And while we're waiting on James Bow (or, failing that, someone equally acceptable as a non-partisan) to judge the $250 Axis of Douchebaggery challenge, I thought it would be fun to point out how Patsy dislikes Wanda Watkins. I mean, dislikes her intensely, to the point where he wants to hurt her. And how did I come to that conclusion, you ask? I'm so glad you asked. I can prove that in two easy steps.
First, let's recall one of Patsy's fundamental claims -- that it would cause Wanda Watkins "emotional harm" if she were to read my original blog post about her. That's what he's claiming, make no mistake about that (emphasis in original):
[CC] objects to being accused of wishing harm on another person (and writing a post like this it's pretty safe to assume that he wished emotional harm on Watkins), ...
So, are we good here? Do we all accept that it is Patsy's position that reading my original blog post would cause WW "emotional harm?" We're all in agreement on that point, yes? Good. So let us now drop that million-pound shithammer on poor Patsy, as we quote him here:
Frankly, Cynic, I hope Wanda Watkins does some day happen by one of my blog posts and does find out about your shameless, vicious, hateful attack on her.
And do I really need to explain that? Because, with a minimum of muss and fuss, I have established two utterly inarguable points:
- Patsy thinks reading that original post of mine would cause WW "emotional harm" (his own words, remember?), and
- Patsy really, really, really wants WW to read that post (again, his own words).
Ergo, Patsy wants to hurt Wanda Watkins. There is no escaping that logic, it's there in black and white for everyone to see. Patsy will, of course, flail madly disagreeing with this logical analysis, but he will be unable to refute either of those two points or their painfully obvious logical conclusion. But that's not the real lesson here.
It's not so much that Patsy is a heartless hypocrite, although we've known that for months now. No, what's educational about this little incident is how, if you give a retarded wingnut enough rope and enough time, they will eventually get around to arguing with themselves, contradicting their own position. Really, it's like watching Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck arguing about what hunting season it is, and Daffy eventually gets so flustered that he insists that it's duck season, with predictably hilarious results.
And so it goes with poor Patsy, all this time defending Ms. Watkins' honour and her delicate feelings, only to finally lose it, forget what position he was defending and expose himself for the politically opportunistic douche and mean-spirited hack that he is.
And that, kids, is how logic works. Herein endeth the lesson.
GOOD GOD: I go out of my way to try to arrange a fair and non-partisan individual to judge Patsy's submission to the challenge so that the final decision is not tainted by bias and self-interest on my part, and this is what I get in response.
Fair enough, Patsy, I'll take that as a sign that you've withdrawn your submission. Too bad. I'll bet those kids could have used that $250. Next time you chat with them, be sure to mention how your infantile hissy fit cost them. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.
Movin' on ...