Thursday, November 03, 2005
Gosh, Pete, think you can lower the discourse any further?
(UPDATE: The relevant article over at Dumbfuck Prime that suggested I was surfing the Internets for livestock-related sex acts was, not surprisingly, deleted by Pete after the shit hit the fan. Apparently, it was just one of those Ann Coulter "Yes, it was incredibly tasteless and offensive but I was just joking" moments.)
Well, now we know what happens when you call Pete Rempel on his bullshit: he gets personal.
That's really clever, Pete. I'm still waiting for a retraction for your claim that I referred to women as "whores," and your response is this? What next? Teenage mule fucking? Oh, wait, that's already been done.
For the record, I'm pretty sure I wasn't surfing the Internets this week for links to carnal relations with livestock and, besides, given that I'm a Linux man, I wouldn't be caught comatose using search.msn.com.
Ah, but what's a sleazy smear job between ideological combatants? Nice job, Pete. Way to set the standard for intellectual discourse. I guess I shouldn't be expecting that retraction or apology any time soon.
DEEP THOUGHTS ON PANDORA'S BOX: I don't think Pete really appreciates what he's just done here so I'm going to explain it to him.
Not surprisingly, I don't much care for Pete, particularly in light of his previous accusation against me that he refuses to either substantiate or retract. I think Pete is an infantile, dishonest dickwad, and I'm not scared to say that.
But (and make sure you understand this next part) all of my criticism of Pete has been based solely on his public writings, either at his blog, other blogs or comments on other peoples' sites, and that's always seemed like a good rule to me -- you can be as vicious as you want as long as you restrict your scorn and derision to what is out there in the public domain.
What Pete's done here is nothing short of dangerous -- with that post above, he's now made it clear that he's prepared to engage in personal attacks against his critics. That takes discourse here in the blogosphere to a whole new low -- a low in which Pete's position is that, if you can't win an argument fairly, you can dig around and either post embarrassing personal material about someone or, failing that, just make it up.
So, just for the record, Pete, I want to make really sure that this is what you want. I want to make really sure that you now consider personal attacks on other bloggers fair game so that, if I felt like it, I could invite my readers who know anything about you to send it to me so I can do my best to humiliate you based on information about your personal life. And if those readers just happen to make that stuff up, well, hey, life's tough.
So, Pete, that's the question that's out there on the table. Is this what you want? That everyone's personal life is now fair game when it comes to discourse in the blogosphere? It's a simple yes or no question, and I'd think really hard before you give an answer. The implications might be a bit more serious than you think.