Patterico's Pontifications

7/24/2008

Legalized Banning (Updated)

Filed under: Miscellaneous,Politics — DRJ @ 2:20 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

I’m back and I want to address the topic of banning.

It’s been 7 days since Levi was banned and I intend to lift his 10 day ban if I can figure out how to do it. During the past week, Levi left comments in moderation complaining that banning him was unfair and cowardly. Too bad, Levi. You agreed to the rules in advance. Next time agree to rules you’re willing to live with.

Now for a completely different ban that involves fast food in South Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Times reports that an LA City Council committee unanimously agreed to a one-year ban on new fast food restaurants in South Los Angeles in an effort to combat widespread obesity and diabetes in that area. The proposal must be approved by the full City Council and signed by the Mayor. If approved, the moratorium will last 1 year and can be extended for two 6-month terms.

The ban was almost certainly prompted by a study published in January 2004 in the Journal of Pediatrics that concluded “Consumption of fast food among children in the United States seems to have an adverse effect on dietary quality in ways that plausibly could increase risk for obesity.” In a companion or follow-up article published in December 2004 in The Lancet, a 15-year study analyzed “… the association between reported fast-food habits and changes in bodyweight and insulin resistance over a 15-year period in the USA.” The long-term study concluded:

“Fast-food consumption has strong positive associations with weight gain and insulin resistance, suggesting that fast food increases the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes.”

The Center for Consumer Freedom criticized the study on several grounds and noted especially that the study primarily recommended curtailment of fast food marketing. It looks like the LA City Council committee is taking this one step further by seeking to also ban new fast food restaurants.

I don’t know LA politics so I can’t tell if this proposal has a chance to pass the full City Council and be signed into law by the Mayor. But if this law is such a good idea, it should apply to all of LA and not just South LA … and I think we all know that won’t happen.

UPDATE 1: Dana links this Pajamas Media article that has more on the South LA ban. Thanks, Dana.

UPDATE 2: On 7/29/2008, the LA City Council unanimously approved the one-year fast-food ban. I don’t know if the Mayor plans to sign off but I assume he will.

– DRJ

230 Responses to “Legalized Banning (Updated)”

  1. Another victory for the Nanny State!

    Bradley J. Fikes (ee6828)

  2. Every part of town has fast food outlets. Some neighborhoods lack grocers who sell fresh produce to make a healthy meal. That’s the deal-ee-oh.

    steve (94d266)

  3. Tom Blumer wrote a great piece in Pajamas re this. One of the complaints was the lack of nearby supermarkets thus supplying better choices and quality of food. Which if true, is not that unreasonable.

    “Some people will say, ‘Well, people just don’t have to eat it,’ ” said Jan Perry, the Democrat who represents the city’s overwhelmingly African-American and Latino District 9. “But the fact of the matter is, what if you have no other choices?”

    However, the author did his homework,

    “Quite the contrary: Web searches on two chains I’m aware of in the area reveal that there are ten Ralph’s or Food4less stores within four miles of the address of the advocacy group whose executive director is quoted in the article, and at least three Vons within a reasonable distance of its zip code. When did eating store-bought food at home become a nonviable option?”

    Anything but assume personal responsibility. This is the further infantilization of a society.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/big-brother-doesnt-want-you-eating-burgers-in-la/

    Dana (b4a26c)

  4. DRJ, you can lift or continue the ban of Levi how you and Mr. Frey choose. It’s your virtual living room, and you get to make the rules. If your electronic guests don’t like your rules…well…there are plenty of websites and blogs on the ‘Net.

    But do remember that there has been a lot of trollish behavior of late. Does it enhance discussion?

    I’m all for letting Levi back in…so long as he quits insulting others, being abusive, and using profanity in place of debate. It’s your call, not mine, but that is what I think.

    Do I mind profanity? Let me put it this way: my father is a retired firefighter, so I think you know the answer to that one. What such a requirement might accomplish is two fold: minimize the mudslinging, which leads to…ah…more elevated conversation; and force Levi to think a bit before he posts.

    Less faux-tough guy posturing, more information and data. Doesn’t sound bad to me.

    Others may disagree, but that is my opinion.

    On the other hand, I have often seen posters on other blogs and websites claim that insisting on some level of civility is tantamount to censorship. Puh-leeze. And such an electronic tough guy persona in fact does effectively censor others by driving them away. Followed by the “tough guy or gal” then claiming that other people need to be stronger.

    So they get to define how other people should act, but no one dare do that to them? Hmmm.

    The question is simple. Does Levi simply wish to fight with other people, or does he wish to discuss issues? If the former, of course he wants the right to cuss and insult above all things. If the latter, then perhaps we may actually learn what Levi believes, and why. There might even be some intelligent conversation.

    Unless, again, it is all about the fighting.

    Some posters here enjoy the mudslinging, and I have no quarrel with them. But I found Levi’s rants tiresome and a waste of bandwidth. He couldn’t even resist insulting you DRJ, with the ridiculous “crushed” line. Mind you, I am discussing the rants and barrages of insults by Levi, NOT attempts to explain his point of view.

    Just my two cents. Sorry for the long post.

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  5. Would this LA City Council committee unanimously agree to a one-year ban on cigarette sales in South Los Angeles in an effort to combat widespread lund disease and heart disease in that area?

    The question is predicated on the premise that smoking (cf. not smoking) has a stronger adverse impact on health than does eating fast food (cf. eating other foods). I haven’t checked, but that is very likely to be true.

    So, Councilmembers: if the one, why not the other? Nannies must protect their charges from all hazards.

    As for Levi, his only complaint about the Rev. Wright debate could be that there was no agreed-on mercy rule. It was that bad.

    AMac (c822c9)

  6. You’re like Paul Newman at the end of “Color of Money”.

    WLS (26b1e5)

  7. Eric Blair,

    Patrick told me he trusted me to handle comments as I see fit when I’m online, and I’m considering a new approach. My idea is to edit comments that contain gratuitous insults and extensive profanity by replacing the offensive portions with this edit:

    [Blah, blah, blah. -- Ed.]

    I may not be able to read every comment and I won’t edit with a heavy hand, but I think it would be helpful to eliminate the more offensive portions of comments — from both sides of the political aisle — and replace them with meaningless blather … because that’s all they are.

    Any thoughts?

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  8. Oh good, you can see this shit?

    You’re acting like a baby. Don’t pretend like I ever had any choice or say in the ‘rules.’

    And I never said it was unfair. Cowardly, yes. How is it not? But unfair, I never said such a thing.

    Now you go ahead and keep making shit up about me without letting me respond, because that demonstrates how brave and enlightened you are. See you in 3 days.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  9. My idea is to edit comments that contain gratuitous insults and profanity..

    That might shut down the site.

    Any comment thread more than 30 posts long is alpha-male asylum.

    steve (94d266)

  10. WLS:

    You’re like Paul Newman …

    More like a battered Cool Hand Luke as he begged for mercy. Plus I don’t like eggs.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  11. steve,

    I know and I don’t want to stop spirited discussion, even if it is sometimes insulting and profane. What gave me the idea was Patrick’s views on the Tony Snow obituary. I think discussions should be freewheeling but maybe there should be exceptions in cases like that.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  12. #3 Dana
    stores within four miles of the address
    I was carless for a while in CA, and I can tell you that getting groceries by foot or bus is no fun, and makes four miles a long, long way. I was saved by a mom-and-pop store about a mile away, downhill with a heck of an uphill return, but I was buying for one, not for a family.
    But I wouldn’t favor a fast-food store ban. Maybe a small business grocery store startup loan program.

    m (b60696)

  13. Brilliant plan. They won’t get fat because they won’t have any money to buy food because there will be no new entry level jobs created in South L.A. Do they really think there will be a rush of new non-fast food restaurants serving healthy fare setting up shop there?

    Even more brilliant, they’ll be dependent on the government for food stamps.

    ThreeSheets (4f623a)

  14. DRJ, edit away. Its disheartening to think through an issue and express it in the comments only to have someone turn it into an opportunity to make a personal assault. If it happens too frequently it just becomes a pointless effort to comment.

    If the debate is spirited and heated – yet remains respectful, thats great. But when the motive appears to be something other than disagreeing and plowing though, it only detracts from the conversation and becomes the focal point instead.

    An even-handed approach will benefit everyone. After all, pissing matches are a very boring substitute for debate.

    Dana (b4a26c)

  15. On the other hand, it’s great for the existing fast food places. No new competition.

    And last, how is this supposed to help. A) It’s for one year and B) there appears to already be enough fast food joints operating to supposedly cause this obesity epidemic. So no new fast joints won’t solve anything. There already getting too fat with the number they have.

    I’m missing something.

    ThreeSheets (4f623a)

  16. m,

    I agree, but even then I’m not sure it will matter. In the long run the stores will stock what people buy. Even stores like Whole Foods sell fast food and junk food.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  17. Does this fast food ban mean that the stores will have to close down? That City employees are no longer allowed to patronize them? Or is it just a moratorium on new construction?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  18. #14 ThreeSheets
    On the other hand, it’s great for the existing fast food places. No new competition.
    Excellent. And that should be a ban-killer, if someone has the foresight to suggest it. It’s like “Free market for me, not for you; I’m pulling the ladder up.” I wonder if you’re not on to something happening there in local politics.

    m (b60696)

  19. Drumwaster,

    I think it’s solely a ban on new construction, and only if it passes the City Council and the Mayor signs it into law.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  20. If the LA city elections were held along with the state or federal general elections, these clowns would have a much harder time staying in office. BUt in February or April of odd-numbered years they just need to turn out a few thousand supporters and they’re in for 4 more years.

    Three terms now, too.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  21. How many fast food chains don’t offer healthier items on their menus?

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  22. #15 DRJ
    I agree that stores will, and should, stock what people buy. But there is some degree of product specificity among store types: I’m following up on #3 Dana’s pointing out that the proposal is contrasting fast-food restaurants with grocery stores. If all you’ve got for food in your neighborhood is block after block of fast-food stores, where do you buy bread and tomatoes and dried beans?

    I’d say that the fast-food defense that “You can buy a salad at a fast-food store” is specious. I wouldn’t want to try to feed a family three meals a day on the fare that’s offered at fast-food stores, especially on a low income. And if fast-food stores were the only walkable option, I’d be awfully tempted to order up the filling fatty stuff, and I’d get tired of trying to force fast-food salads on the burger-entranced kids.

    m (b60696)

  23. All the Los Angeles Democrats genuflect at the feet of Magic Johnson, sports hero and wealthy businessman who has done very nicely bringing businesses into “underserved” minority communities. Magic got his start in business with — wait for it — Fatburger and Kentucky Fried Chicken franchises. I wonder if any of these politicians have asked Magic what he thinks of the ban.

    JVW (6a7c34)

  24. Who benefits from this? Established fast food businesses in the area do as they won’t be having any new joints taking their market share. More workers for fewer jobs means that they, and all employers in the area, can pay lower wages ( the office janitor doesn’t go and apply at the new burger joint therefore preventing his employer from raising his wage to keep him in his employ ).

    Dig around and you will find the cronyism. Most new jobs in these areas were burger flipper jobs so I guess they are satisfied with the employment situation and the wages in that area.

    j curtis (c84b9e)

  25. If you let Levi back, you know he’s going to do something to get himself banned again and will contribute nothing of substance here in the meantime.

    Anon (ca5040)

  26. On banning troublesome posters:
    If you can do it–I’ve seen elsewhere that the troublemakers find a way through–it’s your call. One thing that’s great about this site is the thoughtfulness of the majority of commenters. All of the regulars seem like the sort of people who’d be first to admit that they’re flawed human beings and are bringing all of their experience to bear on the topics raised–and gracefully accept the experience of others in refining their views. If there’s someone who’s consistently not listening and not learning and just being annoying, well, that’s not the point of your forum.
    I think that the comment policy over at http://volokh.com/ is a good model (select “comments” beneath any post, and scroll to the bottom), and it includes “As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events.” And also the very clever “sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.”

    m (b60696)

  27. m,

    I’m not against encouraging businesses to build grocery stores instead of fast food places and, as you suggested earlier, that could be accomplished with incentives and zoning. But my point is that just because they are grocery stores doesn’t mean they will stock and sell healthy food.

