Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Oh, He's So Angry

Red Tory still running his mouth (on empty)

Despite his typical lack of anything decent to say, Red Tory is still trying desperately to carry on his one-man-vendetta against the rest of the blogosphere, today taking aim at Nexus of Assholery valued collaborator Werner Patels and (predictably) at the Nexus istelf.

In particular, RT directed his ire at two posts: one written by mr Patels advocating for a bloggers' code of civility, and another, written by myself, that addresses some of the philosphical underpinnings of the climate change debate.

Once again, Red Tory's issues with the posts in question aren't very well clarified.

Of course, his steadfast defences of Canadian Cynic's vicious attack on Wanda Watkins pretty much does demonstrate where he stands regarding civility. Then, there's (g)utter genius like this.

We can easily ascertain where Red Tory stands on the issue of civility.

Then, there's the question regarding the climate change post. Perhaps he'd like to clarify his misgivings. Does he take exception to the idea of virtual reality ideologies (he may want to take that one up with Norman Mailer, who actually wrote it as a criticism of the war on terror that Red Tory so stringently opposes). Does he want to refute the idea that climate change is often envoked in explaining phenomenae to which it is dubiously (if at all) linked? Does he want to refute the idea that climate change (vis a vis global warming) is often envoked as a preconcieved notion?

He can consider himself free to answer, but he won't, and here's why:

He's just too damn angry.

Why is he so angry? It's actually pretty simple to explain. While an obvious tinge of jealousy directed toward people who have something other than other people's blogs to write about seems detectable, it really does seem that he's mad because someone addressed him.

But here's the kicker: Red Tory addressed us first.

One can actually consider the discovery of this remark (which, at the time barely seemed worthy of addressing) as a fluke committed in the process of exploring the blogosphere. It was written in response to a post on Dark Blue Tory. It reads as follows:

"Hmmm. Let’s see what “original thoughts” CBL has, shall we. A link to a site called the “Nexus of Assholery” that… surprise, trashes liberals accuses Dion of “slander” and features a picture of George Bush giving the finger."

Perhaps it was thus unsurprising that Red Tory was so eager to address us here at the Nexus. Yet, one has to consider the ridiculousness of this. At the time, Red Tory's premier problem with the Nexus was this:


I later explained in a post that this banner is actually supposed to be ironic. Red Tory was clearly "barking up the wrong tree" (his words), considering the previous banner:


Merely by viewing a banner that its test audience found hilarious, Red Tory thought he identified an ideological opponent, and he has since been steadfast in his attacks. Then, when someone decided to push back, he just plain got mad.

I was one. Now, should the esteemed mr Patels choose to keep pushing back, we are two. Red Tory seriously needs to reconsider how much time he's willing to spend pursuing conflict with someone who is really not a mere ideological opponent (ideally, an ideological opponent should actually be a fellow ideologue, and Red Tory simply hasn't found one here).

He and the rest of the trolling yellow "journalists" of the blogosphere (right or left) need to understand that if you attack us at the Nexus, we at the Nexus will respond. Perhaps Eminem has actually said it better than anyone:

"We're gonna bring it to anybody who want it/
You want it you're gonna get it/
You name 'em we're gonna hit 'em/
Chew 'em up and spit 'em out/
(Too much venom)/
And if you roll with 'em we're gonna fuck you up with 'em"


We can keep this up as long as you can. By the by, just keep on getting mad, because it just makes us seem all the more rational, and makes you seem all the more ridiculous.

31 comments:

  1. It's no wonder RT has already suffered one heart attack: he's too damn frustrated at his life and the world. Soon, he'll have a second one, and his life expectancy will drop dramatically.

    Anyroad, his blog is not a blog but the online version of a rag and not worth anyone's time. I never even bother to read his attacks on me anymore. I only know from looking at my sitemeter and the traffic he sends my way.

    All I can say is that my site traffic is phenomenal; I really don't need more traffic, particularly not from a rag like RT.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Werner Patels said...
    It's no wonder RT has already suffered one heart attack: he's too damn frustrated at his life and the world. Soon, he'll have a second one, and his life expectancy will drop dramatically.


