I'd be happy to insult David Spade or Hesiod or both in person.

By the way, speaking of who is a coward. Did you notice that little cheap shot at Stephen Ambrose with the cowardly and dishonest little way of pretending that he thought it was tasteless ... but posting it anyway? I am guessing that he did it because he's too stupid to realize what Ambrose's politics actually were.

Once again, Hesiod shows that he is just slime.

I strongly suspect that 'dave' and several other similar commenters you see here and there are one and the same person. There's no dearth of flamers like them, so they may well be different people, but the writing styles are very close. They also seldom appear in the same threads - I can't think of once though I haven't searched it. Hesiod is banned from a lot of comment sections. 'dave' posts in some of those same comment sections posts without leaving an email address, but with a strikingly similar seething vulgarity.

I would not be at all surprised if they both posted from the same domain if not the same IP.

Oh lord.

Still picking nits about my typos, eh?

In any event, you are welcome to submit any critical comments to me via e-mail. I'll publish them.

In your case, I have even linked to some of your 2 dollar crack whore quality cheap shots.

Tit for tat, I always say.

I do appreciate your concern about my lack of comments. It's duly "noted in the building."

As Robin has pointed out, I've been banned from the comments sections of some blogs who have been attacking me because I don't allow comments.

Recognizing irony isn't exactly a chickenblogger strongsuit, now is it?

Still incompetent as ever I see. I made no such observation.

Sorry Robin,

That wasn't you.

Just someone who sounded exactly like you.

Hesiod, this is what you have called or saod about various conservative bloggers just in the past few weeks:

chickenbloggers
"Al Qaediacs"
"over-the-top lying and dishonest rhetoric from the chickenblogger coop..."
"attention starved and pencil necked chickenblogger geeks.."
"weenie chickenbloggers"
"chickenblogging idiots"
"wrongwingers"
"losers who all weight 97 lbs. and wouldn't have the testicles to insult David Spade" (ie, "I can kick their ass.")
We're all "liars" if we think Iraq has to do with anything other than oil.
"incestous wrongwinger"
"link slut buddies"
"wackos"
"snivelling sycophants"

Actually this list just goes back to October 9th!! I could have gone further but I don't have all day to do it.

How do you seriously expect anybody to take you seriously with these kinds of ad hominem attacks. You blanket everybody with the tag of a 'liar' and then you say we should email you with comments and expect you to post them in their entirety? Please.

And then here you have the nerve to say Dr. Weevil is taking cheap shots?

Talk about hubris.

And I banned you from my comments because I'm not going to have you going there calling me a liar just because you want to.

Hesiod,

'In any event, you are welcome to submit any critical comments to me via e-mail. I'll publish them.'

Liar. You MIGHT publish them in part, then sophmorically insult the sumitter. You would never attempt to substantiate any opposing viewpoint. Not your style.

'In your case, I have even linked to some of your 2 dollar crack whore quality cheap shots.'

See preceding paragraph.

'...I've been banned from the comments sections of some blogs who have been attacking me because I don't allow comments.'

Liar. You have been banned from many blog comment sections not because you do not have a comment section yourself, but because you habitually flame them. I have NEVER seen a comment from you putting forth any reasoned argument or containing any rheatorical consistency other than vitriol.

The frequent admonishments about your not allowing a comment section on your blog are not attacks on the practice of not having one. Many fine blogs don't. Those that don't very often publish emails of interest and post gracefully on the email's substance. You do not have a comment section because you know damn well that you would be cut to ribbons.

You are a sad and ineffectual poser riding the coat tails of the reasoned arguments on the left in the only way you can. You show no originality and no concept of intellectual courtesy.

You are a flamer. White noise. An incoherant low level distraction taking up bandwidth in the background and impossible to extract any useful information from.

I'm sorry, Hesiod! My dojo's fall tournament was last Saturday. If I'd known you wanted to fight, I'd have e-mailed you an entry form ;-}

[Cruel, mocking laughter]

So you're what, seventeen? Kid, we’re laughing at you, not with you.

