Monday, July 26, 2004

Banned on the run

Well, I made history today...for the first time ever, I've been blocked from a blog! (Update at 12:34 a.m.: I can still post there...)

The always open-minded guys at antiprotester were apparently a little miffed at my responses to their Kerry criticism. The second link will bring you to the conversation thread; just in case, I saved a screen capture.

Mad at what the dynamic duo saw as personal attacks on my part, they responded as anyone would, with a barrage of personal attacks--on their own blog--that define the word "overreaction" [emphases all mine]:

Rocco said...
Ian McGibboney, a young man who fancies himself a journalist recently showed me disrespect by trashing me on his blog. Instead of having the cajones to continue challenging me on the subject matter at hand, he instead elected to insult me on the sly in his personal blog. [?!!] Tight fact-based argument frustrating you Ian? Nothing new, this is a classic leftist reaction.What's next?...What can I say besides stop aping others, find a "voice"(if that's possible in your case) and learn to think for yourself. Ian, you acted like a little man. You call yourself a journalist. You're nothing of the sort. In your lamo blog you wear your formal education on your sleeve, proving to me once again that some of the most formally educated people in the world can also be the dullest, most insecure,rudderless, insincere unoriginal and untalented people on the planet. The hackneyed leftist tripe that is your blog is boring, derivative illogical nonsense delivered with about as much pizazz, originality and insight as a brain-damaged Michael Moore on Quaaludes, minus the brains.Grow up, kiddo or your journalistic career will end where it's stuck now, covering PTA meetings and interviewing Aunt Bertha about her prize winning tomatos in some backwater far from the spotlight you crave.You're now blocked from posting on my blog, jerk. [um, no.] 

Here's my question: if I'm not supposed to talk about these guys on my own blog (did I?), then how is being blocked from their blog helping things? In any case, I must be doing something right. Nothing worthwhile is ever met with a "ho-hum." Except, perhaps, a comfortable bed when you're tired.

What concerns me the most about this is that, at the beginning, we were all civil and we dished on the issues. I met Rocco's long, detailed rebuttals twice and then was rebutted again, the third time which I had not yet found time to answer. In that time, another response came from someone else, and then came the huge hatefest you just read. So, it would seem, without provoking him a third time, he suddenly found his fuse. This is nothing new, of course, but it's the first time that I've ever received correspondence quite so extreme from a total stranger.

12:06 AM
Ted said...
Ian, just one more thing: Your claim that there is no media bias is simply moronic, and the argument you construct to defend that claim is shockingly weak....

 
As I was typing this, I received an e-mail from Ted (from a no-reply address) that read, in part:

Another thing, please: you have a very limited understanding of philosophy (and a much smaller mental capacity than you believe you have); so you should try to avoid the references to philosophical texts.

Now, I understand someone not agreeing with you; I understand taking issue with the logistics of a debate; I understand the futility of being unable to get someone to see things your way. But never will I understand someone's desire to attack a stranger's personal traits, careers and works with a fervor that goes far beyond anything that sparked such anger in the first place. On the other hand, debate in general seems to be going heavily in that direction.

Anyone had a similar experience in their blogging careers? I welcome any and all comments. Never have I blocked anyone, nor do I hope to.

7 comments:

Shannon said...

Did they re-enable you after they read this post, or something? Or was it just a technical error?

(I went to the site, by the way. Posted a response, myself.)

Ted said...

Ian,

My recommendation that you minimize the references to philosophy texts and my judgment that your mental ability is limited was not simply an ad hominem abusive attack, as you think. It's rather based on 1. the quality of your ideas that you express and I read and 2. I have a doctorate in philosophy and studied philosophy for twenty years. You're what Socrates would call a sophist.

By the way, here are the comments I posted on Rocco's blog. You never responded to them.

Hope you two don’t mind if I step into the fray. Ian, most of the points you make are silly. Since they all come out of the Michael Moore playbook, they’re also unoriginal. I’d just like to respond to a couple of the less silly remarks.

1. “While no evidence exists that Iraq had any al-Qaida activity before the war, now Iraq is the biggest hotbed of terrorist activity in the east. Nice going.”

