From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
Censorship Only refuge of Weak and Fearful
Published on October 25, 2006 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In Current Events
You see it in articles and replies all the time. To paraphrase, it usually boils down to this..." stop saying things i can't deal with, or i'll censor your words." It matters not how polite the person is. It doesn't matter if the person refrains from insults and profanity. All that matters is that the host of the article can't effectively argue something, therefore his only course of action is that of any coward. Run and hide. In this case, censor the writer.

Of course, that's their choice. But what a weak choice it is. It is, in effect, an admission that they cannot back up their own points. It's usually surrounded by a bunch of "eloquent" language, but anyone with a brain knows what's happening.

I've been in some very heated arguments over the last decade + of writing online. Sometimes you are dealing with someone unreasonable. No matter, just stand your ground and the "trolls" usually go away after a short while. When they don't, they can be fun to play with. Plus, anyone who has been in a heated debate with me knows that when the dust settles, like in a boxing match, I am usually the 1st to extend a gesture of friendship and emphasize that perhaps we can find common ground elsewhere. But some aren't interested in finding common ground, they are only interested in bullying their opinions on others, and when they find they can't, they censor. They know not of competing hard and good sportsmanship, they only want victory uberalles.

In all the years I have written, and written online, I have always used my own name wherever possible. I do it for a reason. I stand behind what I write. And just because someone comes on and tells me i'm wrong and uses their "evidence" as proof, doesn't make it so. And i'm big enough of a boy that I can deal with some yahoo yellin at me. Censorship has never been an option. Censorship is for cowards who hide behind their keyboards and act like bullies. Usually paper bullies.

I have been sworn at, insulted, had my family and friends insulted and worse. But I don't censor. It is a principle. Obviouly one not shared by all. Some would rather supress dissent than deal with it. Some don't have the mental capacity to understand that people will disagree with you often, no matter how well you think your argument has been laid out. Some take this bloggin stuff WAY too seriously.

Many times over the years, I have called these keyboard bullies out. I'm not afraid of them, like they think I should be. This usually results in 1 of 2 things. Either they back off, or they try to censor me. To tell the truth, I usually have more respect for the ones who back off, even if it isn't accompanied by an apology. At least those folks are showing they are capable of seeing how stupid they were. The censors just prefer to live in their state of denial, their delusional world where everything they say is right.

Of course, these are the 1st people who start accusing others of being stalkers and trolls. They even try to foolishly define them sometimes. Of course those definitions never apply to them, as they are perfect in their own eyes. It's sad and a shame.

But if they choose to bury their head in the sand and act as if they are justified in squelching different opinions, so be it. But if they think others don't know the truth, they are really delusional not realizing that while you may be able to wield absolute power on the lil ol blog site, in the real world, the truth is known, and discussed without censorship.

If you are gonna dish it out, you gotta be prepared to take it is the bottom line for most. But for some, they only wanna dish it out.

Such is life.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 25, 2006
As for remaining anonymous Sean, I would not write under my own name because there are too many weirdos out there. I think you have proved that.
on Oct 25, 2006
As for remaining anonymous Sean, I would not write under my own name because there are too many weirdos out there.

i have been writing for almost 20 years. i have been writing online for over a decade. i have never had anyone successfully threaten me. it comes down to putting your name on your words. if you can't do that, then you, in most cases, have no right to make public statements.

the whole "above the fray" thing amuses me whip. i've seen rudeness and insults from just about everyone i have ever seen blogging or posting on boards over the years including you, including me. . but everyone feels theirs are justified or simply "statements of fact" and everyone else's are so much more offensive. very hypocritical. i do note that you, like me, shake hands and move on after a heated debate. that is what i find important, not one's "style" of making their point. decent people, after the dust settles, say something nice and move on. i guess others interpret that as "fuck you" but i can't help that anymore than i can help all the miscarachterizations i am put thru here.

