Many of our loyal readers and commenters have emailed Dan asking why we put up with trolls like Tano, gillie, ian, raj (presuming it isn’t just the same person)? Why not moderate or ban altogether these vile, unproductive pieces of human filth that infect dialogue like a cancer destroys healthy cells?
The answer, which Dan repeatedly reminds me, is that in order to know there IS a cancer — you must see it first. Tano in her comments, for example, perfectly illustrates and reinforces our points here at GayPatriot. She doesn’t listen, she doesn’t debate, she doesn’t have facts on her side, and she doesn’t express any of the elements of patriotism that were part of the founding of this great Republic.
She is a liberal lickspittle for re-spewing the talking points generated from the elitist copy machines at MoveOn.org and the DNC. The Powers-That-Be, one might say. She is just a goose-stepping foot soldier. One can only feel sympathy for such a creature. I’m sure there are many others like her in Michigan and across the USA. Our job is to combat these lies and historic revisionism at every opportunity.
So we will continue to show our cancer for all to see because in this great democracy, we need to know where the ignorance is in order to combat it with the truth.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Many of our loyal readers and commenters have emailed Dan asking why we put up with trolls like Tano, gillie, ian, raj (presuming it isn’t just the same person)?
I saw the same accusation levelled at myself and Lao over at Moonbattery, and I commented that someone with admin access to the site (i.e. anyone able to ban users) would be able to tell sockpuppets from actual users by taking a look at their IP addresses. Proxies and Tor are of course possibilities, but they can be eliminated quickly enough to figure out who the real users are.
By the fact that you’ve not banned any of the above, I would assume your accusation is baseless, otherwise you’d ban the sockpuppets and probably the user in question for their unscrupulous acts.
Why not moderate or ban altogether these vile, unproductive pieces of human filth that infect dialogue like a cancer destroys healthy cells?
Liberal-I mean conservative censorship! :-p
I do like an open debate though. One thing I have suddenly realized upon reading this blog is that I’ve assumed for years that gays would be on my side with issues outside of gay rights, such as healthcare and foreign policy. For years, this has been what has actually happened for the most part.
But then I read this, and realize that I’ve been working towards eroding this partnership myself. Sure, there will always be gay people on my side, but once gay rights become the consensus between the mainstream left and right of politics, then there’s no reason for gays to align with the left-wing at all, and some that did just to get their rights recognized will gravitate towards their natural allies on other issues on the right.
It’s something I’ve been referring to as “post-gay politics” in my head, where gay rights is no longer a rallying cry and political battles must be fought without it. That would make my work somewhat harder, but I think gay rights has been a distraction to begin with, so I look forward to the day.
I am new to this blog, and still getting used to it. Screen names are just screen names at this point – I have not seen them enough to recognize the personalities behind most of them. To me, a blog should be a place where your mind is engaged; if all you see are opinions that reinforce your own opinions, what good is the blog doing you, unless you are so vain that you believe every piece of what you know is the truth, and there is no truth in the world that you don’t know yet.
Some of the participants here with whose opinions the moderators would most clearly and often agree, may well turn out to be least civil. You should be careful not to confuse “writer who simply won’t agree with me” with “reprehensible person who ought not belong to this site.” And as far as “spewing talking points” is concerned, I’ve seen that from all points of the political compass on this blog.
Our common goal should be rational discourse aimed at getting closer and closer to the truth (with the usual caveats that pure truth is unknowable, etc., etc.). You don’t get that experience sitting in the choir, hearing the same voices sing the same songs. Some people like that. Sounds like hell to me.
I wrote about the something similar on my little blog the other day. Personally, I like getting into discussions, or arguments, with the other side. That is part of the fun with the political side of the Internet. When I first looked for a chat board on politics in the early 2000’s, I looked for one with both sides.
While I may not comment a lot here at Gay Patriot, it seems that Tanto is always showing up in the comments, so, I do not see her as a troll. Sure, some comments might be inflammatory, but, then, maybe our right side comments might seem the same to Tanto. To me, a true troll is someone who constantly does a hit and run with no intention of leaving a meaningful comment, just pure inflammatory.
Haven’t we all left comments at a site that we never got back to to see if there is a response? I know I have.
