Well... Your trackback has been deleted because you could have taken your beef up with Rob privately or in the comments there.

Plus you have a funky link to my site, fix it and trackback again.

I don't think our debate was at all childish however this post might qualify as such. I mean come on... Was this really necessary.

Issues are issues we'll disagree on those but stroking your ego here because of what someone else said about you elsewhere in a comment section certainly isn't the action(s) I'd expect from you.

It may be different if he totally blasted you in an article on his site. A simple commment? You gotta brush that off and press on. You know how much criticism (not to mention death threats) I've gotten in the past for various things (beheadings, hard line with sex offenders, gay rights, etc.). Brush it off and move on.

No I wont Chris, and you can consider it crass, but you dont know how many times Rob has done this same thing. To be honest we had a dust up a while back, and when it was over, it was over, but he continues to make a point of insulting me, and since he did so in a post that tracks back to my blog, I had every right to respond.
As for the trackback, that is your perogative my friend, but I made my point and it stands. I am not some flower in the hair Liberal who will stand still for people calling me out. That is what he did, and yeah, I made my point.

Then go meet him out by the bike racks at lunch.

Oh and one other thing Chris. I don't troll people's sites. Especially a third party to start a pissing contest with someone. Like I said, he attacked me in a very personal way in a post that tracked back to my Blog, now my best Blog buddy Angel, despite her doing it herself at times (wink), will no doubt disapprove and tell me that I should ignore people like that, but like I said, I am no flower in the hair Liberal, and I have a history on this Blog of pushing back when pushed, that is not going to change, the least of which is because it gives me ulcers. So anyone who sees this post as out of character, or is disappointed in Dave the diplomat, sorry. Dave the Diplomat is having a cup of coffee, Dave the ass kicker is filling in for him now.

No need to meet him anywhere Chris, my point is made.

And shit, I just wrote the longest run-on sentence in history in the comment I posted above the last one.

I am glad you and Chris are still talking. I have enjoyed reading the conversation today.

David, RtR is my baby. I started it. Yes, Chris invited you. Yes, Chris, Rick and I bounced ideas around before we got it going, but it was really me that started it. I said all that to say, that I want you to continue with RtR if you still want to.

Sure I will Scott. I only stated that I would leave RTR if he wanted based on the comments I saw in that post. I have little patience for people who attack people on a personal level just because they dissagree with them. I had a squabble with Rob over six months ago. I have not commented on his blog since, and have let our argument go. Him taking a personal cheap shot at me, and Chris not censuring him ticked me off. But it is over as far as I am concerned. Little Robbie tried to continue it here, but I deleted the comment, something I rarely do.

So much for freedom of speech, eh.

"Conservative Thinking?"

Pretty funny when you think about it. It's kind of like Mike Tyson writing a guide on Anger Management or www.amish.com.

You've got to forgive Rob, though. He's had a tough life.

No where in the Constitution does it say one gets to practice freedom of speech in the home of another. I am like David, in some ways, I don't censor my blog often ... but, it is my blog. Just as this is his blog. A blog is like a home. I would not allow someone to step in my home and call my children niggers or allow someone in that wants to argue all the time. I won't on my blog either.

Commenters are guests in the homes of others. If they can't behave themselves, then they should be shown the door just like anybody else.

Hilarity?

Really what is hilarious is a young, self-professed conservative who won't sign up for a war he demands others fight in his stead. A young conservative who got his job the old-fashioned way: via nepotism. A "family values" kind of conservatism who gripes about paying child support. One who thinks farm subsidies are bad--but state contracts to certain PI firms are a great idea, even if those contracts have proven non-cost-effective.

Freedom of Speech does not include the right to come onto my blog and insult me for the sake of insulting me. You should be familiar with the concept Chris, its like the fact that Republican Organizers dont allow people who might heckle Bush to attend his public events. Now Rob seems to have a obsession with my writing skills. Thats all fine and if he wants to fire up word and spell check and grammar check every post I make, he can have at it, I am sure while he is masturbating. Nevertheless, I wont play the game. He has earned the singular honor of being the first person EVER banned from my Blog.
And make him the victim all you like. JG will tell you from recent experience, things can get heated in comments here, but as long as it does not get personal I dont delete post or ban people. Rob is the person who has persisted in continuing his obsession with me by his comment yesterday on your blog.

On free speech:

When your house is a roof on stilts (a blog) in the middle of a highway (the World Wide Web) you are going to have to let people say things as they drive by (or through).

Don't get me wrong; I understand that a "troll" or menace does nothing for a blog, forum, message board, etc. But, shunning legitimate criticism should be something bloggers don't do.

I don't know Rob's specific comments here and I wasn't really bringing the 1st Amendment up in terms of that comment (for the reason stated above). I was more concerned about this from David:

"Him taking a personal cheap shot at me, and Chris not censuring him ticked me off."

Censuring someone who speaks their opinion in an open forum (a blog) isn't something I routinely do.

I also found a stark contrast between David's statement:

"I am someone who values our constitution"

And his upheaval over me not censuring someone's comment. But, if you consider your blog a house off in the hills somewhere I guess I understand that view.

Sometimes it's best to just let things go.

Where did Rob's comment on your Blog add to the debate, it was a cheap shot at me. And you would come off a lot less disengenuos if you acknowledged that I am not the person who is not letting things go. I had a debate with you. We exchanged views. We seemingly agreed on some things and dissagreed on others. Rob's comment on your blog was not about the substance of the debate. It was a cowardly snipe at me on your blog. You want to give someone a lecture Chris, start with him, because I have not even acknowledged Rob's existence since our argument six months ago. I responded to the comment he made, and moved on. He came here to my Blog to troll and continue his obsessive grammar police routine. Now I have other things to Blog this morning. If you want to continue this discussion, do it alone. Your "apparent" victimizing of Rob, who is a racist hack is getting old.

I see I made some spelling errors in that one too. But screw it, you got my point.

I have to admit your debate tactics are a tad unconventional.

You say he wasn't adding anything to the conversation, okay. Was he taking away from the conversation? Apparently not.

Sorry Chris, I dont even understand the question... He was making a personal attack, period, an unprovoked, childish and STUPID one. What is your point? What is your point in any of this. That I should have simply ignored him? I dont ignore very well, sorry. He had his ass handed to him before, and he has had it handed to him again, arguing not the substance of my arguments, but whether I put a comma in the wrong place. It's a good thing my clients and strategic alliance partners like IBM, HP, Intel and Cisco are not "comma obsessed."

"When your house is a roof on stilts (a blog) in the middle of a highway (the World Wide Web) you are going to have to let people say things as they drive by (or through)."

Actually, no blog owner has to let anyone say anything on their blog. Some blogs don't even allow comments. Others don't care who comments or what they say. And, even more choose what is and is not said. I know quite a few Republican blogs that do that. LSB comes to mind most often. She even moderates her trackbacks.

But, since it is the internet ... everyone is able to go to Blogger, make a blog, and say anything they want about what other people write. But, then that blog is their home and they get to have it like that. :)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Subscribe to this comment thread.

Comments: