I’ll wait for you to demonstrate some adherence to Dan’s and Bruce’s fair request for commenters here to return to a civil tone.

Like in earlier threads, the proof is in your hands to make, ILC… not mine.

You plead: “MM, there isn’t a comment in this thread, thus far, where I have not used a 100% civil tone.” But then, ILC you can’t fathom that #’s 17 and 20 nail the coffin shut on that proof. You defeat your own shallow claim.

You plead: “…believe that’s 4 attempts to call me an animal” -no, again ILC it’s a rhetorical device to underscore that you keep doing the same thing over and over without effect or a positive constructive gain. You see that as insult; I think V gets to classify his as zingers. Saying you’re an old dawg that can’t learn new tricks is a metaphor. A rhetorical device. You try to project it as an insult? Lame, dude. Lame.

If your thin-skin is so sensitive, I suggest you take some time to reflect SILENTLY about your role in making this blog uncivil and boorish and working to drive people who disagree with you from its confines.

SILENTLY would be the key. Sort of like making a good act of contrition after exiting the confessional… it’s your act of contrition for you to learn from… like the adamant willow bending to the wind. I know you can change and adopt Dan’s and Bruce’s call for a return to civility here.

I know you can.

- You like Scalia.
- You hate soc-cons (as has been shown).
- You linked to an Ayn Rand faction/article that hates soc-cons, *just like you do*… except that they include Scalia as a soc-con, and (slightly in their defense) arguably Scalia may indeed be a soc-con.
- So… why? What was your point [in that], again? [It's not clear at all.]

I’ll wait.

Come on ILC, join me in embracing Dan & Bruce’s call for a more civil tone. Please?

MM, there isn’t a comment in this thread, thus far, where I have not used a 100% civil tone.

Even in brushing aside your insults and incivility, I went for a ‘light touch’, adapting a humorous passage from the PG-rated movie, _Amadeus_. But now let’s summarize / fully expose your tone. From your comments in this thread, to me:

…I think old dawgs rarely change spots, bite, bark or tricks and that adage easily and rightly applies to you…
…Soc-cons, you know, who stayed home on election day in a snit of spiteful arrogance that was disloyal to a Party that carried their fetid water pail for far, far too long….
…So I guess that would make me, according to you, a self-loathing conservative? [ed: a total invention on MM's part]…
…Of course, that’s IF you were really asking a question and not just trying to goad, bait and badger…
…this self-appointed botheration you have with researching anyone who dare contradicts your perch-like position… and then using the research like some God-given prosecutorial powerTripper from the blogosphere? Now that, I wonder, shows good mental health? I think not.
…Old dawg, old spots, same tricks, same bark, same bite. You are incapable of change or honest dialogue….
…Old dawg, old spots, same tricks, same bite and bark. Just long in the tooth now….
…helio, his meds wore off about the time he switched pj’s and entered Day 1,456 in Mom’s basement…

I believe that’s 4 attempts to call me an animal (3 dogs + 1 badger), one paranoid pure invention on your part, an attack on my supposed age, an insult in the form of a deliberate misstatement of my living situation, and 2 insults in the form of deliberate misstatement of my mental health.

How PRODIGIOUSLY civil!

I get that you don’t like being held to account or your opinions criticized. It’s a thin-skinned man who runs to the webmasters and whines about unfair treatment and then gleefully plays games instead of debating or discussing the issues. Others here have noticed the game you play of goading and baiting people, ramping up the spite in all that endless rebuttal nonsense that is your hallmark and then gleefully proclaiming any response to your gamesmanship is “an insult, more invectives, keep them coming, we know you can do better”. You’ve done it to me without cause. You’ve done it to American Elephant without cause. You’ve done it to Ignatius without cause. You’ve done it to… well, the litany is as long as the one I daily pray with all the Saints.

I wish you could engage in honest dialogue and spare all these fantasy moments of you jumping up on your soapbox, addressing an imaginary fan base of adoring fans in the echo chamber and then spreading false incriminations all about the landscape.

Of course, I also wish Obama hadn’t been elected. So I guess I’m guilty of wishful thinking a bit too often for the gritty realist commenters here who only want to preserve the right to bitch, complain and moan… or goad, prod and bait.

Come on ILC, join me in embracing Dan & Bruce’s call for a more civil tone. Please?

But everyone does know that Scrappleface is a parody site, yes?

“News Fairly Unbalanced. We Report. You Decipher.”

That said, I’ve always loved Justice Scalia’s wit, and this would be worthy him.

Of course, now and then… just now and then… it seemed a touch… well, I mean occasionally, it seems to have… oh, how shall one say? ….How shall one say, Direktor? “Too many notes.” Exactly. Very well put. You hit too many notes, MM. My dear fellow. There are, in fact, only so many notes the ear can hear in a course of pathetic insults. I think I’m right in saying that, aren’t I heliotrope? “Yes… Yes… on the whole…”

So, my dear MM, don’t take it too hard. Your work is ingenious! It’s quality work! And, there are simply too many notes, that’s all. Just cut a few, and it’ll be perfect

sacr/off.

Old dawg, old spots, same tricks, same bite and bark. Just long in the tooth now.

And, Michigan-Matt, it seems like only yesterday, you were saying:

Go on without me… you have the final say.

I guess not.

Old dawg, old spots, same tricks, same bite and bark. Just long in the tooth now.

Old dawg, old spots, same tricks, same bark, same bite. You are incapable of change or honest dialogue.

Thanks for proving it once again… I stand with all the others who have had to endure your nonsense and tiresome rebuttals to rebutts whilst standing on that little soapbox addressing your imaginary adoring fans.

Go on without me… when you have the final say and are ignored, you seem to quiet down until you can bait and badger the next target to land in your web. Spin the web; you have the final say.

- You like Scalia.
- You hate soc-cons (as has been shown).
- You linked to an Ayn Rand faction/article that hates soc-cons, *just like you*… except that they include Scalia as a soc-con, and (slightly in their defense) arguably Scalia may indeed be a soc-con.
- So… why? What was your point, again?

Again in fairness, the article you linked is very short and they do not assert or explain their special dislike of religious/social conservatism. The latter is something I know from my knowledge of different factions and styles in Ayn Rand’s movement. If you weren’t familiar with the latter, you might not know of that faction’s special dislike of religion and its use of the word “conservative” in rough correspondence with what we would call religious or social conservatives.