My vote, if I get one (not really, y’all pay for this site) is to let most comments be. Tanto interacts. That’s not troll behavior. Plus, maybe we can teach her something 😀
What I love about this post is that it will trick Tano into thinking he/she/it is important. And hence, will keep Tano coming back for our amusement.
Phil: you say you are new. Try arguing something with Tano. You should quickly find, as Bruce put it, that:
Thus invalidating rational discourse. Tano is here for our collective amusement.
Evidently someone does not know what “censorship” is. Kicking an idiot out of your own house, is not censorship. The idiot has not been censored; they can always found a blog of their own and say what they want.
(To be clear: I have NOT ever “emailed… asking [to] moderate or ban” Tano.)
Very interesting! No comment from her.
Those of us who are of a certain age – who grew up in a time when communication was so much slower – when, if you wanted to respond to some published words, you had to dig out some paper and a typewriter and an envelope, and mail in your response to some distant address – I think many of us have noticed a real change in the quality of discourse – we’ve noticed how some cognitive faculties seem eroded, to the point of being lost.
Take this (soon to be iconic, I suspect) post from Bruce. Do any of you even notice the sharp disconnect between the content of the charges against me, and the style of the post itself? In the course of a few sentences, he launches sixteen insults at me, of the most vile nature, while the substance of his charge seems to be that I fail to engage in sincere rational discourse.
One might think that if you were to criticize the quality of someone’s discourse, you might feel the urge to make the criticism itself into a model of thoughtful discourse, just to sort of make clear how high you would like to see the bar set. But that would take a certain amount of thought, of self-reflection. And that seems to be the quality that is so missing, in so many places these days. Is it just the pace of the blogosphere – where disseminating the meme of the moment is the only thing, and so one spends one’s life skating on the surface of things, never taking a moment to reflect on what one puts out there?
Bruce might have, with this comment, taken things to their absurd extreme, but we see this everyday to some extent. Just yesterday, Dan did one of his Reagan adoration pieces and wrote of how “demonization of prominent Republicans is what the left does” – and he made it sound like he disapproves of that, that it was meant as a criticism. Somehow being totally oblivious, I guess, to the fact that he and his community here do the exact same thing to prominent Democrats (and not prominent at all Democrats) on a daily basis. It is your stock-in-trade here, just as the mirror opposite is on the other side.
For the record, I have never called anyone on this site an unproductive piece of human filth, nor a cancer, nor a troll, nor a lickspittle, nor a goose-stepper, nor a creature. What I have done, and I am sure that all regular readers know this to be true, is to write comments that are often quite long, that often try, as best i can, to engage the specific points raised by commenter who address me, or to the original post.
I am a liberal, so liberal views are what you are going to get from me. To call them ‘talking points’ is nothing but a rather lame attempt to avoid dealing with my points, pretending that somehow the very fact that other liberals hold similar views is reason enough for dismissing the argument without actually thinking about it, or formulating a response.
I invite anyone who is interested in checking up on the integrity of Bruce’s post to go back and actually scan through the record of my comments. Most of you, of course, don’t need to do that since you see my comments most every day. All you need is a moment of honest reflection. With that, you will no doubt be forced to admit that my comments are infinitly more civil and thoughtful than the comments directed at me.
Every single day on this site there are people who post long strings of vile insults at me, of the type Bruce does in this post, and I never respond in kind. A few commenters seem to never post anything here except insults directed at me. Others seem incapable of ever making any substantive point unless they preface it with a string of insults. And then others will, like Bruce here, suddenly, out of the blue, launch into a mindless rant of bile-spewing hate directed at me, for no apparent reason at all.
So, in the end, it just makes me feel kind of sad for Bruce to see him write something like this. I won’t pretend that I like Bruce, and if this post is any insight into his character, he may not be a very honorable man. But I do appreciate the fact that he runs a site like this, and that he puts his views out there for the world to see and form opinions about. I don’t take his criticisms personally – they are so far over-the-top and so vile that they obviously speak more to what is in his soul than what he sees before his eyes. In fact, that reminds me of a general rule for public discourse that so many folks here seem to forget – that when you write something about another person, you are always telling the world far more about yourself than about that other person. Others will, quite rightly, form their own opinions about the other person – they read you to find out what kind of person you are.
