toughest question)
4 Does the public have a right to know who is behind ANSWER, Code Pink etc.
5 Are Noam Chomsky and Raimondo above critique ?
6 Does Horowitz have the same right to free speech as you or I .
7 If he percieves a pattern of Anti Israel mania does he have a right to express his

The first response is from the Rhetorician. He affirmed his commitment to free speech for every one with the " possibility of critique ". His concern that Horowitz
and Coulter are creating paranoia. He feels the Student bill of rights is an attempt to silence the left. He does not perceive that liberals are anti- Jew or Israel. He
sees this as an attempt to get Jews to vote Republican

The Chemist gave an excellent response. He has visited DTN and disargees.He has not read any Horowitz books. He is not a fan of PC. The Public should be informed but points out an example of what he terms an unfair attack by DTN on the ACLU. He agrees
that everybody work should be critique. He affirms everyone's right to free speech. He disagrees with me on the anti Israel mania but defers to other posters.

The above comments are the assessment of people I disagree with yet we share common
themes. Everybody has the right of free speech including Michael Moore, Chomsky, Coulter, Horrowitz and you. We have a right to react to those words in an appropriate manner. Those are the key points of difference between a liberal and a leftist radical totalitarian. I like and respect liberals they are my friends and family. I agree with them on several issues and disagree with them on others. We share a common belief on a variety of levels. Speech codes on colleges come from the left and are totalitarian methods of crowd control. Had the Chemist made the blow up
doll remark on some campuses he would have had problems. I also would be first in line to defend him or even the Recidivist if they were silenced.

Richard Poe advised me that if this blog were targeted by Nazis, Communists I would have hard choices . I have had the opportunity to witness this first hand. I am commited as never before to freedom of speech. The extent of the critique 90% you are a bigot, hypocrite,liar,right wing fanatic and trying to discredit and silence muslims and their leftist allies. It would have been nice if they adressed any of my points. The facts are they can not refute the points so they resort to victimhood and censorship. Were Nazis to come here I would use them for comic relief. Speaking
of comic failures Nemesis do stop in. Make a lengthy post and I will be glad to poke fun at your failed sad act. You have the most illucid blog I have encountered.

The Chemist, Rhetorician and the Recidivist demonstrated Horowitz's point in action.
The Chemist and Rhetorician played the role of responsible accademics. They were challenged we agree on some points disagree on others. This is what responsible conservatives and liberals do . No labels everyone makes their point and nobody is vilified. Sadly, the self righteous and condescending tones are what Israel supporters ,Jews and Conservatives face each day. The radicals bully and attempt to smear and question the motives of the challengers.

In a future post I will have to adress free speech and the workplace. This is at the
core of the accademic Bill of rights. I will also have to adress education vs indoctrintion. The problem is professionalism and we need it in the blogospere as well.


viper85 said...

If blog should be based on facts, wouldn't it behove you to base yours on fact rathr than lies and damn lies?

When did you ever provide a real quote that was edited and twisted to suit your agenda?

You ask how it is possible to silence someone in blogsphere, yet this is exactly what you have accused him of trying to do to you.

All opinion and zero facts is exactly what you blog is. I see plenty of facts on Recidivists blog, but you just don't have the metal to face and debate those facts without falling back on your standard propaganda.

There is no weapon being used against you that you haven't already chosen to use for yourself; for you to complain about that makes you a hypocrite and a coward.

viper85 said...

Nor I dare say have you ever asked such questions of Recidivist. You have just levelled accusations which are there for all to see.

Maybe you get the response that you ask for.

Have you ever asked those same question of Recidivist? And if you have, have you ever done it without your usual sneering? I thin you will fond that the answer to both those questions is a very simple and emphatic 'NO'.

viper85 said...

And before you say that I never back up what I say, I would like to point you in the directionof the very long list of accusations that you have made and not backed up. You have ignored most of those and simply moved on to repeat them all again, pretending that your errors have never been pointed out to you.

Again I say coward and hypocrite.

Now bring on the sneering Warren to back you up, Little Man

beakerkin said...


There are pleny of facts on my blog. Try reading it I list my sources and articles. None of those quotes are unfair. I do not think it is possible to sneer across a keyboard. My objections were fair the fact that he has zero
tollerance is self evident.

Were you or Craig ever censored here ?Your attacks were personal
but you were not censored . You were answered patiently and treated with far more respect than I got over there.

How does anyone silence a person in
the blogosphere ? He can bar people
from commenting but that is about it. He can not silence me and I never made that claim. He does far
more to discredit the left than I could . His temper tantrum antics
hurt him more than I could.

The distinction between his behavior the Rhetorician, Chemist and my own is crystal clear.They welcomed the clallenge rose to it and moved on no snide remarks. Note the question on sexism it was answered and we moved ahead.

By the way have you read the PLO charter yet. Start reading the parts that say ARAB unity and Palestinan ARABS. There are no Palestinians just Arabs and they are not indigenous.

Warren said...

You invoked my name! LOL!
Remember this?
Warren: One day you will actually do something other than snipe. When that day comes, someone may pay attention to you.
Well, I'm still waiting for "someone" but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Do you mean "pay attention" in the same manner you troll and insult beakerkin? Please do, go right ahead. I haven't come off second in any of these little exchanges yet!

I know you read my post; you used the words "sneer" and "sneering".

If you're going to use racial slurs, at least use them correctly.

For me, the proper term would be 'filthy savage'. Make sure you use the correct noun after filthy, (i.e. Injun or savage for me, Joo for beakerkin), so that we can tell whom you are addressing.

You may also use the modifier 'hook nose' for beakerkin, or you may vary your attack on me with 'drunken'. But please keep your racial slurs straight!

It makes you look silly when you forget and get them all mixed up!

What I did to recidivist is an art form 'now' known as "Fisking", I started doing it long before that term was adopted.

There is no "sneering" involved. I make fun of you and LMAO at your inane replies. The "sneer" is in your mind and I wouldn't want to be there.