    About once a month, I shop at a grocery store that primarily serves a low-income neighborhood in my town. It has 2 full aisles devoted to candy, twice as much as other grocery stores I’ve been in. The store wouldn’t stock that much candy if its customers didn’t buy it.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  28. Supply and demand. Businesses provide what is in demand. If junk food is the money maker, they would be foolish not to have this in great quantity.

    If fruit/veggies/healthy stuff were the money maker, then it would stand to reason that would be stocked in great quantity.

    Is it right for a city council to override the community’s apparent wishes? (of course that leads to obesity diabetes, etc., and subsequent increases in medical insurance costs for everyone, blah, blah….)!

    Dana (b4a26c)

  29. The whole fast food/diabetes thing is shot through with PC. I was in a food4Less store in Wilmington about a year ago. In front of me was a Hispanic family, ages about 8 to 45. They were so wide, including the 8-year-old, that they had trouble getting through the line at the check stand. The obesity in children and the diabetic statistics are heavily skewed by an immigrant population with a genetic propensity of diabetes and a dietary regimen, even when prepared at home, that leads to obesity. There are a lot of black kids who are obese but south-central LA is also heavily Hispanic. I don’t think it would affect the statistics at all. It might even be an interesting experiment in the futility of government planning, except of course that we would never hear about the results.

    The Mexican population has a strain of Indian in which some tribes, like the Pima of Arizona, that have an almost 100% incidence of diabetes by adulthood.

    Mike K (586583)

  30. To Levi,

    I know you tried to comment and I tried to remove the ban and approve your comment. I don’t know why it isn’t working but please try again.

    I also understand you object to my statement that you think your ban was unfair and cowardly. You state you did not claim it was unfair. One of your comments states that you think the ban was arbitrary and I interpreted that to mean you think the ban was unfair. I stand corrected, I think.

    UPDATE: Levi, I discovered how to remove the ban and now your most recent comment appears as comment #8 in this thread. Welcome back. I hope you will take this opportunity to focus on discussion instead of insults.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  31. Have fun, DRJ. But Levi’s history leads to a prediction of what he brings to the discussion. He couldn’t help himself even while complaining.

    Once you start editing him, he”ll be “racing” you to see what kind of profanity he can post, first. Sigh.

    I hope I am wrong.

    Anyway, that is only part of the discussion on this thread.

    Eric Blair (02ec00)

  32. #26 DRJ
    I’m entirely with you on the concept that stores sell what sells, and I’ve seen the horrifying grocery stores you’ve seen. I lived in a southern city where an entrepreneur became extremely wealthy by opening a huge chain of grocery stores only in poor neighborhoods (and he sponsored a variety show on t.v. to advertise them), and not only were the non-foodstuffs more plentiful, and positioned precisely where you’d make a spur-of-the-moment purchase, but everything was more expensive than it was in the drivable-only, flat middle-class grocery stores. And lots of those people had no idea that they were paying premium prices, because they had never seen the competition. I don’t know what to do about that.
    But if those same stores sell fresh vegetables and milk and rice, too, even if only in the back aisles, then at least there are choices. I would not want to be the mom marching the kids past the candy to buy the oatmeal, but it could be done.

    m (b60696)

  33. Eric Blair,

    I’m here to talk to people but my patience for Levi has worn thin. Levi has a choice to make and I hope he opts for talk instead of tantrums.

    I also realize my editing idea won’t work but I’m still glad I threw it out there for discussion.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  34. #31 Eric Blair
    . . . he’ll be “racing” you to see what kind of profanity he can post, first. Sigh.
    I hope I am wrong.

    No, you were right.

    8. Oh good, you can see this shit?
    You’re acting like a baby. Don’t pretend like I ever had any choice or say in the ‘rules.’
    And I never said it was unfair. Cowardly, yes. How is it not? But unfair, I never said such a thing.
    Now you go ahead and keep making shit up about me without letting me respond, because that demonstrates how brave and enlightened you are. See you in 3 days.

    m (b60696)

  35. You are one of the “good guys/good gals,” DRJ.

    Getting back to the rest of the thread, it reminds me of the “Thunderbird”/”Night Train” controversy years and years ago—liquor stores stocking more sweet high alcoholic content wines to particular neighborhoods. Ditto the liquors that seem directed toward teenagers.

    But the problem, again, is the authoritarians trying to decide what is best for everyone. Personally, I wonder what habits the Council has, and their BMIs? Maybe a council of folks from a low income district should be empowered to make “lifestyle laws” for Beverly Hills? Like outlawing pedicures?

    Someone always seems to know best for everyone else.

    Anyway, these districts don’t seem to mind selling lottery tickets. And the majority of people buying those things, I believe, are very low income.

    It takes a village….of busybodies, I guess.

    Eric Blair (02ec00)

  36. Now you go ahead and keep making shit up about me without letting me respond, because that demonstrates how brave and enlightened you are. See you in 3 days.

    Comment by Levi — 7/24/2008 @ 3:12 pm

    DRJ, this is the kind of stuff he’s attempting to post while he’s banned and you’re expecting civility from him when he comes back?

    Really?

    Anon (db4b4e)

  37. As Mike K said earlier, I don’t think the research is firm enough for us to start mandating how everyone eats and shops. Twenty years ago, medical research would have banned chocolate, coffee, eggs, and wine but now we know these items aren’t that bad and may even be good for us.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  38. #36 Anon
    Amen.

    m (b60696)

  39. Anon,

    Expect isn’t the right word, more like hope, but it goes with the territory on a blog. Even Christoph still tries to comment.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  40. #37 DRJ
    But “chocolate, coffee, . . . and wine” (less so, eggs, I guess) are splurges, and we are fortunate to be able to consider and reconsider their part in our budgets and health regimes.
    But say you’re a mother of three, and you have $100 a week in welfare money to feed the family–I have no idea what the allotment is, but it helps to put a number there. If you care at all to put food in them, you are looking to buy bread and potatoes and margarine. If there isn’t a grocery store with produce, and you spend it on candy and coffee and alcohol, those kids are in tons of trouble come about day three of the week.
    I wouldn’t mandate what people can buy and eat. But I’d mandate education and availability.

    m (b60696)

  41. The idea that banning fast food restaurant construction is going to cause people to start buying healthy food and preparing it at home is just rank stupidity. Bloomberg level stupidity. But we’ve come to expect that from LA’s politicians.

    You can eat healthy in a fast food restaurant if you want to. The reason people don’t eat healthy is that they do not want to. You can buy unhealthy convenience food in grocery stores and that is all that will happen at most.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  42. Oh, and about Levi.

    You do notice that he can’t be educated.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  43. “Now you go ahead and keep making shit up about me without letting me respond, because that demonstrates how brave and enlightened you are.”

    Oh, yeah – by all means, let the Troll come back and fling more scintillating refuse like this one. No question about it, he’s definitely adopted a completely different attitude – really, quite a sea change we’re witnessing here. Just like the fabled “Time Outs” rarely working with children prone to be superbrats, TrollBoy proves the case once again. But hey, thanks for playing.

    Dmac (416471)

  44. I’m not trying to blame poor / fat people – but can’t they make their own choices?

    I’m pretty sure no one is forcing them to consume ‘bad’ stuff. Perhaps education might be better than nannyism?

    steve miller (cb4cdc)

  45. Levi has good company with Peter and Oiram. Y’all know I enjoy playing Whack-A-Troll, but I will try to not poke the hornet’s nest too often.

    JD (5f0e11)

  46. The Los Angeles Center for Food and Justice has been working with the LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School District) for at least 10 years to provide nutritious foods and to promote education about nutrition. In addition, the US Agriculture Dept. awarded several large grants to the LA area to promote healthy and nutritious eating.

    Finally, this cached version of a 2005 California study lists eight separate programs active in South Central LA that provide education and direct access to food to promote “healthy food choices, meal planning, food safety, the need for exercise, and other local low-cost food resources.” Apparently this hasn’t been enough. At some point, people are just going to eat what they want to eat.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  47. DRJ, I appreciate you feeling the need to be fair to each poster here. Seriously, I’m grateful for it. The thing is it’s not just a question of being fair to this douche, but being fair to everybody else. If you know a guy’s going to be an a–hole to everybody and you have the determination of whether or not to let him post, you’re essentially deciding whether or not to be an a–hole to everybody. If Levi doesn’t like it…screw him, he doesn’t contribute anything. He can learn not to be a douchebag but I think this goes to the core of the guy’s character. (yeah, I know, I’m getting close to the line myself.)

    It’s your determination, not mine, and the time may come when I am more grateful towards leniency, but I don’t think it’s warranted here.

    Now I feel like a jerk for wasting time on this guy…

    Anon (db4b4e)

  48. You heartless neocons aren’t paying enough in taxes. I have no idea what welfare pays families to live on. My cousin is on SSI in Pa. and gets $10 a month in food stamps (a debit card now). She is able to afford new car payments. A friend here in S. Fla. on SSI gets $180 a month in food stamps and gets plenty of healthy fruits and veggies. I don’t know the reason for the differences.
    Things have gone up due to inflation, but as a kid back in the sixties, I knew a family of three was getting $122 monthly in Pa. state welfare payments plus the occasional, often poor quality surplus foods (replete with rat feces in some items).
    Just spoke with a friend in Houston who said most of the Katrina trash is now gone and Texas has tough laws. You can be fined for walking on street when a sidewalk is available.Oh, the horrors! Shades of Singapore. Surely it will be one happy day across America when Obamessiah takes office and poor homeless people no longer are starving on the streets. I’m serious, I get the argument from libtards that the Bush dynasty has destroyed fairness across the board.
    Levi is one of the libtards with no sense of shame or morality. Who comes up with crap like the military is treated like a cum rag? What kind of cretin thinks like that? I know many people do harbor BDS. An exclude feature would be a great idea. Yahoo has it on their business boards. It was great when the Paultards were running amok viciously attacking Fox News and their parent company.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  49. DRJ, I hope your motto on commenters is “No More Mister Nice Guy” (Ms. Nice Guy would work too). Not mainly for the combative, profanity-laced remarks that we won’t get to read. But pour encourager les autres. And to draw in the thougtful lurkers who turn away at the spectacle of a food fight.

    A couple of weeks back, I ate lunch at a salad-centered fast-food restaruant, part of a franchise chain (maybe SaladWorks?) Not a cheeseburger to be seen on the menu. Does the City Council ban cover them, too?

    As a compromise, perhaps every customer can be required to show ID at the cash register. For locals, only low-fat vinaigrette will be allowed.

    And don’t even think about croutons.

    AMac (c822c9)

  50. Anon #47,

    That’s a good point with which I sympathize but this is Patterico’s blog and he wants a range of opinions including liberal points of view. I’m not sure if this represents Patterico’s views but I think it does:

    Commenters like Levi may be articulating beliefs that other liberals agree with but don’t want to say. So unless liberal commenters complain about Levi, I think Patterico wants his voice to be heard, subject to the basic restrictions on tone and content that are expected of everyone who comments here.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  51. Please have the annoying commenters who are Independents identify themselves as such, so I can complain effectively (, he said, effectively pinning a “KICK ME” sign on his own backside).

    AMac (c822c9)

  52. Heh. You will be our designated Independent, AMac, and hopefully it isn’t a party of one.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  53. Letting Levi back in is a mistake, one that you will have to correct in short order, however reluctantly. He has fallen-off of his learning curve.

    As to the LACC:
    It is not for nothing that Los Angeles is known as one of the most business-unfriendly cities in CA. When one looks at the personal peccadillo’s of the suits at City Hall, and how they try to pronounce a better life-style for the rest of us – there is a complete disconnect.
    Arrogance doesn’t even begin to cover it!

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  54. Oh good, you can see this shit?

    You’re acting like a baby. Don’t pretend like I ever had any choice or say in the ‘rules.’

    You had the choice to accept or reject them. You chose to accept.

    And I never said it was unfair. Cowardly, yes. How is it not? But unfair, I never said such a thing.

    That is true. I have reviewed the comments in moderation. You tried to get around the ban by using different names, using a different e-mail address, and using a different computer. But you never said it was “unfair.”