With that in mind, I am content to let Bruce’s words stand for what they are – an insight he has granted all of us into what lies in his soul – of what kind of a man he is. And I am content to let my words stand for me, as well.
The best definition of censorship I could find was: “The suppression or proscription of speech or writing that is deemed obscene, indecent, or unduly controversial”, which is what was being advocated here. You think the writings of certain people fall into one or more of the above categories, and you want it removed.
I won’t argue against the writers of this blog having the right to censor the speech of anyone who posts on it, as posting here is right not a privilege. But it’s still censorship, and I’m sure the people who asked for posters to be banned think ‘liberal censorship’ is a big problem. It would be rather hypocritical to criticize liberals for wanting to silence their opponents, then turn around and try and silence your own opponents.
The only modification I’d suggest is to add the poster’s handle at the beginning of a comment – so I don’t have to waste time even considering Tano’s points. . . She can run on, and on, and on, and on. . .
No no no. Don’t shoo away one of the few liberal leftists left who will be true honest and forthright. We used to get 6 or 8 liberals in here who would defend Obama and liberalism. Now we are left with one or two. We need to know what the DNC is thinking.
Back when Obama was loved by all the Dems and most of the independents it was easy for lots of liberals to come in here touting talking points. Now tano is one of just a cpl still trying to defend the teleprompter reading President.
I thought when Rasmussen had Obamas poll numbers improving so much after the State of Obama address, that many more followers would pitch in and debate. But poof in less than two weeks Rasmussen shows all the hype and good will from the SoU gone. Back to sad times for the Dems.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Obama had improved to a minus 4 but oops just smoke, reality sunk in a few days later….back to a near record low of minus 17. He can’t fool many people anymore.
Having “discovered” that Tano is a female now puts everything into perspective. However, that being said, I enjoy the effort and the energy she puts into her rebuttals. I also appreciate the lengthy discourse that she puts out on this blog. Unfortunately, the more she writes the more it demonstrates the focus and intent of the left. She is like the Agent to Neo in Matrix. She also enables the other bloggers on this site to sharpen their ideological swords for future interaction with other liberals.
You cherry-picked your definition, yet still got it all wrong.
(1) Who is advocating that that be done to Tano? The whole point of Bruce’s post, and of most of the comments here (including mine) was to do the opposite.
(2) What I said earlier. (Kicking someone out of your personal domain, that you pay good money to maintain as I know Bruce does, is not “suppressing” them.)
(3) Finally, *IF* Tano were ever to be kicked out, it would be, Bruce has now indicated, largely because “She doesn’t listen, she doesn’t debate, she doesn’t have facts on her side”. *NOT* because Tano’s views were deemed unduly “obscene” or “controversial”.
In other words: Tano is doubly not being “censored”. Doubly, because (a) he/she/it isn’t being kicked out, and (b) even if he/she/it were, it still could not reasonably or justly be considered “censorship”.
…except that nobody is silencing anybody here. And even if Tano were kicked out, that would still be true; Tano would not have been “silenced”. This is America, after all. Tano has a vast range of avenues and opportunities to practice his/her/its special craft. (of mindlessly re-posting Kos/DU/MoveOn/DNC blast fax releases)
That is true only in the most technical sense. I have seen many many comments from you Tano, where you name-call.
Please: Spare us the martyr-holier-than-thou act. You are guilty of everything you would accuse Bruce of doing, and more.
Fixed it for ya.
Again, fixed it for ya Tano.
I will leave it to NDT and The_Livewire to repost the links to some of your worst and most shameless acts, once they read this thread.
Not that it should matter, but the fact is that Tano is not a female. Given the tone of Bruce’s post, its hard to avoid the conclusion that he thinks that calling me a “she” is somehow yet another insult. Just another example of the type of guy he is, I suppose.
“*IF* Tano were ever to be kicked out, it would be, Bruce has now indicated, largely because “She doesn’t listen, she doesn’t debate, she doesn’t have facts on her side””
Except, of course, I do listen to you guys more than any of you actually listen to me. I debate far far more than 99% of you guys ever do, and the 1% of you who do debate seriously are ususally debating me. Of course, just nodding along with the crowd, or offering up the new and even-sharper drawn insult of Obama or the liberals, is not “debating”.
