Wednesday, June 01, 2005

A Few Rules

You know, I knew it was inevitable. Sooner or later, some horse's ass would post something that attacks me. And you know what? The nice thing about being the site owner is that you don't have to put up with that! You can respond, or you can simply delete it. Be advised that I reserve the right to do either, and the application of my rule will be entirely self-serving, frequently random, and usually arbitrary and capricious.

And a special word of contempt for anonymous posts: if you don't have the guts to put your name on it, you probably shouldn't have said it. That's particularly true of comments insulting your host. Doing so is not only craven and cowardly; it's dishonorable. Don't expect me to just take it, and don't expect to be able to read it here for long. If you want to attack me, get your own "I Hate Jim Young" blog. There's certainly room in the blogosphere for it.

But just for grins, I thought I'd go ahead and put the post here. After all, this commentator is so gutsy that he or she lacks the courage to attach his or her name to the post. What courage! What fortitude! Someone who calls me names, but lacks the guts to attach his or her own. There are names for that, too: coward; craven; pathetic. It's funny, because it sounds a lot like Jim Cech, the Harold Stassen of Montclair. Or maybe little Krissie Nohe, wife of Connaughton pissboy Marty Nohe (RINO - Coles). Anyway, here it is.
Wow. You really are a sad and pathetic man aren't you? Many people have feelings that are just as strong as yours and yet they take the time to politley respond to items they may agree with you on. You however sir feel the need to be a self-agrandizing ass that chooses to attack someones character as opposed to participating in a lively discussion on the issues.
Democracy and freedom are built upon open discussion amongst people who respect one another. An ideological close minded system is developed by people that chose not to respect others and their opinions, but rather feel the need to attack those who differ with them simply to make themselves feel better.
You sir are the latter. Your inability to have an open discourse with people that do not share your opinion is the exact reason why you and all of your fellow kool aide drinkers will never come into any position of signifigance within Prince William.
And FYI- The two people in your group that have (Mr Stuart and Mr Stirrup) both BARELY won their seats, ran to Sean Connaughton to carry them across the finish line, and were beat by Mr. Connaughton by almost 20% in the 2003 elections. You sir are a dying breed.
So get off your soapbox. Stop putting others down. Stop spreading propaganda. Get a life.
Where to start with this contributor? There's the name calling ("You ... are a sad and pathetic man"; "You however sir feel the need to be a self-agrandizing ass"). There's the lack of ability to spell, punctuate, and/or edit ("politley"; "kool aide"; "signifigance"; "someones"; "self-agrandizing"; "Mr Stuart and Mr Stirrup").

Then there's just the plain old lies which are symptomatic of the far Left.
1. The anonymous author accuses me of "choos[ing] to attack someones character as opposed to participating in a lively discussion on the issues." Of course, it's just a charge. Nowhere are the particulars given and, of course, nowhere do I attack anyone's character.
2. The anonymous author attributes significance to the fact that "Mr Stuart and Mr Stirrup ... both BARELY won their seats, ran to Sean Connaughton to carry them across the finish line, and were beat by Mr. Connaughton by almost 20% in the 2003 elections." Well, first, they weren't running against Mr. Connaughton (though I'm glad to see the author finally discovered that "Mr." requires punctuation). Second, Corey and John (I'll use their first names because they're friends) didn't have buffoons as opponents, explaining their close races. Corey ran against a credible Democrat and a credible Libertarian, and was attacked by the Republican incumbent before Election Day. John was running against the GOP incumbent (who opted out of the primary after requiring it) and a credible Democrat. And third, Sean was running against a buffoon, explaining his runaway victory.
3. The anonymous author claims that I "feel the need to attack those who differ with them simply to make themselves feel better. " No, I attack ideas. Perhaps what my anonymous critic objects to is the fact that I attach the appropriate identities to those who espouse those ideas, and have a keen memory for their records. You know, that illicit and discredited Conservative tactic of holding a far Lefty's own words and record against him.

But let us consider what my anonymous critic considers "open discussion amongst people who respect one another." Apparently it is calling a Conservative, i.e., me, "a sad and pathetic man," "a self-agrandizing ass," a "kool aide drinker [who] will never come into any position of signifigance within Prince William" (probably significance as defined by my cowardly critic; and it's funny, because I've already assumed a substantial "position of significance in Prince William, as one of the County's opinion leaders), and "a dying breed" (failing to appreciate the signficance of "dying" and "murdered"). Apparently, for my anonymous critic, "open discussion amongst people who respect one another" and "a lively discussion of the issues" is telling your opponent to "Get a life." 'Guess that's why he lacked the guts to put his or her name on his or her post.