First, there is a wealth of evidence concerning links existed before the war between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. Stephen Hayes has written extensively on these connections in many articles over the last two years. He also recently published a book on the topic titled The Connection. You should pick up a copy and get informed.

Second, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, who is connected to Al-Qaeda, fled Afghanistan after the invasion and came to Baghdad to be treated for injuries before the Iraq war. This idea that terrorists flocked to Iraq only after the invasion is a myth.

2. “That last third is what we need the most. al-Qaida still exists strong. And by our mistreatment of these guys (no trial, no charges), we are inciting al-Qaida.”

Question: on what basis do you draw the conclusion that “Al-Qaeda still exists strong?”

3. ”Huh? Ghaddafi hasn't been a threat for years, and is now kind of a joke even in his own country.”

Didn’t you say you were a reporter? Last year a shipment of Uranium enrichment centrifuge equipment was intercepted in Taranto; it was headed for Libya. One week after the capture of Saddam Hussein, Kadafi decided to come clean about Libya’s WMD programs. To be sure, there is more to the story; but there can be little doubt that these two events were key. This decision, incidentally, led to the discovery of the role Pakastini scientiest A.Q. Khan in nuclear equipment/technology proliferation.

It’s important for reporters to do their homework.

4. “Um, no. Actually, the vote count Gore ordered, specific Florida counties, would have resulted in a Bush victory. Bush's choice, a recount of the entire state, would have tilted the state towrd Gore. In any event, the Supreme Court intervened and stopped the recount. Why STOP it? Because Bush was ahead at the time, that's why. And while I've always been against the Electoral College, the 2000 election shows its glaring obsolescence.”

You’re right about the recount outcomes, and you ought to send an E-mail to your hero Michael Moore who lied about this, among som many other things, in his latest propoganda piece. You’re not correct about what else you say. You ought to read the other piece by George Priest I posted on Rocco’s web-site about the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court decision. Your own “analysis” is pretty simpleminded.

Ian McGibboney said...

Say what you want about me being a sophist or using ad hominem personal attacks, but I'm not the one who called you "a brain-damaged Michael Moore on Quaaludes, minus the brains." You also can't resist peppering everything you say with a personal crack about my occupation or some attack about my mental capacity. Did I do that to you even once?

Moreover, you supposedly "ban" me from your site, yet you turn around and accuse me of not posting on it!! And if you guys were so pissed about what you saw as a sly attack on my blog (which I don't recall, and you need to point out to me), why did you attack me on your blog "on the sly?" This is almost funny!

Ted said...

An ad hominem attack is one that dismisses an individual's ideas based not on the quality of the ideas but on the author of those ideas, and this can be for many reasons. You're confusing cause and effect. I can't speak for Rocco, but go back and look at my remarks. All insults are based on your ideas, not your occupation or level of intelligence.

I didn't ban you from the site; it's not my site. But that's beside the point. I didn't accuse you of not responding to my remarks. I simply pointed out that between the time that I posted my response to your post and the time that Rocco decided to cut you off, you hadn't yet responded to my remarks. For this reason, and BECAUSE Rocco cut you off (or at least thought he did) I reposted them on your site.

I believe what angered Rocco so much was the remarks you made in your post "Crap that bothers Me."

Ian McGibboney said...

Well, I'm sorry that Rocco took the "Crap" post so personally. I'm guessing the several dozen other libertarians I know personally are feeling slighted. The impetus from that post erupted from several different factors at once, one of which was indeed the post I sited. I used it, not in attempt to dis Rocco (I could have done a better job of that had I really intended to do so), but because it was a good example of the talk I hear constantly from some libertarians and desparate conservatives. Hell, I don't know enough about Rocco to know if he is in fact libertarian at all! I just found that that particular sentence was a perfect example of my point because I found it condescending and an attempt to make my simple point look simple-minded.

But you are not entirely innocent either, Ted. I guess I do seem pretty stupid to you with your 20-plus years of philosophical study. I happen to be a graduate student myself, and I've heard that business many times. On the other hand, I guess I should be honored that you deem me so worthy of your time even if I am of low mental capacity as you say. If you take exception with my lack of instant timing in refuting your post, fine. But you're getting nowhere by talking down to me.

oyster said...

Jeebus. I'll have to pay these guys a visit.

Shannon said...

Yeah. These guys are a hoot and a half....