Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Patsy Ross hates Wanda Watkins. Neener neener neener.

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 ...


Ti-Guy said...

Patsy's crazy...bull-goose loony. You get that sense even when he's being less rage-filled in that verbose, rambling style of his writing, which is cobbled together with sophistry. He's nuts.

It's no surprise to me that the wingnuts would stop at nothing to drag uninterested parties into useless discussions in order to cause greater disturbance. That's what they always do.

CC said...

It's not so much he's crazy as he's so blindingly self-destructive. If it was my decision as to whether he'd won the $250 challenge or not, I would have told him he's a moron and he should take an introductory course in logic and critical thinking.

But, in the interest of fairness, I figured it shouldn't be up to me, which is why I proposed getting an impartial third person to pass judgment.

Amazingly, rather than being grateful for that, Patsy goes totally batshit crazy. So fuck 'im, I have better things to do at this point.

Like I said above, movin' on. Life is too short to drink bad wine or argue with ignorant, mullet-headed fuckwits.

James Bow said...

CC, I sent you an e-mail. Check your spam filter.

I'll do it if Patrick Ross sees me as an unbiased observer.

CC said...


You're right, you somehow ended up as Spam, not sure how that happened. But it's a moot point now -- Patsy acted like such a dumb shit about this that I've just yanked the challenge back from him for being such a Twatrick.

But you know what this means, don't you? Twatrick will now and forevermore accuse me of reneging on my challenge, even as I was trying to find someone that would judge it fairly. And, naturally, he'll never mention that part of it because, well, it would just show the world what kind of total Twatrick he is.

Once again, movin' on. Life's too short, etc, etc.

David said...

I just wish his "Blogging with a blue-collar work ethic" included the ethics of honesty and self-awareness. But then again, Werner is on the same Machine Shop blogroll. I did not know that translation was a blue collar trade.

Balbulican said...

Wasn't very aware of this person, but I just made the mistake of trying to explain the difference between addressing someone rhetorically and addressing them personally. He doesn't get it. It was an interesting exchange though - interesting in that his language and mind seem to be as ugly as his blog's layout.

Ti-Guy said...

It's not so much he's crazy...

I beg to differ. I think that's the only issue that's relevant.

I used to think it was simply good old masculine banter and cross-banter, but I've come to realise that Patsy doesn't process language the way the rest of us do and resorts to increasingly fine-grained and meaningless parsing to assert whatever he wants. At best, this demonstrates some communicative disorder. It really hit home with me over at Raphael's blog when he refused to acknowledge that there is no such thing as "pro abortion," instead arguing interminably, and in direct denial of reality around him, that there is.

You do not proceed in a dialogue by referring to the letter of what someone said previously as if it can prove anything meaningful without clarification and refinement...that's just the way communication works. You can only point out inconsistencies and speculate as to motivation. But you can't assert anything with any certainty without additional and better evidence than what you've got.

With Patsy, the longer it goes on, the nuttier it gets. Frankly, I'm thinking about making a 250.00$ donation to a St-Albert's community-based mental health service right now, if one exists.

Gabe said...

I personally think we should mention "Duck Season!" any time a blogger works him/herself into such a conniption that they inevitably shoot themselves in the foot or face.

Not only that they might not get the reference, but it's the best damn analogy I've heard from CC in a loooooong time.

CC said...


Hold that thought, we might be coming back to it shortly.

Red Tory said...

Ti-Guy — To donate to Capital Health (which includes the St. Albert Mental Health Clinic) you can go here.

But more seriously, I think you're onto something with your analysis and the theory that the poor fellow simply doesn't process language effectively, or at least not in the way that most folks do.

His ridiculous hyper-parsing of statements taken entirely out of context in order to “prove” some ludicrous assertion he’s made is a good example of this unfortunate trait. For example, adamantly maintaining that that some off-colour reference to fellatio in the context of political sycophancy as being indicative of “homophobia” simply because it was used pejoratively illustrates a logical syllogism gone completely haywire. Of course, it could also be ascribed to plain old intellectual dishonesty, which is something that Patsy seems notoriously prone to indulging in as well.

He really does seem to have the proverbial “tin ear” when it comes to differentiating between rhetoric, hyperbole and fact. To him, these things all seem to be of a semiotic piece, which clearly they’re not. This too might account for the utterly hopeless confusion that inevitably seems to arise whenever attempting to communicate with this particular individual. I’m not sure if I’d go so far as to suggest he’s “insane” but there are certainly some loose screws there.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Good news, Capital Health states:
"If you would like your donation to be used for a particular item, we will honor your request."

Does Patsy Pantload qualify as an item?

Ti-Guy said...

Of course, it could also be ascribed to plain old intellectual dishonesty, which is something that Patsy seems notoriously prone to indulging in as well.

I really couldn't say. I know it's something that reached insane levels among post-modernists in their zeal to demonstrate that "truth" is a construct...which it is, but not one that's completely independent of evidence.

