JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/09/dear-laura.html (45 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1191076625-581386  DNA at Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:37:05 +0000

That was excellent.


jsid-1191076668-581387  Guav at Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:37:48 +0000

Oops, that was me, BTW.


jsid-1191077724-581389  Guav at Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:55:24 +0000

I would also like to send her a short polite email, but I cannot locate her email address. Can you provide me with it?


jsid-1191081117-581392  Civis Proeliator at Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:51:57 +0000

Well said, sir.

(Let's see if she responds to this one.)

I wouldn't count on it. As noted by many, "reasonable discourse" isn't a strong point with that crowd.


jsid-1191082762-581393  Markadelphia at Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:19:22 +0000

"if they addressed their efforts directly at the young men in question, rather than at the suburban and rural white men who are not?"

Absolutely. You have hit the nail on the head here, Kevin. These young men, more than likely, had parents and teachers that did not do their job, more than likely due to laziness. I see kids everyday who could be just like this because their parents don't take an active role in the children's lives.

Communities as a whole (parents, teachers, police) can reduce violence in their respective areas if they were more energetic.


jsid-1191085662-581395  Kevin Baker at Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:07:42 +0000

Guav, her email addy is lauraswashington@aol.com


jsid-1191086028-581396  Bilgeman at Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:13:48 +0000

Small Minor:

" Let's Pry Open Those Cold, Dead Hands "

Sigh...yet another instance of inferred violence against lawful gun-owners from a supposedly "anti-violence" hoplophobe.

It needs, I think, to be pointed out to this ghastly hypocrite that in order to pry open our hands, they must first be RENDERED cold and dead.

That's easy enough said in a flippant little blog essay, but I think the execution may be somewhat more problematical than Ms. Dim-Bulb might suppose.

Regards;


jsid-1191086565-581398  Bilgeman at Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:22:45 +0000

And another thing:

"Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina's, an African-American Catholic Church on Chicago's South Side, has been crusading for stricter regulation of gun shops and manufacturers."

Another example of someone writing from utter ignorance.

Holy Mother Church does NOT recognize the racial divisions so all-important to the Politically Correct crowd.

And whatever Fr. Pfleger's temporal political campaigning may entail, it is NOT a "Crusade".

Only His Holiness the Pope can call for a Crusade...not some parish priest, and certainly NOT some slobbering dirt-merchant on a blog.

That's the difference between a Crusade and a Jihad.

Ms. Washington would do well to have more than a nodding acquaintance with her subject matter before she hits the "send" button.

Frankly, I'm pretty fuckin' offended by PC Liberals who presume to tell me what my Faith is.

Regards;


jsid-1191088100-581401  Breda at Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:48:20 +0000

You know, its funny...I have NEVER ONCE been to the NRA website...

AND I am female.

I would love to take Laura Washington to the range. Should I email her an invite? =)


jsid-1191088185-581402  Kevin Baker at Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:49:45 +0000

Oh, by all means, Breda. Please do!


jsid-1191108111-581406  DirtCrashr at Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:21:51 +0000

Very cogent, thoughtful, well mannered letter.


jsid-1191115680-581417  Kevin Baker at Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:28:00 +0000

I do my best.


jsid-1191118322-581422  -B at Sun, 30 Sep 2007 02:12:02 +0000

My BP went through the roof when I read the title of her article.

I almost grabbed the keys to the truck on the way out the door. Instead, I just stepped away from the damned keyboard...and painted the shed.

I then settled down to read it. What a flaming idiot she is!

As Tam at VFTP is fond of saying, "Poor Lefties; they've been playing on astroturf so long that they don't know grassroots even when fed a mouthful of divot."

Your response was excellent, as usual, and far more even tempered than I could ever have written.

The truth, regardless of your excellent rebuttal, is that Ms. Washington is one of many who will always believe it necessary to write more laws, period. That is the only thing that these totalitarians understand, and that is the only thing they'll ever do when they feel slighted, even if they aren't being affected by any of it and definitely if they can control someone else's property and life. It makes them "feel" better, as they so often whine about.

Bah.

Please, keep the fiskings coming.


jsid-1191129382-581433  Kristopher at Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:16:22 +0000

"Cold dead hands" makes one completely unwarranted assumption:

That gun owners are all just going to wait for the BATFE to show up and kill them.

The dumber ones will.