    Now you go ahead and keep making shit up about me without letting me respond, because that demonstrates how brave and enlightened you are. See you in 3 days.

    Levi, I’m telling you the same thing I told Drumwaster.

    The next comment of yours I see with profanity or an insult, that comment gets deleted, and you go into moderation. You won’t be banned, but I’ll get to your comments when I get to them.

    And I will never again approve one from you with a curse word or a personal insult.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  55. AMac – Isn’t self-identification a bit useless? Kos truly believes that he is the new center. Baracky is sprinting away from his prior positions, re-branding the hopey changey express into the traditional fight for the undecideds and middle-of-the-road voters.

    FWIW – You do come across as an independent. I am not.

    JD (5f0e11)

  56. There are hardly any grocery stores in South LA. It should be interesting to see how this turns out…

    TLove (b8e7b4)

  57. just ban him and get it done with. he a less educated version of that frisch lady. he wants to get banned so he run off and brag how he spoke truth to power and republicans couldnt handle it and had to censor him. he has never honestly tried to discuss any topic. he’s an insult to the lib commenters who are able to string coherent thoughts together.

    chas (12a229)

  58. TLove, that was addressed above, I believe.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  59. Tlove is kind of independent. And hot. That whole japanese schoolgirl/librarian/dominatrix thing rocks.

    JD (5f0e11)

  60. My bad, I didn’t read every post above. Maybe I should be banned for not being thorough.

    TLove (b8e7b4)

  61. Don’t be silly, TLove, it is always easy to miss a comment.

    Frankly, JD’s would have put me off for a week or two …

    SPQR (26be8b)

  62. Hehehe. I don’t mind being called hot. In fact, I appreciate it.

    TLove (b8e7b4)

  63. I know you tried to comment and I tried to remove the ban and approve your comment. I don’t know why it isn’t working but please try again.

    I also understand you object to my statement that you think your ban was unfair and cowardly. You state you did not claim it was unfair. One of your comments states that you think the ban was arbitrary and I interpreted that to mean you think the ban was unfair. I stand corrected, I think.

    You think? ‘Arbitrary’ and ‘unfair’ are different words. They don’t mean the same thing. Now I’m not sure if this was yours or Patterico’s idea, but one of the little rules of our debate was that you would be able to ban me whenever you wanted for whatever reason you wanted, or, arbitrarily. And let’s be honest, at that point, did anyone think that this ban wasn’t going to happen? I knew it would. And it got invoked weeks on an entirely different topic after our little thread where I insulted no one had fizzled out.

    I’ve been very mindful to not call any of Patterico’s silly little trials unfair. This is your guys’ half of the internet, and I’m not going to come into your house and whine about the way that you treat me. They’re ridiculous and absurd and basically meaningless, but they’re not unfair. I want to be here, and I know what I have to deal with because of that. So please, don’t go putting words in my mouth, particularly when I’m not around to set you straight.

    Also, this part:

    Too bad, Levi. You agreed to the rules in advance. Next time agree to rules you’re willing to live with.

    Was I really ever given a choice? I’ve objected a few times to Patterico, and his response has basically been ‘Take it or leave it.’ He makes no effort to hear me out. He just tells me what to say, or else. I had no options, no recourse, don’t pretend that I did.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  64. You had the choice to accept or reject them. You chose to accept.

    That’s not how it was put. Let’s remember:

    Speaking of which, I said in my post:

    “DRJ, Levi: in your first comment, please say: “I accept these rules” before moving on to your comment.”

    DRJ managed to figure that out.

    Levi:

    In your next comment, say “I accept these rules” — or, if you don’t, and you want to admit you can’t debate civilly, say “I don’t accept these rules.”

    If you accept, no whining.

    If you don’t, I’ll PayPal you the ten dollars, and we’ll end this experiment. I will take it as an admission that you don’t want to debate civilly.

    If your next comment does not state whether you accept the rules, it will be unceremoniously deleted. That’s the only way I can get you to pay attention.

    So I could either accept the rules I didn’t like, or I could lose by default. Wow, that’s some choice there. Given similar circumstances, what would you have done, Patterico?

    Now like I said, I don’t want to whine about being treated unfairly by a bunch of Republicans on their home turf. But for you guys to pretend like you’re been nothing but fair to me? Come on….

    Levi (74ca1f)

  65. So a big part of the problem may be the absence of grocery stores in parts of South Central. Hmmm.

    * Ban new dry cleaners? [no]
    * Ease zoning for plumbing supply distributors? [no]
    * Ban new hair stylists? [no]
    * Tax incentives for pawn shops? [no]
    * Ban new pharmacies? [no]
    * Targeted incentives for bank branch offices? [no]
    * Ban new fast-food restaurants? [YES!]

    If only there was some city, somewhere, that had devised a way to persuade a national supermarket chain to locate in an otherwise-marginal neighborhood.

    Downtown L.A. has been successful in attracting a number of restaurant and retail businesses including a new Ralph’s supermarket, Roy’s Restaurant [sic], the Wolfgang Puck L.A. Bistro and Takami.

    AMac (c822c9)

  66. I’m not going to come into your house and whine about the way that you treat me.

    Who else laughed so hard, when they read that phrase, that their soda flew out their nose?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  67. …I’m not going to come into your house and whine about the way that you treat me. They’re ridiculous and absurd and basically meaningless…

    Oh, brother.

    Too bad, Levi. You agreed to the rules in advance. Next time agree to rules you’re willing to live with.

    Was I really ever given a choice?

    Comment #374:

    I accept these rules…

    Oh, brother.

    SPQR #65 — Reminds me somehow of the kid’s not-guilty plea that runs, “And I didn’t steal any of the cookies you made, which were not very good.”

    Goodnight, all. Play nice!

    AMac (c822c9)

  68. Let’s see. Being routinely vulgar and rude to the host. Insulting other “guests” in the host’s “home.” And then being surprised when the host puts restrictions on behavior?

    Once again, this is something I see fairly often on campus: a person who wants to do whatever he or she likes, but who doesn’t want other people—like the host of the blog—to do the same.

    My favorite part was this:

    I’ve been very mindful to not call any of Patterico’s silly little trials unfair. This is your guys’ half of the internet, and I’m not going to come into your house and whine about the way that you treat me. They’re ridiculous and absurd and basically meaningless, but they’re not unfair.

    “Damned by faint praise” comes to mind.

    The first sentence was particularly amusing. The last shows that whole undergraduate level of reasoning, again. The whole passive-aggressive business was unsurprising.

    Truth to power!

    But at least there wasn’t any profanity at all this time, though there were some mild insults directed toward Patterico and DRJ (truth to power!). Gotta push that envelope, I guess, or someone might doubt the guy’s intellectual righteousness.

    Still, an improvement over previous posts.

    And hopefully, there will be some decent thoughtful posts in the future from the fellow. That is what the ever optimistic DRJ would like to see, and so would I.

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  69. Downtown is NOT South LA – that Ralphs is surrounded by huge high rise buildings, the Staples Center, and hundreds of brand new luxury condo units.

    TLove (b8e7b4)

  70. Levi, the whole debate thing was to get you to debate civilly.

    So I could either accept the rules I didn’t like, or I could lose by default. Wow, that’s some choice there. Given similar circumstances, what would you have done, Patterico?

    So instead, you wanted to take part in the “experiment” because you felt some uncontrolled urge to participate? Next time you are in a situation like this, think about it. I mean actually sit there, and ask yourself, “do I want to take part in this, or is this just a bad idea?”

    There is nothing unfair about choice. You were given a fair shake, infact, I’d say more than fair shake, considering you got back in a week, despite attempts to come back on in various ways, at least according to Patterico. I honestly think Pat has been very patient with you.

    G (c0157b)

  71. The simple answer to the fast food ban is for McDonalds to leak a document that they are redlining South LA. Oh the furor! The discrimination!

    Maybe madates the must provide new and better access to their restaurants.

    Corky Boyd (25d228)

  72. Banning is essential to the maintenance of the right-wing blogosphere. It would not and could not be the same without it.

    Wherever liberals are allowed to debate freely, they trash conservatives soundly. Every time, every place.

    This what creates such huge audiences for talkradio’s one-side, unopposed bloviating and for blog sites that ban all dissent, the second it begins to get the upper hand.

    This is also the great beauty of the patterico.com and sites like it. They have created an inert echo chamber where ideas only fold in on themselves.

    Take a look at the moaning around here. It goes nowhere.

    McLovin (12868a)

  73. Banning is essential to the maintenance of the right-wing blogosphere.

    Because left-wing sites never ban, is that it?

    (God, the hypocrisy is dense with this one…)

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  74. Let’s see. Being routinely vulgar and rude to the host. Insulting other “guests” in the host’s “home.” And then being surprised when the host puts restrictions on behavior?

    The first thing anybody had to say to me when I first posted here was an insult. I don’t swear in new places on the internet until I see that it’s common practice, which it is around here.

    And no, I’m not surprised about the ‘restrictions’ at all. Did you miss the part where I said I knew this was coming?

    Once again, this is something I see fairly often on campus: a person who wants to do whatever he or she likes, but who doesn’t want other people—like the host of the blog—to do the same.

    Oh do please explain this. I have no idea what you could possibly be talking about.

    The first sentence was particularly amusing. The last shows that whole undergraduate level of reasoning, again. The whole passive-aggressive business was unsurprising.

    Truth to power!

    But at least there wasn’t any profanity at all this time, though there were some mild insults directed toward Patterico and DRJ (truth to power!). Gotta push that envelope, I guess, or someone might doubt the guy’s intellectual righteousness.

    Still, an improvement over previous posts.

    And hopefully, there will be some decent thoughtful posts in the future from the fellow. That is what the ever optimistic DRJ would like to see, and so would I.

    Is what you post what you’d consider thoughtful? Rehashing the same line over and over again? I get it, you work at a college. Do you have anything else in your quiver?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  75. The first thing anybody had to say to me when I first posted here was an insult. I don’t swear in new places on the internet until I see that it’s common practice, which it is around here.

    Trying to justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior? Whats that called again?

    G (c0157b)

  76. Levi, the whole debate thing was to get you to debate civilly.

    You don’t have to tell me about what it was about. I know better than you. Were you there from the beginning?

    So instead, you wanted to take part in the “experiment” because you felt some uncontrolled urge to participate?

    I just wanted to. An ‘uncontrolled urge?’ Again, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

    Next time you are in a situation like this, think about it. I mean actually sit there, and ask yourself, “do I want to take part in this, or is this just a bad idea?”

    A situation like…. arguing with a stranger on the internet? How could that ever be a bad idea?

    There is nothing unfair about choice.

    My options were to play by the rules I didn’t like or admit I was a loser. That’s not a very good choice if you ask me.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  77. It’s just the usual nonsense, G. The guy has a big chip on his shoulder about something and feels all manly when he fights and curses and calls people names. Truth to power!

    When called on it, he starts splitting hairs and blaming other people. Truth to power, again, and no ownership of his own actions or behavior. Heck, he agreed to rules and then complains about it.

    He is just here to fight. That’s it.

    Otherwise, he would actually post something other than bluster.

    Heck, I tried to get him to discuss something other than his own awesomeness, and how everyone else was (his favorite term at the time) “retarded.” I thought it might be interesting to learn what the fellow was about without all the faux-macho posturing. No dice. Just more tough guy stuff.

    Whatever.

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  78. Trying to justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior? Whats that called again?

    It’s not that big a deal. You would honestly categorize ‘Swearing on the Internet’ under ‘Bad Behavior?’

    Levi (74ca1f)

  79. It’s just the usual nonsense, G. The guy has a big chip on his shoulder about something and feels all manly when he fights and curses and calls people names. Truth to power!

    When called on it, he starts splitting hairs and blaming other people. Truth to power, again, and no ownership of his own actions or behavior.

    Who is calling me on anything? You’re fighting against caricatures in your head.

    Heck, he agreed to rules and then complains about it.

    No, I complained about the rules, then I agreed to them.

    He is just here to fight. That’s it.

    What’s the problem with that, exactly?

    Otherwise, he would actually post something other than bluster.

    Heck, I tried to get him to discuss something other than his own awesomeness, and how everyone else was (his favorite term at the time) “retarded.” I thought it might be interesting to learn what the fellow was about without all the faux-macho posturing. No dice. Just more tough guy stuff.

