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

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.

: 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.


Martin B. said...

Aren't you taking this a little too far?

If he's infantile and ignorant, his opinion shouldn't matter. By giving him a voice, you're giving him stage presence and (false) credibility. These types of people are better left in the shadows of their parent's basements.

CC said...

Aren't you taking this a little too far?

I don't think so. Personally, I think what Pete did crosses a pretty well-defined line in the blogosphere: you can go after someone's writing as savagely as you want, but you never try to discredit them by smearing their personal life.

I may write more on this later but I'm interested in what others think.

M@ said...

Well, you live in Waterloo. A farm animal sex enthusiast lives in Waterloo. Therefore you must be a barnyard sex enthusiast!

If this is as good as Rempel's logic gets, you shouldn't need personal attacks to humiliate him.

However, I do agree that Rempel, through this ludicrous inference, has clearly shown his rules of engagement. I have no problem with you playing by those rules.

CC said...

It's even sillier than that since, if it weren't for some of the details, Pete would actually have been right. In a way.

Back here in May, I (along with a gazillion other bloggers) had great fun with this story of conservative activist Neil Horsley admitting he had sex with a mule when he was a teenager.

When I wanted to make a reference to it, I couldn't remember all of the details so I actually Googled (not back in May on something like "conservative sex mule".

So if that ignorant fuckwad Rempel had said something like, "Hey, I found CC searching the Internets for having sex with mules," I would have said, "Yeah, and your point is, you infantile cretin?"

But this innuendo is just idiotic. However, as I explained, it totally changes the ground rules for how one can now deal with Pete, unless he makes amends and fast.

More on this later.

Noel M said...

Funny thing - if you go to the next page of that search, you'll find SDA listed.


CC said...

OK, that's funny. Thanks. Now we know how Kate keeps from getting bored out there on the plains of Saskatchewan.

Shannon said...

I've been reading your journal for awhile (coincidentally I hopped over via a link in WB's journal after commenting to him about being a religious bigot), and I have yet to see you refer to women as 'whores'.

Rempel clearly redefined the exchange by posting lies about you, then suggesting something disgusting.

You have every right to respond in kind.

wonderdog said...

This isn't the first time Rempel has tried something like this.

That's how he earned the title "ambassador of conservative maturity," which he now proudly displays on his blog.

Public Broadcasting News said...


Just wanted to let you know that I've added your blog to the politics blogs section of

as well as the blogroll for politics

CC said...

Ah, and what a delightful introduction those new readers will have. Yeesh.

Dave T. said...

Who's willing to bet that Peter Rempel would never say this kind of stuff directly to a person's face?

Martin B. said...

Didn't Meaghan's husband threaten to pummel his face a while back or something? I would of paid ten devalued Russian Roubles to see that one.

If I recall correctly, he said go ahead, etc, and someone chickened out. Or threatened to sue. Or something.

PR said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
PR said...

But that having been said: If it's your view that people won't interpret it as a joke, I'll gladly delete the post. The point was to be absurd, obviously not to persuade people that you are in fact interested in such things.

Anonymous said...

ha ha ha Pete! We're all rolling on the floor, and enjoying your savvy, sophisticated humour! What's a little barnyard love between friends?
lighten up people, eh? Pete says so! and we all know what he says makes complete sense! From now on, I'm visiting Rempelia Prime when I need a good laugh. Better than an episode of "the office".

Anonymous said...

ok, all this infighting with other bloggers makes you all look juvenille and petty, and it's not what people come to your site to read... politics aside, it's just boring content

Anonymous said...

He probably can (lower the discourse further) why don't you just let him get on with it and see how far he disappears up his own orifice?

Mike said...

He can - if you cruise over to BBG, you'll see that he apparently knows how many guys have "done my momma".

Yes the "ambassador of conservative maturity." How can I compete with such maturity...

Meaghan Walker-Williams said...

For the record, my husband didn't offer to "Pummel" Peter Remple.

It was merely suggested by both of us, that when we get back home to Canada, that we all sit down and have a nice little chat about his position on Aboriginal Rights and his support of KKKate McMillan's "Bring Back The Residential Schools For Indian Kids"

Of course, Peter then whinged around like crybaby that we had said something threatening by asking for the opportunity to meet him face to face and hear him out -- if he actually wanted to repeat some of his comments and accusations in person...

Funny... when the same suggestion was made to KKKate McMillan, that Aboriginal Peoples might want to someday sit down and talk with her about her bizarre proposals for residential schools, and "locking up the indian activists and spokespeople" - She also reacted much like Peter Rempel, and acted as if she had been threatened.

All this proved to me was that these people are essentially cowards. There isn't a single thing I have posted on the net, that I would NOT be willing to say directly to somebody's face if called to do so.

But these people really are nothing but a bunch of loser net-bullies and cowards.

However, after this suggestion was made to Peter Rempel, by myself and family (I even offered to have a couple of my uncles who had been to the residential schools meet with him and talk to him about what happened to them in those places)
-- for the next couple of months afterwards - he and Kate pretty much left me alone.

But now they are back.

As sick, childish and perverse as ever.