    More civily and grace from Mr. Patels whom I see is still actively advocating for RT's demise.

    ReplyDelete
  3. More civily and grace from Mr. Patels whom I see is still actively advocating for RT's demise.
    It's that do as I say, not as I do, winning attitude after all...
    So Weiner, when's the next way out west weather update?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Werner,

    Red Tory' status as a douchebag aside, hoping for him to have a heart attack is just not right.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mr. Ross - that's kind of you.

    Now will you be putting up your stats?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't keep them. Furthermore, I've offered no comment regarding my stats.

    Is Red Tory wondering whether or not I have any readers? At this point, the answer is pretty obvious. I have lots of readers: mine, and his.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Patrick, I didn't say "hope"; I said "he will" -- that's a prediction, not an expression of hope.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I suppose you're right, Werner. I understand what you're saying.

    But the comment really does, in my view, come across more like the kind of comment that Red Tory would either make about someone himself, or at least condone.

    We're better than he is, right?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Okay Werner, so how about putting up your fantastic site numbers?

    Or will you coward away?
    And really, if you have that many more readers, why would a few readers from his blog even make a tend?

    And Patrick, you sound like a loser asking for moral support for that loser called Mr. Pickles...
    Where is that bravado you like to try and project?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I never said his traffic made a DENT (that's how it's spelled properly).

    Stats are not public data; in fact, under privacy laws, you could get into trouble if you made your site stats public (there is some pretty potent data to be found in there, such as government offices with IP addresses, etc.).

    I remember a case several years ago where an online message board had to hide posters' IP addresses because IP addresses cannot be displayed like that under Canadian laws (at least, that's the argument that was made back then).

    I protect my readers' privacy rights.

    Since you don't even have a blog of your own and hide behind a silly username, this is the only and last reply you will receive from me, WTF_Cherniak.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. A screen capture of your stats (the page labelled "This Year's Visits and Page Views by Month") wouldn't compromise anything, so that's actually quite a feeble excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Since you're so keen on challenges, Tory, why don't you start stepping up to some?

    Fleshing out some of your empty criticisms would be a decent start.

    Then again... you really can't, can you?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wow, the smell of cow manure coming from you is rather thick, not unlike your arguments. So you bark about your numbers but can’t show any of them claiming that it’s an invasion of privacy to your dear readers…
    You are nothing but a cowards and fool.
    Your whole pathetic excuse of maybe getting into trouble shows how stupid you are.
    First, the data is collected by third parties that have no qualms about sharing the data they gather from you. The actually entice you to give them your pathetic data with those “stat programs” and whatever tracking you have. No one asked you for your raw data logs.

    I do have a site that gets visited on a regular basis (hello there Mr. Fortier) and it really shows how little you understand about IP addresses and such…
    And that really besides the point as you where asked for a total number… Your numbers are surely pathetic…

    ReplyDelete
  15. Cherniak, I can't remember you ever saying much of anything that suggests you know much of anything about much of anything.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thanks Patrick, it means alot comming from you.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Patrick — You’ve demonstrated in the past an unwillingness to argue in good faith, so I really see very little point in the endevour. It’s unfortunate, because as I’ve said to others, I believe you’re actually quite an intelligent, articulate fellow whose ideas are reasonably moderate for the most part. I only mention that to make it clear that I don’t regard you as a loopy wingnut with all the contemptuous scorn usually attached to that designation.

    I’m quite certain you could probably even be quite delightful or charming if you chose to be, but for some inexplicable reason you don’t. Instead, you appear to delight in coming off as a pretentious, boorish, petulant jerk with no social graces whatsoever, whose primary concern appears to be focused on “winning” against people you regard as “mindless twerps” and then triumphantly claiming you’ve “owned” the other person(s). Well, that’s pretty groan-inducing and it’s a rather odd way of going about things, at least to my mind. It’s certainly not a game that’s of the slightest interest to me. Perhaps you can go pick fights with people who might derive some enjoyment from this rather perverse exercise.