I ( and probably a few others ) won't be waiting for the hammer to drop. When the JBTs invade my home, they will find an empty house, and empty position at my place of work, an empty and cashed out bank account, and a notification at the DMV that my car had been sold for cash a month ago.


Then I will go hunting ...


jsid-1191164008-581438  Russell at Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:53:28 +0000

So again we see that using the power of the State to eliminate undesired elements of society by force is a good thing.

Can someone please explain to me how these libs aren't totalitarians?

[..]rather than at the suburban and rural white men who are not?

Because it's always the white man's fault. Always.


jsid-1191168119-581440  Markadelphia at Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:01:59 +0000

Russell, I think you need to separate gun control advocates from liberals. Every liberal I know owns several guns.

Add the fact that several "liberal" academics have recognized the fruitlessness of gun control as well as the illegality of it and you are only left with a small group of people who will never amount to being able to accomplish anything.


jsid-1191168235-581441  Bilgeman at Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:03:55 +0000

Kristopher:

"I ( and probably a few others ) won't be waiting for the hammer to drop. When the JBTs invade my home..."

JBT's?

Wow...there's a term I haven't heard in nearly 10 years.

Last I saw that used, I was getting all kinds of usenet e-mails inviting me to join "The Constitutional Militia of You and Me".

Regards;


jsid-1191171101-581443  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:51:41 +0000

Every liberal I know owns several guns.

1) As we've hashed, rehashed, and re-re-hashed, your information acquisition filter is.... buggy.
2) Which doesn't matter, because you can own guns and still be a gun-grabber. It's a matter of thinking that it will ever mean your guns. (Or even you.)

For example, I'm sure... (Well, no. I'm hopeful even you, Mark, will concede) you'll admit Kerry is a inveterate gun-grabber.

But the UAW gave Kerry a nice Remington 1100. Kerry was presented with the gun during a Labor Day stop in Racine, West Virginia. “I thank you for the gift, but I can’t take it to the debate with me,” Kerry told a cheering crowd as he held up the device.

Here's the irony:
* Kerry proposed 3 bills that would have outlawed that gun.
* The gift violated Federal Firearms laws. Only after those of us who know something about the law did the campaign say (without proof that they actually, did), that they'd complied with the law, (Which requires transferring the gun through a state FFL with a background check.)(Notably, the ATF didn't show the interest that they would if you or I made such a crime public.)
* Kerry proudly claimed to have brought back a full-auto AK from Vietnam. Without registering it. Which would be a rather serious felony then, and even more now. After this came to light, he distanced himself from those claims, but without actually, you know, clarifying what had happened. (Notably, the ATF didn't show the interest that they would if you or I made such a crime public.)

So that your liberals own guns, I don't doubt it.

If you'll recall, we've pointed out many times to you the hallmark of "modern" Liberals is to say one thing, and do another. "Well, I'm not talking about ME!.

(Which, um, gets back to you've yet undermined yourself again...)


jsid-1191171345-581444  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:55:45 +0000

Nice Job, Kevin.

To a lost cause, I'm afraid, but I suppose there's always hope.

(At least, I hope so, since I keep trying such lost causes myself. Right, Mark?)


jsid-1191174989-581445  rocinante at Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:56:29 +0000

I'd rather light a candle than curse the darkness:

Mark, it's very gracious of you to agree with Kevin when you agree with him. I enjoy finding the common ground myself.

Perhaps it's a regional thing (you in PA, me in GA) but I've never met anyone I considered "liberal" who owned a gun (that I know of). While my sample size is probably not statistically significant, it's bigger than you think: I went to a Unitarian church for years.

Oh, I know the gun-totin' liberals exist (Pro-Gun Progressive, et. al.) but they're elusive to me. The closest I can personally come is couples I know where the (liberal) wife regards the (moderate/ libertrian/apathetic) husband's guns like any other bad habit. I used to know some hard-core, waiting-for-the-revolution leftists who owned guns, but not liberals.

I also have to agree with Jedi's point (tho' not his tone) that there are plenty of people out there who own guns, yet don't see a problem with more gun control. They're not all hypocrites, either: some just haven't thought it all the way through; some believe that the gub'mint won't take away *their* gun; some still mistrust their fellow citizens more than they mistrust the gub'mint.


jsid-1191194930-581459  DJ at Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:28:50 +0000

"Russell, I think you need to separate gun control advocates from liberals. Every liberal I know owns several guns."

I think not. Not every liberal I know is a gun control advocate, but every gun control advocate I know is a hard-left liberal.