As for having the facts on one’s side – the very notion that anyone here (that includes me) can be anything close to an objective judge of who has the better fact-based argument, when we are the ones engaged in the argument – is just laughable. For what its worth, I think I have the facts on my side in every argument I have here. If I felt the facts were against my position, I would change my mind. No doubt you guys feel the same way. That is why it is an ongoing argument.
To claim that you have the facts on your side simply because you find SOME facts to support your position (while ignoring or downplaying those that argue against your position) is as silly as all the constant chest-beating and triumphal cries of “I won the argument” that we hear constantly around here. Who do you guys think you are kidding? An award of victory in a debate is completely meaningless unless awarded by a truly dispassionate, uncommitted outsider – i.e. no one here.
Speaking of the quality of discourse being eroded and cognitive faculties being lost, could we call a moratorium on the practice of simply copying and pasting a comment, substituting a few words of your own, and then writing the obnoxious little taunt – “fixed it for ya”?
Its a pretty good rule – if you can’t formulate your idea into a coherent sentence of its own, it probably is better left unsaid.
Why would you want to ban Tano, et al?
Without opposing views (talking points or not), it’s just an echo chamber. As long as the posts have some substance, I say they should be welcomed (and gillie provides comic relief from time to time).
This isn’t a liberal website after all and we’re not in Canada.
Then, Tano, since practically none of the thoughts you post here are ever your own, you should have nothing to say in this place.
But are you going to shut down my telling the truth about you? (telling it at my convenience of course; when I happen to be around and feel like it) – No. Think again.
“since practically none of the thoughts you post here are ever your own”
Hmmm. What exactly do you mean by that ILC? That there are other people in the world who agree with me? I guess that is quite a concession on your part right away. Seriously, though – would my thoughts have more value if I were the only person holding them? Especially when it comes to political ideas, isn’t that usually the opposite of what makes an idea valuable?
Or are you trying to say something else? That in the course of what many here consider to be over-long, blowhardy comments, that somehow the ideas expressed are not coming out of my fingertips, but through some strange other medium?
As opposed to what you write – which is what? Explain please how your thoughts are fundamentally of a different nature than mine as it relates to their origin.
“my telling the truth about you’
Hmm – like where you write: “What I.. have *NOT*done, … is to write comments that… try…, to engage the specific points raised by commenter who address me”
How can you write that? Only two days ago, you and I had a back-and-forth in which I address, very specifically, your bizarre notion that Sec. Gates and Adm. Mullen were actually the ones who were driving the DADT recall effort, and that Obama was just tagging along. What point, or what sub-point, or what incidental point, did you make that I did not address? The fact that I offered a very different opinion does not mean I failed to address your point. The fact that you might not have been convinced by my points (or maybe you were), does not mean I failed to address them.
It may be true that in my original comment in any particular thread, I focus on just one aspect of the original post – the aspect I find problematical. Dan whines about this all the time. But in so doing, I am doing the exact same thing that every other commenter here does – they address the specific issue they feel a need to address. It only seems to be objectionable to people when the comment is critical.
But when it comes to people who actually respond to me – when I choose to respond back I always do my best to get at the specific criticism that they make of me, or to address the specific point that they raise.
So no, I think your statement, besides being in a rude and obnoxious form, is also factually untrue.
No. I mean that your thoughts follow the latest talking points blasted out by the DNC so slavishly that it’s comical. At times you have contradicted what you said only a day earlier – in perfect synch with the evolution of Left talking points. We’ve seen it over and over.
I mean that the talking points you spew rarely actually, logically respond to your opponent’s arguments. Re-spewing your talking points, Tano, is not engagement.
No. You did not address my points. You merely repeated talking points as if I had said nothing.
In rational discourse, that would be true. You, however, consistently FAIL to engage in rational discourse.
Clear?
“No. I mean that your thoughts follow the latest talking points blasted out by the DNC so slavishly that it’s comical.”
Really? Do you read the talking points put out by the DNC? Do they even put out talking points? Could you provide the link? Have you made some study of this?
Personally, I dont think I have ever visited the DNC website. Nor do I hang out at liberal blogs, as should be obvious from the time I spend here.
