Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Geico-gate
The voiceover guy long used by insurance company Geico is a Leftist so he took it upon himself to leave a typically abusive comment on the website of FreedomWorks.org, a mainstream libertarian/conservative organization.
Every now and again, however, the patience of us conservatives wears thin and we react to all the abuse we receive by letting the light of publicity shine upon it. I have done so two or three times myself. I publish the abusive comment together with the email address of the author and any other particulars about the author that I can find.
This tends to cause great heartburn in the person "outed" but all mail, including email, is legally the property of the recipient so I am fully within my rights to do that and I hope that the hater concerned will take a good hard look at himself when I "out" him in that way.
In the case of the Geico guy, the Freedomworks CEO got fed up too and went on Andrew Breitbart's Biggovernment.com and "outed" the hater. Geico didn't like the resultant publicity and decided not to use Mr. Hate (D.C. Douglas) in any more of their campaigns
The Left went ballistic over this "firing" however and, as a result, FreedomWorks received more charming communications from Leftists. You can see and hear them here. The Left just boils over with hate. Warning: VERY foul language. These guys are seriously deranged. Judge for yourself.
You can clearly see where a certain Nationalsozialist (National Socialist) got his death-squads from
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
So you think it's commendable to "out" someone and cause them to loose their jobs over a prank call or opinion? I don't. You think he would have been outed had he not been in a somewhat public position? I don't. This was clearly a cheap shot retaliation. These people claim to receive bomb threats and yet go ballistic when someone asks about their mental retardation percentage. What a punch of pussies!
In my opinion this whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. If you listen to the tape and actually get offended you really are some sort of a retard. That's right, I wrote it down, feel free to out me. I'm sure you can get me prosecuted for thinking naughty things. After all we don't have the 1st in Finland.
No better disinfectant than sunlight. There are quite a few ways to comment anonymously on subjects. If you are in a public relations position and a company spokesperson, you have to make sure you stay as neutral as possible and keep your nose clean. Look at the deals that Tiger Woods lost over private sexual liaisons. There are multiple celebrities and spokespeople who have lost business and jobs due to their image and personal actions.
After all we don't have the 1st in Finland.
Apparently you don't have an understanding of the 1st Amendment in Finland either.
The 1st Amendment protects people from government censorship. In this case, you had a guy who is certainly free to express his opinion and did so.
He is not free from consequences his speech. Geico made a decision that they didn't want a spokesman that was making disparaging comments about their customers and potential customers. Imagine that. A company that wants to appeal to a broad base of customers.
Furthermore, look at the reaction. You see people that reported the guy to Geico and not an incident or threat was made other than canceling some insurance. Now listen to the threats made against FreedomWorks.
If you listen to the tape and actually get offended you really are some sort of a retard.
I wasn't insulted. I was amused that this guy was so ridiculously stupid.
Nothing like a flaming leftist alienating over half your customers to quickly become a major liability to your business.
His job got "nom"ed
"Apparently you don't have an understanding of the 1st Amendment in Finland either."
I was pointing out to the possibility of being prosecuted. If someone finds it heroic to out the Geico guy they might as well out everyone else. Some of those people might loose more than their jobs but at least they get to express their opinions. Go Brownshirts! (The Hitler card was already in play)
My problem is not with Geico. They do what businesses do. My problem is with the pussies who conveniently get offended because the guy happens to be somewhat of a celebrity. That's the kind of move I would expect from the left. There was nothing offensive on the voice mail. There was absolutely no reason to react to it in any way.
I guess in the US the political debate is polarized to the point where everyone has to play dirty and use all the jackass moves in the playbook. But the necessity of it doesn't make it right. I doubt anyone here would be commending the actions of FreedomWorks.org if the political affiliations were reversed.
I was pointing out to the possibility of being prosecuted.
In other words, you were relying on a straw man argument.
There was nothing offensive on the voice mail.
You don't think that Geico found that calling a part of their customer base "retarded" offensive?
There was absolutely no reason to react to it in any way.
So people should just let others call them a "retard" and say that one of their members will eventually "kill someone" without any response? The guy asked for a call back and got it. In the call back, no one insulted him, called him "retarded" or insinuated anything about him.
I guess in the US the political debate is polarized to the point where everyone has to play dirty and use all the jackass moves in the playbook.
The "dirty trick" here was the initial phone call. That is what started this whole mess.
I doubt anyone here would be commending the actions of FreedomWorks.org if the political affiliations were reversed.
I would commend the actions of anyone that would call some one on their idiotic statements.
