Sunday, September 24, 2006

More Childishness from Greg Letiecq

So Greg Letiecq, he of the sterling defense of freedom of speech, has decided to start editing my self-defensive posts at his little website.

Some pseudonymous commenter noted that:
James, I hardly ever agree with you, but your last post is dead on. It’s okay to promote social justice as long as it’s voluntary. Rishell is trying to get the government to promote it. If she’s elected, which I find it hard to believe she would be, none of us would be able to afford to live in Virginia anymore. With all of the programs she wants to impliment we’ll pay so much in taxes are kids will go hungry.
I responded as follows:
Read what I say, rather than what others with a self-serving agenda and/or hidden personal vendettas have to say about me, and you’ll probably discover that you agree with me far more often than not, “Had to Say.”
Now, I wasn't specific in mentioning anyone, but perhaps a guilty conscience (presuming the existence of one) provoked the OWW aka AWCheney to jump in with one of her self-serving cheap shots:
If what you say didn’t come served with a large helping of vitriol James, I’m sure that could be said of many people, myself included.
I responded as follows:
My “vitriol,” AWCheney, is limited to those "with a self-serving agenda and/or hidden personal vendettas."

Like you, AWCheney.
Greg decided that he should edit my post, declaring factual statements about Harry Parrish's primary campaign manager in 2005, a woman who aided in bringing since unprosecuted charges against opponent Steve Chapman but tried to deny her involvement (i.e., "those 'with a self-serving agenda and/or hidden personal vendettas. Like you, AWCheney.") as "offensive content." Offensive to AWCheney, probably, but not to those interested in facts regarding her sleazy tactics.

Apparently, though, "offensive content" is identifying the sleazy tactics of Greg's friends, but not belittling comments like this:
AWCheney said on 24 Sep 2006 at 5:57 pm
Actually no, Jimmy, you spread your vitriol indiscriminately…which is why you are so popular.
I responded with this:
Once again, the OWW can’t respond to facts, so she responds with belittling name-calling. To make it clear again, “Jimmy” is my ten-year-old son. He does not post here.

Get back on your meds, OWW.
Apparently, for Greg, that last line was "offensive content." Here's my last post on that thread:
James Young said on 24 Sep 2006 at 9:18 pm:

It's really amazing what you consider "offensive content," Greg. Noting the sleazy behavior and cheap shots of your friends? I note that AWCheney's belitting comments survived unscathed.

You're quite a selective champion of free speech.

Not to worry, though. I've posted the comments over at my site to demonstrate your selectively self-serving commitment to free and open debate.

And your hypocrisy.
We'll see how long my comment survives.

One really has to wonder about the relationship between Greg, the missing and as-yet unidentified "BVBL," and AWCheney. The posts which caused Steve Chapman to sue Greg and BVBL had all of the hallmarks of a well-funded opposition research operation.

Coincidence? Maybe a jury will decide. Were I representing Chapman, I would certainly be taking AWCheney's deposition.

These guys are priceless! Perhaps they're angling for a job in the Webb campaign of hate, distortion, and race-baiting. They'd fit right in.

UPDATE: Greg has made some comments that I commend to your attention, and also has removed some of the offending posts.

However, he now has a post up (one of his usually humorous photos, with appropriate captioning for the hearing impaired) which says very nearly one of the same things that I did. Hmmmm.

UPDATE II: I also managed to misspell Greg's name, which he was kind enough to overlook. It was unintentional, and I have corrected the error.

7 comments:

Greg L said...

Some of your comments got edited, and some of Anke's got deleted. Would you rather I did it the other way around?

I'll be happy to delete your comments instead of leaving the portions which are not personal attacks, and somewhat informative, intact. Please let me know how you would like me to manage your comments in the future during those thankfully rare occasions where you and Anke decide jointly to hijack a thread with your personal battles.

I will do my best to address this situation in a manner which demonstrates as much respect and understanding as I can muster.

James Young said...

Well, I didn't have a personal recollection of authorship regarding Anke's comments. What I do know is that I said nothing about her --- didn't even reference her --- and she goes on the attack. So I didn't "decide jointly to hijack a thread." I defended myself.

Were I inclined toward your stated goal, I would have deleted her attack, and ALL responsive posts. You chose to delete part of mine, and leave her belittling name-calling intact. That appeared to be a double-standard.

Greg L said...

Her comments that went over the line were deleted in their entirety. I'd say that's awfully evenhanded, and I might even be accused of favoring you. Maybe my standard of over the line is different than yours, but I am making an effort to do my best.

Which really leaves me scratching my head over all of this.

I had intended to work on the Rishell/Miller debate tape tonight, and still haven't started because I am screwing around with this. Here I am trying to explain why I have been deleting a bunch of useless name-calling when I could be taking the fight to the Democrats.

Thanks for the help.

Charles said...

I just had to say that Greg's comment sounds a lot like Steve Chapman's excuse for not filing his paperwork on time.

Sorry, Greg, I call em like I see em.

For the record, I've seen James say some really bad things, and these examples aren't them.

I apologize for my poor use of grammar.

Greg L said...

OK, I've deleted all the back and forth between you and Anke, including your comments where I edited out only the parts which I felt went over the line. If you can point out some instance where I failed to be even-handed, let me know.

James Young said...

Well, Greg, since you asked, you left this comment (AWCheney said on 24 Sep 2006 at 12:47 pm), but didn't allow my response, which included no name-calling. You also neglected to delete this (AWCheney said on 24 Sep 2006 at 7:48 pm) belittling name-calling, particularly since, before she started doing so, I addressed her as nothing but AWCheney.

If addressing me this way is appropriate, then there's no reason I should be able to address her as, for example, "Old Bitter Bitch." It's sure a helluva lot more accurate than referring to by a nickname with which I haven't been addressed since I was five. Of course, I have little doubt that many refer to AWCheney with variations on my theme.

Greg L said...

I've gone through the comments section one more time, and I believe I have removed every last thing to which you could conceivably take any offense to.

I am done with this, and I expect you to be done with this also. I've bent over backwards to satisfy your concerns at the same time you're engaging in attacks against me.