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.