By the way, here is how the supporters of Baxter are responding:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSQIYStgBYY&feature=player_embedded
Amazing, isn't it? Get back to me when you can see the irony of Baxter claiming the people on the right are nuts and will kill someone and the actual threats of those people like yourself who think that Baxter was unfairly fired.
Every time a prominent conservative uses the term "retard," he is regaled as a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal for his "insensitivity," and yet here we have a huge number of "sensitive" leftists saying there's no "offense" to the words - WHEN a leftist spews them.
The Main-Stream Media can't wait to publish images of every anti-Obama protester, relying on an underlying narrative of "racism" and "bigotry," and consequences for any of these people be damned - but when one of their own is outed making a pre-meditated arse of himself, they can't rush to his defense fast enough.
The Double Standard is alive and well - and apparently also lives in Finland.
I don't think the Finn has any idea of the enormous abuse that we conservatives routinely have to put up with
We turn the other cheek mostly but in the end we are not pacifists. We do hit back occasionally
The firing was right, actors and voice-talent represent the company, they most likely sign moral clauses in their contracts so when they misbehave, they damage the company. Just because Tiger Woods didn't get fired from Nike doesn't mean every company has to tolerate immoral behavior. Geico is a smart company, the last thing they want is for patriots to boycott their products, so they made the right choice by firing the bastard.
"The Double Standard is alive and well - and apparently also lives in Finland."
You're entitled to your opinion of course. I myself believe I'm the only one in this conversation who would actually have the exact same stance on the debate even if it was the left that outed someone from the right for voicing an opinion that was in no way threatening or insulting. I think others here would be quick to call out the leftists as the brownshirts they are, but when the roles are reversed you seem to find no wrongdoing. To me that's the double standard.
The Finn,
Why do you even care if the guy is "outed". He wanted to give his opinion and insult people in his e-mail. Everyone got to read it and surprise, some people were offended, including his employer. Why should he be allowed to insult people without being identified. You call it retaliation. Who was it that made the offensive statements? Not FreedomWorks.org
I myself believe I'm the only one in this conversation who would actually have the exact same stance on the debate even if it was the left that outed someone from the right for voicing an opinion that was in no way threatening or insulting.
You are free to believe that which you will despite others here saying they would have the same reaction if the statement had come from the right.
Apparently you are more than willing to simply stay in your world and everyone else lies.
I think others here would be quick to call out the leftists as the brownshirts they are, but when the roles are reversed you seem to find no wrongdoing.
You are kidding, right?
To me that's the double standard.
Sorry Finn, but the double standard here is that while you are still harping on the firing of the guy, you are ignoring the statements from the left threatening FreedomWorks.org because of a decision Geico made.
The double standard is your silence.
Wes and Anon,
I care that the guy was outed because it was - in my mind - a pussyass move that was applauded here. The owner of this blog voiced his support to such outings and I voiced my opposition. It's as simple as that.
A more theoretical reason I gave in a comment posted to answer the straw man comment made previously by Anon. that for some reason was lost in the cyber space and never made it through. The main point of said post was that just the very morning I had read an article from the Helsingin Sanomat (main national newspaper) about a man bein tried for the heinous crime of selling white power music. Mainly to customers in the USA. The man already lost his business and might end up in jail.
I have made some comments on this very blog that might get me in court should the owner feel the need to out me to Finnish authorities and punish me for being naughty. I would accept such a theoretical punishment as a consequence of my actions if I actually earned it by making death threats or something else of that magnitude. Even from a self claimed libertarian. But to punish someone for making a prank phone call and calling people retards? Or applauding such an act...?
"You are free to believe that which you will despite others here saying they would have the same reaction if the statement had come from the right."
We shall see.
"Sorry Finn, but the double standard here is that while you are still harping on the firing of the guy, you are ignoring the statements from the left threatening FreedomWorks.org because of a decision Geico made."
At no point have I been harping on the firing of the guy. On the contrary I have said that I have no problem with Geico or the firing. Also I haven't commented on the left's retaliation one way or the other because it doesn't interest me one bit.
The only part of this thing I've commented on is the outing itself and whether there was any merit to it. In my mind there wasn't. The freedom lovers just saw an opportunity to punish and make an example of a public figure for speaking his mind. That's all this is.
Say something naughty and get jumped for it. How many times have we seen this happen to a conservative? How many times have you defended the jumpers? "After all... he did say a bad word that some people found insulting...". Just saying.
I care that the guy was outed because it was - in my mind - a pussyass move that was applauded here.