Patsy thinks the unassailable truth about CC's intentions (if not actual actions) with regard to Wanda Watkins were revealed in that first post and were set in stone for all time. Everything he's believed and written about that since then flows from that.

CC said...

It's not clear how to deal with dingbats like Twatrick. On the one hand, if it suits their purposes, they will parse incredibly pedantically and split the finest hairs to make their point.

On the other hand (and again if it suits their purposes), they'll lump the most dissimilar issues together and claim that they represent exactly the same thing.

In any event, an intellectual discussion is quite out of the question since they have an annoying habit of bouncing back and forth between those two extremes in the space of a single thought, and it's just not worth the trouble to keep up.

Jay said...

I tried to understand how he thought he had won the challenge, I really did. First he says "blah blah blah herself" wouldn't have been emotionally violent (or whatever) and then he says that "blah blah blah yourself" is definitely emotionally violent, therefore he wins.

So if you had just thrown it into the nether it would have never found its target, where when your changed a few letters it ran up and smacked the bitch around with a rotting salmon.

Ummmmmm, I think he knows exactly where an independent judge would throw this one.

What a fuckwit.

Raphael Alexander said...

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.

Of course it would. And cerebral harm as well. You are a parody of an "intellectual discussion", CC. A farcical caricature of thought and reason. Take yourself for what you are. You are worth the price I paid for your opinions.

pretty shaved ape said...

Hey it's Raphael the reasonable bigot Alexander. Now that you've established your position on the high road, tell us again how those feminists have destroyed marriage and those ethnics have wrecked the old neighbourhoods and turned perfectly good, white Canada into an unrecognizable hodge podge of darkies with their funny talk and scary customs. Fuck off Raph. you've got plenty of nerve pointing your smug little finger at anyone.

CC said...

Pay attention, Raphael, you twit, 'cuz I'm going to explain this only once. If you read my post again carefully, you'll notice that whether or not my original post caused WW any mental anguish wasn't the issue.

The issue was that Twatrick believed it would, yet he made it clear that he would dearly love for her to read it some day. Ergo, and by simple logic, he wanted to cause "harm" to WW.

That was my point. Now do you get it? Fuck, what a retard.

Ti-Guy said...

First he says "blah blah blah herself" wouldn't have been emotionally violent (or whatever) and then he says that "blah blah blah yourself"

That should the "shorter" for Patsy from now on: "Blah blah blah I'm right," or "Blah blah blah I win."

KEvron said...

"tell us again how those feminists have destroyed marriage and those ethnics have wrecked the old neighbourhoods and turned perfectly good, white Canada into an unrecognizable hodge podge of darkies with their funny talk and scary customs."

my first encounter with ralphie:

i don't recall the theme of the post at rt's - something about muslims up in arms about some offense to islam - and ralphie's entire comment on the matter was "muslims need to get a sense of humor." now, ignoring the blatantly racist nature of his observation, where in the fuck does that mechanical "centrist" get off on slagging anyone else's sense of humor? ralphie rarely tries his hand at humor, and on the few occasions that he has made the attempt, the results were unremarkable.

yer a stiff, ralphie. and a dumb bigot.

as for twatrick, he's too smart to be deemed stupid (don't let it go to your mulleted head, tawts; even a genius - no, you ain't one - can be mired in his own ignorance). ti-guy's got it right; twatsie is bonkers.


Red Tory said...

I don’t know what to make of this fellow…

Today he’s conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, calling it a “sexual disorder” and comparing it to blindness. You know, not that there’s anything wrong with that.


Ti-Guy said...

I think he's decided to target rabid voles and people who smell their fingers after eating chicken to attract an audience.

Oh, well...tant pis.

Red Tory said...

Rabid voles... LOL. Zing!

Frank Frink said...

...and after all this time Patsy's scribblings still only get a posted comment about, oh, once every other week.

Or are they only posted on the day of the week that doesn't end in 'y'?

KEvron said...

heh. my shitty little blog gets way more action, and i don't even work at it! eat yer heart out, twatsie.


the rev. said...

I think you are according Patsy far too much attention with all this theorizing over how he processes language etc etc. He is what a previous generation would have referred to as a barracks lawyer -- basically someone smart enough to learn to read who therefore thinks he is a genius. Imagine Wiley E. Coyote with an interest in politics instead of poultry. If you wanted to stretch the definitions a tiny bit he could be called insane or in possession of some kind of unique brain chemistry that makes him process language differently or borderline personality with poor impulse control, but the short answer is that Patsy is just a dope, plain and simple - and he is both plain and simple. He iz teh stoooopid. Now can we just ignore his pathetic ass and hope that the lack of attention will lead him to take up a new hobby?

Red Tory said...

I second that emotion.

Please ignore this useless twat. He's a complete waste of everyone's time.