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."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.
Like you, AWCheney.
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 pmI responded with this:
Actually no, Jimmy, you spread your vitriol indiscriminately…which is why you are so popular.
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.Apparently, for Greg, that last line was "offensive content." Here's my last post on that thread:
Get back on your meds, OWW.
James Young said on 24 Sep 2006 at 9:18 pm:We'll see how long my comment survives.
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.
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.