"Add the fact that several "liberal" academics have recognized the fruitlessness of gun control as well as the illegality of it and you are only left with a small group of people who will never amount to being able to accomplish anything."

Got your head in the sand again, Mark? They have accomplished much over the years, and they have done so by, at certain times and places, being in the majority, passing laws that you and I are subject to regardless of their legality. We have undone some of what they have done and are trying to undo more. Witness the pending appeal to the Supreme Court of the reversal of the DC gun ban, among others.

Get the facts, Mark, and save the platitudes. It'll open a whole new world for you.


jsid-1191239079-581473  Peet at Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:44:39 +0000

Bilgeman: Sigh...yet another instance of implied violence against lawful gun-owners from a supposedly "anti-violence" hoplophobe. Either that or you inferred she intends violence... (Sorry.)

Keep in mind that Pfleger announced that he wanted to drag the owner out of the store and "snuff" him! This is the kind of people Ms. Washington holds up as an example? This is a leader in her movement?

Peet (pedantic)

P.S. NRA gets no money from me and gets no website hits until they remove that Flashwave crap from the front page. Their website sux.


jsid-1191253858-581485  Markadelphia at Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:50:58 +0000

rocinante, Actually I am in Minnesota where you are issued a gun here to hunt or you are considered a weenie dork :) Most folks are liberal and against gun control completely. When I say liberal, I mean socially, pro-union, civil rights, and anti-war.

Unix, I can see your point. I'm sure that liberals think that they will never have THEIR guns taken away. Agree with you also on Kerry and would disagree with him on any gun control he would pass.

DJ, more than likely, Americans will never lose their right to bear arms as a result of left wing policies. Left wingers can't accomplish anything of note due to their spinelessness and the fact that they are completely unorganized. They really don't have the balls to take on half the country, which wants either no change in the gun laws or wants them less strict.

If I were you, I would be more worried about things like the Patriot Act (I and II).

http://www.gunowners.org/patriotii.htm


jsid-1191264822-581490  DJ at Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:53:42 +0000

Mark, I will stop being concerned about those who favor gun control when no one favors gun control. To call them spineless and unorganized belies the successes they have had and ignores their perseverence. It is no mere cliche that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and to say that they don't have the balls to take on half the country is to acknowledge the effect our vigilance has.


jsid-1191276173-581493  Markadelphia at Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:02:53 +0000

Maybe it's just my perception. The word "gun control" is never mentioned in Minnesota. It is effectively a dead cause due to the number of gun enthusiasts here. Our neighboring states as well...Wisconsin...cripes..I would hate to be the person in charge of the gun lobby there :)


jsid-1191289503-581495  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 02 Oct 2007 01:45:03 +0000

Mark:

Remember what I said about your information gathering facility? Not to rub salt into a wound, but...

I read Joel Rosenberg a lot:
http://joelrosenberg.livejournal.com/

He also has the following for Concealed Carry classes: http://twincitiescarry.com/

Even now, after the close passage of Shall Issue Concealed Carry in Minn (Which you're not noting the issues there, or the court challenges, finally overcome, hardly the hallmark of a state where "guncontrol is never mentioned"..), you still have the Governor's office .. well, just read what your fellow stateists are saying (as opposed to the normal group of statists you're used to hearing (Try the veal! I'll be here all week!):

http://northernmuckraker.blogspot.com/2007/06/is-this-what-youre-looking-for.html
http://joelrosenberg.livejournal.com/188839.html#cutid1

I was still puzzled about ScottWigginsOfTheGovernorsOffice's insistence that when Minn. Stat. 624.714 says that the other state's issuance laws must be "substantially similar" to Minnesota's issuance requirements, that it meant that other states had to comply with a laundry list of requirements pulled out of the, err, fine mind of ScottWigginsOfTheGovernorsOffice, rather than what "substantially similar" means the other dozens and dozens and dozens of times it's used in Minnesota statutes (roughly, "having some sort of resemblance to"), or in common usage, and asked him what his exhaustive research said it meant everywhere else in Minnesota statutes.
I'll give him this: he repeatedly admitted that he hadn't looked at any of the other uses, and just decided for himself what it ought to mean.
I don't make this stuff up, you know.


Hardly a stunning defense of the Second Amendment. (See also: http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4415 ).