This is a claim that is contrary to facts. The guy was not "outed." He made a call to a group and left his name and number and asked to be called back. This was not a case where the guy was trying to hide his identity. In fact, one of the heads of FreedomWorks.org had worked with the guy previously. The name was familiar to people.
"Outing" implies revealing something that the person wishes to remain confidential. Clearly by giving his name and number, this guy was not outed in the least.
It is a perception that fits your narrative.
The man already lost his business and might end up in jail.
So you are complaining about a guy losing his job in Finland for his actions? How does that relate to being prosecuted in the US?
I have made some comments on this very blog that might get me in court should the owner feel the need to out me to Finnish authorities and punish me for being naughty.
Your point?
You have said that you don't have the same protections and understandings of the 1st Amendment in Finland as we have here in the US and yet it appears that you are saying that people would be prosecuted here in the US for what is illegal in Finland.
Also I haven't commented on the left's retaliation one way or the other because it doesn't interest me one bit.
Ah. The double standard.
The only part of this thing I've commented on is the outing itself and whether there was any merit to it.
As the guy was not outed in any meaningful way, you point lacks both merit and focus.
The freedom lovers just saw an opportunity to punish and make an example of a public figure for speaking his mind.
He was held accountable for his words. Both the public and his employer held him accountable. There is nothing wrong with that.
Since you have no issue with the Geico firing of the guy, you can have no issue with the punishment. We have already established that the guy was not "outed" in any way, so you can't have any disagreement with that.
The only thing that is left is that you think that people should be able to speak their minds and either no one should disagree with them, or if they do disagree, they should shut up.
Once again, this is a double standard.
How many times have you defended the jumpers? "
More than apparently you remember.
It's very refreshing to see a leftist get a taste of his own medicine, even though it's a rarity.
But to punish someone for making a prank phone call and calling people retards?
The voiceover guy long used by insurance company Geico is a Leftist so he took it upon himself to leave a typically abusive comment on the website of FreedomWorks.org, a mainstream libertarian/conservative organization.
Does the Finn really believe that abuse designed to demean, bully, and intimidate rises only to the level of a mere prank? Somehow I doubt the targets of such abuse will see it that way. The guy chose to behave like a vile savage, and his intended victims refused to just let him get away with bullying them. This time the bully's intended victims let him taste the harsher consequences of his actions.
- The original post was about the guy being outed. This is not my invention or interpretation but came from the owner of this blog.
- "So you are complaining about a guy losing his job in Finland for his actions? How does that relate to being prosecuted in the US?"
Why should it relate to being prosecuted in the US? Read my text again and try to see the point and how things are connected to each other.
- "you are saying that people would be prosecuted here in the US for what is illegal in Finland."
Where have I made such a claim?
- "Also I haven't commented on the left's retaliation one way or the other because it doesn't interest me one bit.
Ah. The double standard. "
Where is the double standard here? Are you saying that everyone should always take time to comment about everything or else they have double standard? I never comment on individual "you guys are assholes" -type messages whether they come from the left or from the right. People are stupid, we all know that, no need for me to make a comment.
- "The only part of this thing I've commented on is the outing itself and whether there was any merit to it.
As the guy was not outed in any meaningful way, you point lacks both merit and focus."
Perhaps you should read the original post which I was writing my comments to.
- "Since you have no issue with the Geico firing of the guy, you can have no issue with the punishment."
I have an issue with people overreacting to minor errors of judgment because they see a chance to benefit from them and crying wolf when there's really no cause. I don't care if it's a black guy crying racism or a political grass roots organization outing (again, the original post's language) a public figure for publicity, if there's no real cause there's no cause.
- "The only thing that is left is that you think that people should be able to speak their minds and either no one should disagree with them, or if they do disagree, they should shut up."
I suppose freedomworks routinely reacts to every single one of those thousands of emails and comments that call them retards or poop heads. They make postings listing the names of the wrong doers regardless of their status and position in the society. They must have a lot of staff at hand.
If not, if they only reacted to this one incident, I say they have more of a double standard than I do. They are no different than negro organizations that wait for a politician to use a word they don't like so that they may benefit from it.
- "How many times have you defended the jumpers? "
More than apparently you remember."
It's kind of hard to tell since you're anonymous.
This is not my invention or interpretation but came from the owner of this blog.
Actually it is, as the in the original post the term "outed" is used in quotes which means a different meaning than you are subscribing to it.
Read my text again and try to see the point and how things are connected to each other.
I read it several times and it is clear as mud.