fact is we are all rude at times. but even funnier is that i am being censored from replying in the forum even though i never swore at him in the discussion in question, nor was i rude. i simply disagreed with his premise and conclusions, and stated as such. as plainly as i did here. for that, i was threatened with censorship. when i stood my ground, again, without swearing, i was "banned."

sad part is that i was in other discussions i can't continue now. of course, that serves the purpose of creating the false impression that i must bne wrong, cause i didn't answer. how convienient.

i could repost everything , including responses onto my own blog, but that would just come off as "trolling" and the like...so i am forced into a silence because i would not bow down and agree. that's censorship.
on Oct 25, 2006
by the way,,,here's how the exchange happened...i'm only gonna copuy exerpts...if anyone wishes to fact check it to make sure i don't take anything out of context,,,feel free here...

Link


Reply By: Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1 Posted: Monday, October 23, 2006 this is a super-spun article. on just a little bit of "fact checking" i found this...As a home owner, I cannot build on my property wherever I want. There are zones on land that I own that I am not permitted to build on because of environment regulations that, if you saw the land in question (there may have been a swamp there a hundred years ago) it's ridiculous. I'm not saying I would build on that, but the government is definitely intruding on me in a very tangible way. (Authoritarian source: Democrats). i assume you are referring to the EPA...nixon started the EPA. if you are just talking about local zoning ordinances, those can hardly be exclusively attributed to any party. As a parent, I cannot just send my child to whatever public school I want. If my local school sucks, I can't just choose to send them somewhere else that has room for the child. (Authoritarian source: Democrats). public school systems go back to greece. Even though I am in perfect health and can easily provide health care for my family, 2.9% of my income is forcibly taken from me no matter how much I earn. (Authoritarian source: Democrats) in my life, we take our health benefits from my wife's employer, the federal goverment. so in my job, i ALWAYS turn down benefits. no one forces anything out of my pay for health benefits. if she wanted to take no health benefits and "go on her own" the govt. doesn't stop that. Similarly, 12.4% of my income is taken away for a forced retirement plan that I would be able to handle far better myself and so could most other people. (Authoritarian source: Democrats) gonna rip on the most successful public system ever established by any goverment? i 100% disagree with this...i'm gonna be writing on Soc. sec. after the election, so i'll save my comments for that. As an employer, OSHA can tell me how my office should be furnished -- from chairs to lighting. (Authoritarian source: DemocratsOSHA was started by Nixon. The early 'groundwork" began post wwII during Ike's admin. it developed thru kennedy and johnson. As a student, I cannot be certain that I will be accepted at a major public university based on merit if my skin color is not favored by the government (Authoritarian source: Democrats). the roots of affirmative action do have their roots in the democratic party. and they have, in the past, served the people well, imho, in "leveling the playing field." i do believe these laws need to be re-examined periodically, and probably should be again, soon. If you have conservative views and speak at a major university, you can be expected to be assaulted verbally (or violently) by left-wing protesters. There are 0 documented incidents for the reverse -- Michael Moore, and other left wingers have never been physically assaulted or shouted down at a major university they've spoken at. this is a lie. 1 minute of googling showed conservative students acted this way during a commencement address in 2001 when the speaker voiced concerns about civil liberty violations and military tribunals et al,,,News Publisher Booed During SpeechAP ^ | December 16, 2001 | Associated PressNews Publisher Booed During SpeechBy Associated PressDecember 16, 2001, 4:14 PM ESTSACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A newspaper publisher's commencement speech was drowned out by hecklers when she mentioned threats to civil liberties posed by the federal government's investigation of the terrorist attacks. Janis Besler Heaphy, president and publisher of The Sacramento Bee, was delivering the midyear graduation address Saturday to about 17,000 people at California State University in Sacramento. When Heaphy raised questions about racial profiling, limits on civil rights and the establishment of military tribunals, the audience interrupted by clapping and stomping their feet for five minutes. University President Don Gerth tried to quiet the audience, but Heaphy stopped speaking after more loud heckling erupted. Heaphy told The Sacramento Bee afterward that the hecklers were merely blaming the messenger. "This was a message about civil liberties and our acceptance of differing points of view in American society," she said. "It's a message that needs to continue to be heard." Gerth blamed the interruption on students' family members and friends and said some students apologized to Heaphy after the ceremony. "Our students have a right to hear our speaker," Gerth said. "It is a day I will never forget. I am not proud of it." Heaphy's speech will be posted in its entirety Monday on the university's Web site, Gerth said. Heaphy said she plans to continue to voice her concerns about potential civil liberties violations. As an employer, I cannot hire or fire people as I please. Any form of discrimination (real or imagined) is strictly forbidden (Authoritarian source: Democrats). i live in a right to work state. that specifically means someone can hire and fire as they please. what they can't do is discriminate purposefully. in other words, you can fire someone "for no reason." other than you want a change to take place. what you can't do is fire someone cause they are a minority, or a woman etc...i'm not saying i agree with every discrimination and AA law out there, but your painting of it is skewed and oversimplistic.When I go to the mall on a cold rainy day with my infant daughter, I have to park further back from the store because the store was required by the government to provide several handicap parking spaces (usually unused). (Authoritarian source: Democrats) 1st, a lot of handcap and disability laws are derived from state laws, of various parties. the federal "americans with disabilities act" was signed by bush 41. When I build an office, I am forced to build bathrooms of an extra large capacity in order to fit potentially handicap people even if my business is not a retail business (Authoritarian source: Democrats). again, talk to bush 41 on this.When I ride a motorcycle, I am required to wear a helmet in Michigan. (Authoritarian source: Democrats). When I drive a car, I am required to wear a seat belt. (Authoritarian source: Democrats).helmet and seat belt laws have been proven to save lives and reduce injuries. sure , you have the right to be a moron if you want in theory, but in the real world, your unsafe behavior can directly affect me in the form of higher insurance premiums, higher medical insurance costs, etc...and again, these laws are usually state laws, which have been pased by both parties. i'm sorry, i don't agree with your premises or conclusions.