Mark, I'm not just doing this merely to pick on you, but in the previous threads, you've been unable to understand that you simply don't notice things that question your viewpoints... just tuning it out.

Minn just barely passed concealed carry, and while the populace might be strongly in favor of gun rights, the same can notdemonstrably be said about a large minority of the legislators in said state... and the political fortunes of the state are such that even the "pro-gun" governor isn't falling over himself to do his appointed job with the concealed carry reciprocity...

Leading me to believe that "gun control" might be not talked about now in Minn, but neither is it utterly, totally verboten in the future - to many in power.


jsid-1191291280-581496  DJ at Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:14:40 +0000

"Maybe it's just my perception."

Maybe? Really?

"The word "gun control" is never mentioned in Minnesota."

Do you hear everything that's said in Minnesota?

Jedi has a valid point, Mark. I simply do not understand how your mind works.


jsid-1191292231-581498  Kevin Baker at Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:30:31 +0000

Pshaw, DJ, it's Gun SAFETY now, don'tcha know?


jsid-1191327425-581508  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:17:05 +0000

Mark:

Remember what I said about your information gathering facility? Not to rub salt into a wound, but...

I read Joel Rosenberg a lot:
http://joelrosenberg.livejournal.com/

He also has the following for Concealed Carry classes: http://twincitiescarry.com/

Even now, after the close passage of Shall Issue Concealed Carry in Minn (Which you're not noting the issues there, or the court challenges, finally overcome, hardly the hallmark of a state where "guncontrol is never mentioned"..), you still have the Governor's office .. well, just read what your fellow stateists are saying (as opposed to the normal group of statists you're used to hearing (Try the veal! I'll be here all week!):

http://northernmuckraker.blogspot.com/2007/06/is-this-what-youre-looking-for.html
http://joelrosenberg.livejournal.com/188839.html#cutid1

I was still puzzled about ScottWigginsOfTheGovernorsOffice's insistence that when Minn. Stat. 624.714 says that the other state's issuance laws must be "substantially similar" to Minnesota's issuance requirements, that it meant that other states had to comply with a laundry list of requirements pulled out of the, err, fine mind of ScottWigginsOfTheGovernorsOffice, rather than what "substantially similar" means the other dozens and dozens and dozens of times it's used in Minnesota statutes (roughly, "having some sort of resemblance to"), or in common usage, and asked him what his exhaustive research said it meant everywhere else in Minnesota statutes.
I'll give him this: he repeatedly admitted that he hadn't looked at any of the other uses, and just decided for himself what it ought to mean.
I don't make this stuff up, you know.


Hardly a stunning defense of the Second Amendment. (See also: http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4415 ).

Mark, I'm not just doing this merely to pick on you, but in the previous threads, you've been unable to understand that you simply don't notice things that question your viewpoints... just tuning it out.

Minn just barely passed concealed carry, and while the populace might be strongly in favor of gun rights, the same can notdemonstrably be said about a large minority of the legislators in said state... and the political fortunes of the state are such that even the "pro-gun" governor isn't falling over himself to do his appointed job with the concealed carry reciprocity...

Leading me to believe that "gun control" might be not talked about now in Minn, but neither is it utterly, totally verboten in the future - to many in power.


jsid-1191327503-581509  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:18:23 +0000

Kevin:

Sorry about that. *Again*. I dunno what the heck is happpining with the cache, Opera, and this damn Mac.

(Never happened with Linux, I note).

Can you axe the last post, and this one? Wait, no, I'm bitching about the mac, you can leave it. :)


jsid-1191331349-581512  karrde at Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:22:29 +0000

Kind-of-unrelated note to most of the comments above:

Kevin, I ran across the Don Kates & Gary Kleck book Armed in my city library. In reading it, I was surprised to learn that urban blacks in the U.S. have a homocide rate 9 times higher than the homocide rate for rural blacks in the U.S., as well as being significantly above the rates for whites.

This strengthens the it's culture, not race argument.


jsid-1191334257-581515  Markadelphia at Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:10:57 +0000

Unix and DJ, boy you guys are really bent on proving me wrong about just about everything..including making assumptions about a state that neither one of you live in.

Hard as might be to swallow, guys, I know more about the politics in this state than you do. I have lived here for 22 years and have a very good handle on the various issues and how our state feels about them. People are more concerned about the bridge, health care, education, Iraq...the list goes on and on.


jsid-1191334502-581517  DJ at Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:15:02 +0000

"Pshaw, DJ, it's Gun SAFETY now, don'tcha know?"

Yabbut it's about control, no matter what pretty name they give it.


jsid-1191337218-581520  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:00:18 +0000

Mark:

Unix and DJ, boy you guys are really bent on proving me wrong about just about everything..including making assumptions about a state that neither one of you live in.

I think I'm doing a damn good job of it, personally. You made a statement at odds with what I've been following, and I showed you that your statement, while dismissive and sneering, was by no means a good, reliable picture of the future of gun rights in Minnesota. Sure, you're there. So's Joel. So's Douglas. They have a fair amount of info that would call into question your conclusion.

So I linked to it. Notice how I did that. It has their opinion, and it also has the facts and experiences, including face-to-faces with the person responsible. Proof. Not indisputable, Mark's Wrong proof, but under analysis, supports that Mark's blanket statement was again rash and without consideration for the realities of the situation.

Your rebuttal? I know more about the politics in this state than you do.

Oh, well, shut my mouth.

Wait, Mark, that's what I've been telling you is all you're bringing to the debate is "trust me, this is how it is, and that's all you need know". And you argue with that, and insist that you don't. Well, right there, you did it again. It's not that I'm trying to prove you wrong, Mark,it's that I'm trying to show you that your sweeping generalizations and plans are badly flawed.

And thus not good ideas to go basing political views and policies on.

People are more concerned

Sure. They always are. But that's not proof Gun Control is dead in Minn. It's merely resting. Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/dead-parrot.htm

Except reverse the owner and Mr. Praline.
Mark: It's DEAD! DEAD! BEAUTIFUL PLUMAGE!
Me: It's merely RESTING!
Mark: NO! NO! DEAD! DEAD!

See, the reason you have to reverse the two, is Mr. Praline has facts he's using to support his side. Not just feelings, emotions, wants, desires. He points out, the parrot is dead - nailed to it's perch! Proof!
That's what I'm trying to get across to you Mark - not just that you're wrong, but WHY you're CONSISTENTLY wrong! Why most of us don't trust the people you're trusting, because they're (assuming the best case) doing the same thing you're doing, and HOPING and WISHING for certain things. (And in the not-best-case, they're telling people like you what you want to hear, which has nothing to do with their actual plans.)

Like in this one. Again. You made a sweeping political statement that's not supported if you've been paying attention. The concealed carry passed - barely in 2003. Was held up 2? years in court by (various parts of) the government. Government officials are still not doing their assigned duties under said law... End of the world? Oh, no, it's a big step forward!

But it's not that gun control and the controllers are dead. They're resting, Mark.


jsid-1191346492-581528  Markadelphia at Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:34:52 +0000

Hilarious. So, that means that if I make a statement like "Georgia is on the cusp of allowing gay marriage," provide a couple of links to some people who are part of the gay marriage lobby there, then suddenly I'm an expert on your home state and can state that the gay marriage lobby has a chance there?

I think I can safely say that I know nothing about your state at all, it's politics, and given the fact that I have never been there (or lived there for any length of time) any statement I say would be grossly uninformed.


jsid-1191348803-581530  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:13:23 +0000

Hilarious. So, that means that if I make a statement like "Georgia is on the cusp of allowing gay marriage," provide a couple of links to some people who are part of the gay marriage lobby there, then suddenly I'm an expert on your home state and can state that the gay marriage lobby has a chance there?

Yes! (Houston, we might be making a breakthrough!)

Yes! You can!. Of course, I'll disagree, and be able (in this case, at least) to point out where they are wrong, (such as the 80% failure at the polls last election) but yes! Mark! That's how you provide proof! And evaluate it!

Now, if all the "links" you provide are to dreamy Star Trek Fanfiction that GA is about to legalize gay marriage (presumably via legislation or referendum....) It'll be pretty easy to prove how silly those are.

So, go ahead and prove how Joel Rosenberg (meeting with the Governor's Representative), and Douglas (in correspondence with said same), are completely off base, and have no clue what's going on.

Yes! that's how it's done! Hurrah! So, where's the counter to those native Minnesotans and their personal, well documents experiences?


(More seriously, the reasons I'm believing them over you, is 1) they've got a better track record of being right, 2) they've sourced their views, and are relating personal (and verifiable) experience with the actual Governor's Office people, 3) evaluated, analyzed, and acted upon contrary information.)

any statement I say would be grossly uninformed.

Ooh, we agree!
Mind if I frame that statement? :)

(Hey, Mark, you walked into that one.)

Mark, what this gets to is your inability to synthesis accurate analysis. It's not really "Hilarious" - because you want us to take you and your views seriously, despite some massive flaws. (Capitalism, neither good nor bad, remember? Despite the fact that only 1 system has virtually cured hunger.)

This gets back to that same inability to read for the message, and find out the truth. No, I don't know Minnesota well. But given the choice of you or Joel, I'll listen much more to Joel. (By the way, you're not far apart in political outlook, either.)

Joel's got a lot better filter, and is a lot better at building predictable outcomes. (Well, he'd better, given his day job.)

Of course, if your day job is a teacher, you might ought to be expected to do better than you're doing.

In short: No, you likely wouldn't do well reading reports from GA. I'm actually trying to suggest how you can do better with the analysis, so you could do better.

The reason it bothers me, by the way? Well, it's a pet peeve, I spent a lot of time arguing at one point with PGP, about this exact point prior to 2006 elections. His contention (since largely reduced) was similar to yours, that nobody was going to even TRY restrictive gun control, it was off the table, deader than Polly, pinin' for the fjords.

First Damn Week, what happened? (Yes, the banners lost. But that wasn't the contention - much like you, he (mostly, and I'm not doing his arguments justice) said that it was something they wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole if the (D)'s won. They'd learned their lesson).
Sound familiar?


jsid-1191371638-581541  DJ at Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:33:58 +0000

"Unix and DJ, boy you guys are really bent on proving me wrong about just about everything..including making assumptions about a state that neither one of you live in."

No, Mark, that's not it, but I'll explain it really slowly so you can understand what it's about.

"Hard as might be to swallow, guys, I know more about the politics in this state than you do. I have lived here for 22 years and have a very good handle on the various issues and how our state feels about them. People are more concerned about the bridge, health care, education, Iraq...the list goes on and on."

My comments were not about Minnesota, nor were they about the politics of the people who live there. I've never been there, and I know little about the place except that it snows in winter and has a lot of lakes.

Got that? Now RESET and read on.

My comments were about credibility, and were just a comment in passing, as it were. It was a bit too subtle, and you missed it.

There are two kinds of statements that you are prone to make, and I mean as if you were taught in school and learned the lesson well. Making either kind of statement results in loss of credibility, but making both kinds repeatedly damned nearly guarantees it.

The first kind of statement is, for example:

"The word "gun control" is never mentioned in Minnesota."

Never, Mark? NEVER? How would you know that?

This kind of statement is one which you cannot know the truth of, the kind that no one can test or research the truth of. It is simply a statement of what you would have us believe to be a fact, but which you cannot possibly know to be a fact, and which you cannot possibly demonstrate to be a fact.

Now, what is the common body language that I suspect you ignore when you make such a statement to someone's face? The head draws back on the shoulders, tilts to one side, and points to the same side, all while the eyes stay locked on yours and the mouth curls up and a half-smile, half-sneer. Have you ever noticed it, or do you just plow onward?

It's called disbelief, Mark. You can't see it happen when we read your words, but we've told you, over and over and over again, that such is our reaction when we do.

The second kind of statement is one which you can know the truth of, but don't. The possible reasons for not knowing the truth are many, including: 1) presumption (i.e. stating, as fact, "you think _____", instead of asking "do you think _____"); 2) not bothering to search; 3) assuming that you know what you really don't; and, 4) plain old dishonesty.

The generic name for such is "jumping to conclusions", and it is your specialty.

Now, here's the crux of the matter. If you repeatedly make statements of these two types, statements that you would have us accept as fact but that you cannot know the truth of or that we can test the truth of only to find you in the wrong, then what you do is dig a hole and toss your credibility into it. If your statements cannot be believed when we CAN test them, then why the hell should we believe anything else, especially what we cannot test?

And when you defend those impossible-to-defend statements, all you do is jump into the hole and dig it deeper. You demonstrate thereby that you simply do not understand the complaint, that you have a sharp disconnect from reality. You've dug the hole so deep that the dirt just falls back in on top of you.

Now, let's go back to:

"The word "gun control" is never mentioned in Minnesota."

Instead, how about:

"I almost never hear the words "gun control" mentioned in Minnesota."

