How long will this inconvenient truth remain on “a blog with an open-comment thread”?

No chance of that. I only bet that I’d delete “my blog.” I have a couple of rarely-used back-up blogs no one would miss if I deleted. No one’s gonna miss “Reactionary Parrot” if I delete that.

After all, GCB was only willing to bet his worthless blog. Why would I have put up anything of real value?

I would like to issue a pardon to your bet with GCB who hasn’t exactly played fair himself on this blog or the “shadow blog” he operates.

I’d hate to see “Caption This!” go away due to a sucker punch by a blogbat!

Stay the course, mon!

A post on ad hominem attacks and conservative comment degenerates into “joking” about shooting people with whom you disagree. Nice.

It’s long past time for you to retire the “grampa” crap.

Gryph seems sadly attached to the GP blog, with “issues” he projects some as having, etc.

#71 — Creepy. Fortunately, Gryph hates me viscerally.

Frankly, the world has literally millions of open threads. But I don’t know anywhere to go for good rancor-free debate.

J, you can go to my blog and have all the rancor-free debate you want. Of coarse, you can do that only because hardly anyone reads my blog, so chances are you will be debating yourself:-)

Where is Stephen in all this to-do about ad-hominems??? I seem to recall having several back and forth comment with him about why his constant sabre rattling about someone using ad-hominem attacks against him, ad-nausium, does nothing to further the debate at hand. Hannity does this allot. He’ll have a five minute interview with a liberal on his radio show, spend maybe thirty seconds talking about substance, and then squandering 4 1/2 minutes accusing the guest of making ad-hominem attacks. What a waste of valuable air time. If someone is using an ad-hominem attack on you… who cares! The best way to defeat that attack is to stick to the meat and potatoes of the argument. It may not have the flash and fireworks of the ad-hominem, but if the facts bolster your argument, it’s the best way to get the job done.

PS. Do the host of Air America really think that using the term “druggie” everytime they mention Limbaugh bolsters their argument against him???

What Patrick doesn’t tell you is that he routinely emails after nearly every comment I make here and chides me for my ignorance, partisanship, and flawed logic from his perspective… and then asks once again to meet for coffee. He’s even followed me to other blogs and routinely plays the bigot card or tries to flame me for being
–gasp!–
an unrepentant Republican Catholic gay Bush-supporter.

He doesn’t read comments like a pedophile doesn’t get aroused by child porn. Right. I’ve since stopped responding to him because I think his conduct is as close to stalking as blog-land can get.

I’d say, just shoot him at sunrise and be done with it. I’d miss your comments here if you were to abdicate in the face of a wager with a dishonorable man, irrespective of how you think honor commands your conduct.

Just shoot him, VdaK. And take out Patrick, Ian, QueerPat, raj the insufferable, TimH and the others… oh wait, that’d be a single shot pistol, eh? Then it’s GayCowboyBob by a long shot.

As someone suggested: How do you have a fruitful, civil and irenic exchange of ideas with commentors who, in fact, generally intend the exact opposite? (even consciously – see #57)

Dan, this thread’s seen several interesting suggestions now for how you could change the commenting incentives/culture. I’d enjoy seeing a follow-up post where you consider/answer them.

I can’t remember your bet with GCB, but shouldn’t it have had something to do with DeLay being convicted/guilty? which we haven’t come near?

As for Abramoff – you just answered it – what would DeLay or your bet have to do with that?

Zoe, it’s been more difficult begin conservative in gay circles than being gay in conservative circles

That parallels my own experience. Possibly it’s because the Left is so religiously smug of their own self-righteousness that they can’t see that someone else may differ, and not actually be wholly evil.
Conservatives, being rather less secure in their own convictions, often actually listen to their opponents, and debate the issues, rather than dismissing their opponents as morally bankrupt and unworthy of consideration
Religious Right paleocons do that dismissal trick too of course – but they haven’t hijacked the Right the way the Anti-Rationalists have the Left. And even then, if you start quoting scripture at them in return, they often listen.
We have to remember that most people, no matter how bigotted, homophobic or transphobic, whether left or right, see themselves as morally righteous. Even OBL does, even AH did. Many can be reached – but we must have the courage so that when debate ends, and we really are confronted with evil, or unrepentant moral certainty that serves evil, we don’t just sit on our hands and talk of “moral equivalency”, we do something about it, and stop the genocide.

My honest thought is at the time said bet was made, the Abramoff scandal had not broken yet, and it was limited strictly to Ronnie Earle’s charges against DeLay. However, I think I have an obligation to do the honorable thing and I don’t want to weasel out of anything. What say you all?

Many of my readers wonder why I don’t ban commenters who resort to the ad hominem attacks, but I consider them useful idiots because they make their side look worse and ours better.

That strikes me as almost an ad-hominem in itself. Or a straw man, or something. Permitting pig-ignorant ranters to stand in for the whole viewpoint is at the very least an underhanded tactic. One that has often been used against conservatives!
BTW, please replace your javascript in the comment box, it’s slooooow.