    What did you try to discuss with me?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  80. Hey, here is a thought, Levi: instead of fighting with people about your awesome awesomeness, why don’t you politely (!) ask Patterico and/or DRJ if you could post an actual entry here on something that doesn’t involve bashing people with whom you disagree?

    You write a post, explain how you feel, maybe even link to some different websites to support your ideas. Then see if people could discuss it in a civil manner on both sides. You seem to think that everyone has it in for you, and when pressed, resort to the “they started it” approach.

    How about a fresh start?

    I have no idea if Patterico and DRJ would be interested (your comments toward them…ah…have not been conducive to them trusting your judgment). But if they were interested, then you could prove that you have a sharp mind and genuine analytical skills, rather than just a collection of reactive bile.

    And maybe everyone could learn something. Otherwise, the same ho-hum.

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  81. Oh, that was funny:

    Me: Heck, he agreed to rules and then complains about it.

    Levi: No, I complained about the rules, then I agreed to them.

    You did agree. If you didn’t like the set up, why did you do so? Unless you just want to fight.

    Chip, meet shoulder.

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  82. When it’s your website, you can come up with all the little challenges for the liberals to prove themselves that you want. Until then…

    What did you try to discuss with me? I did get banned for no reason, I might have missed something after all. We can pick that up if you can drop the college stuff for a few minutes?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  83. You did agree. If you didn’t like the set up, why did you do so? Unless you just want to fight.

    Chip, meet shoulder.

    Again, the choice was play by the rules that I didn’t like, or admit I was a failure that ‘couldn’t debate civilly.’ What would you pick? You wouldn’t give it a try? Does that make me more resilient than you? You’d just roll over if you were in my position?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  84. The hispanics from the old country are used to the long hike to the market… and quickly caught on to the one way shopping cart.
    One welfare state generation later, the kids weigh 300 lbs, use food stamps and want the store to come to them

    SteveG (71dc6f)

  85. “My options were to play by the rules I didn’t like or admit I was a loser. That’s not a very good choice if you ask me.”

    So, flat out of no-where you just got randomly chosen to take part in this? There was no pre-discussion, or pre-thought on your part before the need to “agree to set rules”

    As to “bad behavior” its a childish thing, I’m not calling cursing “bad behavior” I’m talking about your reasoning.

    G (c0157b)

  86. Patterico likes experiments, if not wagers, so how about this one:

    Draw up a list of the five biggest right-wing blogs and the five biggest left-wing blogs.

    Have a liberal try to get banned at the right-wing blogs and a conservative try to get banned at the left-wing blogs.

    No obscenity, personal insults or bigotry.

    Any takers?

    McLovin (12868a)

  87. So, flat out of no-where you just got randomly chosen to take part in this? There was no pre-discussion, or pre-thought on your part before the need to “agree to set rules”

    No, and again, I don’t think you know the extent of this. The ‘Official Debate’ thread was hardly the first part of this whole thing, do you realize this? There was an entirely separate thread which I can only assume you must have missed?

    As to “bad behavior” its a childish thing, I’m not calling cursing “bad behavior” I’m talking about your reasoning.

    I’m just explaining myself. Eric Blair seems obsessed with my vulgarity and my rudeness, when vulgarity and rudeness is fairly prevalent around here, if my experience is any indication. What’s wrong with that reasoning, exactly?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  88. Patterico likes experiments, if not wagers, so how about this one:

    Draw up a list of the five biggest right-wing blogs and the five biggest left-wing blogs.

    Have a liberal try to get banned at the right-wing blogs and a conservative try to get banned at the left-wing blogs.

    No obscenity, personal insults or bigotry.

    Any takers?

    That’s a good one.

    I am only here because I was banned or furiously scrubbed from the others. Hell, it’s not even possible to register for most of them, as far as I can tell.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  89. “What’s wrong with that reasoning, exactly?”

    Are we civilized people? So, since allegedly the bar is set at cursing or rudeness, that paves the way for others to do or say as they please? I for one, look to example of the site owner ect… He’s explained his reasons in the past for moderation/not moderation ect.. I’m not here to try and swap insults with you. As for Eric Blair, he’s his own person, while I may see his points and perhaps agree to things he says, I don’t see it as the best way to engage you in a realistic conversation. To each his/her own. But I’m not going to do something because everybody else is doing it.

    So you say you were cursed at or people insulted you when you came here. Then show them up. Show them you don’t need to result to insults, foul language, and knee jerk reactions. Don’t follow by example, lead your own path.

    Not to say that I personally haven’t made insults, or cursed, in the past, or won’t in the future, if I ever do, its rare.

    G (c0157b)

  90. Are we civilized people? So, since allegedly the bar is set at cursing or rudeness, that paves the way for others to do or say as they please? I for one, look to example of the site owner ect… He’s explained his reasons in the past for moderation/not moderation ect.. I’m not here to try and swap insults with you. As for Eric Blair, he’s his own person, while I may see his points and perhaps agree to things he says, I don’t see it as the best way to engage you in a realistic conversation. To each his/her own. But I’m not going to do something because everybody else is doing it.

    So you say you were cursed at or people insulted you when you came here. Then show them up. Show them you don’t need to result to insults, foul language, and knee jerk reactions. Don’t follow by example, lead your own path.

    Not to say that I personally haven’t made insults, or cursed, in the past, or won’t in the future, if I ever do, its rare.

    Again, what’s the big deal?

    I’m not following anybody. I swear a lot. In life and on the web. As a matter of etiquette, I will hold off on that until I make sure I’m in an environment where it’s allowed and tolerated.

    Now, of course, I am not allowed to swear if I want to stay here, which I do. So I can stop. It’s no big deal.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  91. Wow. Levi writes:

    …I did get banned for no reason…

    Can’t wait to hear what the siteowners say about that one.

    As for earlier posts, just as you have repeatedly urged people to look at things you have written in the past, I urge you to do likewise.

    Frankly, I have some work to do right now. Have fun fighting.

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  92. Levi, I just think that I lack the ability to make you understand. Your reasoning is essentially “not everybody is called out on it” so that equals allowed and tolerated. Just cause you may see something on here that you think is “allowed” and “tolerated” doesn’t make it so, the blog isn’t moderated 24/7 and I doubt that Patterico or others always catch the things people say. You see, this is Patterico’s hobby, not his job. If everybody, and I mean everybody (other than the content contributors/admins) began swearing at each other trading insults ect… You’d soon see juts how “allowed” and “tolerated” it truely is.

    Sure this is the internet, some guy’s blog. For me, I don’t see that as a reason to treat people differently than I would in real life. Sure I curse an extreme amount in real life, but that doesn’t need to follow me everywhere I go. I look at this as a discussion, debate, ect… Though I’ll add that it seems a lot of people want to deflect and change the subject, or just start up with the insults.

    G (c0157b)

  93. As for earlier posts, just as you have repeatedly urged people to look at things you have written in the past, I urge you to do likewise.

    What am I supposed to do with a statement like this? I mean could you possibly be any more vague?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  94. Levi, I just think that I lack the ability to make you understand. Your reasoning is essentially “not everybody is called out on it” so that equals allowed and tolerated.

    That’s not my reasoning at all. I look around, see that people are swearing, enjoy the fact that whoever is moderating the place is letting adults be adults, and have at her. There’s nothing else to read into it man.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  95. “This what creates such huge audiences for talkradio’s one-side, unopposed bloviating and for blog sites that ban all dissent, the second it begins to get the upper hand.”

    - McLovin

    That’s funny: I’m a liberal, and steve’s a liberal, and aphrael’s a liberal, and none of us are banned when we dissent. I’ve “gotten the upper hand” in plenty of arguments without being booted, because I’m not here to throw a hissy-fit: I’m here to talk, and to learn, and (in some cases) to teach.

    Leviticus (8873e2)

  96. letting adults be adults

    Levi, being adult is more than swearing and trash talking.

    G (c0157b)

  97. This is priceless.

    We need more Tlove ;-)

    Racists

    JD (5f0e11)

  98. “I’ve “gotten the upper hand” in plenty of arguments without being booted.”

    I sincerely would love to see and read that. Can you point out some examples, an example?

    I can point to examples of people being banned for simply contradicting patterico’s view.

    bunkerbuster (da3978)

  99. The Los Angeles Center for Food and Justice

    Such a thing actually exists? God help us all.

    DRJ, it’s awfully nice to see you back on the front page. Levi, not so much.

    Pablo (99243e)

  100. “This what creates such huge audiences for talkradio’s one-side, unopposed bloviating and for blog sites that ban all dissent, the second it begins to get the upper hand.”

    Most radio talkers love having the opposing viewpoint represented so that they can rip it to shreds. They like hearing from the opposition. I’ve listened to a fair amount of Air America and I can’t recall a single guest who opposed Teh Narrative except for Ralph Nader who got shouted down by Randi Rhodes on their very first day of broadcasting.

    You didn’t get banned for besting anyone in an argument, Levi. You got banned for your behavior not for any sort of troothiness, and now you’re back. And yet you try and float that foolish canard. You haven’t learned a thing.

    Pablo (99243e)

  101. Levi is lucky I’m not running this site. He’d get a “Start your own blog because you are not posting your garbage here”. Maybe in a few decades if he grew up and could discuss reasonably, I’d let him back.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  102. So I could either accept the rules I didn’t like, or I could lose by default. Wow, that’s some choice there. Given similar circumstances, what would you have done, Patterico?

    Now like I said, I don’t want to whine about being treated unfairly by a bunch of Republicans on their home turf. But for you guys to pretend like you’re been nothing but fair to me? Come on….

    Not-So-Shorter Levi: “Now like I said, I don’t want to whine about being treated unfairly by a bunch of Republicans on their home turf. But I’m being treated unfairly by a bunch of Republicans on their home turf.”

    At least we now know you’re claiming you were treated unfairly. Which you previously denied.

    Dude, you could have taken your 10 bucks and declared victory. Instead, I set up some rules that would be easy for any civil commenter, but tough for you. Not impossible — but, for someone prone to insults, tough.

    Yes, I permit some profanity and insults. And when, inevitably, you engage in profanity or insults, and go into moderation, your whine will be that you were just responding in kind to someone else.

    But unless that person is using profanity or insults as part of most of their comments — as, for example, I have noticed about Drumwaster and you (usually with the insults more than the profanity) — they will be allowed the occasional lapse. Folks like you and Drumwaster, I’ve lost patience with. The final straw for you was when you cursed at DRJ and insulted her in this thread. You have earn yourself a special set of rules.

    Oh, it won’t be long until you break them. And when you do, be advised that I have a day job and it takes me time to get around to approving comments.

    Btw, given similar circumstances, I would have accepted the rules and provided 10 comments with links to substantive points. And I would not have gotten myself banned. Thus, no need for the waaaaaaaaahmbulance.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  103. SoCal is so messed up under the Democrats. Jobs are so disappearing the my daughter asked to move back in with me.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  104. “Well, enough about me. Let’s move on: what do you think about me?”

    In that spirit, Levi, I’ll copy-and-paste from Patterico’s #101:

    given similar circumstances, I would have accepted the rules and provided 10 comments with links to substantive points.

    You did accept the double-or-nothing dare instead of the PayPal’ed 10 bucks. No matter how fine the whine, that’s what it says on the bottle. The challenge was easy, but you weren’t up to it. Could Leviticus have done it? (yes) Could steve? (yes) Could aphrael? (yes)

    C’mon–try harder. The site benefits from hearing dissenters with cogently-argued viewpoints.

    What do you think about the L.A. City Council committee’s notion to ban new fast food restaurants in South Central to combat obesity? Will the residents appreciate the concern of their betters, or will they resent the special effort to limit their choices? Would the alternative of incentives to get a new Ralph’s or Safeway in S.C. (expedited permit approval, tax breaks, MDC loans) be a better approach? Or should gov’t just leave them alone? Why/why not?