Where have I made such a claim?
Then what was your point in bringing up a guy in Finland that was prosecuted? What is your point of bringing up your fear of prosecution in Finland as this situation is totally within the boundaries if the United States?
Where is the double standard here?
You really don't see one? That is stunning.
Perhaps you should read the original post which I was writing my comments to.
Perhaps you should.
I have an issue with people overreacting to minor errors of judgment because they see a chance to benefit from them and crying wolf when there's really no cause.
So you think the guy's comments about how stupid people are are acceptable but comments about him being stupid are off limits. I get it now.
I suppose freedomworks routinely reacts to every single one of those thousands of emails and comments that call them retards or poop heads.
I see. Now you want people to react only in ways and manners that you find acceptable. Frankly, if FreedomWorks.org wants to keep a list of the threats and idiotic statements people use (as they did with the aforementioned video) that is their right. You simply want them to sit back and take the hits. That is fine as that is your opinion.
It's kind of hard to tell since you're anonymous.
Well, since you seem to think that no one ever does, it doesn't matter whether the posts are anonymous or written with a nom de plume.
- "Actually it is, as the in the original post the term "outed" is used in quotes which means a different meaning than you are subscribing to it."
I think you are reaching a bit and putting a little too much emphasis on this. However, if it makes you feel better about it, feel free to add quotation marks to every 'out' word and derivatives of it I've used in this thread. My intention has been to use said term in the same meaning as it was used in the original posting. I did use it in quotes in the first sentence but dropped the quotes after that because I felt it was too much hassle to write them every time and I didn't realize the importance of the quotation marks in this situation. Please accept my apology.
--------------
- "Then what was your point in bringing up a guy in Finland that was prosecuted? What is your point of bringing up your fear of prosecution in Finland as this situation is totally within the boundaries if the United States?"
I wrote:
1.) If you listen to the tape and actually get offended you really are some sort of a retard. That's right, I wrote it down, feel free to out me. I'm sure you can get me prosecuted for thinking naughty things. After all we don't have the 1st in Finland.
2.) I was pointing out to the possibility of being prosecuted. If someone finds it heroic to out the Geico guy they might as well out everyone else. Some of those people might loose more than their jobs but at least they get to express their opinions.
3.) A more theoretical reason [...] a man bein tried for the heinous crime of selling white power music.
The logic here is as follows. In the first comment I use the term 'retard' and, since JJR supports "outings", encouraged him to out me. After all I used as offensive language as the Geico guy did. In the second comment I clarified that this case is about more than one individual. It's a matter of principle. If one supports this "outing" he "might as well out everyone else". I mean why stop with the Geico guy, I'm sure there are a lot of "outable" people out there in the net.
The third comment in which I brought up the Finnish guy was to give an answer to Wes' question "Why do you even care if the guy is "outed"". So one of the reasons I care about these kinds of "outings" is that maybe one day I could be outed and brought to justice for a thought crime. Or maybe a chinaman some day writes an insulting comment on a Maoist website and gets outed by the Americans running said website. The Internet is an international place and these things have an international dimension to them.
------------
- "So you think the guy's comments about how stupid people are are acceptable but comments about him being stupid are off limits. I get it now."
I don't get what you get. I have a feeling you're going for some kind of a straw man argument here but can't really see the logic. Would you mind clarifying it for me? Also, could you explain my double standard as well. I really don't see it and would like know what exactly it is that you see.
-----------
- "I see. Now you want people to react only in ways and manners that you find acceptable."
That's not at all what I wrote.
I think you are reaching a bit and putting a little too much emphasis on this.
You are the one complaining that the guy was "outed" in some manner. That is your main complaint.
He wasn't outed in the least, so therefore unless you just want to keep arguing for the sake of arguing, your point is moot.
So one of the reasons I care about these kinds of "outings" is that maybe one day I could be outed and brought to justice for a thought crime.
I'll give you credit. This was a well conceived and thought out strawman argument you put forth.
But it is still a strawman argument.
I don't get what you get.
Of course you don't. You are so busy constructing strawman arguments that you fail to realize that this guy was not prosecuted nor persecuted for his statements. He was, however, held accountable by his employer for his statements as a spokesman for their company.
but can't really see the logic.
Of course you can't because you are trying to equate governmental censorship with people simply disagreeing with a guy. The lack of logic is on you.
Also, could you explain my double standard as well.
The double standard is that while you believe that the guy has the right to say what he said, you don't believe that the people who disagree with him have a right to say what they said. You believe that the guy was "outed" yet he was the one that provided the information. There are double standards and contradictions all through your posts here.