It'll really be a genuine pleasure to see these arrogant, asinine, hypocritical, sanctimonious fools get their comeuppance when Chairman Sean gets the thrashing he so richly deserves on Primary Day.

5 comments:

Evangelist said...

Wow! Remind me to never get you mad at me.

Hey, check out my blog sometime.

www.scripturist.com

Thanks.

Leif Rasmussen said...

Mr. Young-

Over the many years during which I occasionally read the column in the Potomac News to which your name was attached, I often wondered whether a proof-reader checked your grammar and punctuation because they were generally very good, despite the fact that your word choice, syntax and attempts at folksy, colloquial language often were not. Ironically, in your response to the anonymous writer's post, you criticize him or her for his or her, "...lack of ability to spell, puncuate, and/or edit," while simultaneously convincing me that indeed, someone did make these corrections for you in the past, as your punctuation, spelling and ability to make a logical syllogism is arguably worse than that of the individual to whom you are responding. To wit:

"...lack of ability to spell, puncuate, and/or edit,"

I assume that you meant "puncTuate," not "punc_uate."

And in the case of "The nice thing about being the site owner is that, you don't have to put up with that!"

There is no need for the comma.

"And a special word of contempt for anonymous posts. If you don't have the guts to put your name on it, you probably shouldn't have said it."

The first clause is not a sentence as it has no verb. You should have used a semi-colon, or perhaps ellipses, instead of a period.

"Don't expect me to just take it, and don't expect to be able to read it here for long."

In this sentence, you have split your infinitive and again, used an unnecessary comma.

"There's a name for that, too. Coward. Craven. Pathetic."

You probably should have used a colon instead of a period and seperated the list with commas. Further, "Coward. Craven. Pathetic." is three words, not "a name."

"I'm glad to see the author finally discovered that "Mr." requires punctuation."

Ironic, huh?

"Second, Corey and John (I'll use their first names because they're friends) didn't have buffoons as opponents." followed by "And third, Sean was running against a buffoon."

This seems insincere. If the use of Messrs Stewart and Stirrup's first names is a mark of friendship, what does that say about the use of Mr. Connaughton's first name? You are clearly not friends.

"No, I attack ideas." preceded by "Sooner or later, some horse's ass would post something that attacks me."

Is the use of the phrase "horse's ass" intended to be a criticism of the writer's ideas and not his/her person? It certainly does not seem that way.

With all of this said, I do understand your "rules" and fully expect that little of what I have said here will be available for public consumption for long (at least not on THIS website). But just think; if I can put this much work into exposing the hypocrisy of your attack on your attacker's grammar and punctuation, how much work am I willing to put into exposing the hypocrisies about which people actually care?

James Young said...

Mr. Rasmussen:

Well, you put your name on it. That buys you a pass. Wonder if it's your real name, since I've never heard of you?

A couple of your criticisms are well taken, as is your sense of irony. However, there is a difference between bad grammer, syntax, and punctuation (like there, where the second comma is optional but permissible), and serial poor spelling and punctuation (see, got the "T" in there).

Moreover, your otherwise well-developed sense of "irony" appears to have left you when you criticize my use of the term "horse's ass" in the second post, in reference to my critic. I also note that, like him or her, you fail to note where the personal attacks appeared in the post in chief.

As for whether I should "just think" about "how much work [you are] willing to put into exposing the hypocrisies about which people actually care," hey, take your best shot. Don't expect me to subsidize it, read it, or even much care about it.

BTW, are you the author of the original post?

leif rasmussen said...

Mr. Young-

I don't suspect that you would have heard of me. I've never really gotten directly involved in politics as such, although I certainly have opinions and prefer some of our state and local elected officials over others. I'm just a guy who never liked your column much but who oddly, is glad to see that you have a new forum that allows at least some level of feedback.

I will credit you for accepting those criticisms that you do accept and I don't fault you for not accepting the others. Half a loaf, as they say.

I am not the author of the previous post. While I may agree with a some of his or her sentiment, I do not agree with his chose style of delivery; rarely am I accused of rambling. You imply that the author might be Jim Cech. Is this the same Jim Cech who used to be active in Montclair POA politics?

James Young said...

Mr. Rasmussen,
Fair 'nuff. I suspect I had quite a few readers (enough to render inappropriate the manner in which I was unceremoniously and dishonestly canned) who fit that description. Out of curiousity, how did you hear about this little venture?
To answer your question, the "gentleman" to whom I referred is the "same Jim Cech who used to be active in Montclair POA politics." Sadly, still is active.