"Searing Truth And Blinding Honesty"

Max Sawicky celebrated Christmas Day with a cri de coeur notably lacking in Good Will towards Men or any sign of a desire for Peace on Earth. Perhaps we should call it a cri de cul:

NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTIONS: NO MORE MISTER NICE MAXSPEAK

I've been much too nice a guy. That's my main misgiving. I don't mean I'm even-tempered. I'm not. But I give way too much credit to a-holes whose mission in life is to demonize people who think differently. You can tell instantly when somebody is making statements aimed at others, under the pretense of having a dialogue. I don't need someone else as a prop to speak to the masses. It doesn't pay to exhaust words and bandwidth to respond to imbeciles. I relish vigorous debate with all who are able to avoid ad hominem (especially with respect to me!). I look forward to debate with conservative visitors. Anyone who checks the archives at the old site can find plenty of criticism of what I am pleased to call my thought. I only deleted posts that were simply profane and abusive, or that lacked any substance other than insulting remarks.

I used to think of this site as a public meeting place. I exercised a very light hand as far as moderation went. Now I think of it more as my living room. I welcome guests who bring trenchant criticism, humor, and other good vibes. Stuff that annoys me I'm deleting. Banning IPs can be impractical, but since I'm in front of or near a computer 24-7, near-instant deleting of obnoxious stuff is possible. Post all the crap you like; nobody is going to see it. Bring the funk, and you're welcome to hang out.

This is going to be a nasty political year. I'm not going to disarm. Unlike some others, my weapon is searing truth and blinding insight, . . .

Sorry, I had to take a break to pour myself a stiff drink. I'm back now.

. . . or my best efforts to those ends. We have enough liars on both sides. Some of them visit periodically, but they won't be welcome.

Happy New Year, and keep your powder dry.

Unwary readers, like most of those who have commented on Sawicky's post, might think that his sites have lately been overrun with hordes of vicious and voluble trolls. In fact, I know of only two comments that Sawicky has deleted in the last two weeks. I posted them myself on this thread last Friday. I even used an inoffensive fake name, so as not to pollute Max's site with my own loathsome pseudonym. Here are the comments, which were deleted several hours later:

1. 'If anyone was wondering . . . .' (12/19, 11:07):

Since our host does not provide a link or even a name, anyone looking for the other side of this mysteriously one-sided argument should know that it will be found at www.drweevil.org. Just search on 'Sawicky'.

2. 'If anyone was wondering . . . .' (two minutes later):

Since our host obviously objects to linking to the site, I made that a cold link in the previous comment, but the software turned it into a hot one. Stupid software.

It seems unlikely that the last two words are what set Sawicky off, since he switched over from Grey Matter to Movable Type and from http://maxspeak.org/gm/ to http://maxspeak.org/mt/ just three days later, and must already have been planning the big move.

If you're wondering what's so "profane", "abusive", "insulting", "obnoxious", or "crap" about these comments, just continue on to the next one, from Sawicky himself:

3. 'Max' (12/20, 00:44):

If Bugsy really wants a debate, I'll be happy to go toe-to-toe on his site with him, his half-wit brother, and his stupid readers. Here we have better things to do.

Because as I've said before, I don't have to argue with idiots.

He has indeed said that before, about me, the last time I nailed him for making shit up. Or maybe it was the second-to-last time: I tend to lose track.

The last three comments on the same post were obviously written after mine were deleted:

4. 'Vinteuil' (12/22, 20:10):

Who's "Bugsy?"

Why not hold the debate here?

5. 'Max' (12/22, 21:07):

Bugsy is an irredeemable a-hole who thinks he can sponge off my traffic and bandwidth by being unpleasant. If he really wants a debate, which I doubt, it will have to be an imposition on his readers, not mine.

6. 'Vinteuil' (12/23, 18:50):

Max: I'm asking for a *name*, not a *description*. I already knew how you felt about him. What I want to know is what he has to say for his own part. Is that too much to ask?

Apparently it was. No further comments have been posted, or at least none have survived long enough for me to see them.

In the benevolent despotism of Sawickia, politely trying to let Max's readers know where to find the other side of his arguments makes me an "a-hole" and an "idiot" and an "imbecile", while calling me all that, my brother a "half-wit", and all of you, dear readers, "stupid", is perfectly proper behavior. As I've said before, that makes Max Sawicky an intellectual bully, willing to dish it out, but unwilling to take it.

Sawicky either doesn't know or doesn't care what bandwidth theft is. I have never linked to a picture on his site, partly because I've never seen one worth linking, but mostly because I avoid bandwidth theft as a matter of principle. As for 'sponging off his traffic', I did my best not to include any hot link in my deleted comments, and have now included hot links in this post, so he can "sponge" off mine. I just checked my statistics, and, despite several multi-post arguments with Sawicky, fewer than 0.1% of my traffic comes from his sites: only 316 hits in all of 2003. Just for comparison, I have 866 so far from Monday's post at Winds of Change, and routinely get more hits from Dutch Google (roughly one a day) than from Max Sawicky, despite never posting anything in Dutch.

So why do I criticize Sawicky so harshly? Not because of any urge to "demonize" those on the other side of the political aisle, but because he is (a) often wrong on matters of crucial importance to the world, and (b) the kind of lying asshole who's too arrogant to admit it when he's wrong, makes shit up to try to prove he's right, and lies about me and others. If he were only (a) I would have no problem with him, and would be glad to debate him either here or at his place. It's the (b) that makes me despise him. I will soon have further posts on Panama and Grenada and what they show about the utility or otherwise of U.S. military interventions, but they are unlikely to form any sort of satisfactory dialogue with Sawicky, who hasn't bothered to reply to any of the points I made last Friday. Nevertheless, if he (or anyone else) can come up with any arguments, I will endeavor to answer them. But Sawicky will have to make them on his own site, since he is not welcome here.

Posted by Dr. Weevil at December 27, 2003 05:48 PM