"Hesiod, this is what you have called or saod [sic] about various conservative bloggers just in the past few weeks:"

Whoops, Jay! Watch your spelling! You don't want to direspect your readers, now do you?

"How do you seriously expect anybody to take you seriously with these kinds of ad hominem attacks. You blanket everybody with the tag of a 'liar' and then you say we should email you with comments and expect you to post them in their entirety? Please."

"Please," indeed Jay. I'm deliberately emulating typical chickenbloggercoop tactics and rhetoric.

If you can't stand the heat, stop cracnking up the oven.

"And I banned you from my comments because I'm not going to have you going there calling me a liar just because you want to."

Whatever, Jay. It's your prerogative.

Speaking of accusing someone of lying, Bob says:

"Liar. You MIGHT publish [criticisms] in part, then sophmorically insult the sumitter [sic]. You would never attempt to substantiate any opposing viewpoint. Not your style."

1) That's a blatant lie. Anyone who knows my blog, knows I post entire comments when requested. Unedited.

2) I have every right to respond to the sophomoric arguments of my critics.

3) Insulting you thin-skinnned weenies is a ton of fun. You have no sense of humor. You have no honor. And you can't stand it when your tactics are turned around and used on you.

Here's another fasle statement from Bob:

"Liar. You have been banned from many blog comment sections not because you do not have a comment section yourself, but because you habitually flame them. I have NEVER seen a comment from you putting forth any reasoned argument or containing any rheatorical consistency other than vitriol."

The first part of your statement is blatantly false. I have TRIED to enagage is a serious debate in the comments section of Truth Laid Bear to take one prominent example. Only to be met with "vitriol," and "flaming" from the likes of chickenblogging losers such as yourself.

Obviously, you haven't read any of my comments at TTLB. Or you'd be lying. Right?

"The frequent admonishments about your not allowing a comment section on your blog are not attacks on the practice of not having one. Many fine blogs don't. Those that don't very often publish emails of interest and post gracefully on the email's substance. You do not have a comment section because you know damn well that you would be cut to ribbons."

Horeshockey. I've explained this many times.

Why should I care that a bunch of chimps throws their poop at the wall? You guys constantly flame and attack me here and elsewhere. You have plenty of venues for your defecation.

It's an aesthetic decision on my part. If you want to vent, send me an e-mail.

It sounds more like YOU who are afraid that I'll cut your pathetic atatcks on me to ribbons. You need a comments section to keep rebutting my dismatling of your juvenile rantings.

Well...forgive me for not wanting to waste my time cluttering up my site with such nonsense.

"You are a sad and ineffectual poser riding the coat tails of the reasoned arguments on the left in the only way you can. You show no originality and no concept of intellectual courtesy."

I'm hardly ineffectual. As your bitchy comment proves. If I am just "white noise," none of you would feel the burning need to attack me so often.

My suggestion, grow up.

The most juvenile blogger tells us to grow up? ROFL.

Personally, I dislike it when ANY blog does not include a comments section (this includes the ones that I like and agree with*); one of the attractions of the medium for me is seeing who comments on things, and why.

That being said, I tend to dislike it even more when the blog is one with which I generally disagree**... and I don't quite buy the "loss of control over what gets posted" argument. I see no reason why a blogger can't delete truly offensive posts, and doing so for ideological reasons will soon be quickly commented on by interested spectators.

(ironic tone)

Besides, some of us don't have email access at work: how can you live without our deathless replies for up to 1/3rd of the day?

(/ironic tone)

Moe

*Although I recognize why some bloggers don't; I don't blog myself, but I understand that storage capacity may be an issue.

**Because then I can't log my disapproval. Does that smack of pettiness and narcissim? Sure. :)

Hesiod thinks he's cutting people's attacks to ribbons. That's funny.

You know he's right, you shouldn't waste so much time on him. He's clearly gone off his lithium; picking on sick people just isn't right.

No Hesiod, just saying it isn't so doesn't refute the evidence.

