Wednesday, September 14, 2005

A Hostile Response To PYY Post Examined

On 9-2-05, this author published a piece entitled, It's Bush's Fault. It was a plug to read Danielle Crittenden's recent post on the Huffington Post and (as is usually the case) it included a little commentary, from me.

It seems that a commenter, who calls himself Gene took exception to it.
Here is what he wrote. Now let's break this down a little, shall we?

If you think Danielle Crittenden is "sensible" you need to get whatever it is sloshing around in your skull examined.

What is sloshing around in my brain is 47 years worth of experience, full of worldly experiences, and knowledge accumulated from reading hundreds of books and thousands of articles ( I will match my library with his, anyday). And, not all material was written by conservatives.

I have lived in opposite sides of the earth and have been to 30+ states (living in nine of them), I have seen things that many people will only see, as a picture in a book. I didn't just visit Europe, I lived there. Also, I have worked in local, state, and federal levels of government and have a pretty good understanding of how it ought to work, which often is a stark contrast of how it does work. By the time I was 22, I was responsible for millions of dollars in equipment and 11 personnel that operated it.

She's a talentless hack, the least-funny "humorist" I've ever read, and her attempts to defend her conservative views are feeble. Based on her most recent column about putting Martha Stewart in charge of cleaning up after Karina, she's also an utterly loathesome human being. And a coward, too--they pulled the comments option on that post because people who lost loved ones and their homes to the floods were ripping her head off.

Now we are getting to the meat of the hostility, it really wasn't about me, now was it? Has she hit a nerve with this person before? Has she deflated a weak and feeble argument of his, in the past? Did she spurn his advances? Who knows?

But one thing is certain, the hostility displayed is not healthy. Maybe he should get in touch with his true inner feelings and explore why his bitterness leads him to any random blog that may share some of the same views as his arch-nemesis, Danielle Crittenden (and then attack me for it). I think the psychological term here is, displaced anger.

So you're a conservative. Congratulations, and good luck with that.

Actually, I am more of a moderate than most people that read this blog. If he had read some of my previous postings, he would know that. He picks one post that happens to contain something on a person that is the object of his disdain, and presumes to know me or what I believe in?

He could have at least had the good sense to go back and read the following:

What Is A Centrist?

Here, I describe the different kinds of centrists and describe how I arrive at the conclusions that I do.


Some Thoughts On Some Complex Issues

Here I speak of two issues (in addition to Terry Schiavo), abortion and the death penalty. I also take positions on both that many that read this blog on a regular basis, would consider liberal.


Was An Innocent Man Executed?

More death penalty.


The Truth About Hillary: My Perspective

Here, I actually defend Hillary (kind of).


Televangelist Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Chavez

Here I condemn Pat Robertson.



But if you're going to waste your breath defending the likes of Danielle Crittenden you're in for it.

I wasn't aware I was defending anyone. I thought this was a post that was merely calling attention, to hers. My only crime from your standpoint, was liking what she had written and wanting to share it with my readers. But more importantly, just what the hell am I in for, anyway?


You won't catch me defending Deepak Chopra or Jane Fonda--I know nonsense when I see it.

Sure. (Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge) He has already demonstrated the same nasty temperament. What makes us think that he doesn't assign validity to what they say. If I had the time (or the inclination), I bet I could find him on leftist blogs, singing the wonderful praises of role models like Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, et al. But just so we are all clear, I really don't care who he defends or likes.

But let's just see what Gene's blog looks like.
Mean Gene

Here is what it says under his title banner:


Pittsburgh's most decorated poker blogger, which I admit is like being the best shortstop in Greenland

So there we have it. Gene is a poker expert. And by his own admission, it doesn't mean much. So with all of this in mind, can anyone help me understand how that makes him so much more open minded, than me or my readers? How does that make him any more of an expert on anything in the world, besides poker?

I can't tell you for sure, but here is what I can say with some sense of confidence. He found my site by searching for Ms. Crittenden and the search led him to mine. After seeing that I liked her post, he launched into his characteristically left-wing tirade. So, I guess we can say (for whatever reason) he is obssessed with her.

Some people are just lonely, I guess.

7 comments:

GM Roper said...

When you call a spade a spade, some folks ain't gonna like it.

Gene is one of them folks.

Caoilfhionn said...

Very true. The guy is a maroon. :)

Nice response. I agree with GM; Gene is one of those guys who doesn't like it when what's obvious is pointed out-

I've found that leftists just love to insult people who disagree with them--

Because they don't ever bother with facts.

G_in_AL said...

It should be interesting to see if Gene makes it back for this post.