    AMac (c822c9)

  105. Whatever happened to the free market — letting people make their own choices?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  106. 104, Patterico, you ought to know the CA Democrat party’s philosophy is that they know better than anyone else how to run your life, redistribute wealth, and brainwash your children.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  107. Now I’m not sure if this was yours or Patterico’s idea, but one of the little rules of our debate was that you would be able to ban me whenever you wanted for whatever reason you wanted, or, arbitrarily. And let’s be honest, at that point, did anyone think that this ban wasn’t going to happen?

    To be honest, I knew that if you got banned, it would absolutely not be by DRJ’s hand. I knew this for an absolute fact.

    To be even more honest, I actually thought you might be able to hold it together long enough for 10 posts. I actually thought that for bragging rights you would cowboy up.

    For McLovin, I’d loike to point out that if you aren’t allowing obscenity or such, then it is unlikely that either the Republican or the Democrat would get banned…

    Though I am tempted to take your challenge if you would allow the following addition to the rules:

    The blog that first replies to the test comments with insults or profanity will cause that side to lose.

    For example, if I post of DailyKos, and within 30 minutes get tolf to go fuck myself, you would lose.

    How’s that sound to you?

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  108. Apparently, I need to type slower…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  109. Not-So-Shorter Levi: “Now like I said, I don’t want to whine about being treated unfairly by a bunch of Republicans on their home turf. But I’m being treated unfairly by a bunch of Republicans on their home turf.”

    At least we now know you’re claiming you were treated unfairly. Which you previously denied.

    The bottom line is I’m a liberal at a conservative blog.

    Dude, you could have taken your 10 bucks and declared victory. Instead, I set up some rules that would be easy for any civil commenter, but tough for you. Not impossible — but, for someone prone to insults, tough.

    You changed the rules at every step. First all I had to do was state the conservative position, then all I had to do was post 10 comments without insults, then I had to do so in some unmoderated thread where others could insult me, or talk about oil prices, and I had to provide links, and you couldn’t even keep up on how you said you would update the thread. Would you have done your debate with the L.A. Times guy if it was run through the comments system at their website?

    Yes, I permit some profanity and insults. And when, inevitably, you engage in profanity or insults, and go into moderation, your whine will be that you were just responding in kind to someone else.

    But unless that person is using profanity or insults as part of most of their comments — as, for example, I have noticed about Drumwaster and you (usually with the insults more than the profanity) — they will be allowed the occasional lapse. Folks like you and Drumwaster, I’ve lost patience with. The final straw for you was when you cursed at DRJ and insulted her in this thread. You have earn yourself a special set of rules.

    When did I insult DRJ? When did I curse at her? You told me no more F-bombs, so I haven’t. You told me no insults to DRJ, and I haven’t. Are you considering ‘I crushed DRJ’ to be an insult?

    Oh, it won’t be long until you break them. And when you do, be advised that I have a day job and it takes me time to get around to approving comments.

    Btw, given similar circumstances, I would have accepted the rules and provided 10 comments with links to substantive points. And I would not have gotten myself banned. Thus, no need for the waaaaaaaaahmbulance.

    Okay, so I ‘got myself banned.’ How did I do that? According to your rules, I could be banned for either insulting DRJ, which I never did, or just because either of you felt like it. Are you actually pretending like I earned it because of something I said or did?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  110. Right. If I were to go on SadlyNo, for example (which I won’t), I could be as civil as you like and I’d still get mostly insults and profanity.

    For a while I had a rule: never go on lefty blogs. I’ve modified that. Now, if they’re all pushing a point of view that distorts the record as to a provable fact, I go on there and state the fact. I try not to let myself get goaded into insults or profanity or anger. I try not to act super-offended or above it either. Ideally I just stand my ground, not taking guff but staying polite, and defend my fact.

    It’s something I learned from Scott Kaufman: you have to not be surprised that people want to give you shit when you go onto one of those sites. Treat it like hazing, recognize it’s going to happen (even though it’s unfair) and some people may end up respecting you.

    Arguing opinions instead of facts seems to me pointless enough so as not to justify the hassle, but YMMV.

    That’s why I try to make this place hospitable to respectful and intelligent lefties. I’d like them to have a place where they can argue opinions and not get piled on.

    Patterico (55e226)

  111. You changed the rules at every step. First all I had to do was state the conservative position,

    Which you did and won $10.00 for doing. Then you accepted a double or nothing challenge:

    then all I had to do was post 10 comments without insults, then I had to do so in some unmoderated thread where others could insult me, or talk about oil prices, and I had to provide links, and you couldn’t even keep up on how you said you would update the thread.

    I struck through bits that don’t speak to what you had to do to win the second challenge. We can ignore them as easily as you could ignore what you’re complaining about in them. What is left is what you had to do to win, and you didn’t come anywhere near doing it.

    Pablo (99243e)

  112. Levi,

    I did not change the rules after you accepted them.

    People who address DRJ as you did in #8 usually get banned. I cut you some slack because you felt you had been treated unfairly, in being accused of having complained that you had been treated unfairly, when in fact you felt that way, but hadn’t said so.

    Patterico (55e226)

  113. You did accept the double-or-nothing dare instead of the PayPal’ed 10 bucks. No matter how fine the whine, that’s what it says on the bottle. The challenge was easy, but you weren’t up to it. Could Leviticus have done it? (yes) Could steve? (yes) Could aphrael? (yes)

    I could do it. There’s no reason I couldn’t revisit the thread and still do it. All the other parts of the challenge I accomplished with ease, I did far better than DRJ did in the earlier stage, as everyone seems so eager to forget. But I just lost interest. It took weeks for it to even get started, the rules were changed yet again, Patterico wasn’t updating the main thread, and people in the thread were talking about other things. It didn’t seem like anyone was taking it seriously, least of all Patterico, so I walked away, for which there was no clearly defined punishment.

    C’mon–try harder. The site benefits from hearing dissenters with cogently-argued viewpoints.

    I can do that. I’ve been doing that here, for months. Most of it is ignored and the conversation invariably becomes about me, which was one of the reasons I was eager to accept Patterico’s challenge. It was supposed to be different. It was supposed to be a higher standard for argument. Then I show up and he tells me that the audience will be permitted to hurl insult after insult and I’m not allowed to respond. Again, that just goes to show how seriously Patterico took this whole thing. He wanted an early K.O. and he didn’t get it, so he just changed all the rules again, then banned me for no reason.

    What do you think about the L.A. City Council committee’s notion to ban new fast food restaurants in South Central to combat obesity? Will the residents appreciate the concern of their betters, or will they resent the special effort to limit their choices? Would the alternative of incentives to get a new Ralph’s or Safeway in S.C. (expedited permit approval, tax breaks, MDC loans) be a better approach? Or should gov’t just leave them alone? Why/why not?

    Sounds like a good idea to me. They have the power to affect change in the general public health of their community and they’re going for it. Nothing wrong with that.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  114. Sounds like a good idea to me. They have the power to affect change in the general public health of their community and they’re going for it. Nothing wrong with that.

    So you are unbothered by the idea that people’s free-will is being trampled on?

    I work (semi)hard for my money, and I should be allowed to spend it on the food I wish to eat. If I am tired and don’t feel like cooking, I should have every right to buy a couple of double-cheese burgers from Micky-D’s instead of having to cook something (which likely wouldn’t be all healthy anyways).

    And this really sets a dangerous prescident, Levi…

    Name me three things you like to do.

    Work with me on this one…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  115. They have the power to affect change in the general public health of their community and they’re going for it. Nothing wrong with that.

    But Patterico doesn’t have that same right?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  116. cogently-argued viewpoints.

    AMac (c822c9)

  117. My #115 was in response to Levi’s #112.

    AMac (c822c9)

  118. Hey the government should go the whole nine yards and mandate calisthenics in the town square, force people to fill out calorie counting cards, and how about create and distribute properly balanced meals for everyone! It’s for the public health you know.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  119. Levi,

    I did not change the rules after you accepted them.

    Again, your first little challenge to me was that if I wanted to be taken seriously, if I wanted to prove in your eyes that I could debate civilly, I had to understand the conservative position. To prove that, all you said I had to do was state the conservative position and have a conservative commenter freely offer that they thought it was a fair statement. After I easily accomplished that, you told me we could double down to see if I could go ten comments without insults. Which I agreed to.

    Then, weeks go by, and you finally got around to starting the thread, with an entirely different set of rules. I thought we’d already agreed upon the rules, so I objected, and you told me it’d be proof that I couldn’t debate civilly if I objected further.

    Now, is that an accurate summary of how this played out?

    People who address DRJ as you did in #8 usually get banned. I cut you some slack because you felt you had been treated unfairly, in being accused of having complained that you had been treated unfairly, when in fact you felt that way, but hadn’t said so.

    But what got me banned in the first place?

    And yes, if you want me to say it, sure, I’m not being treated fairly. But I’m not complaining about it either. I know what I’m getting myself into by coming here, you just made a post talking about how people respond to you at liberal blogs, so I know you understand what I mean.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  120. They have the power to affect change in the general public health of their community and they’re going for it.

    Simply blocking new construction is not going to force people to quit using the restaurants they have been using all along. And the jobs that those new establishments could have offered to the youths of the community will now go to other towns. As will their tax dollars.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  121. But I’m not complaining about it either.

    Oh, no, of course not. That’s why you are bringing it up in every single comment you make. because you’re NOT complaining about it.

    *rolleyes*

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  122. Levi, your 108 -Would you have done your debate with the L.A. Times guy if it was run through the comments system at their website?

    Huh? You’re seriously trying to make this charge? How about, would you be willing to put forth the same focused time and effort that Patterico put into that? Furthermore, I think that’s a “position” thing. Patterico, being uniquely qualified in that discussion. It was what a series of three or four post spread out over three or four days.

    G (722480)

  123. Mr. Frey, you surely know about what is said about the futility of wrestling with a pig? It wastes your time, gets you all muddy…and the pig likes it.

    This guy just likes to argue, and doesn’t see that argument (like the Monty Python skit) is not equivalent to debate. It’s a weird power thing. I look at several of the Left of center posters (mentioned above in the thread), and they aren’t having this kind of problem.

    On the other hand, maybe this character will start posting his positions differently than this business. Maybe.

    Eric Blair (02ec00)

  124. 119. Exactly why this is complete meaningless fluff. It’s public posturing to point the finger at a “culprit”. So big deal they’re not going to build any new Mickey-D’s or Popeye’s. Guess people will just have to continue using the same ones they’ve gone to all along. I’m sure this legislation will also usher in an astronomical rise in Bally’s Gym memberships.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  125. cogently-argued viewpoints.

    What do you want from me? This is a boring story as far as I’m concerned. I don’t know anything about it and I’m not particularly interested, so…. what? What would you have me do? Just talk about nothing?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  126. Ah…post when something interests you? Or go to the gym and take up boxing or ultimate fighting.

    Eric Blair (02ec00)

  127. Patterico wasn’t updating the main thread,

    That thread was created as an afterthought, once the excercise was already underway. It was a convenience to the reader and was not part of the agreed upon challenge.

    and people in the thread were talking about other things.

    The thread in which the debate took place stayed amazingly on topic. Where in that thread do you see it going O/T?

    It didn’t seem like anyone was taking it seriously, least of all Patterico, so I walked away, for which there was no clearly defined punishment.

    Your opponent took it seriously, and there at least half a dozen rebuttals there that you have completely ignored. Everything and everyone else could be ignored during the debate. There was one person you were supposed to respond to, at least 10 times with relevant links. You failed. DRJ at #563:

    This will probably be my last substantive comment since, at this point, I’m talking to myself. I never did get around to talking about black liberation theology but I don’t want to end without addressing why character matters in a Presidential election.

    and at #594

    I’m not trying to tell you how to spend your time but I don’t see the point in continuing this. Not only will I be busy with work this week but thus far Levi’s responses have been limited to general assertions and few links. I’ve said all I plan to say (by my count, I’ve posted 10 substantive comments with links), so if you want this to continue, please email me.

    You fell on your face, Levi.

    Pablo (99243e)

  128. Oh, no, of course not. That’s why you are bringing it up in every single comment you make. because you’re NOT complaining about it.

    *rolleyes*

    It’s one thing to be expected to be treated unfairly by a group of people, it’s another to watch those people be all self-congratulatory about how fairly they treat everyone. Now we’re getting back to my favorite topic, Republican illusions. So I’m gonna talk.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  129. Then, weeks go by, and you finally got around to starting the thread, with an entirely different set of rules.