i disagreed, but i thought i was pretty respectful.

the response i got...

Reply By: Brad Wardell Posted: Monday, October 23, 2006
i'm sorry, i don't agree with your premises or conclusions.


Sean, you simply aren't "getting it". Did you bother to read the entire article?Here's the part at the end you apparently ignored:Now, you can read this list and say "Well these laws are good for us" or that they're good things. That's totally irrelevant. Authoritarianism doesn't mean "evil horrible" control by the government, it just means government that dictates the "proper" way for people to live their lives. Your argument basically is that those laws are good laws. (my note,,,no it's not)You're free to feel that way. But it's totally irrelevant whether they're for our own good or not. It is still the government telling us how we have to live. If anyone needs to read a book like Atlas Shrugged it's you.The other thing - presidents don't make laws. Do you understand this? Legislatures do. If you go back and look at the AWDA, OSHA, and other laws you'll find that their base of support came from the Democrats. It would be like you arguing that Democrats favor the elimination of welfare because Clinton signed the welfare reform act.

obviously brad doesn't understand my point, so i try to clarify...

Reply By: sean conners(Anonymous User) Posted: Monday, October 23, 2006 basically brad, i read what you wrote as more of a democrats are more authoritarian than republicans. yes you do cover your ass with statements like what you self quoted above. i think you didn't get what i was responding to. your article was slanted despite the qualifiers. the point i was making is that neither party has any exclusives on messing with rights in various forms in the past. personally, i don't think all the laws mentioned by you above are good, nor are they all bad. i think these questions and the histories of these various laws are more complex than you make them to be. to pin much of that solely on the democrats was simply innacurate. we are probably not far off from each other, but per usual, we tend to read the worst in each other's writings, lol...but we both have a mutual history of that...anyway...at least you have an example of a liberal speaker being booed and whatnot...lolhave a great day brad:) thanks for the opportunity to clarify a lil.

here, i do try to clarify my position. again, while i disagree, i don't think i am being mean or rude. in the end, i even thank him for the opportunity to clarify my position. i guess this was taken as "fuck you" as well.

by the way, brad never addresses my point of showing a liberal speaker being booed by conservatives. just like any time i give him a compliment for something i agree with, it is ignored.

this is what i got back...

Reply By: Draginol Posted: Monday, October 23, 2006 Well, my government is spending a huge amount of my money on wars I don't support, with no oversight of how the money is being spent. I figure that I've been charged thousands and thousands of dollars in Taxes in order to pay for a staggering amount of waste. That's a real-world example of authoritarianism. Huh? So basically you're saying that paying taxes is authoritarian?I didn't even list income taxes as authoritarian (despite the fact that most of those income taxes go to programs insisted by liberals that provide little to no benefit to the person who paid the taxes).Sean, others: If you don't know what authoritarian means, then don't participate. I'm one step away from blocking you from my articles if you can't be bothered to read the articles.The argument Al Franken made was that it's Republicans that are authoritarian (as opposed to the Democrats).All we hear from the left are theoretical or potential cases where an individual American might have their freedoms abused (as opposed to say FDR who simply locked up thousands of Japanese Americans but if Bush wants to wire trap foreign calls from suspected terrorists, oh no).But when you sit down and list TANGIBLE (that means things that actually affect real people every day) authoritarian government policies, it's consistently policies pushed through by Democrats.Things that the government forces at gun point on to its citizens is authoritarian. It doesn't matter if you think big brother is doing a good job or not. Maybe YOU need a mommy to tell you to save 12.4% of your income for retirement. I don't. I'm a functioning adult capable of investing my own money.Maybe YOU need the government to tell you which specific school your child MUST go to (unless you want to opt out entirely in which your tax dollars are totally wasted). I don't. I can make that decision a lot better. In Greece, btw, parents can send their child to any public school as long as it has room (the case is true in nearly every European country).and so on. It doesn't matter whether YOU or I agree on whether mommy government is doing a good job or not. The point is that mommy is taking our rights away little by little wiht this kind of thing. When you lose a choice as an individual, you lose a bit of your freedom. And time and time again it's been the left inserting more power to mommy.

so now i'm being threatened, for no reason. i obviously read the article, just disagreed with it. the railroading is starting to show itself.

another funny thing,,,the quote in his article wasn't even mine.

and next time i tried to respond to an unrelated article on the forum, i was banned.

it's obvious that i was railroaded. all the other disputes i had with anyone had been settled, and virtual hands were shook, except for 1 debate i was having with lee1776 and hadn't had a chance to respond. but that wasn't overly nasty,,,just political.

i know from doing some research and past personal experience, this is the way he operates.

i could be creating "alternate " accounts from other computers or coming on annonymously and "go after him" but that's not the way i operate. i play and fight hard, but i guess i'm alone in knowing when the game is over and it's time to shake hands and wish well. i guess some others were the type to take their ball and go home when they didn't like how the game was going. or never played ball at all and never learned how to be a good sport.

on Oct 25, 2006
"you can dish it out but can't take it" is also the cry of the nut who can't face the fact that his argument is insipid and insists on posting it over and over. IT's also the cry of people who divert discussions and resort to whines of attrition; the intellectual equivalent to putting your hands over your ears and yelling 'na na na na'.

You might want to consider the fact that maybe, just maybe, when people silence you it is because they feel that you aren't really up to the task, and would prefer not having you lower the conversation and spoil it for people with valid points. Or maybe you already posted your point and insist on re-posting it over and over, and finally they get bored hearing the same thing for the 20th time.