Now, who would contest that, how would they do so, and why would they do so? Nobody would, and your credibility would not have suffered one whit if you had made it, and it would have put across the point you intended very well and without controversy.

Now, go back and re-read all the comments that Kevin, Jedi, Russell, I, and others have directed toward you, and you'll find that they are overwhelming about statements of these two types that you have made. They are quite reasonable requests that you either show us that your statements are true or understand that you should not have been made them in the first place, because you either cannot know and/or demonstrate their truth.

If you want credibility here, then learn how to not dig this hole for yourself.

And all this has nothing to do with Minnesota, does it?


jsid-1191378871-581547  Kevin Baker at Wed, 03 Oct 2007 02:34:31 +0000

"Now, who would contest that, how would they do so, and why would they do so? Nobody would, and your credibility would not have suffered one whit if you had made it, and it would have put across the point you intended very well and without controversy."

There you go trying to control the discussion with that right-wing "words-have-meanings" trickery again, DJ!


jsid-1191423166-581555  DJ at Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:52:46 +0000

Reality is a bitch, ain't she, Kevin?


jsid-1191430963-581559  Markadelphia at Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:02:43 +0000

"Now, who would contest that, how would they do so, and why would they do so?"

I think we are at the point where pretty much anything I say is going to be contested by you, DJ. And Unix to a certain extent as well.


jsid-1191457511-581579  Kevin Baker at Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:25:11 +0000

Cast iron, DJ. Cast iron.


jsid-1191461943-581584  DJ at Thu, 04 Oct 2007 01:39:03 +0000

I am nearly speechless, Kevin. It takes a lot to affect me so, but there it is.

Mark, did you understand anything I wrote? Anything at all? Did the whole thing just go right over your head like a toy balloon?


jsid-1191518827-581619  Markadelphia at Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:27:07 +0000

I understood it fine. I just have trouble seeing you not contesting me on something.


jsid-1191546032-581650  DJ at Fri, 05 Oct 2007 01:00:32 +0000

"I understood it fine. I just have trouble seeing you not contesting me on something."

I have similar difficulty seeing you not making statements that you cannot support. Once you realize that fixing the latter also fixes the former, and that only you can fix the latter, then you will understand how to fix your trouble.


jsid-1191957193-581830  Ed "What the" Heckman at Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:13:13 +0000

Mark, I think I understand where DJ is going with this. Maybe if I put it a slightly different way, his point may become a little more clear.

There was this old-time story teller that you may have heard of. His name was Aesop. He told the story of a young shepherd boy who didn't really like watching sheep because it was boring. And he hated being bored.

One day he had an idea of how to generate a little excitement. He started yelling that there was a wolf attacking the sheep. Because the sheep were important to the people that lived there, they came running to help fend off the wolf. Only when they got there, they discovered that there was no wolf, merely a bored little boy. They went home in disgust.

A few days later, the boy's craving for excitement finally overrode the memory of the whipping he had received from his father and he started shouting that a wolf was attacking the sheep. Once again, the townsfolk arrived, only to discover that the boy had lied again.

Being none too bright and dull of feeling in his derriere, he repeated his cries of "Wolf!" on a fairly regular basis. Each time, fewer and fewer townspeople responded as they grew tired of the boy's lies.

Eventually, the inevitable happened; a wolf actually did attack the sheep. Being unable to face down the wolf himself, the boy once again appealed to the townsfolk for help. But his credibility had been so destroyed by his repeated lies that no one came to help. So the boy had to face the wolf on his own, whereupon the wolf killed him and all his sheep.

Mark, just as the boy in this story, you've repeatedly made assertions which we have been able to check out (comparing them to the evidence). You've repeatedly used logical fallacies of all stripes as if they're legitimate means of debate. Even worse, you've often repeated those exact same fallacies in response to those fallacies being pointed out.

The simple fact is, Mark, that we view you exactly like the boy who cried "Wolf!" We've had to spend hours and hours responding to assertions you've made which could be easily disregarded by applying even the most basic tools of reason. It should not be at all surprising that, just like the townsfolk, we no longer trust you to say anything without seriously questioning its accuracy. And just as in the story, we do not see the problem as being the fault of the townsfolk, but of the boy.

If you were to study topics such as what logical fallacies are and stop using them, what formal logic is and start using that, and what rules of evidence are and how to evaluate evidence accurately, then we might actually start taking you seriously. Until then, don't be surprised that we routinely question someone who routinely makes questionable assertions.


 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>