I find this fascinating, actually. You and Dan, and many others here have this knee-jerk reflex to make charges like this – its really odd. Especially Dan – who unabashedly transmits memes directly from disseminating sites like Instapundit – he does so shamelessly, then turns around and accuses me of transmitting talking points!
Anyway, although I retain the ability to be surprised by you guys, its hard to believe that many people here take this stuff seriously. Maybe even you don’t. Its just another in the seemingly endless string of insults that seem to be what so much of this site is about.
I agree with lots of Democrats on lots of issues. If a particular issue comes to the fore, then there will be a range of responses, and it should not be surprising that some of my views are similar to those of other liberals. Your views are certainly of a kind with many others on the right.
To answer my own question to you – there is no difference between the nature of my thoughts and yours, when it comes to the origin of the ideas. Some are things we have read elsewhere, others are things that occur to us at the moment, others yet are things that we may have thought long and hard about. The only difference between the two of us is that I am willing to grant you the minimal level of respect that is appropriate in a conversation – to grant that you sincerely believe what you write. Whereas for you apparently, nothing can stand in the way of hurling (what you think is) a good insult.
“You, however, consistently FAIL to engage in rational discourse.
Clear?”
Clear in the sense that it is clear what you believe. But I think it is objectively false. I do so more than just about anyone here. Too bad we don’t have an objective audience to vote on this. I’ll just have to hope that in quiet reflective moments, most people here, when not put on the spot publicly , would acknowledge the truth of the matter.
Wait. I’ve lost track is Tano a woman or not?
Best wishes,
-MFS
tano: 1
everyone else: 0
LOL – Tano, I love it when you try to imitate grownup speech. Here’s a hint. When something is “objectively” true (or false), it is not a question of “I think” and “let’s vote”. It simply *is* true (or false). It’s not “I think it is objectively true that 2+2=4; let’s vote on it.” Rather, it’s “2+2=4, no matter what anyone thinks.” That is how objective truth works. In a courtroom situation with a jury, you do have to vote to register a verdict. But even that does not affect the objective truth of the matter, as the jury vote is capable of being wrong, and no amount of voting will ever make an objective untruth into an objective truth or vice versa. You clearly don’t know how objective truth works. Many objective truths have hit you over the head many times in many discussions on this blog, and you have been unable to recognize them. You know that rational people care about objective truth and you want to pretend to be one, so you are throwing around the lingo here. But, having a post-modern Left epistemology (whether you realize it or not), you don’t actually understand or believe in objective truth, so you blow the lingo when you try to use it.
ROFL 🙂
I have to agree with numbers 11 and 12. Obnoxius though he (I think Tano said he is male) is, Tano does keep this from becoming a mutually reinforcing echo chamber, which would do us no good at all.
Even if Tano’s views are copied talking points, misleading half-truths, or ill-conceived drivel, they provide a good example of what we will encounter from the opposition. Tano provides a valuable service by giving us the opportunity to deal with those arguments here. Indeed, I wouldn’t even want Tano to be nicer. Dealing with his snide and condescending attitude is extremely useful practice as well.
ILC,
Sorry to burst your little bubble, but.,..
an objective audience would be able to render a non-biased assessment of whether or not the statement in question is objectively true or false.
This speaks directly to the big problem with the hyperpartisanship that sites like this encourage and nurture. 2+2=whatever the red team needs it to be (we see this on the global warming issue, just for example). Yes, there is an objective answer to that, just like there is an objective answer to the question of whether or not I engage in rational discourse here. Unfortunately, the hyperpartisanship here means very few people would be emotionally capable of giving the true answer if it is contrary to the interests of their team. That is why unbiased observers would be useful – not because they would express a certain opinion, but because they would be capable of handling the truth.
Tano is so easy to rebut, I don’t see why people get so upset by him.
Disagreement is good for us. Challenging our ideas is good for us. And taking snot nosed libs to the woodshed is fun!
boobs: 2
everyone else: no boobs
I do not think Tano is a male. I am convinced she is a female.
But it’s still censorship, and I’m sure the people who asked for posters to be banned think ‘liberal censorship’ is a big problem. It would be rather hypocritical to criticize liberals for wanting to silence their opponents, then turn around and try and silence your own opponents.