Don't confuse the fact that your site gets visited, or that you become a subject of comments in other blogs with being a significant contributer to any discussion.

A lot of people visit National Lampoon's site and don't take them seriously either.

Your being the subject of comments in other blogs is no different from commenting to your passenger as you pass a particularly bad road accident. Both are nasty subjects, and I honestly don't know why people do comment on them. I doubt it's to give legitimacy to either form of ugliness though.

Patrick,

I appreciate your well-reasoned, and detailed counter-arguments. I'm sure everyone who reads your post will agree that I haven't cut anyone to ribbons.

The almost inexhusible list of sound arguments you provided to support your point, are simply overwhelming. I bow to your intellect, sir.

Bob,

You truly are a card.

"Don't confuse the fact that your site gets visited, or that you become a subject of comments in other blogs with being a significant contributer to any discussion.

A lot of people visit National Lampoon's site and don't take them seriously either.

Your being the subject of comments in other blogs is no different from commenting to your passenger as you pass a particularly bad road accident. Both are nasty subjects, and I honestly don't know why people do comment on them. I doubt it's to give legitimacy to either form of ugliness though."

The mere fact that you even take this whole "debate" seriously proves my point.

Read me. Don;t read me. I don't really care.

I take issue, however, when people lie about what I've said or written.

Just because an intellectual cripple, such as yourself, doesn't believe I've added anything to the deabte, doesn't mean I haven't. I believe I've [along with others] forced the Chicckenbloggercoop to address the issue of deterrence in a serious way. You may or may not agree with my arguments, but you can't say they aren't serious, or haven't contributed to the debate.

You, instead, focus on my style. And dismiss everything else I've wrtten because you are intellecually lazy. You've stated three straight blatant faslehoods about me just in this thread alone.

No Hesiod, once again, just saying it isn't so doesn't refute the evidence.

You have 'forced' no one to address any issues other than your own malignancy. That fact really frosts your ass, and you can't spin it away by claiming victim status.

You my friend are a flamer. Searching for relevancy through 'notice me' rancor. A usenet refugee surprised that blogs are moderated, and seething that you are banned from polite discussion in forum after forum.

I do not take the substance of what you write or how you do so seriously. What I do take seriously is that there are great debates that have arisen in this country in the last year that will determine this countries course for many years. There does need to be rational discussion with both sides of these great debates being represented. You and many more like you camped on either side of the debate do not bring anything to the process but bile.

Maybe the mudmen like yourself are necessary in some in some perverse way to serve as a counterpoint. As long as people like you on both sides continue to trumpet the abject absurdity of discredited ideas, it reinforces my determination to keep an open mind and formulate a position I can personally integrate based on reality. But do not expect to be given anymore currency than you deserve.

It would be interesting to see how many words Hesiod devotes to actual argument/non-invective, and how many he devotes to pure childish invective. So let's take a look:

Actual Argument/Non-Invective:

In any event, you are welcome to submit any critical comments to me via e-mail. I'll publish them. As Robin has pointed out, I've been banned from the comments sections of some blogs who have been attacking me because I don't allow comments. Whatever, Jay. It's your prerogative. It's an aesthetic decision on my part. If you want to vent, send me an e-mail. Read me. Don;t read me. I don't really care. I take issue, however, when people lie about what I've said or written.

Childish Invective:

Oh lord. Still picking nits about my typos, eh? In your case, I have even linked to some of your 2 dollar crack whore quality cheap shots. Tit for tat, I always say. I do appreciate your concern about my lack of comments. It's duly "noted in the building." Recognizing irony isn't exactly a chickenblogger strongsuit, now is it? Sorry Robin, That wasn't you. Just someone who sounded exactly like you. Whoops, Jay! Watch your spelling! You don't want to direspect your readers, now do you? "Please," indeed Jay. I'm deliberately emulating typical chickenbloggercoop tactics and rhetoric. If you can't stand the heat, stop cracnking up the oven. Insulting you thin-skinnned weenies is a ton of fun. You have no sense of humor. You have no honor. And you can't stand it when your tactics are turned around and used on you. Horeshockey. I've explained this many times. Why should I care that a bunch of chimps throws their poop at the wall? You guys constantly flame and attack me here and elsewhere. You have plenty of venues for your defecation. It sounds more like YOU who are afraid that I'll cut your pathetic atatcks on me to ribbons. You need a comments section to keep rebutting my dismatling of your juvenile rantings. Well...forgive me for not wanting to waste my time cluttering up my site with such nonsense. I'm hardly ineffectual. As your bitchy comment proves. If I am just "white noise," none of you would feel the burning need to attack me so often. My suggestion, grow up. I appreciate your well-reasoned, and detailed counter-arguments. I'm sure everyone who reads your post will agree that I haven't cut anyone to ribbons. The almost inexhusible list of sound arguments you provided to support your point, are simply overwhelming. I bow to your intellect, sir. You truly are a card. Just because an intellectual cripple, such as yourself, doesn't believe I've added anything to the deabte, doesn't mean I haven't. I believe I've [along with others] forced the Chicckenbloggercoop to address the issue of deterrence in a serious way. You may or may not agree with my arguments, but you can't say they aren't serious, or haven't contributed to the debate. You, instead, focus on my style. And dismiss everything else I've wrtten because you are intellecually lazy. You've stated three straight blatant faslehoods about me just in this thread alone.

And this, of course, doesn't even count the sophomoric insults gathered and collected by Jay:

chickenbloggers
"Al Qaediacs"
"over-the-top lying and dishonest rhetoric from the chickenblogger coop..."
"attention starved and pencil necked chickenblogger geeks.."
"weenie chickenbloggers"
"chickenblogging idiots"
"wrongwingers"
"losers who all weight 97 lbs. and wouldn't have the testicles to insult David Spade" (ie, "I can kick their ass.")
We're all "liars" if we think Iraq has to do with anything other than oil.
"incestous wrongwinger"
"link slut buddies"
"wackos"
"snivelling sycophants"

So it now appears pretty clear that Hesiod relies primarily on invective to try to make his arguments, instead of actually responding to opponents in a calm and reasoned manner. And what's worse, the invective isn't even all that good.

Is this supposed to impress anyone? Am I going to change my mind about Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any other issue of public concerns simply because Hesiod keeps repeating the word "chickenblogger" over and over again, and then occasionally switches to another type of insult?

Some friendly advice, Hesiod: You keep doing what you are doing, and just about everyone is going to conclude that they can get your goat without any trouble whatsoever. It's a lot easier, and a lot better in the long run to actually engender respect among others by disagreeing without being disagreeable. People have every right to their opinions, and yours aren't necessarily the right ones. It doesn't justify the kind of tone that you regularly take on your blog, or that you show here. You're not impressing anyone.

I'm betting that the answer to this, if an answer comes, will simply be to call me a "chickenblogger" or some other tired insult. In which case, Hesiod will have merely proven my point.

Oh well, at least I tried.

6'5"
Weighed in today at 213 lbs.

Big enough?

Can someone 'splain me, please, why it always seemst to be the left wing bloggers who initiate the "my dick is bigger than yours" exchange? I thought the left wing wanted to do away with the patriarchy and its poisonous hierarchalism?

Pejman uses classic chickenblogger statistical sampling.

Out of the tens of thousand of words I;ve written over the past few months, Pejman selects the small sampling from this comments section to do his "experiment."

Does he prove I mostly use invective? No.

Just that, I've generally used invective during this comments "debate."

Why? Because of the substance free ad hominem attacks I've been getting here.

Do you honestly believe any intelligtent person would fall for your nonsense?

Well Jane, I guess I concede the point.

The biggest dicks certainly do exist on the Conservative side of the political spectrum.

Jane, simply because they are all juvenile. And of course Hesiod the most juvenile as the ass insists on continuing to prove over and over again.