That's not at all what I wrote.
Of course it is. You have said that the people that "outed" Baxter were wrong. You have equated the actions with them disagreeing with Baxter's statements to be akin to legally prosecuting someone for a thought crime.
The bottom line is that you believe that Baxter can say what he wants and people who disagree with him either should remain silent or do so in a manner in which you approve.
Part I
- "You are the one complaining that the guy was "outed" in some manner. That is your main complaint.
He wasn't outed in the least, so therefore unless you just want to keep arguing for the sake of arguing, your point is moot."
First you complained that my point was moot because I didn't use quotation marks and now you say it's moot because there was no "outing" at all. If there was no "outing" why was "outing" mentioned in the original post?
--------------
- "I'll give you credit. This was a well conceived and thought out strawman argument you put forth."
It is not a straw man. The straw man here is created by you because you don't want to follow the conversation. You want to place everything I write into arguments you have created for me. That is in fact the definition of a straw man.
For the sake of this discussion I wish you list the arguments you believe I've made or stances I've took so it becomes easier for me to follow your logic. An example of this would be your previous post where you claimed that I've been harping about the firing of the guy when in fact I had wrote the complete opposite. Making exact arguments like that are easier to follow.
----------
- "You are so busy constructing strawman arguments that you fail to realize that this guy was not prosecuted nor persecuted for his statements. He was, however, held accountable by his employer for his statements as a spokesman for their company. "
You fail to realize that (a) at no point have I made a comment where I claim the Geico guy was prosecuted, and (b) I've at no point voiced any kind of opposition to him being held accountable by his employer. Two more straw men by you.
------------
- "Of course you can't because you are trying to equate governmental censorship with people simply disagreeing with a guy. The lack of logic is on you."
Could you please provide a quote where I equate governmental censorship with people disagreeing with a guy? If you cannot find a quote where I would do exactly that, would you be so kind as to list the appropriate quotes and explain the process by which you reached the conclusion that I made such a comparison?
------------
Part II
- "The double standard is that while you believe that the guy has the right to say what he said, you don't believe that the people who disagree with him have a right to say what they said. You believe that the guy was "outed" yet he was the one that provided the information."
Ok, now I see where you're coming from. Let me clarify. (1.) I do think FW.org people have every right to "out" the guy. But I don't think it's commendable or worthy of appraisal. I think it's a cheap publicity move and they only did it because they knew they could cause some damage and therefore get publicity. It's kind of like with the paparazzi: they have all the right to do what they do, but it's not always cool what they do.
So no double standard here, both sides have the same rights and both sides will get criticized by me when appropriate.
(2.) What I and the original post mean by the guy being "outed" is writing a post in a blog naming him and making the disagreement public. Had no such blog post been published there would have been no publicity, just a voice mail that eventually would have been deleted. So even though the guy provided the information via a telephone conversation, he didn't make it public.
-----------
- "That's not at all what I wrote.
Of course it is. You have said that the people that "outed" Baxter were wrong. You have equated the actions with them disagreeing with Baxter's statements to be akin to legally prosecuting someone for a thought crime."
First of all I have not equated "outing" to prosecution. Perhaps my English is not at a sufficient level for this conversation or then you're reaching conclusions that are not supported by what I've written. Which ever it may be I ask you to provide quotes where I make such an equation.
Secondly, you didn't provide any information to clarify your original point for which my above quoted answer was meant. You claimed that I only want people to react in ways I find acceptable. I don't think using my right to criticize is the same as taking away the rights of the people being criticized.
First you complained that my point was moot because I didn't use quotation marks and now you say it's moot because there was no "outing" at all.
You do realize that this is the same point, don't you?
If there was no "outing" why was "outing" mentioned in the original post?
You will have to ask Jon Ray that question. However, as you are saying that it was wrong to expose this guy to the world (the traditional definition of the word "outing,") you have to show how he was outed. He wasn't. That is most likely why the word was used in quotes in the original.
It is not a straw man.
Of course it is. I am sorry that you don't see it as such.
You fail to realize that (a) at no point have I made a comment where I claim the Geico guy was prosecuted, and (b) I've at no point voiced any kind of opposition to him being held accountable by his employer. Two more straw men by you.
Uh huh. I am beginning to develop a sense of your style of discussion. You say something and then disavow any reference to it or logical conclusions from your statements.
Could you please provide a quote where I equate governmental censorship with people disagreeing with a guy?
So the entire comments about your fear about being prosecuted for a thought crime was mere prattle?
