Fatheaded Ed's shameless demagoguery
In a post titled "Dover and the ACLU slur," unscrupulous BVD-clad blogger Fatheaded Ed Brayton said,
As for the demagogic The Devil in Dover being the only book about the Kitzmiller v. Dover case that is a "must read," they were saying the same thing about Monkey Girl last year, and Monkey Girl has completely fizzled on Amazon.com -- there has been very little discussion of the book there in the customer review section.
Fatheaded Ed continues,
.
In all the criticisms I have read of the Dover decision, not one charged that the ACLU, the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' attorneys, Judge Jones, and other supporters of the plaintiffs are a bunch of godless commies. The title of your post is "Dover and the ACLU slur." So what connection does this ACLU slur have to the Dover case?
Wrong, Ed. The ACLU spends a lot of time fighting things like (1) the teaching or even the mere mention of criticisms of the badly flawed theory of evolution in the public schools and (2) a tiny cross in the Los Angeles County seal.
OK, Ed, let's see if I understand this correctly. After seeing gross human rights abuses in Poland, Walczak knew when he returned to the US that he wanted to be a human rights attorney. And since he chose to give pro bono representation to the Dover plaintiffs, then the Dover school board was like those communist thugs who spied and wiretapped, arbitrarily imprisoned people, practiced police brutality, etc.. Right? Got it.
.
I just finished reading The Devil in Dover by Lauri Lebo (if you only read one book about the Dover trial, this is the one to read -- it's absolutely brilliant in every respect) and she discusses the background of Vic Walczak.
As for the demagogic The Devil in Dover being the only book about the Kitzmiller v. Dover case that is a "must read," they were saying the same thing about Monkey Girl last year, and Monkey Girl has completely fizzled on Amazon.com -- there has been very little discussion of the book there in the customer review section.
Fatheaded Ed continues,
.
Vic is the legal director of the ACLU of Pittsburgh and was one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Dover trial. And his entire life puts the lie to this idiotic slur that the ACLU are communists.
In all the criticisms I have read of the Dover decision, not one charged that the ACLU, the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' attorneys, Judge Jones, and other supporters of the plaintiffs are a bunch of godless commies. The title of your post is "Dover and the ACLU slur." So what connection does this ACLU slur have to the Dover case?
Before going to law school, Walczak went to Poland to give aid Lech Walesa and the Solidarity movement. He documented police brutality, wiretapping and other human rights violations as he dodged the secret police. . . . When he returned to the US, he knew that he had to become a human rights attorney.
The communist slur was idiotic from the start, of course. What, after all, is the (entirely accurate) critique of communist governments? That they operate in secret, invade their citizens' lives with spying and wiretapping, practice arbitrary imprisonment, make dissent illegal, destroy due process and generally terrorize the people with a brutal law enforcement system . . . ..
What are the very things that the ACLU spends nearly all their time and effort fighting against? Each and every one of those practices.
Wrong, Ed. The ACLU spends a lot of time fighting things like (1) the teaching or even the mere mention of criticisms of the badly flawed theory of evolution in the public schools and (2) a tiny cross in the Los Angeles County seal.
OK, Ed, let's see if I understand this correctly. After seeing gross human rights abuses in Poland, Walczak knew when he returned to the US that he wanted to be a human rights attorney. And since he chose to give pro bono representation to the Dover plaintiffs, then the Dover school board was like those communist thugs who spied and wiretapped, arbitrarily imprisoned people, practiced police brutality, etc.. Right? Got it.
.
Labels: Ed Brayton (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 5/14/2008 01:59:00 AM
14 Comments:
You notice the resounding yawn of boredom that has been the reaction to your last half-dozen posts? Other than Anonymous and me, there is nothing. Do you wonder why? Ask your therapist.
>>>>>> You notice the resounding yawn of boredom that has been the reaction to your last half-dozen posts? <<<<<<
Has it ever occurred to you that silence can be tacit approval?
From the play "A Man for All Seasons":
Prosecutor: . . this silence was not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!
Thomas More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim of the law is, "Silence gives consent." If, therefore, you wish to construe what my silence betokened . . ..you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.
P: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?
TM: The world must construe according to its wits. This court must construe according to the law.
>>>>>> Other than Anonymous and me, there is nothing. <<<<<<
I have told you umpteen times, dunghill, that you and the other trolls are not doing me a favor by commenting here. Quite the opposite.
Anyway, you didn't answer the question. Ed's article is titled, "Dover and the ACLU Slur." What is the connection between the Dover case and the redbaiting charge that the ACLU is communist?
Larry, Larry, Larry... Ed was referring to criticism of the ACLU in general, not specifically tied to the Dover case.
ViU is right; your posts are so boring that although they are nearly completely contemptible on most levels, they don't even warrant a reaction.
After having checked the definition of troll, we do not qualify, since our comments are on topic (and provide the only right things that visitors are going to find on this blog).
Monkey Girl should have fizzled; it was full of misrepresentations or lies, at least in regard to scientific issues: pure pro-Darwinite propaganda.
>>>>>>> Larry, Larry, Larry... Ed was referring to criticism of the ACLU in general, not specifically tied to the Dover case. <<<<<<<
Anonymous, Anonymous, Anonymous . . . Fatheaded Ed apparently was trying to tie the Dover case to that particular criticism of the ACLU, which is often not even a serious criticism (it is often just a joke that the "C" stands for "Communist"). Just look at the title: "Dover and the ACLU slur." And since Fatheaded Ed has banned me on his blog, I can't even ask him for a clarification, so he deserves whatever interpretations I make of what he says.
>>>>>> ViU is right; your posts are so boring that although they are nearly completely contemptible on most levels, they don't even warrant a reaction. <<<<<<<
So would you and ViU please do me a favor and stop reacting?
>>>>>> After having checked the definition of troll, we do not qualify, since our comments are on topic <<<<<<
The definition of "troll" that you checked is too narrow. Here is a good definition of the term:
An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" or "Message Board Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message (sic) to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.
The same source says this:
A troll will sometimes use insults to provoke other people to insult him. Then, he will complain to moderators of being insulted and will request that his opponents get banned from further discussion.
I have seen that behavior on other websites -- or more often the moderator will sua sponte ban or admonish a commenter who dares to retaliate against the trolls' insults.
-- and the same source says this:
When a troll attacks a message board, he generally posts a lot of messages. Even if his messages are not particularly inflammatory, they can be so numerous that they drown out the regular conversations (this is known as 'flooding').
I have seen a lot of that here on this blog -- typically from ViU. He posts long comments responding individually to each of my points and just says that I am wrong without saying why.
IMO that source is wrong, though, about the origin of "Internet troll" -- the source associates the term with the trolls of mythology:
Trolls of Scandinavian Mythology: Once upon a time, evil dwarfs were living in hills, forests and mounds. They were stumpy, misshapen, humpbacked, with a long nose, long hair and a long tail. Trolls were inclined to thieving, and fond of carrying off children. They would substitute one of their own offspring for that of a human mother. They were called "hill-people", and they were especially averse to noise, from a recollection of the time when god Thor used to fling his hammer after them. Not all trolls were evil!. Some trolls were helping people. Some trolls were only playing games. But, evil trolls were the one that kids were most afraid of. Some trolls were small, other were giants.
IMO the meaning of "troll" that is the origin of "Internet troll" is "a lure or a line with its lure and hook used in trolling" [a method of fishing]. However, the mythical trolls are sometimes regarded as companions of witches, and Internet trolls sometimes serve as companions of unscrupulous BVD-clad bloggers and aid those bloggers in persecuting commenters.
And "vandals" and "saboteurs" are also good names for you and ViU.
>>>>> and provide the only right things that visitors are going to find on this blog <<<<<<
Wrong. Other commenters have made worthwhile comments on this blog. But you, ViU, and a few others usually either just say I am wrong without saying why or you make some other breathtakingly inane statement.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim Sherwood said...
>>>>>> Monkey Girl should have fizzled; it was full of misrepresentations or lies, at least in regard to scientific issues: pure pro-Darwinite propaganda. <<<<<
Well, that's what should make it appealing to Darwinists. LOL
I was going to finish reading the book but when I saw that it was fizzling on Amazon.com, I gave up after reading only about one-third of it (including the all-important last sections). I reluctantly gave the book four stars out of five because it was well-researched and well-written. I have several articles about the book under the post label in the sidebar.
> Has it ever occurred to you that silence can be tacit approval? <
I think the clown actually believes this!
> An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" or "Message Board Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message (sic) to bait people to answer. <
Isn't that the basis of your blog? You seem to purposefully choose controversial subjects and then take outrageous positions.
> A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric <
That's you.
> Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.<
Again you. You are always the first to use name calling.
> He posts long comments responding individually to each of my points and just says that I am wrong without saying why. <
I nearly always say why. Since you have no answers, you pretend otherwise. When I do not say why it is usually in answer to one of your stupid posts where you take a baseless position and refuse to back it up other than by mindless repetition.
> They were stumpy, misshapen, humpbacked, with a long nose, long hair and a long tail. <
Well at least you don't have a long tail.
Well, ViU addressed most of what I was going to say. I should just add that, while you say that ViU "posts long comments responding individually to each of my points and just says that I am wrong without saying why," the correct response is not only does he usually say why, most of the time it is unnecessary as most non-brain-dead humans know why you're wrong. Only you miss the point.
As ViU already noted, the most Troll-like person on this board is the blogger himself. Larry resorts to name-calling as soon as he begins to lose an argument (usually before he finishes writing a blog).
>>>>> correct response is not only does he usually say why <<<<<
Wrong, dunghill. Look at his preceding comments -- do they address anything about the topic of this post? One of your own comments at least addressed the topic of this post.
>>>>> most of the time it is unnecessary as most non-brain-dead humans know why you're wrong. <<<<<
So if it's unnecessary, then why in the hell do you two keep doing it, dunghill?
>>>>>> Larry resorts to name-calling as soon as he begins to lose an argument <<<<<<
Wrong -- I resort to name-calling only when lousy sacks of *&$^@* like yourself and ViU clutter up my blog with breathtakingly inane comments. I could just ignore your asinine comments, but they make my blog look bad, which is what you dunghills are trying to do. You lousy dunghills are trying to show that my no-censorship policy doesn't work by not giving it a chance to work.
You lousy dunghills shamelessly take unfair advantage of my no-censorship policy while ridiculing my opposition to arbitrary censorship. You falsely accuse me of vandalizing when you are the real vandals. You dunghills are making yourselves look very foolish.
Proof in point: how many times did you use the word 'dunghill' in your previous comment? How many times did ViU or I use that or any other slang offensive term? And you yourself admit that my post was on topic.
This is the Year of the Rat, I believe, and one rumored explanation of the trolls is:
A rat, that nested very near
A keyboard, said, "I'm living here
To get the Net, to sniff, and click
To Larry's blog! My dirty trick?
To say he censors, bans, or try
Some other long-disproven lie:
For Darwin tells me that to steal
And rip's the all-creating deal!
So thus I'll foster wonders,see,
By creeping low and lousily
Along the Web. My mindless goal?
To bite at Larry. I'm a troll!"
Anonymous said...
>>>>>> Proof in point: how many times did you use the word 'dunghill' in your previous comment? <<<<<<
What did you expect?
>>>>>> How many times did ViU or I use that or any other slang offensive term? <<<<<<
Using offensive terms is not the only way to attack.
>>>>>> And you yourself admit that my post was on topic. <<<<<<
And I answered that post politely.
Nice poem, Jim!
Larry flatulated: >>>>>> And you yourself admit that my post was on topic. <<<<<<
And I answered that post politely.
With a number of vulgarities and near-profanities.
Larry farted: >>>>>> Proof in point: how many times did you use the word 'dunghill' in your previous comment? <<<<<<
What did you expect?
Nothing less. Thanks for proving my point (again).
Post a Comment
<< Home