Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Doing the Patsy Ross shuffle.


It's always amusing to watch Canada's wankers bob, weave, tap dance and then ultimately claim a thoroughly unjustified rhetorical victory. Let's start here, shall we, where I not only throw out a challenge to Patsy but even predict how he's going to behave (read the whole post to understand what's happening, of course):

P.S. Oh, and Patsy, feel free to compare pushing someone off their car with murdering them in front of their family with a high-powered rifle. Go ahead -- this should be entertaining. I'm not sure there's enough popcorn in town for that show.

P.P.S. Let's watch Patsy try to address that last challenge by changing the subject. You know it's coming.

So, to recap, Patsy has his Werner Patels Underoos all bunched up over the alleged assault of one Ed Snell, at which I (quite reasonably, in my opinion) wonder why Patsy can get so twisted up over something like that while being utterly unconcerned over the violent assaults and numerous murders of abortion providers, something I've never seen him spontaneously address even once.

Which brings us to Patsy's first comment in that thread, where the dodging and weaving is on delightful display:

"Isn't it interesting how some one who moderates comments at his blog loves to show up here and talk smack completely unencumbered? It must be a very freeing sensation for Patrick; no doubt, he feels as giddy as a school girl."

Hmmmmm. That's interesting.

Yeah, I certainly remember how this blog is a bastion of free speech.

At least at my blog only the most insipid (hi, Kevvy!) garbage gets rejected. Now, if only you could say the same...

Whatta bunch of clowns.

Not surprisingly, Patsy completely ignores the actual challenge to whine childishly about blogging and deleting comments and censorship, at which point -- in the very next comment -- I make fun of his childishness thusly:

Wow, Patsy ... your evidence that I'm a ruthless censor is that I once canned your ass for having become a tedious dumbfuck in July of 2007, is that it?

And then you suggest that you censor only "the most insipid garbage?" I'm amazed that your head didn't explode from the pure irony of it all. Seriously.

Now why don't you toddle on home and stop trying to bump up your hit count by blogwhoring here? That's a good little whackjob.

At which point, Patsy unbelievably responds with (emphasis added):

Really, Cynic. Now, I have no doubt that "fuck you and your grief" was one of your proudest moments, but toi lecturing moi about insipid?

Yeah, my head just might explode.

(What a clown.)


As I recall, Cynic, you issued some sort of challenge in this blog post.

I addressed it
.

Now are you going to ante up, or are you going to fold your cards?

In short, Patsy changes the subject entirely, writes absolutely nothing related to my original issue and then -- astonishingly -- claims that he's "addressed" the challenge. Really, does it get any funnier than that? Well, yes, it does:

Surely, Nexus readers will remember Canadian Cynic's recent Ed Snell-related challenge.

It's now been three days since I responded to that challenge. Cynic still has yet to explain how it is he can so callously blame the individual who, in the discussed situation, is clearly the victim.

Ah, so now, in Patsy's world, it's now an established truism that he laid a smackdown on me regarding that earlier challenge, despite his having avoided the topic entirely. Such is the Patsy-flavoured reality we've all come to know and love.

I'm sorry you had to see that. I'll make it up to you with a cool YouTube video later. Really.

15 comments:

Sparky said...

I don't think that Jackass is referring to his comment here, CC.
I think Jackass is referring to his completely inane blog response here--
http://nexusofassholery.blogspot.com/2008/02/you-sure-you-really-want-to-do-this.html
it starts as thus
And so continues the age-old deathmatch between myself and Canadian Cynic...
Yeah--age old deathmatch between Jackass and CC... That's not exactly how I'd put it.
It doesn't get any better after that--the standard moving goalposts, obfuscating and such

Jay said...

Actually, he does condemn the murders committed by anti-choice killers, but stops long before realizing that Ed Snell was perpetrating mental abuse on clients of the women's clinic, clearly inciting the brief moment of violence that led to his injuries.

Lets just say that I take my Prius with a platform on top of it to a cowboy bar in Montana where I continue to use a megaphone to shout that drunken cowboys are nothing but sheep fuckers and are going to hell. When one of those cowboys comes out and kicks the living shit out of me, did I not incite that violence? Would society not immediately take the side of the cowboys that I slandered and attempted to mentally abuse?

As well Patsy seems to not get it that society looks at the Ed Snell's of the world and just waits for someone to beat the living shit out of them. Hopefully also while filming it for America's Funniest Ass Kickings on Fox!

So possibly Patsy should be a little more aware of societal justice and should encourage those that would pull the same Snell Stunt to back off because people can only stand so much verbal abuse before they crack.