Got it.
So no double standard here, both sides have the same rights and both sides will get criticized by me when appropriate.
Okay.
Oh by the way, you just admitted that you want to control or approve of the way people disagree, which is something I earlier said you believe and you denied.
Which ever it may be I ask you to provide quotes where I make such an equation.
Asked and answered.
You claimed that I only want people to react in ways I find acceptable.
See above.
Thanks for playing.
- "Uh huh. I am beginning to develop a sense of your style of discussion. You say something and then disavow any reference to it or logical conclusions from your statements."
The past few posts I've tried to explain my stances but you haven't given any meaningful responses or answers to my followup questions. This is of course very typical of a conversation based on straw men arguments where you create an argument to which I reply only to have you create another one. Until you provide the "logical conclusions" like I asked you to, or provide some other meaningful insights to this conversation, we're at a stalemate.
------------
- "So the entire comments about your fear about being prosecuted for a thought crime was mere prattle?"
Could you please provide a quote where I equate governmental censorship with people disagreeing with a guy? Have I made such an equation or is this your own interpretation?
---------------
- "Which ever it may be I ask you to provide quotes where I make such an equation.
Asked and answered."
No, I'm still waiting for the quotes.
------------
- "Thanks for playing."
You too.
I suppose freedomworks routinely reacts to every single one of those thousands of emails and comments that call them retards or poop heads. They make postings listing the names of the wrong doers regardless of their status and position in the society. They must have a lot of staff at hand.
So is the Finn's complaint, "Why ONLY expose D.C. Douglas, and not each of the other thousands or tens of thousands of abusive leftists"? If so, I would say that FreedomWorks does not have infinite staff or resources on hand dedicated to exposing ALL of those who choose to behave like a jackass. They probably do have better things to do with their time than expose thousands of ill-behaved people. However, a few notorious examples would signal to all the others, or those contemplating doing so, "Hey, if you choose to act like a jackass with us, you might suffer the same or similar consequences. Your actions do have consequences."
The past few posts I've tried to explain my stances but you haven't given any meaningful responses or answers to my followup questions.
What you fail to realize is that your questions have been answered. You just don't like the answers.
Until you provide the "logical conclusions" like I asked you to, or provide some other meaningful insights to this conversation, we're at a stalemate.
Fine by me. You say the guy was outed. He wasn't. You make all sorts of equations that either have nothing to do with the issue at hand or are totally wrong, and then you deny saying them.
Could you please provide a quote where I equate governmental censorship with people disagreeing with a guy? Have I made such an equation or is this your own interpretation?
Try reading what I said, Finn. Then get back to me.
No, I'm still waiting for the quotes.
Your own posts make that equation Finn. I suspect that you really don't realize what you are writing. Either that or you just won't admit to your chicanery here.
For the love of God Anonymous, it really isn't all that difficult. Everything I have "said" during the course of this conversation can be read from above. That is all the information I have given to you regarding how I feel and think about this issue. So either you can back up your claims by quoting me or then you've reached conclusions and made interpretations in your own head. That's all fine and dandy, it's the way our brain works, but you can't exactly have a conversation that way. You cannot decide what I think and feel for me.
- "Fine by me. You say the guy was outed. He wasn't. You make all sorts of equations that either have nothing to do with the issue at hand or are totally wrong, and then you deny saying them."
The original post said the guy was "outed". I wrote a comment to the original post. After you asked about it I wrote what was meant by "outing". That too can be found from above if you care to read what I've actually written.
Do you disagree with me that:
"What I and the original post mean by the guy being "outed" is writing a post in a blog naming him and making the disagreement public. Had no such blog post been published there would have been no publicity, just a voice mail that eventually would have been deleted. So even though the guy provided the information via a telephone conversation, he didn't make it public"
The funny thing is that the whole discussion about the "outing" is just another straw man by you. We talk about terminology instead of the issue. So far you've been complaining about the lack of quotation marks to which I apologized and assured you that I had in fact meant the same thing as the original post. Then you decided that the whole term "outed" is out of bounds despite it coming directly from the original article. Then after I explained what I meant by the word - in case it really is somehow unbelievably difficult to cipher - you kept on going totally ignoring the explanation. So I make this easy for you: do you disagree with the quote above?
As for the equations you claim I make and then deny making: could you please just copy and paste them to the 'Leave your comment' box? It's not like there are hundreds of pages of text to scan through. Just a few blog comments that really should not be that difficult to read. Really, it shouldn't.
Post a Comment