Read this: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=41994
Here is my response:
Mr. Lockyer,
You said (and these are direct quotes!):
"The Germans occupying Paris could have and maybe DID justify their
evils as not contravening Geneva Accord when they tortured and
annihilated Jews and gays and gypsies not wearing the Swastika? Do you
not see where Boortz and Hannity take you and your great nation with
this philosophy?"
"How can free speech America not denounce and remove such a denigration
biased radio program?"
It seems to me you are doing exactly what you are complaining about. I
mean, comparing Boortz to Nazis as you do. That's OK, though, even if I
disagree with you about Neal Boortz, et al, you certainly do have the
right to express your opinion, however poorly. And I have the right to
point out your pitiful failure at the attempt.
First, you compare Boortz to Nazis. That is denigration. Then you use
some sort of convoluted logic to imply that free speech applies only to
speech which isn't biased in some way. Well, to me, comparing someone
to a Nazi is very biased (it is also an overworked and childish
cliché.) You fail your own test. Miserably.
I must question if English is your native language. Note the lack of a
question mark. I did not ask a question. I stated that I had one. Big
difference. In the first sentence of yours that I quoted, you end the
sentence with a question mark. What is your question there?
If English is your first language, your education in it was sorely
deficient. You often end a declarative statement with a question mark.
I quoted only one example of several. You have an odd way of leaving
out necessary punctuation, or perhaps misplacing it, as you also
include improper or unnecessary punctuation. I suspect that you do use
a modern word processor that automatically corrects your spelling
All in all, I could not discern from your November 5 screed exactly
what your point is. There is a brief guide to improving your writing on
my blog. It isn't very hard to find given normal intelligence and the
use of a modern Internet search engine. I am sure there are other, even
better, writing guides as well, elsewhere.
I do know that as soon as I hear someone (like you!) compare someone
else to the Nazis, that person (you, again!) automatically assumes a
state I call emotional chaff. That is, they are spewing illogical
garbage, useless, and bound for the special waste bin that is reserved
for irrational arguments that appeal only to emotion and cannot bear
scrutiny by a rational person. The use of the tactic of personal attack
is a sure sign that the speaker is incapable of forming a lucid
argument, and thus, must resort to such ad hominem attacks. Otherwise,
you would have nothing to say. You do not even come close to proving
this generalization wrong.
I still don't know what point you were trying (and failing so
miserably) to make with this holier-than-thou screed.
Is it that socialized health care is better than our capitalist
system? I will debate you this idea: I do not trust a Doctor that is
not allowed to set his own fee. You will lose such a debate, too.
(You will not even be capable of sticking to the issue. I know your
kind well.) I am very knowledgeable on this subject and plenty of
research exists to support me. Do you want to try? Are you so sure of
your position in support of socialized medicine? Do you remember
Britain's brain drain? Do you remember why it happened?
Is it that you want to prove your ignorance of the essence of free
speech by maligning the first amendment rights of others while using
those rights yourself? This is a common theme among those who wrongly
consider themselves intellectuals, and those, like you, from almighty
Europe, the folks we had to save in two different world wars who now
thumb their noses at us ugly Americans. When are you going to pay back
the debts you still owe us from the rebuilding of your nations twice;
the missiles that shielded you from aggression for decades that were
paid for by the American taxpayers; our liberty ships, our soldiers and
our weapons? Without us, the whole of Europe, including Britain, would
now be speaking German. And you damn well know it. We may have been
too generous in our zeal to spread freedom, a lesson we have probably
learned. Next time, maybe we'll let you lose. How does that strike
you? You sure as hell aren't thankful now for our sacrifices then.
Remember, we fought against the Nazis. You commit an atrocious,
vicious crime when you accuse us of being what we hate. Please leave
the USA now. We despise you and your sniveling, sanctimonious creed of
moral bankruptcy.