Or possibly Patsy is just a fuckwit with her panties so far up her ass that they've been crusted over.

CC said...

jay writes:

"Actually, he does condemn the murders committed by anti-choice killers, ..."

Actually, if you read my post carefully, Jay, I did write that I've never seen Patsy "spontaneously" address the issue of murdering abortion providers.

Sure, folks like Patsy will grudgingly admit that killing doctors is a bad thing, but not until they're forced into it to avoid looking like hypocrites. And even then, it's generally a lukewarm condemnation and only until they can change the subject back again.

One is invited to wait for Patsy to show the same kind of outrage there as he does over a screaming, abusive protestor who makes a 20-year hobby of harassing women and finally provoked the wrong person.

One is counseled to not hold their breath waiting for that to happen.

pretty shaved ape said...

prepare for pattum's to declare his superiority by listing the bylines he's collected as a cub reporter at the school newspaper. smell the credibility. just don't step in it.

Red Tory said...

I really don't know why you waste your time on that one. He's pompous windbag at the best of times and an egregious jackass otherwise.

Adam C said...

Ross is just a troll, and a troll is all he is.

Thanks for the cool YouTube, though...

Patrick Ross said...

So, let me get this straight:

I prove your minimalization of Snell's injuries is counterfactual.

I point out the typical folly of blaming the victim.

I point out the extent of your efforts to minimalize victimhood by portraying the victim as impure (quite an anti-progressive tendency, actually).

And somehow all that qualifies as changing the subject?

I knew you were an intellectual coward, but even this is almost shocking to me.

Almost.

Jay said...

Yes, dumbass, because you never actually answered the challenge put forth.

"feel free to compare pushing someone off their car with murdering them in front of their family with a high-powered rifle. Go ahead -- this should be entertaining. I'm not sure there's enough popcorn in town for that show."

Care to show how you answered that at any point? Care to answer to the fact that Ed incited the violence? Care to actually show a bit of integrity?

KEvron said...

does this mean twatrick won't be making your blogroll?

KEVron

LuLu said...

*yawn*

Shorter Patrick: I'm right because I say I am. So there.

Patrick Ross said...

"Yes, dumbass, because you never actually answered the challenge put forth.

"feel free to compare pushing someone off their car with murdering them in front of their family with a high-powered rifle. Go ahead -- this should be entertaining. I'm not sure there's enough popcorn in town for that show."

Care to show how you answered that at any point? Care to answer to the fact that Ed incited the violence? Care to actually show a bit of integrity?
"

You people are so stupid it's actually comical.

Leads me to believe that you never read the rebuttal at all. Then, you would have taken note of this:

"As I've said, the amount of violence directed at abortion clinics and abortion doctors is entirely unacceptable. I'm even willing to denounce it for what it is -- terrorism.

Why should Cynic be so reluctant to do so when anti-abortion activists are attacked so brazenly, and why the disingenuity he finally does?
"

Not to mention the extremely crass attitude toward Snell's injury ("well, I think he just walked off his platform...").

It seems that some of us need to try and minimalize the injuries inflicted on certain individuals in the course of such altercations, and some of us don't.

Is the point starting to sink in yet, or should I be starting out by teaching you how to read and write?

LuLu said...

Is the point starting to sink in yet, or should I be starting out by teaching you how to read and write?

Don't flatter yourself, Patrick. You have nothing worth teaching to anyone here ... beyond how to argue around, under and through a topic and then declaring yourself the winner.

Patrick Ross said...

Just reading skills, apparently. Just reading skills.

the rev. said...

"And so continues the age-old deathmatch between myself and Canadian Cynic..."

and so the age-old deathmatch between the fish in the barrel and the stick of TNT continues....

Really Pasty, do you not get this? If a peeping tom were to climb a ladder to your daughter's second floor bedroom window and start talking dirty to her and you came into the room and tipped the ladder over, would you really feel bad if the peeping tom broke his back in fall? Would you send him flowers in the hospital?

Patrick Ross said...

Once again, there's a huge difference at play that it seems your facile little minds just can't seem to grasp.

Peeping Tom -- Evidently on my private property.

Ed Snell -- On public property.

Peeping Tom -- Leering at daughter.

Ed Snell -- Expressing his opinion.

See the differences, genius? No? Didn't think so. But that was never the point, was it?


And, frankly, no. I wouldn't push the ladder over. Simple reasoning: he has to come down and face the music some time, and I'd be there to greet him when he does. He sure ain't staying up there forever.