Unfortunately for your rant, Serenity, Tano has already demanded that GP and GPW ban people.
I don’t know how they run this place, but it should be a bannable offense to blatently lie about what someone said. An apology and retraction is in order.
And what was then immediately shown was exactly how many blatant lies Tano had already told.
In short, Tano screamed that people who told lies should be banned. Tano has demonstrably lied on multiple occasions. Therefore, GP and GPW would be acting perfectly within the confines of what Tano has already demanded be done.
Go NDT! 🙂
As an aside… Surfing those links leads us eventually to this thread which has a couple classic comments from heliotrope. On fiscal policy and the Leftist canard that government spending somehow helps the economy, heliotrope said:
And, arguing *against* a ban on Tano, heliotrope said:
Heh.
And here’s an excellent example of Tano having no original thoughts and simply repeating talking points it gets from somewhere else.
On November 15, 2009, Tano claimed this about Sarah Palin:
As for Jesus and the dinosaurs, she does believe that – or something equivalent. Its in her book.
There’s only one small problem with that; Going Rogue was released on November 17, 2009 — two days AFTER Tano made this claim.
Therefore, what is more than obvious is that Tano did not, COULD not, have come up with that on its own by reading the book, since a copy of it was not available to the average person when Tano made the claim. Instead, Tano merely repeated a left-wing and Obama Party talking point.
Also, to demonstrate “discourse”, Tano has been repeatedly asked to provide the evidence for this remark. It has failed to do so on every occasion. It has also, despite its demands for corrections, apologies, and banning for everyone else, adamantly refused to follow the same for its own statements, such as this one.
#26 wow boob hasn’t been here since Obamas poll numbers were in the plus range. And health care was still alive.
OH well – it happened again. I let my guard down and actually read a comment by ND30, before I realized it was him.
I suppose, since he is apparently making the same point today that he made months ago – a blatant LIE on his part – I might as well respond – at least just this once.
He LIES about how it is impossible for me to know anything of what was in her book before the publishing date. Is it such a foreign concept to him that books are distributed to media outlets before publication, so that they can be reviewed in a time frame that meshes with the hyped up roll-out? The NY Times did a review of the book on November 14 – the day before I left my comment here, and included a fair number of quotes from the book. LINK
Here is the quote that I remembered reading when I made that comment: “Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.”
As I said – her comment was the equivalent of claiming that humans and dinosaurs lived together – a very standard belief of creationists (any of you guys been to the creation musuem)?
Tano, do you have a ding ding or a hoo hoo?
Here is the quote that I remembered reading when I made that comment: “Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.”
Perhaps you need to be reminded of what you stated the quote was, Tano.
As for Jesus and the dinosaurs, she does believe that – or something equivalent. Its in her book.
As usual, when confronted with your lie, you refuse to acknowledge that you were wrong. Instead, you attacked me, made a ludicrous statement to try to “prove” that you were right, and then attempted to attack Sarah Palin by association with an unrelated museum, something that is obviously false and a demonstration of bad-faith and intellectually-inferior debate to any objective observer.
One might think that if you were to criticize the quality of someone’s discourse, you might feel the urge to make the criticism itself into a model of thoughtful discourse, just to sort of make clear how high you would like to see the bar set. But that would take a certain amount of thought, of self-reflection, and that is obviously lacking from you.
No, ND – your only possible response is to apologize – for blatantly lying about me – how many times has it been? Your claims that I lied about knowing her views before publication day is a lie itself – and it behooves you to admit it and apologize. And promise to not do so again.
I never said she made an explict claim about dinosaurs. I said she said something equivalent to that. And that is exactly correct. It is an affirmation of a creationist view.
When you are done apologizing for this lie, you can then proceed to apologize for the dozens of others that you routinely spread around here – where you play your stupid game of attributing to me views that I never held, but that some random lefty type person does.
Then perhaps you can go on to what would need to be a long series of apologies to all the other readers here – for constantly making false statements not only about me, but about Obama or anyone else that you decided to target. You fill this blog with lies, distortions, and general ugliness. But since you are a rightwinger, I guess you pass the bar that Bruce has in place.
But not mine. You want to engage with me, your first job are the apologies. And some sincere commitment to operating at a higher level.