Is it that torture should never be used against anyone, even to save
innocent life? Are you saying that we should allow a helpless child to
die in order to protect the rights of a serial child killer? I think
any sane person would condone torture of a criminal sexual deviant to
save the life of an innocent little girl. I would certainly condone
torture if it could prevent the deaths of thousands. One worthless
life vs many productive ones is a pretty simple equation. Remember
that these sociopaths chose their course, and put themselves into the
situation. We aren't doing it because we enjoy it. We do it because
it is the only sane thing that can be done. Frankly, if there is someone
that enjoys inflicting pain and can do so without suffering further
psychological damage, I will hand them the tools.
Or, is it that you don't know what your point is and are just
regurgitating the garbage that you read yesterday in some third world
propaganda sheet? I too, read them, mostly because I need some humor
in my life. That's how I know whence this garbage originates. But I
don't repeat stupidity and label it knowledge.
Please try to improve your writing skills. And, please refrain from
comparing everyone with whom you disagree to Nazis. The first will make
you understandable. The second may mask your ignorance and
intellectual immaturity, or at least, camouflage it.
Pick one single point and stay with it. You aren't capable of more.
Twisting the issues of health care, terrorism, the UN and its corrupt
(oops, I meant charitable) UNICEF, talk radio, the first amendment, and
torture into a single, confused and confusing, rant shows only that an
undisciplined mind is capable of being heard, it does not show that
it's inane ramblings are worth hearing.
I hope you drive better than you write, since we both live in Florida.
(signed)
conhed
***************
Here is his oh so predictable reply:
Dave
PatrickLockyer@aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 11/5/2007 12:49:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> >
> > You said (and these are direct quotes!):
> >
> > total brain snob....barf....
> >
> >
> >
******************
And here is mine:
Another ad hominem argument. I expected no less.
However, I will interpret it my way. Yes, I am smart. And arrogant.
Thank you for the compliments. I'm pleased that you noticed. I hadn't
expected that.
It is so sad that you ate something that disagreed so violently with
you. You have my sympathy. I bet you didn't expect that!
Respectfully.
(signed)
conhed
Here is my response:
Mr. Lockyer,
You said (and these are direct quotes!):
"The Germans occupying Paris could have and maybe DID justify their
evils as not contravening Geneva Accord when they tortured and
annihilated Jews and gays and gypsies not wearing the Swastika? Do you
not see where Boortz and Hannity take you and your great nation with
this philosophy?"
"How can free speech America not denounce and remove such a denigration
biased radio program?"
It seems to me you are doing exactly what you are complaining about. I
mean, comparing Boortz to Nazis as you do. That's OK, though, even if I
disagree with you about Neal Boortz, et al, you certainly do have the
right to express your opinion, however poorly. And I have the right to
point out your pitiful failure at the attempt.
First, you compare Boortz to Nazis. That is denigration. Then you use
some sort of convoluted logic to imply that free speech applies only to
speech which isn't biased in some way. Well, to me, comparing someone
to a Nazi is very biased (it is also an overworked and childish
cliché.) You fail your own test. Miserably.
I must question if English is your native language. Note the lack of a
question mark. I did not ask a question. I stated that I had one. Big
difference. In the first sentence of yours that I quoted, you end the
sentence with a question mark. What is your question there?
If English is your first language, your education in it was sorely
deficient. You often end a declarative statement with a question mark.
I quoted only one example of several. You have an odd way of leaving
out necessary punctuation, or perhaps misplacing it, as you also
include improper or unnecessary punctuation. I suspect that you do use
a modern word processor that automatically corrects your spelling
All in all, I could not discern from your November 5 screed exactly
what your point is. There is a brief guide to improving your writing on
my blog. It isn't very hard to find given normal intelligence and the
use of a modern Internet search engine. I am sure there are other, even
better, writing guides as well, elsewhere.