Well, he did say one thing right, Fonda and others are nonesense. But, I cant say I have an opinion on Danielle, havnt heard/read her much. I will look into this stuff now though.

LA, your not making friends here. cant you just post something like "Sugar is Sweet"? That way we can all agree. Otherwise you MUST be on the RIGHT.

Ogre said...

Indeed, some people do just crave attention. Actually, pretty much anyone who has a blog craves attention...

But some want negative attention...

LA Sunset said...

Thanks folks. All you make very good points. All people that visit are free to disagree with me, they are welcome to post those disagreements. It just burns me up sometimes when those that disagree feel they have to resort to insults and personal attacks.

Gene said...

This was really funny, I enjoyed your reply.

First of all, I apologize for calling you a "conservative". Even William F. Buckley is probably wondering if there are any conservatives left in this country. The age of low taxes and limited government interference in our lives is gone, gone, gone, and accusing you of being a "conservative" is like accusing you of being a "leprauchaun". It's an insult to your intelligence. I withdraw the charge.

Back to Ms. Crittenden. I was in a bit of a rage when I found your blog calling her "sensible", as I'd just read her disgusting column about decorating the flooded-out homes of Katarina victims with wreaths made from empty water-bottles. I posted a comment on her site saying that, perhaps, the families of those who died in those homes might be allowed time to collect their bodies before she started making cheap jokes at their expense. Others made like-minded comments, and rather than pull the column they shut the comments down. Which led me to Technorati, which led me to you.

I maintain that, after having read Ms. Crittenden's posts, you find her "sensible" you at the very least need to have a lie-down with a cold compress on your forehead. She's horrible. If I were a leprauchaun (I'm sorry, conservative) I'd be outraged the the liberal Huffington Post was trotting this 20-watt bulb as their "conservative" voice. Because she isn't funny. She isn't insightful. She's a hack.

In fact, the only part of your reply that got me cheesed off was when you said that my anger was perhaps caused by her "deflating a weak and feeble argument" of mine. First of all, I don't make weak and feeble arguments--I make shrill and hysterical arguments. Second, I could out-argue, out-reason, and out-intellectualize Ms. Crittenden while wearing a pink bunny suit. Read her columns, you'll see I'm not tooting my horn too loud.

When I said that you would be "in for it", I meant that by defending someone as patently silly as Ms. Crittenden you risk making yourself look silly. As silly as I would look trying to justify much of the so-tiresome liberal hysteria you find at the Huffington Post. Again, I'm not going to the barricades to defend Deepak Chopra when he starts arguing that Merlin is responsible for the change in weather patterns.

So far as your comments (and those of your readers) about me personally, I certainly don't qualify to be called "left-wing". I'm a...well, you already took the phrase "centrist". How about a "Common-Sensist"? My blog is about more than poker (which you'd discover if you read it) but I sort of fell into a community of like-minded bloggers and we all started writing about a game we enjoy. I'm no poker expert, God knows. But I've met a number of extremely talented and interesting people through my blog, made friends from all over the world, and I'm certainly not "lonely", which seems an odd accusation to make. I make no apologies for my sort-of hobby.

I take umbrage that you would accuse me of singing the praises of Joe Biden. I ask that you withdraw the charge, which is without merit. Boxer, Kennedy, Dean, they're just a roster of Democratic hobgoblins, designed to get Republican teeth gnashing. So they serve at least that purpose. But the Biden jibe I can't let pass.

The commenter who said some people don't like a spade being called a spade...I have no idea what he was referring to. Doesn't make sense. I don't think it was about poker.

Same with the second commenter. I don't like it when "the obvious" is pointed out? What, that I'm a "maroon"? Nothing was pointed out to me until I read your reply, so how could he know whether I wouldn't have liked it? Maroon, indeed.

I hope "g" doesn't decide to start reading Ms. Crittenden's posts, that would be the exact opposite of what I want. Then again, I'm confident he'd come away holding his nose, so it would only be a waste of his precious time.

I don't think I insulted you too directly...except for the "whatever it is sloshing around inside your skull" crack, which I thought would be more of a zing than a sting. And calling you a conservative, but I've apologized for that already.

This was fun. I forgot about coming back to your blog to see if you replied to my comment, glad I did. Nice to get the vitriol flowing, is it not? I'll have to read the other posts you listed.

LA Sunset said...

Gene,

I honestly didn't believe you would have the guts to come back, but to your credit, you did. I accept your apology at face value.

Know that you are welcome to visit here anytime. Whether you agree with me or not, you are welcome to post comments here. All I ask is that you be courteous in your disagreements. Tear the argument up if you can, but leave the poster out of it. I welcome all points of view, as long as they are genuine.