Tano, your ugliness is unmatched. You just can’t see it.
Good point, and meshing with two points I made:
1) The general lack of rational discourse from Tano (or impossibility of rational conversation with it); and
2) Tano’s holier-than-thou hypocrisy. My example was its using name-calling tactics in many comments; then sniffing (above) that Bruce had called it names.
As for this:
How astoundingly lame.
Just to review, Tano in fact said:
But, in order to escape responsibility for having said that, Tano says “I never said she made an explict claim about dinosaurs. I said she said something equivalent to that” – even though:
1) We can all see the words. We can all see that Tano did say, “As for Jesus and the dinosaurs, she does believe that.” And
2) “I said she said something equivalent to that” – How does that change anything?
Life with Tano! But I have a new theory. I have seen equally brazen, meaningless and artless excuse-making before. Let’s see, where have I seen it? From psychopaths, from small children, and from Barack Obama. My new theory is that Tano defends Obama so much because it identifies with Obama and finds Obama’s brazen, meaningless and artless excuse-making to be an inspiration.
True, and leaves us where we started: “Tano is as Tano does.” With that, I’m signing off from this thread.
When you are done apologizing for this lie, you can then proceed to apologize for the dozens of others that you routinely spread around here – where you play your stupid game of attributing to me views that I never held, but that some random lefty type person does.
But what have you just done, Tano, in your attempt to spin out of your lie about Sarah Palin?
As I said – her comment was the equivalent of claiming that humans and dinosaurs lived together – a very standard belief of creationists (any of you guys been to the creation musuem)?
And:
And that is exactly correct. It is an affirmation of a creationist view.
Again, to a dispassionate observer, the hypocrisy is glaringly obvious; you complain about attributing to you views that you never expressed, but that someone else did — while you attribute views to Sarah Palin that she never expressed, but that someone else did or that you feel are reflective of a general “creationist view”.
Again, Tano, one might think that if you were to criticize the quality of someone’s discourse, you might feel the urge to make the criticism itself into a model of thoughtful discourse, just to sort of make clear how high you would like to see the bar set. But that would take a certain amount of thought, of self-reflection, and that is obviously lacking from you. Since you are unable to self-correct, to realize that what you have stated is not true, you find yourself digging deeper and deeper, ending up attacking people for alleged behavior that it is clear and obvious that you yourself are practicing to any outside observer.
“Tano, your ugliness is unmatched. You just can’t see it.”
Well hello Bruce. Please do me the favor of rereading your original post here. Tell me then, when I have EVER come close to writing something so vile and ugly to anyone here.
“But, in order to escape responsibility for having said that, Tano says “I never said she made an explict claim about dinosaurs.”
But I am making no attempt whatsoever to escape responsibility for having said that! Where do you get this crap from? I am DEFENDING my saying that. What I said was accurate. I accept full responsibility for those words.
I said she believes something equivalent to Jesus hanging out with dinosaurs. Jesus being with dinosaurs is a standard creationist image. Her statement was an explicit rejection of evolution – hence she is a creationist. Hence she believes something equivalent to the dinosaurs story.
Bruce, thank you. I haven’t laughed so much at a takedown since Hitchens took on Vidal. Although in this case it would be more like Hitchens taking down Pee Wee Herman.
I said she believes something equivalent to Jesus hanging out with dinosaurs. Jesus being with dinosaurs is a standard creationist image. Her statement was an explicit rejection of evolution – hence she is a creationist. Hence she believes something equivalent to the dinosaurs story.
I said Tano was a supporter of gays and lesbians sexually exploiting underage children. Dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to a sex fair and insisting that sex with underage children is “common” is a standard behavior among gays and lesbians. Tano insists that it is gay or lesbian. Hence, Tano supports sexually exploiting underage children.
No, that’s what your mom told you so you’d quit crying.
Wow, reading #26, Tano got the fascist vote.
Tano’s also prone to hide from questions she can’t answer.
So Tano, ever going to answer heliptrope’s challenge?
or maybe NDT’s debunking of your health care talking points here?
Or his exposing you as a liar (again) here?
Or here?
Or no rebuttal of this montage of “Tano gets his ass handed to him” here?
Or how about helitropes smacking of you here.
Or maybe heliotrope’s question here