s skippy the bush kangaroo: goldstein's problems spill over onto us (eewwww....)

skippy the bush kangaroo



Tuesday, July 11, 2006

goldstein's problems spill over onto us (eewwww....)

the all seeing eye, over at the jawa report, in his disgust that the lefty blogs aren't talking as if deb frisch and jeff goldstein mean anything, linked to our humble site wherein we opined that not only was deb a wacko, she was pretty much a wacko nobody ever heard of or paid attention to.

we went to the jawa report to thank them for the link and the traffic (we have manners, if nothing else). in their comments section, we mentioned something that was raised in ours (by trex), and that is, if we on the left are responsible for deb frisch, when is the hardly-ever-right wing going to take on, or condemn fred phelps?

the all seeing eye then left a comment on the jawa report, and emailed us the same:

[ed. note: we have put the contents of ase's email over on our sister site skippy junior, where you can read it and find the links that the jawa report provided to "non-lefty" blog posts condemning fred phelps.

we moved the content of the email because, after we had taken the time to be civil to the jawa report, they refused to be civil back to us (see below). also, the blog posts which supposedly "condemn" fred phelps, actually tend more to praise the freedom riders, who are motorcycle enthusiasts who volunteer to provide security at veterans funerals to protect the grieving from protestors, namely, phelps and his ilk.

our question would be, if fred phelps weren't protesting the funeral of gay military personnel, would any of these "non-lefty" blogs still denounce him?]


however, that being said, we must take extreme exception with the characterization that the all seeing eye made of our words in our original post. after quoting us, he "paraphrased," or at least, re-interpreted, what we said to be:

"no big deal, nothing over the line, nothing to see here. we all hope our political adversaries' children end up dead."
uh, that's not what we said.

that's not what we meant, what we implied, what we intimated, what we alleged, what we, even in a joking manner, wanted to convey.

we never, ever said we wished any children dead. the jawa report is, like most hardly-ever-right wingers, equating lack of self-righteous condemnation with endorsement...and endorsement with motivation.

and we wouldn't lose a minute of sleep over it, except that the great echo chamber is known to propagate untruths for weeks before the record can be set straight. the last thing we need is for some nutcase at lgf to decide that we want to see dead kids littering the halls of townhall, and spreading that word.

so, all seeing eye, we'll happily take an apology from from you, as well as a public correction at the jawa report.

thanks!

update: as of this morning, the jawa report stands "100%" behind their mis-characterization of our words, and tells us "don't hold your breath waiting for an apology."

addendum to the update: not that we were expecting an apology, but we were hoping for civility. we did, after all, thank them for the link, were non-vitriolic and very calm in our presenation of our arguments, and did indeed, keeping our word, post ase's email and the links provided that allegedly proved that "non-lefty" blogs denounced fred phelps.

aside from snide remarks like "since you clearly didn't catch the implication the first time, i'll type more slowly this time around," the jawa report did nothing new except reiterate their original points.

where we insisted that we did not imply or communicate a desire to see any children dead, let alone those of our "political adversaries," the jawa report came back with

i wasn't asserting that you personally want any particular child to die. i certainly hope you don't, and i really doubt you do. in fact, i think only a very twisted person would wish death on a child, even the child of one's worst enemy. and that's my point. you claimed that frisch didn't do anything more than to just be an "asshole." you then asserted that we're all "assholes," thereby implying that we're all (more or less) just like frisch. the ultimate implication of that, whether you like it or not, is that frisch didn't write anything that was over any line of decency. so yes, your words did indeed imply that frisch's comments were "no big deal" and that there was "nothing to see here." if that wasn't the implication you intended to convey, you made a very poor choice of words.
(a) we never said "we're all assholes," we never called anyone an asshole beside frisch and ourselves. we, in our original post, nor in any comments afterwards, did not call the jawa report an asshole. we now regret that error.

(b) we didn't imply that frisch didn't go over the line of decency. but we did imply that the response to the transgression over the line of decency was in itself over the top.

(c) jawa didn't and still doesn't, address our point that frisch did not threaten the child, she merely was incredibly profane with her words; and even worse:

(d) jawa didn't still doesn't, address our more important point that we ourselves don't wish children dead, contrary to what ase attributed in his interpretation of our original blog post.

we are distressed, but not necessarily too amazed, that an attempt to dialogue with a self-proclaimed "non-lefty" resulted in the blogging equivalent of fingers in their ears and loud nonsense singing while we tried to speak.

a mere reiteration of one's points is not a argument (cue monty python).

but as all seeing eye himself said on his blog, "this is probably my last word on this thread, so have fun and good luck."

we will consider the matter closed.
posted by skippy at 12:33 AM |

0 Comments:

Add a comment