Thursday, July 19, 2007

If they had half a brain between them ...

First, there's one Raphael Alexander:

Erl, first off it's clear CC is a comment whore who would rag on his dead great grandmother if it meant getting hits.

Then there's the clinically deranged, Canadian whackjob and self-appointed avenging angel Joanne:

The remarks in this post aimed at a woman who lost her son in Afghanistan are just sick. I just wonder if a blogburst against his post might feed his warped little ego though.

That's it, kids ... there's nothing I want more than attention and hits, so a well-organized blogburst should teach me a lesson.

Honestly, stuffing them in a sack and holding them underwater until the bubbles stop would be a mercy.

TI-GUY HAS A POINT ... despite Raphael Alexander's current silliness, I'd recommend you stopping by and giving his blog a read. Unlike the typical crop of Blogging Tories, Mr. Alexander has some talent. Credit where credit is due and all that.


Ti-Guy said...

Is Joanne the "Tracy Flick" of the Canadian blogosphere?

Red Tory calls her one of "the bellicose pepperpots of the Batley Townswomen’s Guild," but I think that gives her a Pythonesque sensibility she doesn't deserve.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I predicted that she'd be invoking her fearsome "blogburst'.....
What next? She'll ask baby Jesus to put a hex on you?

Ti-Guy said...

I think her giggling and twirling her skirts around young boys on the Internet is becoming rather unseemly. Is Mr. True Blue aware of what she's doing on the Internet?

Zorpheous said...

Over at the Amzing Mr. Erl's Place,...

"The outpouring of support is overwhelming. I would love to thank my readers and all those who just dropped by to see what was going on. I received over 1000 hits in these past few days. Amazing."

You know the phrase SOS comes to mind. And he complains that there was no debate? He still doesn't even understand the issue.

Oh to be young and know it all like the Amazing Mr. Erl.

Patrick Ross said...

I think Erl understands the issue just fine.

Here's an interesting take on the issue: you condemn the Blogging Tories treatment of Cindy Sheehan. Now, the fact that I would agree with that aside:

You attacked Wanda Watkins. What makes you different? You condemn their treatment of Cindy Sheehan despite the fact that you treated Wanda Watkins in the same way.

Cynic, many of us are wondering: what is it that you think is the difference between you and the Blogging Tories you so obsessively criticize? Given that you admit there's no difference between their treatment of Sheehan and your treatment of Watkins, wouldn't you agree this makes you a hypocrite?

I won't even ask you about cowardice or self-obsession that's already been covered.

Adam C said...

You've got it covered, all right, Patrick. That coward CC, he shut off comments on his blog! What a wimp! Oh, wait, um, I guess that part was out-of-date.

Well, that self-obsessed CC, when he got a bunch of comments he wrote several follow-up posts addressing them! If he wasn't so self-obsessed he would have ignored the comments like the coward he is! Oh, wait, now I'm really confused.

Anyway, I'm glad you posted on the subject, because someone had to point out that posts on this blog contain far too many curse words. And they're not always nice, either.

Red Tory said...

Zorpheous — Maybe we should start calling Mr. Erl an "attention whore" seeing as he appears to enjoy the hits so much.

Ti-Guy said...

Shorter Patrick Ross: What's the diff? I don't know and I don't care. Who knows? You take the good, you take the bad, you take them all and what do you have? Yeah, that's right...The facts of life. In summary...Who knows?

Get off the computer and read a book, Patrick. Maybe something about Rachel Cory...

Red Tory said...

Uh-oh, Joanne is calling for a boycott of CC (and other "trolls"). LOL.

Ti-Guy said...

And, just because I'd feel like a putz if I didn't say this...I had a look at Raphael Alexander's blog and I think maybe you shouldn't be too hard on him. I think he's being genuine...just not particularly sensitive or bright. Those aren't the sins of hypocrisy and dishonesty that get me riled up.

Lindsay Stewart said...

"Red Tory said...
Uh-oh, Joanne is calling for a boycott of CC (and other "trolls"). LOL."

yeah cc. stop trolling your own blog. jeez.

Patrick Ross said...

Ti-Guy, so, then, your response is "so what if CC is a hypocrite? He's no less a hypocrite then all the other so-called hypocrites!

For someone who takes such obvious delight in trolling other people's blogs and leaving vacuous comments to shut off the commenting section of his blog is not merely hypocritical, it is cowardly. As is telling the mother of a fallen soldier to "fuck off" behind near-complete anonymity.

If CC isn't a coward, then I have a challenge for him: reveal your true name to the public. As anyone who reads my blog will note, I always post under my own name. That way, I can avoid the pitfall of ever posting anything I wouldn't want my name and reputation attached to. Can CC say the same? The rest of us will be waiting.

How closely are you willing to stand by your comments? Are you willing to accept responsibility for what you have said in your own person, or will you continue to cower behind anonymity?

