WW, the burning stupid of Patsy Ross, and something you never knew until now.

Once again, one of the Idiot-sphere's stupidest citizens lies to his readership:

Apparently, in the midst of a recent complaint by Canadian Cynic that Raphael Alexander allegedly accused him of wishing harm on Wanda Watkins, intellectual coward extraordinaire forgot one little thing before he raised the alarm of protest.

After all, it isn't as if he hasn't wished harm on people before.

As a matter of fact, he has.

According to Cynic, this was neither OK nor was "not OK". But he argues it isn't relevant.

Oh, dear. Context, Patsy -- it's all about the context. Let's see what I actually wrote, shall we?

Me: "I never wished harm or evil to befall WW."

Really, really, really stupid blogger Patrick Ross: "Oh, sure Marty. [CC] only wished harm on Rachel Marsden. But that's OK, isn't it?"

Um ... it's neither OK nor not OK, Patsy, it's simply not relevant to the discussion [regarding WW], is it?

Yes, that's me, explaining using very short words that, in a discussion of whether I specifically and explicitly wanted bad things to happen to WW, whether or not I ever said anything similar about a totally different person really was neither here nor there.

Not realizing he's making an ass of himself, Patsy bravely soldiers on:

He objects to being accused of wishing harm on another person ...

No, Patsy. One more time -- I have no objection to being accused of that with respect to someone else (especially when I openly admit that I did that); I only object to that accusation in the context of WW. What part of that does your U of Alberta education not allow you to come to terms with? But here's where Patsy Rosshole takes down the goalposts, bundles them onto a flatbed, and transports them across state lines (emphasis in original):

... it's pretty safe to assume that he wished emotional harm on Watkins ...

Ah, there we go. Having ignored the subtle but critical distinctions in the conversation thus far, Patsy now simply redefines the concept of "harm," downgrading it from actual physical harm to just making someone feel bad. But here's the knee-slapping hilarity none of you were aware of until now.

Just recently, I had it on good authority that the object of that original post, WW, was still unaware of my original diatribe. Yes, that's right ... I was informed by someone who is in a position to know that WW is, as of this moment, comfortably ignorant of my original post, which means that it could not possibly be causing her any harm, emotional or otherwise.

What's even more entertaining is that, when I wrote that post, I made no attempt to inflict "emotional harm" on WW in any way. I did not seek her out to discover where she lived so I could rub her face in it; I did not try to learn her phone number so I could call her up and harass her; I did not check if she had a blog so I could leave rude comments on it, and so on. In short, I wrote my piece for my readership (and no one else), I had my say, and I moved on. And that's where the unintentional hilarity begins

If my source is correct, WW wouldn't have learned of my little hissy fit from my blog. Rather (and here's the hilarity), if she ever finds out, it will almost certainly be due to countless, right-wing fuckwits who won't let that piece go, and insist on dragging it up again and again, with the inevitable result that WW will notice it one day, and only because idiots like Patsy (and Neo, of course) are so obsessed with it and can't stop blogging about it.

Is that irony or what, Patsy? If WW ever comes to "emotional harm" due to finally reading my blog post, it will almost certainly be because an obnoxious toad like you keeps flogging it so often that she won't be able to avoid it. Yeah, that's irony. And I hope you appreciate it.