Town Quixote's

[Nihilo]

On the Politics of Blood
. . . It's in the nature of politicized rhetoric today to trade on violence in the lowest terms for political gain. And part of what makes it inevitable is found both in the tweet and in much of the response to it. That is to say, palpable contempt on the part of political advocates keeps moving the margin on what's reasonable and acceptable until nearly anything that isn't a slap to the face can feel like fair game.

I think it's from an underlying confidence that in violent times and circumstances, that we collectively debate the weightiest of weighty matters then, that this is making the best of a bad situation, fundamentally, and can be seen (because I see it this way) as a very positive thing. (Not the violence but inflammatory responses to the violence.) It's fruit from the tree of the Bill of Rights, namely the freedom of speech, and we are using our God-endowed right to speak whatever's on our minds, in violent times and circumstances, to try to do the heavy lifting portion of hammering out needed improvement. We can't have people shooting people playing baseball, that'd kill professional sports dead for one thing, so we know that whatever improvement we make must address this. At the same time, Americans have the (unfortunately IMO) peculiar value that we are free to keep and bear firearms. So improvement must also address this, at the same time as it addresses the matter of people shooting people playing baseball.

FWIW. :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

The most recent Wrap found here.

Just making the point that I'm not a "regular" follower of yours, and I don't like being talked about behind my back. I see this appear in my quotation box and respond. If you think you're free to talk about people, then you should realize you've opened yourself up for some push back. Leave me off your "Wrap" and I'll stay off it. Pretty simple.

You're obviously concerned with what I write or you wouldn't be here.

Sod is likely still posting bits of mine that are largely distorted and carefully cherry picked, but I can't say for certain, because I don't care enough about his opinion to read his threads.

You come looking. And because you do you end up here. If you don't want to end up here stop seeking me out elsewhere.

You can stamp your foot all you like. It doesn't take more than a moment to post around you once on a day and your ongoing temper will only draw more interest to the particulars in the Wrap. Not a problem, which is why you'll notice I haven't reported you.

I think it's a wee bit funny.

Atta girl!

And you can't even say a notice brought you here.

 

[Town Heretic]

And, apparently, still concerned with my every word...so there's company for you glory.

The most recent Wrap found here.

 

[Town Heretic]

well, every word that's about me, retard :chuckle:

There wasn't a link, sod.

You had to be reading through to see any mention of you, which was made as a cautionary advance for glory.



The most recent Wrap found here.

 

[Eagles Wings]

Town: I'm totally torked you haven't roasted me yet.

No more kudos for you.

 

[Town Heretic]

Town: I'm totally torked you haven't roasted me yet.

No more kudos for you.

I'm saving it for a special addition.

 

[glorydaz]

The most recent Wrap found here.


You're obviously concerned with what I write or you wouldn't be here.

Any time I'm quoted, I check it out.

And gossip and slander does "concern" me.

That's why I'm here. Is that not clear?


I saw you quoting me so you could talk ABOUT me....not in order to engage me in dialogue. I'm only doing what needs to be done when I point out your obsession with gossip.

I don't read your tripe otherwise. Nor do I read the Star at the checkout stands, but I'm sure I would if I saw myself being the subject of gossip. Then I would sue. :chew:

 

[glorydaz]

The most recent Wrap found here.


You're obviously concerned with what I write or you wouldn't be here.

Any time I'm quoted, I check it out. That's why I'm here.

I saw you quoting me so you could talk ABOUT me....not in order to engage me in dialogue. I don't read your tripe otherwise. Nor do I read the National Enquirer at the checkout stands, but I'm sure I would if I saw myself being the subject of gossip, or seeing my comments being taken out of context so they could be ridiculed by a media shyster. Then I would sue. :chew:

 

[Town Heretic]

Any time I'm quoted, I check it out.

Really? It tells you where you're being quoted. That would be enough for me if I didn't care for the individual.

And gossip and slander does "concern" me.

Slandered by your own words? :think: So you agree with me then.

Here's what there was outside of a literal reposting of quotes:

"Then glory weighed in...

Or was it that glory never really left? (extra rep pts available)...

That wrapped with..."

That's gossip? No. That's slander? No. The rest is you.

Speaking of, here was your response:

Townie is a bit taken with me. He hates to be picked on. :rotfl:

Brought me back for a second showing. :thumb:

And here's the pudding with the proof. :banana:

That's why I'm here. Is that not clear?

I think something is, but not the something you're angling for here.

I saw you quoting me so you could talk ABOUT me

Except that I didn't really. I reposted a few bits with links and put a lead on it.

....not in order to engage me in dialogue.

The Wrap isn't about engaging in dialogue because the dialogue is going on in the thread linked to. It wouldn't make any particular sense to have the same conversation in two places. And in any event I demonstrated your interest in dialogue with your first three posts. It's another thing you made up as you went along.

I'm only doing what needs to be done when I point out your obsession with gossip.

Which isn't what's actually happening (see: the actual above), only how you attempt to justify your impulse.

I don't read your tripe otherwise.

To quote you, "Liar."

Nor do I read the Star at the checkout stands, but I'm sure I would if I saw myself being the subject of gossip. Then I would sue.

You'd have to sue yourself...again, quotes and whatnot. lain:

 

[Tambora]

Any time I'm quoted, I check it out. That's why I'm here.

I saw you quoting me so you could talk ABOUT me....not in order to engage me in dialogue. I don't read your tripe otherwise. Nor do I read the National Enquirer at the checkout stands, but I'm sure I would if I saw myself being the subject of gossip, or seeing my comments being taken out of context so they could be ridiculed by a media shyster. Then I would sue. :chew:

Atta girl!

 

[Town Heretic]

Atta girl!

I'd like to thank you for a cogent contribution to discourse...

I really would. lain:


The most recent Wrap found here.

 

[glorydaz]

well, every word that's about me, retard :chuckle:

And don't you love how he picks a few of our words out of context, and then proceeds to pontificate ......providing himself a soapbox to polish his previous comments.


That way he gets a rehearsal before his big debut here. Such a clever fellow.

 

[glorydaz]

Really? It tells you where you're being quoted. That would be enough for me if I didn't care for the individual.

You really expect anyone to believe you're capable of not responding? :rotfl:

Slandered by your own words? :think: So you agree with me then.

Partial quotes are some of the most misleading and slanderous quotes there are. One would think you'd know that. :nono:

Except that I didn't really. I reposted a few bits with links and put a lead on it.

The same thing all fake news sources say.

The Wrap isn't about engaging in dialogue because the dialogue is going on in the thread linked to. It wouldn't make any particular sense to have the same conversation in two places.

So what you do instead is shorten the posts of others, and expand your pontificating even more than you did on the original post. Yes, it's clear you're gloating and bloating over your wonderfulness.

To quote you, "Liar."

I was right, too, as you just keep proving over and over again.

 

[Town Heretic]

The most recent Wrap found here.

And don't you love how he picks a few of our words out of context,

Which never happens. But you're free to quote and illustrate the point, which you won't.

You really expect anyone to believe you're capable of not responding?

It's not a question of belief. Go to my stalker's threads about yours truly. You'll be hard pressed to find a post of mine. Then run a check on this thread alone and see who comments. It's pretty hilarious.

So what you do instead is shorten the posts of others,

I actually tend to shorten mine more often. Though I certainly shorten long exchanges, especially where there's repetition on points, as with this response.

Sometimes I even truncate things that are funny, like the sentence I omitted here about your attempting to note particular habits and differences within writing you say you only read when you see your name in it. As with the pontification repetitions it wasn't needed.

On dishonesty...

I was right, too, as you just keep proving over and over again.

All you've proven is you still can't do what you didn't do then, which is make the case beyond declaring it out of your emotional center.

And that's like a lie, isn't it.

 

[annabenedetti]

Reading through the exchange here between you and glorydaz, I got a kick out of reading it side-by-side with an article I'd read earlier today about Iowa Republican Chairman Jeff Kaufmann, who's mad at Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse because Sasse is a never-Trumper.


Here's glorydaz - I mean Kaufmann - in such high dudgeon he must be fighting a nosebleed:

“We had Sen. Ben Sasse from Nebraska, he crosses the Missouri River, and in that sanctimonious tone talks about what he doesn’t like about Donald Trump. You know what, Sen. Sasse? I really don’t care what you like. We love Donald Trump. And if you don’t love him, I suggest you stay on your side of the Missouri River.”

“He’s sanctimonious. His statements are geared toward what can help him. He’s arrogant. And he’s not a team player, when in reality the only reason he’s got any clout at all in the Senate is because the Republican Party has the majority. The most important thing to Ben Sasse is Ben Sasse.”
​

Here's what (very conservative) Ben Sasse said that caused Kaufmann such apoplexy:

“Conservatives understand that all men are created equal and made in the image of God, but also that government must be limited so that fallen men do not wield too much power,” Sasse wrote. “A presidential candidate who boasts about what he’ll do during his ‘reign’ and refuses to condemn the KKK cannot lead a conservative movement in America.”​

:chuckle:

Sasse's calmly rational statement is at that second link, for anyone who's interested.


You and I have had a couple conversations about this over the years - I remember when I was new here and you took a discussion I'd had with you and transferred it to your Observations thread - and I said something to the effect of "hey, that's not how it ended!" because I knew I'd gotten in a good response which you hadn't included. Eventually I realized that was how it was going to be.

Ultimately, people are different, and what bothers one person doesn't bother the next, and people do genuinely enjoy your thread and often follow the links to the original conversations, yet at the same time there are those who don't like it. I would pay attention to someone who came to you in good faith, who hadn't made it their life mission to spend the rest of their time stalking and/or goading you.

As for the stalkers and goaders... watching them jump up and down adds a certain entertainment value.

 

[Town Heretic]

Reading through the exchange here between you and glorydaz, I got a kick out of reading it side-by-side with an article I'd read earlier today about Iowa Republican Chairman Jeff Kaufmann, who's mad at Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse because Sasse is a never-Trumper.

Thanks for the contribution. Remarkable how that goes isn't it. :chuckle:

You and I have had a couple conversations about this over the years - I remember when I was new here and you took a discussion I'd had with you and transferred it to your Observations thread - and I said something to the effect of "hey, that's not how it ended!" because I knew I'd gotten in a good response which you hadn't included. Eventually I realized that was how it was going to be.

What to include is always a judgment call. I try to lean toward the humorous more often than not, so sometimes arguments (mine included) get left out. On the plus side, even a few who publicly dislike me have noted I'll train humor at myself and it makes the Wrap too.

Ultimately, people are different, and what bothers one person doesn't bother the next, and people do genuinely enjoy your thread and often follow the links to the original conversations, yet at the same time there are those who don't like it. I would pay attention to someone who came to you in good faith, who hadn't made it their life mission to spend the rest of their time stalking and/or goading you.

That's about the point of the exercise. If it was the vanity project some seem determined to make it I'd never let the other side have a word. I think some people don't like having their habits set out for condensed consumption. It's a bit like the Cub Reporter's thread in that respect.

As for the stalkers and goaders... watching them jump up and down adds a certain entertainment value.

There is that.

 

[Town Heretic]

The most recent Wrap found here.

if it wasn't a vanity project,

Which it isn't and why you don't just see my side of a thing and without links.

you'd include exchanges that dint include you, as fool once suggested

Which I have, but only now and then.

Mostly the Wrap is about what I happen across and usually become involved in at some point. It's a window for people who like my brand of humor and a chance to find discussions they might not have discovered. It's not for everyone. It isn't trying to be. I can't imagine why people who spend any time lamenting it spend any time with it. By way of eek I don't read your threads or respond in them most of the time. Including the ones you've fashioned as bait or as a comment on me over the years. It's one reason I find you and glory stomping about here more amusing than irksome.

So far, this goofy thread gets between 3 and 5 thousand views any given month. That's really the reason it continues. My hope is that it gives people a chuckle now and again and lightens a day.

 

[glorydaz]

The most recent Wrap found here.


Which never happens. But you're free to quote and illustrate the point, which you won't.

It NEVER happens.

They are worse off.....in many ways. They sure weren't killing each other off in record numbers, like they are in Chicago today. They had a work ethic which is no longer encouraged in this entitlement society we live in. Race relations are twice as bad (at least) as they were before Obama took office. So you are only proving yourself to be blind to the facts while promoting your liberal spin of what is better and what is worse. No surprise there.

And calling someone a "doofus" is not name-calling, either. :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

you don't just see my side of a thing


I can't imagine why people spend any time with it. eek


this goofy thread gets views

:chuckle:

 

[annabenedetti]

:chuckle:

:chuckle: