Tuesday, March 11, 2008

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.

6 comments:

Ti-Guy said...

Fatty Patty will blabber on forever. The fact is that "harm" has only so many actionable manifestations, usually in the form of a direct threat. Wishing someone would die is not a threat. Wishing that some catastrophe befalls someone is not a threat. Threatening and more importanly... attempting to out people publicly and expressing a desire to see them physically assaulted (as Fatty Patty did with you) goes a lot further into the realm of actionable, and he (or someone who's obliged to care about him) should really try to understand that.

Red Tory said...

CC — Aside from anything else, I’m glad to hear that WW is mercifully oblivious to this ridiculous spat that’s endlessly perpetuated by Patsy and that ilk.

Patrick Ross said...

You're simply not all that swift, are you Cynic?

After all, you do keep company with Marty Rayner, so I guess that's a pretty good indication.

Oh, and by the way: pay up.

KEvron said...

"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"

uh... i guess i shoulda checked with cchq first....

KEvron

M@ said...

After all, you do keep company with Marty Rayner, so I guess that's a pretty good indication.

Oo! DOUBLE BURN!

Ouch! Dat's gotta hoit!

By the way, I wonder why there are no comments on Patrick's blog post about this. How very extremely odd. Could it be that no one, anywhere, agrees with him?

Red Tory said...

It's because he's a gutless douchebag and hides behind comment moderation to filter out anything remotely resembling an opposing opinion. The few dissenting comments that do manage to get through he handles like a completely obnoxious prick, so nobody bothers. I mean really... what's the point?

One of these days he'll get a girlfriend (or boyfriend if that's his preference) and a real job and may perhaps grow up a bit. Until then however, he's not worth the time of day.