    10 comments, with substantive links and no insults. What rules changed? You simply couldn’t do it.

    Pablo (99243e)


  130. ‘I crushed DRJ’

    The pinnacle of baseless hubris.

    JD (75f5c3)

  131. 10 comments, with substantive links and no insults.

    The links part, for one. Allowing people to insult me in the thread for another.

    What rules changed? You simply couldn’t do it.

    ‘Couldn’t?’ How do you figure I ‘couldn’t’ do it?

    I just didn’t want to.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  132. From the thread:

    Patrick,

    First, I think Levi is disenchanted with the way the conversation has proceeded in fits and starts. It’s probably hard for readers to follow, too.

    Second, if you decide to consolidate this in one place, I suggest you dedicate a new post for the initial challenge and statements of position – basically a copy of the original post you did in this thread – and then copy the comments Levi and I made into the comments section so it reads like a real conversation. Because of the length of Levi’s and my comments, I think putting all comments in the body of the post would make for a very tedious post.

    See? Even DRJ seems to think the format was cumbersome and awkward.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  133. I tell you folks, this is performance art. Consider this:

    ‘Couldn’t?’ How do you figure I ‘couldn’t’ do it?

    I just didn’t want to.

    Truthfully, I have heard the same level of argument from my six year old.

    You accept the rules, you stick by them. Or you write: “I’ve changed my mind and I am not interested in the challenge. See you.”

    Or you could hang around and argue with people, I suppose.

    I gotta go to work, but that was excellent absurdist art.

    Eric Blair (02ec00)

  134. In the comments section of the Pajamas piece DRJ linked to in the post, Baldilocks herself who lives directly in the community being discussed, comments with this,

    “All that said, I have no problems getting my fresh fruit and vegetables.”

    Availability isn’t the issue. Its the demands of the public. The LACC is making a decision to restrict businesses from providing what the public wants.

    Apologies for another link but this is an interesting counterpart to this subject and apparently the writing is on the wall not only in the possible ban for new fast food businesses but also the mandatory posting of all calorie counts in all fast food places which will supposedly inspire consumers make better eating/purchasing decisions.

    This law requires that the calorie count of every food on the menu be written in the same font and format as the food and price, right on the menu or menu board

    “Why should we invent laws to practically shame people into their personal lifestyle choices? It should not be left up to the government to make rules preventing me from being buried in a piano case, if that’s how I choose to live. Unlike smoking in a bar, devouring a cheesesteak and fries won’t hurt anyone but myself.”

    Some very basic freedoms are hanging the balance it would seem.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/big-fat-brother-is-watching-your-calorie-count/

    Dana (b4a26c)

  135. Levi, you have won this thread, by your rules. Which are, per Eric Blair, the Argument Sketch rules.

    A: … Look, let’s get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
    M: No you did not.
    A: Yes I did.
    M: No you didn’t.
    A: Yes I did.
    M: No you didn’t.
    A: Yes I did.
    M: No you didn’t.
    A: Yes I did.
    M: You didn’t.
    A: Did.
    M: Oh look, this isn’t an argument.
    A: Yes it is.
    M: No it isn’t. It’s just contradiction.
    A: No it isn’t.
    M: It is!
    A: It is not.
    M: Look, you just contradicted me.
    A: I did not.
    M: Oh you did!!
    A: No, no, no.
    M: You did just then.
    A: Nonsense!
    M: Oh, this is futile!
    A: No it isn’t.
    M: I came here for a good argument.
    A: No you didn’t; no, you came here for an argument.
    M: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
    A: It can be.
    M: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
    A: No it isn’t.
    M: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
    A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
    M: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
    A: Yes it is!
    M: No it isn’t!
    A: Yes it is!…

    AMac (c822c9)

  136. The links part, for one. Allowing people to insult me in the thread for another.

    The links are a problem? Sourcing your arguments is a problem? Yeah, I guess it is for you. For DRJ, it seemed to be a piece of cake.

    Allowing people to insult me in the thread for another.

    When was it ever stated that nonparticipants couldn’t insult you? Hint: it wasn’t, therefore it is not a change in the rules.

    I just didn’t want to.

    And yet you had already agreed to do it, and you were going to teach us all a thing or two, like when you crushed DRJ. (Ha!) You know why the Detroit Lions didn’t win the Super Bowl? They just didn’t want to.

    You don’t have what it takes, Levi. And that has nothing to do with your being a lefty. As has been repeatedly noted, there are plenty of lefties here who can hold their own. You’re not one of them.

    Pablo (99243e)

  137. Frankly, what does Levi add, except as an example of what is wrong with the left? Why are his constant tantrums taken at all seriously?

    Although, Levi is as simplistic as the LACC. I wonder if anyone AT ALL brought up her weight problem to Gloria Molena?

    PCD (5c49b0)

  138. #124 Yes, we know you excel in your impassioned attacks on the evil wiping his arse with the constitution Bush or denigrating the military.
    People really don’t give a rat’s asp if you are bored. One supposes you revel in the attention and seek to shock for sake of your own self-aggrandizment. Must really suck to be you. Or Perhaps you hide this side of your persona around the normal people in your world? Then again perhaps a shrink or some sort of psychotropic drug would even out your mood swings, assuming you’re not always the angry howling moonbat suffering from BDS and hate amerikkka first pathology. Don’t worry you have oodles of company and if you get lonely consider relocating to Berkeley, Madison, Manhattan or my own Palm Beach county. They’re coming to take me away…..

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  139. I’m amused that he has completely ignored my civil response to his #112…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  140. Okay. I guess the subject of this post changed. Apparently I’m slow on the uptake…

    Levi, if you want people to take you seriously and to give serious consideration to your points, don’t offend them before they even have a chance to get through your posts. Its self-defeating and you lose your audience before you even get out of the gate. FWIW.

    Dana (b4a26c)

  141. See? Even DRJ seems to think the format was cumbersome and awkward.

    It didn’t keep her from participating. And she only made that comment after you had disappeared from that thread for over two days, though you were commenting elsewhere on this site. Why were you ignoring her? Why didn’t you say you weren’t going to finish up the debate? Ah, because you actually reappeared after a 5 day absence and responded to DRJ. Over the course of 12 hours, you posted 3 rebuttals and then disappeared altogether. And you want to blame the lack of constancy on someone else? Once it started, DRJ was there. You bailed out, repeatedly, because you were getting your ass handed to you and you know it, as does everyone else who has followed this.

    Pablo (99243e)

  142. The links are a problem? Sourcing your arguments is a problem? Yeah, I guess it is for you. For DRJ, it seemed to be a piece of cake.

    It’s a rule change, is it not?

    And for what’s it worth, most of what I saw of DRJ’s sources were excerpts from commentary or opinion writers. She had some numbers in there about a potential Colin Powell Presidential run and maybe something else that I missed, but most of it was just somebody elses’ description of the controversy.

    And the Rev. Wright issue is entirely one of opinion, by the way, which is why I think it’s unnecessary to require links to ‘sources.’ You’re either offended by ’20 years!’ or you’re not.

    When was it ever stated that nonparticipants couldn’t insult you? Hint: it wasn’t, therefore it is not a change in the rules.

    Just adding more rules doesn’t constitute a rule change, is that what you’re telling me?

    And yet you had already agreed to do it, and you were going to teach us all a thing or two, like when you crushed DRJ. (Ha!) You know why the Detroit Lions didn’t win the Super Bowl? They just didn’t want to.

    So how would you have responded if I just didn’t accept, took the ten dollars and admitted I ‘couldn’t debate civilly?’ What would you have said about that?

    You don’t have what it takes, Levi. And that has nothing to do with your being a lefty. As has been repeatedly noted, there are plenty of lefties here who can hold their own. You’re not one of them.

    Did you miss the Tim Russert thread? Go take a look at that, and see who ‘holds their own.’

    Levi (74ca1f)

  143. I’m amused that he has completely ignored my civil response to his #112…

    I don’t know where it went, but I definitely responded to that. Let me do it again.

    So you are unbothered by the idea that people’s free-will is being trampled on?

    Nobody’s ‘free-will is being trampled on.’ It’s a one-year ban. The city has that power. They’re not allowed to build liquor stores and strip clubs and casinos in my neighborhood, that doesn’t mean my ‘free-will is being trampled on.’

    I work (semi)hard for my money, and I should be allowed to spend it on the food I wish to eat. If I am tired and don’t feel like cooking, I should have every right to buy a couple of double-cheese burgers from Micky-D’s instead of having to cook something (which likely wouldn’t be all healthy anyways).

    And nothing will be stopping you from being able to do that, even if you live in the place.

    And this really sets a dangerous prescident, Levi…

    Name me three things you like to do.

    Work with me on this one…

    I like to go to liquor stores and strip clubs and casinos. ds

    Levi (74ca1f)

  144. Oh, Levi can hold his own. He does it every day while looking at pics of Michael Moore and Rosie O’Lard en coitus.

    JD (5f0e11)

  145. You guys argue a lot

    TLove (b8e7b4)

  146. 142. JD – you will be brought up on war crimes charges for concocting that image.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  147. That was a pretty vile image JD

    TLove (b8e7b4)

  148. So how would you have responded if I just didn’t accept, took the ten dollars and admitted I ‘couldn’t debate civilly?’ What would you have said about that?

    The same way I’m responding to watching you fail miserably.

    Pablo (99243e)

  149. Just did a quick recap on the “debate” thread

    DRJ used 8 editorials (including news site blogs), 7 News articles, 6 specific sources in relation to what she was saying,

    You used one liberal blog with a youtube link, and a youtube link to Montgomery Gentry.

    Seriously. And now you have the nerve to complain about her sources?

    And for what’s it worth, most of what I saw of DRJ’s sources were excerpts from commentary or opinion writers. She had some numbers in there about a potential Colin Powell Presidential run and maybe something else that I missed, but most of it was just somebody elses’ description of the controversy.

    So, DRJ has some 20 various sources that she used.

    You had two, one of which, I shouldn’t even give you credit for. Fucking sad.

    G (722480)

  150. *pokes TLove*

    Gonna have another late night at the office tonight?

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  151. Hehehe. NO WAY! I got kickboxing at 6.

    TLove (b8e7b4)

  152. #144 not to be too hard on the obese obama worshippers, but apparently coitus between the Moore and Rosie is possible, albeit difficult. No personal experience with that, but a fat jolly woman I know set me straight vis a vis her very fat S.O. and herself. Yes, I know Rosie prefers young ladies with looks to scruffy jackasses like Moore, but at least they share a BDS mindset and blame America for world’s ills. Sad thing is someone can bash capitalism and adore a Castro or Imadamnutjob all the while making millions from free enterprise. Btw, whatever happened to Levi heroine Cindy Sheehan whose son died in Iraq and who is running against Pelosi?

    Drumwaster must have other callings today, but he mentioned Wexler’s absence of a personal home in Fla. So today the moonbat Ft. Lauderdale paper has a front page write up. More about the champion for cheney and bush impeachment, Robert Wexler’s residence, a video and view houses and tax bills at sun-sentinel.com/wexler

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  153. My sincere apologies for that vile image ;-)

    Much better to envision Tlove in a plaid skirt and thigh high stockings ;-)

    JD (75f5c3)

  154. Much better to envision Tlove in a plaid skirt and thigh high stockings

    Rather not have that image in my head either… but for different reasons.

    G (722480)

  155. This working again yet?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  156. #117…
    You’ve obviously seen an advance copy of BHO’s Inaugral Address…
    #136…
    Though you’re correct about Ms. Molina’s weight, she’s not on the LACC, but is a County Supervisor (has MUCH more power, and much less accountability).

    And, why is the problem child still among the adults, and not restricted to the kid-table?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  157. Levi said he was not surprise that he got banned, nor was I, though for differing reasons. He thought he would get banned for having differing views, and I knew he would get banned because he is incapable of simply being nice.

    JD (75f5c3)

  158. There you go again…
    Racist!

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  159. AD, I remember Molina being on the City Council back in the 90s. Although I’m surprised I’m not attacked by Ehrenstein for mocking a Homosexual.