I do know that as soon as I hear someone (like you!) compare someone
else to the Nazis, that person (you, again!) automatically assumes a
state I call emotional chaff. That is, they are spewing illogical
garbage, useless, and bound for the special waste bin that is reserved
for irrational arguments that appeal only to emotion and cannot bear
scrutiny by a rational person. The use of the tactic of personal attack
is a sure sign that the speaker is incapable of forming a lucid
argument, and thus, must resort to such ad hominem attacks. Otherwise,
you would have nothing to say. You do not even come close to proving
this generalization wrong.
I still don't know what point you were trying (and failing so
miserably) to make with this holier-than-thou screed.
Is it that socialized health care is better than our capitalist
system? I will debate you this idea: I do not trust a Doctor that is
not allowed to set his own fee. You will lose such a debate, too.
(You will not even be capable of sticking to the issue. I know your
kind well.) I am very knowledgeable on this subject and plenty of
research exists to support me. Do you want to try? Are you so sure of
your position in support of socialized medicine? Do you remember
Britain's brain drain? Do you remember why it happened?
Is it that you want to prove your ignorance of the essence of free
speech by maligning the first amendment rights of others while using
those rights yourself? This is a common theme among those who wrongly
consider themselves intellectuals, and those, like you, from almighty
Europe, the folks we had to save in two different world wars who now
thumb their noses at us ugly Americans. When are you going to pay back
the debts you still owe us from the rebuilding of your nations twice;
the missiles that shielded you from aggression for decades that were
paid for by the American taxpayers; our liberty ships, our soldiers and
our weapons? Without us, the whole of Europe, including Britain, would
now be speaking German. And you damn well know it. We may have been
too generous in our zeal to spread freedom, a lesson we have probably
learned. Next time, maybe we'll let you lose. How does that strike
you? You sure as hell aren't thankful now for our sacrifices then.
Remember, we fought against the Nazis. You commit an atrocious,
vicious crime when you accuse us of being what we hate. Please leave
the USA now. We despise you and your sniveling, sanctimonious creed of
moral bankruptcy.
Is it that torture should never be used against anyone, even to save
innocent life? Are you saying that we should allow a helpless child to
die in order to protect the rights of a serial child killer? I think
any sane person would condone torture of a criminal sexual deviant to
save the life of an innocent little girl. I would certainly condone
torture if it could prevent the deaths of thousands. One worthless
life vs many productive ones is a pretty simple equation. Remember
that these sociopaths chose their course, and put themselves into the
situation. We aren't doing it because we enjoy it. We do it because
it is the only sane thing that can be done. Frankly, if there is someone
that enjoys inflicting pain and can do so without suffering further
psychological damage, I will hand them the tools.
Or, is it that you don't know what your point is and are just
regurgitating the garbage that you read yesterday in some third world
propaganda sheet? I too, read them, mostly because I need some humor
in my life. That's how I know whence this garbage originates. But I
don't repeat stupidity and label it knowledge.
Please try to improve your writing skills. And, please refrain from
comparing everyone with whom you disagree to Nazis. The first will make
you understandable. The second may mask your ignorance and
intellectual immaturity, or at least, camouflage it.
Pick one single point and stay with it. You aren't capable of more.
Twisting the issues of health care, terrorism, the UN and its corrupt
(oops, I meant charitable) UNICEF, talk radio, the first amendment, and
torture into a single, confused and confusing, rant shows only that an
undisciplined mind is capable of being heard, it does not show that
it's inane ramblings are worth hearing.
I hope you drive better than you write, since we both live in Florida.
(signed)
conhed
***************
Here is his oh so predictable reply:
Dave
PatrickLockyer@aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 11/5/2007 12:49:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> >
> > You said (and these are direct quotes!):
> >
> > total brain snob....barf....
> >
> >
> >
******************
And here is mine:
Another ad hominem argument. I expected no less.
However, I will interpret it my way. Yes, I am smart. And arrogant.
Thank you for the compliments. I'm pleased that you noticed. I hadn't
expected that.
It is so sad that you ate something that disagreed so violently with
you. You have my sympathy. I bet you didn't expect that!
Respectfully.
(signed)
conhed
Powered by ScribeFire.
No comments:
Post a Comment