Regardless, people can do what they want with their blogs, and if you have a problem with them the best thing to do is not visit there. If there constantly seems to be a party you want to go to there, you might wonder if the problem was the blog.
on Oct 25, 2006
You might want to consider the fact that maybe, just maybe, when people silence you it is because they feel that you aren't really up to the task, and would prefer not having you lower the conversation and spoil it for people with valid points.


Bingo!

Sean, Try posting on the poster's topic, not yours. The example you gave you failed multiple times to do so.

And on my latest you did as well. I was not talking about lawyers (mentioning them in passing, yes), yet you chose to concentrate on that non sequitar. Instead of the main point.

I did not cut off Col klink just because he could not stay on topic. But I dont have to answer him if he is not going to discuss the issue at hand, instead of his made up issue.
on Oct 25, 2006
Col gene posts long rants, usually barely touching the topic. Col Gene is in the association business. Every time a discussion of the Bush administration comes up, it doesn't matter if it is a matter of what suit the guy wears or what, he'll find a way of diverting it to the economy, or Iraq, etc. Some of us don't like our blogs used as launching points for empty propaganda.
on Oct 26, 2006
you can dish it out but can't take it" is also the cry of the nut who can't face the fact that his argument is insipid and insists on posting it over and over.

it's also a statement of fact here. i do not post things "over and over"...on that thread, you can see an "annonymous user" post under my name being used. i got power surged at home and the sudden shut off signed me out. i accidentally double clicked the response, then apologized. after that i signed back in, and much to my surprise, i couldn't edit the post.

but acts like that are hardly the norm for me. and i thought it was obvious what i did.

Sean, Try posting on the poster's topic, not yours. The example you gave you failed multiple times to do so.

ok,,,he writes an article entitled "who is the party of authoritarians?" in the piece, he contends all the examples he uses are purely of democratic origin.

i respond by giving examples (you can agree with them or not, but they are real examples) of how there is some republican backround in the things he uses. i state that "authoritarianism" comes from both sides, not just the democrats as he is painting.

i reiterate that i did "understand" his lil article. brad seems to think he's the only guy in the room with a brain sometimes...he's wrong.

i stand by my stance that i don't agree with his premise, or his conclusions. at no time am i even argumentative, let alone rude, abusive or anything.

he bans me from responding on the forum.

bottom line,,,he was gonna find an excuse, no matter how feeble, to shut me up.

if i missed something in that exchange,,,please point it out to me. but as i go back over the comments in "who is the party of authoritarians?" i cannot see one instance where i did anything but respectfully disagree.

again, i could do what others do and start other accounts to go after him. but i don't troll or stalk. i do play and fight as hard as anyone. i dish it out, but i also take it. in fact, in many debates i'm "taking it"" and usually being insulted by 3 , 4 or 5 people at a time. and i won't apologize for defending myself when gettin ganged up on.

brad may or may not be fair. to be honest, i don't know him enough to make that judgement personally. but i can say his actions are the opposite of a real conservative.

but that's his perrogative.

Some of us don't like our blogs used as launching points for empty propaganda

well, i don't either. but i have a noncensorship policy on my articles. for that i put up with all kinds of propoganda and parroting of talking points. i won't even take down annonymous user spam. i don't ever want to be accused of being too afraid to let anyone express their belief. i believe that after the propoganda dust has settled, most reasonable people, despite their beliefs, can have a productive conversation. it's a principle. but not everyone lives on principles.

and can do far worse than block you from his forum posts.

i have never feared anyone, and i'm not gonna start now. but whip, your advice before the quote may be wise. perhaps i should just let him bounce his ball and not play the game.
on Oct 26, 2006
And on my latest you did as well. I was not talking about lawyers (mentioning them in passing, yes), yet you chose to concentrate on that non sequitar. Instead of the main point

i would have responded guy,,,except i can't. so i guess i'll have to here.