    Oh, is Zev still around? He’s another one who was no stranger to the feedbag.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  160. Yes, and he’s a Supe now too.
    A sterling example of someone (like the presumptive D nominee) who has never held a real job – directly from college (UCLA) to the public pad, without even the camoflage of O’s Chi-town make-work.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  161. Obviously, neither Zev or Molina have fulfilled their complete Peter Principle level.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  162. Well, as has been said, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King.
    These two, in their current environement, are stellar performers.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  163. I denounce myself, and everyone else, for being xenophobic homophobic jingoistic sexists.

    And, racists. Especially AD.

    JD (75f5c3)

  164. HEY! What do you have against UCLA?

    TLove (b8e7b4)

  165. Thanks, JD.
    That’s the nicest thing you’ve ever said about me.

    UCLA…
    Well, they just don’t have a professional football team.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  166. I like UCLA. One of my best friends in LA, a lawyer (ugh) went to school there, and she always gets me Final Four tickets.

    JD (75f5c3)

  167. AD – I do what I can.

    JD (75f5c3)

  168. Racist!

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  169. HEY! I went to UCLA and am a lawyer! Can I go to the Final Four with you?

    TLove (b8e7b4)

  170. Levi,

    Here are my answers to questions you have raised in this thread:

    First, in the Tim Russert thread, I acknowledged that you stated the conservative position faster than I stated the liberal position. You have consistently used that fact as the basis for your claim that “I crushed DRJ.” If speed is the only way you decide who wins, then you won that round. But my goal in discussion, both in general and especially on that thread, is to explore and think about opposing views. I admit I’ve spent a lot of time trying to get you to see value in discussion but now I accept you are only interested in winning.

    Second, you were technically banned by Patterico but it happened because of my comment on the debate thread stating that you would be banned unless two commenters supported your assertion that “I crushed DRJ.” I don’t care what you think about me but that comment made me realize you will never be interested in what I think. Once I accepted that our discussions are just a game to you, I had no further interest in you or your ideas.

    Third, I wanted you to be banned in order to impress on you in a tangible way how foolish it is to pick a fight with an authority figure that has all the power when you have none. Someday you will learn that everyone’s success and happiness depends on the good will of family, friends, bosses, coworkers, and even strangers. You will have endless opportunities to spit on people in your life but it’s far better to store up all the good will you can, whenever you can.

    DRJ (070f3d)

  171. DRJ, that was a good summary. I hope it makes an impact. You and I (and a lot of others) recognize that the bombast and sneering are just compensation, and hopefully have little to do with the real person posting, at least a few years down the line.

    It’s easy to criticize and much harder to build something of value.

    It reminds me of my own nephew, who (while in college) would brag to me about how “stupid” his economics professor was, and how he didn’t even go to class. Sneering all the way.

    “You’ll show him on the final exam!” I replied.

    First my nephew tried to claim he was doing well in the class. I challenged him to produce his exams for me to look over. He claimed to have “lost” them (meanwhile my brother was laughing). So I suggested that he write to the professor and ask the fellow to give him a grade update, which my nephew could then forward to me. Just to prove that he wasn’t lying.

    Guess what? Didn’t happen.

    Turns out my nephew earned a “C-minus” in that class. He admitted this to me after graduation, when he saw that he really did need the help of those “stupid” professors to get into a urban planning program for a Masters.

    His attitude cost him a great deal, and gained him nothing.

    The good news is that my nephew is now working his tail off, and doing well. You should hear how he talks about college students these days—how much they need to knock off the attitude and get to work. I have my fingers crossed.

    Entitlement may give kids lots of toys, but it doesn’t prepare them for the real world. It’s like the website from Professor Dutch in the midwest I posted before. Real life is tough.

    Or as my late grandfather put it: talk is cheap; whiskey costs money. My father puts it differently: be nice to folks on your way up the ladder; you may need their help if you head down that same ladder latter on.

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  172. Oh, and DRJ? When you write of Levi:

    “..I accept you are only interested in winning..”

    I don’t think that is entirely accurate, with all due respect. The fellow is much more interested in fighting and trying to sound all tough.

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  173. Levi,

    I remember that when you first came to this site you were civil and non-profane. I also remember that I acknowledged that but I also implied that on occasion I would either mock you or ignore you because our disagreement was so wide.

    If you want to play, I will engage you. I have no power, here. I am just another commenter like you. And there’s nothing at stake except keeping the both of us from doing worse things than exchanging ideas on a blog. If I have a request it is that you use short words because I am basically a simple-minded person. But if you want to use long words, it’s ok, I have a dictionary.

    nk (c1e92f)

  174. Tlove – Since you are in the Final Four almost every year, that should not be a problem.

    JD (5f0e11)

  175. I think DRJ misunderstands Levi’s needs in commenting. He finds it necessary to periodically renew his hatreds of his ideological opponents to avoid having to confront the emptiness of his own positions.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  176. 6 different kinds of fast food places opened near me in the past 10 years. Every time one opened, I gained 40 lbs. I would just wake up one morning, find myself 40lbs heavier and then discover later that day that a Burger King opened up someplace in the neighborhood. The worse was the Krispy Kreme place. When it opened, I gained 55lbs. It closed a few months ago, though, and all that weight disappeared. To be fair, I have to mention that when the health food place opened a few blocks away, I awoke to find I had lost 20 lbs.

    I believe LA is on the right track keeping these places from opening. If 6 more places open up near me, I might not be able to fit through the door of my house any longer.

    crosspatch (f07ad4)

  177. Perhaps they’ll arrange to open a home-improvement store at the same time?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  178. Awesome idea … if they open a few more of them, my whole house should be looking better in no time!

    crosspatch (f07ad4)

  179. Crosspatch, is your name from the famous legal case of J. Harshaw v. “Moms”?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  180. Crosspatch, is your name from the famous legal case of J. Harshaw v. “Moms”?

    *snort*

    I grok. :)

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  181. Stashiu – Long time, no see. How is life?

    JD (5f0e11)

  182. #180

    All I can say is “Thank God for ‘Boy’s Life’…”

    Robert and Isaac were very early influences, with Arthur coming in a close third.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  183. Stashiu – Long time, no see. How is life?

    Currently filled with “challenges” that I could do without. I’m here every day but not up to more than just reading the posts and comments most of the time.

    But the family is doing great, the immigration process is slowly proceeding, and overall we’re happy and thankful because things could be worse. Thanks for asking.

    How’s things with you? Pics of the little one maybe? I miss those days in a lot of ways, but my wife… Vice President in Charge of Production (heh, that always cracks me up. Her, not as amused), said the factory was closed long ago.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  184. You’re on my mind, too, Stash. Are you really okay?

    DRJ (070f3d)

  185. I echo DRJ… What’s teh nitty gritty, Stash?

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  186. Like everyone else, I’m so glad you’re back DRJ. I hope it turns permanent again. I know the offer is there.

    The new medication is not working very well, so I’ll get back to the doctor next week. I would really like to avoid another surgery if I can. I’m just thankful the rest of the family is doing so well… my stuff will resolve eventually.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  187. You take care, Stash… And you ever need to call someone and bore teh shit outta them, you lemme know…

    I’ll give you Patrick’s number. ;)

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  188. Stash,

    You need to get better for your family as well as for yourself. I think it’s time to put yourself first, don’t you?

    DRJ (070f3d)

  189. I echo DRJ… What’s teh nitty gritty, Stash?

    Well, watching Levi have his butt handed to him over and over and over, while he claims he’s winning, is always entertaining. I won’t (knowingly) ever speak or respond to him again because he’s a disgusting and ignorant troll. I think the LA City Council using a Lancet study for anything is hilarious and they’re hopefully going to be tossed on their ear the next election by people tired of intrusive government. I’d like to see how the council members would react to monitoring of their personal habits and restrictions “for their own good”. I’m glad DRJ is back posting and commenting… Patterico is great, but WLS and Justin suck (I keed, I keed!! I like their stuff too, honest!!) DRJ brings a special grace to wherever she goes and turns Patterico’s from a great site to one of the best on the web. Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Putin, et.al. remain tools.

    Pretty much it right now. ;)

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  190. You need to get better for your family as well as for yourself. I think it’s time to put yourself first, don’t you?

    Did she just use “Mom voice” on me? *harumph!*

    ;)

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  191. “…hopefully going to be tossed on their ear the next election by people tired of intrusive government…”

    Stashiu3…In a perfect world your wish would be their command; but, all those who would do so have already moved to CO, AZ, NV, ID, and other better places to have a business, and raise a family.
    Sunshine and the beach only goes so far.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  192. Oh, I forgot,
    It is very good to hear from you again!

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  193. Did she just use “Mom voice” on me? *harumph!*

    I think so…

    If you’re lucky, she’ll spank you…

    I’ll be in my corner awaiting my savage beating…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  194. That was my Mayo Clinic voice. You don’t want to hear my Mom voice.

    DRJ (070f3d)

  195. Says you… *grins*

    I’m soryy… I’ll go back to my corner…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  196. Levi,

    Here are my answers to questions you have raised in this thread:

    First, in the Tim Russert thread, I acknowledged that you stated the conservative position faster than I stated the liberal position. You have consistently used that fact as the basis for your claim that “I crushed DRJ.” If speed is the only way you decide who wins, then you won that round.

    Speed wasn’t the only thing I beat you at. Come on. That little stage of our exercise required both of us to be honest and fair, and frankly, I proved that you weren’t. Of course you couldn’t say, ‘Oh gee, Levi, you got that right off the bat! Way to go!’ You pulled out some semantics and I caught you on it. You do remember why that went on for so long, don’t you? I don’t expect anyone else around here to be aware of this, but I expect you and Patterico to be. The most generous description of that little clash for you was that I had a much easier time demonstrating I understood the conservative position than you had demonstrating you understood the liberal position, the worst case for you was that I proved you’re not all that trustworthy.

    But both of the summaries are accurate, and you know it.

    But my goal in discussion, both in general and especially on that thread, is to explore and think about opposing views. I admit I’ve spent a lot of time trying to get you to see value in discussion but now I accept you are only interested in winning.

    So… what? You don’t care about who is right and who is wrong? You just want to keep talking about it?

    Second, you were technically banned by Patterico but it happened because of my comment on the debate thread stating that you would be banned unless two commenters supported your assertion that “I crushed DRJ.” I don’t care what you think about me but that comment made me realize you will never be interested in what I think. Once I accepted that our discussions are just a game to you, I had no further interest in you or your ideas.

    Well again, the first interaction I ever had with you involved me proving to you that you were arguing in a completely dishonest way, which you apparently already seem to have completely compartmentalized or ‘misremembered.’

    And DRJ, if I wasn’t interested in what you think, or perhaps more accurately, why you think the way you do, why would I be here? Honestly, you think I’m just ‘playing games?’ I have no idea what that even means. I wasn’t the one that offered to put money on the table, I wasn’t the one that set up a challenge, I never tried to reserve the right to ban anyone, did I? All I ever tried to do was facilitate a debate. I mean who is playing games here?

    Third, I wanted you to be banned in order to impress on you in a tangible way how foolish it is to pick a fight with an authority figure that has all the power when you have none. Someday you will learn that everyone’s success and happiness depends on the good will of family, friends, bosses, coworkers, and even strangers. You will have endless opportunities to spit on people in your life but it’s far better to store up all the good will you can, whenever you can.

    Please, don’t worry about the life lessons. You don’t need to take it upon yourself to teach me anything. This is just the internet.

    And come on. I mean I know the tendency around here these days is to make all these psychological diagnoses about me and what my life is like, I don’t know what else to say other than that it’s very bizarre. You don’t think I have a good relationship with my family or a stready relationship? You don’t think I enjoy my job and get along with my bosses and coworkers and clients? And you’re basing this all on what I say on the internet?

    Again, just bizarre. And if you want to try to reboot this thing with a few tweaks, as you seemed to suggest back in the thread, I am all for it. I promise I will follow through on it this time, especially if we can toss aside all the ridiculous banning and PayPal trappings, and just straight up go at it.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  197. I’d give a damn what Levi just said, but since he’s ignored my attempt at ciil conversation @114, I really couldn’t care any less…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  198. I’d give a damn what Levi just said, but since he’s ignored my attempt at ciil conversation @114, I really couldn’t care any less…

    I tried to respond twice, I swear to God. Here’s a shortened version, now that we seem to be back on-line.