Now, I guess we can update the argument/invective balance:

Argument/Non-Invective (with the latest addition italicized):

In any event, you are welcome to submit any critical comments to me via e-mail. I'll publish them. As Robin has pointed out, I've been banned from the comments sections of some blogs who have been attacking me because I don't allow comments. Whatever, Jay. It's your prerogative. It's an aesthetic decision on my part. If you want to vent, send me an e-mail. Read me. Don;t read me. I don't really care. I take issue, however, when people lie about what I've said or written. Out of the tens of thousand of words I;ve written over the past few months, Pejman selects the small sampling from this comments section to do his "experiment." Does he prove I mostly use invective? No. Just that, I've generally used invective during this comments "debate."

Childish Invective (with the latest invective italicized):

Oh lord. Still picking nits about my typos, eh? In your case, I have even linked to some of your 2 dollar crack whore quality cheap shots. Tit for tat, I always say. I do appreciate your concern about my lack of comments. It's duly "noted in the building." Recognizing irony isn't exactly a chickenblogger strongsuit, now is it? Sorry Robin, That wasn't you. Just someone who sounded exactly like you. Whoops, Jay! Watch your spelling! You don't want to direspect your readers, now do you? "Please," indeed Jay. I'm deliberately emulating typical chickenbloggercoop tactics and rhetoric. If you can't stand the heat, stop cracnking up the oven. Insulting you thin-skinnned weenies is a ton of fun. You have no sense of humor. You have no honor. And you can't stand it when your tactics are turned around and used on you. Horeshockey. I've explained this many times. Why should I care that a bunch of chimps throws their poop at the wall? You guys constantly flame and attack me here and elsewhere. You have plenty of venues for your defecation. It sounds more like YOU who are afraid that I'll cut your pathetic atatcks on me to ribbons. You need a comments section to keep rebutting my dismatling of your juvenile rantings. Well...forgive me for not wanting to waste my time cluttering up my site with such nonsense. I'm hardly ineffectual. As your bitchy comment proves. If I am just "white noise," none of you would feel the burning need to attack me so often. My suggestion, grow up. I appreciate your well-reasoned, and detailed counter-arguments. I'm sure everyone who reads your post will agree that I haven't cut anyone to ribbons. The almost inexhusible list of sound arguments you provided to support your point, are simply overwhelming. I bow to your intellect, sir. You truly are a card. Just because an intellectual cripple, such as yourself, doesn't believe I've added anything to the deabte, doesn't mean I haven't. I believe I've [along with others] forced the Chicckenbloggercoop to address the issue of deterrence in a serious way. You may or may not agree with my arguments, but you can't say they aren't serious, or haven't contributed to the debate. You, instead, focus on my style. And dismiss everything else I've wrtten because you are intellecually lazy. You've stated three straight blatant faslehoods about me just in this thread alone. Pejman uses classic chickenblogger statistical sampling. Why? Because of the substance free ad hominem attacks I've been getting here. Do you honestly believe any intelligtent person would fall for your nonsense?

And it is good to see that my predictive powers remain intact; Hesiod calls me a "chickenblogger."

Then again, he is predictable, isn't he? I write an ad hominem free comment, as does Jane, and Hesiod has to resort to ad hominem attacks once again.

Two questions, Hesiod:

1. Why should I bother to read the posts on your blog anymore than I already have (and I've read plenty of them)? You use as many ad hominem attacks there as you do here. Your writing in this comment box, and the lack of substance that it carries, is perfectly emblematic of your blog in general. Why should I waste my time looking for "substance" on your blog, when it is clear that substance is not your forte? If I wanted name-calling, I could go to the local kindergarten and watch five year olds have it out at one another. At least they are charming.

2. Can you give me an explanation as to how your constant refrains of "chickenblogger!" and other such inane insults are going to change my mind about Iraq, the war on terror, or other issues of public concern? I really want to know what your debating strategy is. Do you expect me to exclaim, "Gee, Hesiod thinks I'm a chickenblogger! Guess I better change my mind now,"? Explain how any of these ad hominem insults are going to change my mind.