you were right there as far as hiring lawyers not being the main point. i guess i read it a lil differently the first time. i did want to point out that the practice was done on both sides. and i have a hard time with norman leer's wife bein a "leader" of the democrats. the latter was gonna be in my response to you in addition to some other points. ...but that's been arbitrarily squelched.

you are also right in pointing out the "conspiracy" mind of arianna. she is too conspiracy minded sometimes. but again, hardly a leader of the democrats. more of a fringe charachter that not many, including myself pay much mind to.

but she isn't the 1st person, nor is it exclusive to democrats, to suspect fraud before an election. just off the top of my head, i remember republicans crying foul in ohio before the 2004 election.

on Oct 26, 2006
As for remaining anonymous Sean, I would not write under my own name because there are too many weirdos out there.

just want to point out that now that rush limbaugh has suggested it, brad is now again using his real name. so do most other bloggers who don't want to come off as amateurish by using an aol type s/n.

and please don't slander me and imply i'm some sort of "wierdo" just because i don't support the administration and have never been afraid to express my views. find one example of me showing up at someone's house and you can make that statement. otherwise, it's just a cheap shot with no basis in fact, in other words, slander.

and it holds no water when you are just taking cheap shots from behind your keyboard muscles and alias. a decent person would admit the error in judgement.
on Oct 26, 2006
"well, i don't either. but i have a noncensorship policy on my articles. for that i put up with all kinds of propoganda and parroting of talking points. i won't even take down annonymous user spam. i don't ever want to be accused of being too afraid to let anyone express their belief. i believe that after the propoganda dust has settled, most reasonable people, despite their beliefs, can have a productive conversation. it's a principle. but not everyone lives on principles. "


I can see that. I wonder if someone came in and, say, posted 5 or 6 long cut-and-paste clinical studies of Viagra with links where to buy it online... on, say, a discussion on Iraq, if you'd just leave them there to fester? If not you have the same trigger we do, it's just set to a different tolerance.

The problem with the crap the col leaves is it draws flies. He comes onto your blog about the President's choice of suits, leaves a big steamer about how the economy is falling apart. That in and of itself isn't going to wreck your discussion, but when 10 naysayers start tearing into him, and then he replies, and they reply...

Your means of control is blacklisting and removing posts. The Col simply won't obey you if you tell him to shut up, so all you can do is delete his post. If you blacklist him WITHOUT removing his posts they naysayers just heap hate on him, enjoying him not being able to reply.

These are the tools we have. As the blog owner we have the privilege to moderate the flow of the discussion. We don't have the privilege to moderate the content of other people's posts, and we can't stop you from going and writing a blog yourself. So no one is silenced, bloggers just have the ability to control what they want on their blog.

The abuse of these tools has a built in punishment. People love dissent here, it gives them long discussions that a lot of people visit. People who delete enough posts stop getting them.
on Oct 26, 2006
would have responded guy,,,except i can't


Why cant you? My black list consists of one name, and it is not yours.

me thinks me smells a rat.
on Oct 26, 2006
me thinks me smells a rat

apparantly i can't resspond on many joeuser.com posts, i can reply to nothing in the forums. i don't know the logistics of it, but i can tell ya, like michael j fox, i'm not faking anything.


i did attempt (twice) to respond to the artcile direcly, but all that happens is i get a screen with all the responses, but no "box" to put anything into.same result on many other posts. i did manage to respond to another post, not using the forums...go figure...i'm not a "computer" guy, so i have no idea admitedly.
on Oct 26, 2006
The problem with the crap the col leaves is it draws flies. He comes onto your blog about the President's choice of suits, leaves a big steamer about how the economy is falling apart. That in and of itself isn't going to wreck your discussion, but when 10 naysayers start tearing into him, and then he replies, and they reply...

that's fine baker, and i understand other people do things differently than i do. i don't censor at all because i believe, if i start doing it, then it becomes too easy to use it as an excuse. and then i'm censoring possibly because "i don't like how things are goin." i.e.- it's a "slippery slope" to me. i can usually skim right past the spam and non germaine arguments and just deal with the person i am discussing an issue with.

The abuse of these tools has a built in punishment. People love dissent here, it gives them long discussions that a lot of people visit. People who delete enough posts stop getting them.

i'm not familiar, what is that "punishment?" (seriously)

and i see some here who can deal with a good debate, but all too often, any dissent immediately is responded to with personal insults. and because my views are a minority here, i tend to draw the insults like flies and am forced to deal with several simotaneous attacks. . yes, some of em are veiled, but most are not. i actually have more respect for someone who will insult me directly rather than pompously and pretentiously mask it in eloquent, plausibly deniable language. what's worse is those same people will be the ones who cannot even acknowledge what they did when called on it or act like it's not an insult, it's a fact. and since (in their opinion) it's a fact, it's perfectly ok to insult you.

all that aside, have ya'll gone to the "who is the party of authoritarians?" post and see that i did absolutely NOTHING to merit any kind of "punishment." the only thing i am guilty of is disagreement, respectful disagreement. i think any reasonable person can see that.

furthermore, both you and guy know, that after the dust settles, i do seek a "virtual handshake" in the end. not every time, as sometimes posts just drift into the past, but often enough that people should know the difference of me in debate mode, vs normal mode. i'm sure it's not hard to find me saying "maybe we can find common ground elsewhere." and the like. and despite how other people read it, when i say have a nice day, the worst it can mean is goodbye, i'm gonna go read something else now. usually it means just what it says an i felt, a polite way of ending a response. if people, in the heat of debate, misinterpret that as "fuck you", i can't help that. but no one has ever even asked me for an apology over that or even pointed their interpretation out to me directly.



have a nice day guys:) (really)



on Oct 26, 2006
Brad has been blogging & posting under his own name since day one - much as you'd apparently like to attribute that to Rush, Sean, 'tain't so. Granted, he more often posts using one of his other online monikers (Frogboy, Draginol), but their true identity has also been well-known and quite public for just as long.
on Oct 26, 2006
Brad has been blogging & posting under his own name since day one - much as you'd apparently like to attribute that to Rush, Sean, 'tain't so.

i've been on this blog site for just under 3 years. back then, he did use his own name more often than not. but for some time now, he has used the draginol account the vast majority of the time.

brad himself acknowledged this...

I use a handle on-line. Draginol. I probably should just use my real name -- it's Brad Wardell. Rush is correct when he refers to my blogs as amateur. But that doesn't make my observations invalid.


btw, i congratulated him on the birth of his daughter and have given him compliments many times when i agreed with him. obviously, i don't just go round "hating on him." but it seems anytime when i compliment or congragulate him, i get ignored while others get thank you's. it's just an immature move by someone who can't deal with others not agreeing with him. the only time he reacts to anything i write, he goes out of his way to insult me by calling me stupid or that i "just don't understand."

also, when i have been wrong, i say so...so anyone who claims i just go round damning others is just wrong. ask guy, brad, moderateman and others if i have ever admitted my wrongness in debates...if they are being honest, they will have to admit i do. no, i don't always agree with someone on the "ohther sides" premise, and when i don't, i defend my position as adamantly as anyone.



brad and i have a history of arguing,esp 2 or 3 years ago... and neither of us have been "above the fray" at times. i don't know if you realize that daiwa, and it's no crime if you didn't, i wouldn't expect you to follow our web debates like that.

the bottom line is that brad holds me to a different standard than everyone else, probably because i do my research and fact checking as well as anyone.

in my humble opinion, when brad runs out of arguments, he plays his "owner" card. which is his perrogative. but that, nor anything else, would ever silence me like he would like to. it's just him showing a certain immaturity in action while he tries to hide that with pseudoeloquent words.



2 Pages1 2