This is moment of truth time.

The Seer said...

If you're going to be a "comment whore," it's time to start acepting advertising.

E in MD said...

If CC isn't a coward, then I have a challenge for him: reveal your true name to the public.

By Patrick Ross, at 10:55 AM

So you and all your social reject right wing buddies can start harassing him outside of his own blog in real life? Why would he want to do that? You already harrass him enough here.

On second though, perhaps you should, CC, then you can start putting them in jail for harassment instead of just having to put up with their bullshit.

Patrick Ross said...

CC need not reveal an address, email address, phone number or even city of residence. He need only take responsibility for his comments under his true name.

I take responsibility for all my blogging comments -- every one of them. Don't believe me? Just go see. My real name attached to each and every one. Even my Facebook account is linked to my blog.

I am who I say I am, and I am entirely accountable for everything that I say.

I'm now upgrading this to the status of an open challenge. CC doesn't need to reveal any information that would expose him to harassment or attack, only his name. Does he have the courage to accept my challenge (especially as he does seem to love his challenges).

Moment of truth, baby. I'm waiting.

Scotian said...

Patrick Ross:

Some of us have learned through hard and bitter experience that blogging under our birth names can provide a target for the more extreme to target us when they cannot deal with us in debate or silence our voices no matter how hard they try. I used to do so until I got married and at the request of my wife shifted to using an alias. I can recall two occasions when I was assaulted in rl for things I said online by political opponents, so I complied since my wife has been the unfortunate victim of multiple rapes in her life. So trying to make the argument that anyone unwilling to blog under their birth names is somehow a coward will cut very little ice with most folks. In case you hadn't noticed there are some less than stable folks out there that feel perfectly free to threaten physical consequences against those they oppose, so why make the job of such folks in tracing someone they would target any easier? (which providing a name does, I used to be a commercial PI and I know full well just how much that aids in such tracing) Especially in CC's case as he is someone that makes a point of showing the insanity, extremism and tendency towards arguing for violent means of surpression as well as hypocrisy within the Conservative online community, thereby increasing his risk of being targetted with violence as a means of shutting him up since nothing else is working. Be serious.

Your argument is weak, and your position absurd, and does nothing to provide you with any more credibility. In the online world credibility is gained not through identity but by quality of writing and the factual content within. By that standard CC has demonstrated a level of credibility you have not even come close to. So your attacking him on the basis of his anonymity/psuedonymity is yet another weak argument with no underlying merit.

Thanks for playing, next time try with an argument that actually works though.

Ti-Guy said...

Patrick, can you put your rather large penis back in your pants? It's becoming a little vulgar the way you're waving it around in front of everyone's faces here. And'll put someone's eye out with that thing.

I, personally, couldn't give a flying fuck who Patrick Ross is nor do I consider it brave that you attach your name to your commentary. If you never say anything particularly interesting or thoughtful or insightful or entertaining or personal, why on Earth should anyone else really care?

Patrick Ross said...


You're defending an individual who is clearly more than slightly unbalanced. You may want to remember that.

There is simply nothing at all weak about my position in this regard. Canadian Cynic is writing things on this blog (particularly his attack on Wanda Watkins) that I thinks he would lack the courage to say under his real name. He can either prove that by refusing to divulge his name (only his name) to the public, or he can prove me wrong by revealing his name -- although he then has to attach his comments to his reputation.

I severely doubt that any of Cynic's critics have the time or patience to wander around assaulting random people who share the same name until they get to him (possibly, I suppose, her). If he's assaulted over something he wrote here, it will probably be by someone he knows.

Furthermore, you apparently know nothing about my writing, and my reputation. I deal in interpretations of facts, while individuals like Cynic deal in nothing more than empty partisan attacks on their opponents. That might get respect from their fellow vicious partisans of either extreme, but it doesn't get respect from anyone that matters.

Don't try to lecture me about "online respect". Recently, more than ever, I've been positively swimming in it.

I'm an intellectual heavyweight lowering myself to challenging a flyweight. Frankly, you strike me as someone who could stand to gain a few pounds himself.

But thanks for dropping in, Scotian. Do you need your parking validated while you're here?

And for the ever amusing Ti-Guy:

First, you can't provoke me by making any sort of reference to my manhood. I'm very secure in that, so don't even bother trying.

Secondly, you really make the point for me: why should anyone else really care who Canadian Cynic is? I think the more interesting question is: does he? Does he have the courage to speak under his real name? Can his conscience bear it?

It's a challenge for a reason. Cynic: prove me wrong, or prove me right. The choice is yours.

Ti-Guy said...

Are you insane, on drugs, or both?

CC said...

Jesus Christ, Patrick, what part of "I like blogging anonymously" do you just not grok?

My blog. My rules. Fuck off.