I'm sorry, I forgot to add the last bit of Hesiod's childish invective. How negligent of me:

Well Jane, I guess I concede the point. The biggest dicks certainly do exist on the Conservative side of the political spectrum.

Again, this nonsense is going to change people's minds on the issues of the day and turn them around to Hesiod's stance . . . how, exactly?

Typical chickenblogger retort:

"You're using ad hominem, you fucking coward Pilger-fucking piece of hippie shit!"

Typical chickenshit retort:

Hide behind a generic name like 'Bob' and a fake address and tell bald-faced lies. Pejman used no obscenity, did not call 'Hesiod' a coward, and said nothing positive or negative about hippies.

In any event, you are welcome to submit any critical comments to me via e-mail. I'll publish them.

Yeah right. Just to show what nonsense that is, Hesiod posted the following entry regarding Paul Krugman, accusing me of calling Krugman a 'liar' for using Jason Leopold's made up email regarding Thomas White. I did no such thing and you can see my entry here. All I did was link to a blog that had more information on the subject. He then tries to equate that with me taking issue with him calling Larry Miller of the Weekly Standard a 'lying sack of pigshit' because of Miller's half-assed reporting of a band making derogatory comments about President Bush and being booed as a result. I sent him the following email at 5:34pm today:

From: Jay Caruso [mailto:jay@the-dailyrant.com]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 5:34 PM
To: 'Hesiod Theogeny'
Subject: Krugman

Where did I call Krugman a liar? The blog I linked to called him a liar, but I didn’t. I have in the past, but not in this situation.

His work was definitely sloppy because he took Leopold’s word for it and didn’t bother to confirm the allegations.

Larry Miller did the same sloppy work, but at the very least, his story turned out to be TRUE. He merely had the names of the bands in question wrong.

It’s bad enough that you resort to ad hominem on a daily basis, but don’t go and post entries that accuse me of something that I did not do.

Rgds
Jay

Guess what? No response. He didn't post it. He didn't add anything to his original post but he certainly had time to add new entries.

I'll await the excuse and ad hominem.

I think I'll take some of Pejman's comment to heart. I could have gotten my points across without some of the invective I used. Specifically, I didn't need to preface a couple of paragraphs with 'Liar.' The paragraphs stood alone quite well without doing so. Also, though I believe 'flamer' to be less invective than a sobriquet for a type of posting style conjoined with a lack of substnce, I could have made that point with a bit more grace also. 'Mudmen' falls into the same category. Still, I was skirting ad hominem commenting at least.

My comments' delivery may have suffered but not their substance, so I won't apologise to Hesiod for telling it like I see it. If any other commenters in this thread found my comments a little over the edge, I do apologise to them. Pejman is right. Uncivil discourse doesn't excuse replying in the same mode and further polluting the debate.

Since Pejman nailed it, why do folks give Hesiod (or Hezod, as would be seen on his site) the time of day? The only times I go to that site (I don't go there on my own primarily because of the reasons outlined in so many comments here) are when I'm linked there by anti-idiotarian bloggers who are railing.

It's not like it's the NYT...if it's illogical, immaterial, adolescent, and sophmoric in its composition, why read it and give it quasi-deference via a link? Yes, most of us are mocking a laughing, but he obviously is getting jollies out of the entire process.

Since ignorance is rampant there, I'd suggest ignoring the site altogether.

It's not like *anything* constructive will come out of recognizing it.

I've suggested that what we should do to Hesiod is a complete shunning - not merely for his stupidity and invective but specifically for his despicable namecalling of Stephen Den Beste.

Hmmmm... about Bob.... I had a brother-in-law named Bob... he used to beat my baby sister... we started calling him "Buried Out Back"... he got the hint and went away... I wonder if this is the same guy?

Anyway, Hesiod and his ilk are beneath comtempt. They do not understand that the subtle suggestion of violence is much more effective than overt threats and empty threats waste whatever power you may have had...
Those who can, do.
Those who cannot, bluster, threaten and whine.
Have a nice day.