    Three things I like are liquor stores, strip clubs, and casinos.

    Now do whatever you wanted to do to warn me about this dangerous precedent, then you can read my post.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  199. Shorter Levi: “Oh, I see! Runnin’ away, eh? I’ll bite your legs off!”

    Jim Treacher (592cb4)

  200. And… broken again?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  201. No Levi… You’re just incapable of debate…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  202. what the…………..

    Levi (74ca1f)

  203. Scott this thing doesn’t work for me right now.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  204. For some reason I suspect a chair-back to keyboard interface error more than a site issue where you are involved, Levi.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  205. Are you serious?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  206. I apparently have to be super-brief.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  207. It will not let me list three things I like.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  208. Really? #196 showed fine.

    Would you care to attempt another excuse?

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  209. bars, cathouses, federal prisons?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  210. Ask DRJ, she’ll be able to see that I responded to you way back, almost immediately after you asked, if you don’t believe me.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  211. Places where people bet money on games, places where people can purchase intoxicating drinks, and places where people can go to watch women dance in the nude.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  212. There are shorter names for all those things, but there must be a block on what I’m allowed to say or something.

    Casin_s. Str_p cl_bs. Liqu_r stor_s.

    Do you understand?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  213. yes, and in the morning I will explain how yor stance on fastfood places can impact your three favorite places.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  214. Levi,

    You have just unfairly insulted DRJ. Again.

    And since I promised you I’d be really specific with you from now on, since you seem to require it, here are the two exact statements you made to DRJ at 11:20 PM last night:

    “That little stage of our exercise required both of us to be honest and fair, and frankly, I proved that you weren’t.” –Levi, addressing DRJ

    “Well again, the first interaction I ever had with you involved me proving to you that you were arguing in a completely dishonest way…” –Levi, addressing DRJ

    I’ve watched you keep saying to people, over and over and over: “You weren’t there from the beginning of the debate, were you?” Well, I was there. I read every single stinkin’ comment on that Tim Russert thread, the day the comments were posted. I even rooted for you to complete this exercise in civility. And there was nothing dishonest about what DRJ was saying. I’m typing this from memory here but I’m going to go look before I post this and link DRJ’s comments: She said two things IIRC: 1) that she’s read more things in the period in between her post to which you referred, that made her think that perhaps Wright wasn’t unAmerican or racist and also that 2) she was trying to look for other possible explanations for Wright’s inflammatory statements.

    Levi, I keep telling you that if you have the habit of addressing people disrespectfully. you just can’t turn it off at will. (That, by the way, is why people here think it’s not impossible that you don’t get along with some or several people in your real life – because how you think about and habitually address people doesn’t magically and radically change just because you’re typing rather than speaking.)

    I really wish you wanted to discuss your point of view but you don’t. I hope Patterico puts you into moderation for insulting DRJ (again). You’ve repeatedly demonstrated you have no interest in discussing issues respectfully.

    You mocked what DRJ said to you about maintaining the goodwill of people but it’s completely true. And that’s why you have no “bank account” left with Patterico or others here to have any flexibility to toss an expletive here or a good natured insult there. You’re way, way overdrawn.

    [EDIT: Thanks for your spirited defense, no one you know, and I appreciate the time you spent finding these links. -- DRJ]

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  215. hmm, comment didn’t appear. Gonna try again; sorry if it double posts.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  216. Wrangler – Calling DRJ dishonest and untrustworthy is not a good position to take.

    Stashiu – I emailed a couple pics to DRJ. If she could be so kind as to share them with you, or everyone, that is cool by me.

    Hope things improve for you. I took my 6 yr. old to the Craftsman truck races last night. Tonight, short track Nationwide race, and tomorrow The Brickyard. I am going to turn her into a hilljack.

    JD (5f0e11)

  217. 1. I think Levi is right about there being some problem w/ posting – am at a different computer and my earlier comment doesn’t appear (it did at my other one).

    Unless I’m banned….:) Can anyone else see this comment?

    2. MUCH shorter me from earlier this AM:
    Levi,
    Now you “proved” DRJ’s dishonest and untrustworthy? I think you want to go to moderation. I keep watching you saying to everyone, “were you there from the beginning of this debate?” Well, I was. I read every single comment, that same day. I even rooted for your being able to finish this civility exercise. And I know this much: DRJ was very clear about her position “then and now” and her thinking on various reasons for Wright’s statements. Either you didn’t read these comments in full (Levi not reading others’ posts in full? Heaven forfend!) or you’re purposely misrepresenting her comments.

    I promise I will follow through on it this time, especially if we can toss aside all the ridiculous banning and PayPal trappings, and just straight up go at it.

    Comment by Levi — 7/25/2008 @ 11:20 pm

    But banning isn’t a “threat” to you, right?

    no one you know (1f5ddb)

  218. no one you know,

    I’m betting your lost comments are in the spam filter because of the number of links. Once it’s cleared by an admin, it will show up.

    The rest is clearly a waste of time because Levi still thinks it’s about his need to “just straight up go at it” (argue) instead of having a rational discussion that proves he can not only understand someone else’s position, but respectfully debate the differences between positions. It’s all about winning to him and not only is he incapable of winning, he’s incapable of recognizing that he consistently loses. Pointing to the Russert thread as an example of winning proves this. The only thing he “crushed” was his mother’s heart if she read it. “So there wingnut!” (my paraphrasing) is as substantive as he gets.

    I was glad that he was banned, will be glad again when it happens next time, and hope that I never have to read another inane, destructive, or delusional thing he writes. Ignore the troll.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  219. “So there wingnut!” (my paraphrasing) is as substantive as he gets.
    Comment by Stashiu3 — 7/26/2008 @ 10:20 am

    LOL.

    Ignore the troll.

    I plan to, from now on. Though I don’t think I’ll have to, much longer. Too bad but he brought it on himself.

    Thanks for the info re: links BTW. And…I see above that you’re going through some health things (sorry, didn’t know). Hope the doctor can get you on some meds that work, really soon. BTW glad the immigration process is coming along – kewl. Is that you or a family member?

    no one you know (1f5ddb)

  220. Is that you or a family member?

    Adopted daughters. It’s been a huge mess and we’re hoping it will be over soon. My wife immigrated and got her citizenship almost 20 years ago… that was much easier.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  221. Levi,

    You have just unfairly insulted DRJ. Again.

    And since I promised you I’d be really specific with you from now on, since you seem to require it, here are the two exact statements you made to DRJ at 11:20 PM last night:

    “That little stage of our exercise required both of us to be honest and fair, and frankly, I proved that you weren’t.” –Levi, addressing DRJ

    “Well again, the first interaction I ever had with you involved me proving to you that you were arguing in a completely dishonest way…” –Levi, addressing DRJ

    Just two questions: Do you know what it means to argue semantics? Would you consider that to be a dishonest tactic to employ in an argument?

    Levi (74ca1f)

  222. Do you know what it means to argue semantics?

    Levi,
    I do indeed. If you had actually followed, and fully read, the links I provided to DRJ’s comments above, you would not have needed to ask me that question. [and now, spelled out precisely for Levi since he doesn't "do" implications: "...because it is clear from DRJ's comments that she is not arguing semantics."]

    And now, per my promise above, I have done with you. Hate to be rude to anyone at all, Levi, but I won’t be responding to you again. It does, regrettably, seem a waste of time to engage you. Hope you have a good day.

    no one you know (1f5ddb)

  223. I’ve watched you keep saying to people, over and over and over: “You weren’t there from the beginning of the debate, were you?” Well, I was there. I read every single stinkin’ comment on that Tim Russert thread, the day the comments were posted. I even rooted for you to complete this exercise in civility. And there was nothing dishonest about what DRJ was saying. I’m typing this from memory here but I’m going to go look before I post this and link DRJ’s comments: She said two things IIRC: 1) that she’s read more things in the period in between her post to which you referred, that made her think that perhaps Wright wasn’t unAmerican or racist and also that 2) she was trying to look for other possible explanations for Wright’s inflammatory statements.

    I said in my statement of the conservative position that Wright is racist and un-American. She said I was very close, but she had quibbles. She then said that she didn’t think that Wright was racist or un-American, she thought that he ‘embraced black separatism’ and sometimes ‘said un-American things.’ That right there is semantics. Which in and of itself is dishonest, never mind the fact that I went back and found her stating specifically that she thought that ‘Wright is un-American.’ That makes it a dishonesty double-dip, for not only employing the dishonest debate tactic of semantics, but having one of the fundamental parts of of your semantic arguments be completely contradicted by something you said earlier.

    I’m sure you’d really like to see me disappear forever, but give me a break. Characterizing the way that someone argues as dishonest is not an insult, unless you’re cartoonishly hyper-sensitive. She knew what she was doing. I still haven’t called her a name, I still haven’t cursed at her. I don’t mind doing this with the kid gloves, but I’m not just going to stand here and not throw punches. She’s had plenty to say about the way that I argue and what my motivations are, so if we’re going to count those as insults, then she ‘lost,’ too.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  224. I’m through with you, Levi. If you want to play, NK will engage you.

    DRJ (070f3d)

  225. Levi,
    I do indeed. If you had actually followed, and fully read, the links I provided to DRJ’s comments above, you would not have needed to ask me that question. [and now, spelled out precisely for Levi since he doesn't "do" implications: "...because it is clear from DRJ's comments that she is not arguing semantics."]

    I’m certain I’ve read that thread more than you have.

    And now, per my promise above, I have done with you. Hate to be rude to anyone at all, Levi, but I won’t be responding to you again. It does, regrettably, seem a waste of time to engage you. Hope you have a good day.

    Don’t care. You’re one of many, and I’ll believe it when I see it. You’ve already broken your little vow once.

    Levi (74ca1f)

  226. I’ve kept up on this (these) thread(s), but see no point in commenting further.

    AMac (c822c9)

  227. Levi is in moderation for insults to DRJ.

    Unfortunately, I’ve decided to place ada there too, due to that comment of his some weeks back. He can undo that with an apology to Mr. Sanai, which I doubt will be forthcoming for reasons of pride. I know he doesn’t like Sanai, but talking about having him strung up merits an apology, not just to me (which I received) but also one to Sanai, whether he likes him or not.

    This is not resulting from any pressure from Sanai, from whom I have not heard in weeks. It’s just that I am getting a little more aggressive about policing comments.

    Levi, your comments will published. Just, whenever I get to them. Same for ada.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  228. I said in my statement of the conservative position that Wright is racist and un-American. She said I was very close, but she had quibbles. She then said that she didn’t think that Wright was racist or un-American, she thought that he ‘embraced black separatism’ and sometimes ’said un-American things.

    I see where you went wrong, poor Levi.

    You see, DRJ is nice and gives the benefit of the doubt even to a race-baiting, anti-American homophobe like Wright. Had you been debating me, you would have won that round hands down. I had already told you directly in one of the Wright threads that that was my opinion. I believe I also said you were foolish to defend him because to him you are only someone he wants to kill last.

    Instead of you quibbling about “semantics” (why do we need Greek words, anyway?) you should have said, “Thank you for the clarification, DRJ. But was I close enough to win this round on points?”

    nk (c1e92f)

  229. Well, I cannot say I am sorry to see the guy banned or in moderation—at least until he learns to play nice—but he does reveal his motivations pretty clearly:

    “…I’m not just going to stand here and not throw punches. …”

    This faux-aggressiveness is pretty telling. And it isn’t impossible that the guy is meek and mild in person. The two are probably connected.

    But one heckuva chip on his shoulder. I think, if he likes to fight, he should pretend to be a a Republican over on Daily Kos or DU. That would give him all the verbal fisticuffs he could ever want!

    Eric Blair (02ec00)

  230. I think, if he likes to fight, he should pretend to be a a Republican over on Daily Kos or DU. That would give him all the verbal fisticuffs he could ever want!

    I don’t think so. He would only last about as long as it would take for a moderator to spot him as someone not spouting the Party Line. Although it is possible that his utter aversion to facts might confuse them for a few minutes.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6496 secs.