    If however you care to put things back on track between the two of us, I’m certainly open to that, as I like to think that I’m nothing if not a reasonable and fair-minded person (yes, laugh away…). To be quite perfectly honest, I’d much prefer to limit my rogues’ gallery of online foes and nemeses to people whose ideas appall and disgust me, or that I quite sincerely believe to be colossal buffoons and twits of the first water. Quite obviously, there’s no shortage of those fish in the sea.

    Seeing as the major sticking point and bone of contention to date has apparently centered on the irksome matter of my “anonymity” (which I still vigorously maintain is not the proper description), I’d be quite happy to resolve this mystery and settle the matter to your satisfaction if you like. Simply send me an e-mail to redtory@shaw.ca and we can quickly dispense with this rather tiresome consideration once and for all. There are lines of communication quite apart from the blog that are free to be opened up, as many others have done, so consider this an invitation to explore that avenue of discussion if you care to.

    The point of my silly little “open challenge” to you and Werner was merely to illustrate that when it comes to matters of privacy, we all draw our lines at different places in the sand. For example, it seems that Werner will not reveal his site stats citing the “privacy concerns” of his readers, whereas other bloggers are wholly transparent and open in this respect. Just because someone attaches a name to a blog doesn’t necessarily confer any sort of “accountability” or “credibility” to themselves or their opinions. There are many different criteria by which these things can be judged.

    As I see it, we both have certain matters of faith to establish first before an argument can be entered into with any reasonable possibility of it being at all worthwhile. I’m not prepared to invest the time/effort into arguing a point when I feel you might well simply chose to ignore everything I’ve said (or distort it beyond recognition), simply repeating your original assertions over and over, before finally pulling the plug at the moment of your convenience, jumping up and down, shouting “Victory is mine!” Likewise, you may not have much regard for the opinions of someone who you regard in the first instance as an “anonymous coward” who’s unwilling to suffer the consequences of whatever he writes.

    Anyway, I’ve nattered on here long enough. Consider it an open invitation to put this nastiness behind us and move on. I’d be happy to argue/debate with you or discuss various things — openly, honestly and in good faith — but first I think there are some issues that need to be resolved. If you want to do that, great; and if not, well that’s okay too. I would rather that people of reason and rationality focus their efforts on more pressing matters of concern than fractiously quibbling between themselves. I happen to think that your rhetorical efforts may be better directed elsewhere than yours truly and the reciprocal of that holds true as well.

    It may be naïve of me to think so, but I’m confident we can rise above our petty differences and perhaps even come to some sort of common ground of understanding. If you wish to pursue that path, then I’ll be happy to join with you in the venture. Otherwise, we’ve arrived somewhat abruptly at a rather dull and uninteresting cul-de-sac from which we’d both be the wiser to avoid from here on in.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oh, and Werner... (Sorry, I have to address you here seeing as you've banned me from your site), I could really give a toss about whatever your stats are. I just find your gut-busting hyperbole and shameless self-promoting to be a source of endless amusement. Keep your “phenomenal” numbers to yourself. It’s more than likely that I could badger you until the end of time and you’d find some way of not disclosing them. I’m quite happy to state that last month I had 21,155 unique visits and 40,736 page views, with an average daily count of 872 (unique) and 1,357 (page view). Given this is a dog-tired slow time of year, I’m not unsatisfied with that.

    I’ve always maintained that my “humble little fruit stand” (to borrow Lance Mannion’s wonderful expression) was essentially for my own amusement and have likened my “rag” editorially speaking to a small-town newspaper. Unlike you, I don’t have pretensions to being globally important and plugged into the movers and shakers of the world, although I do, like many others I’m sure, have readers from all over the place including Korea, Russia, Italy, the U.K., Australia, Japan, and so on. As for your “powerful” data mining… yes, you can tell where people come from and what they were looking for, etc. I get some percentage from government websites (even from unlikely foreign sources like Saudi Arabia), but it would be absurd to extrapolate anything from this.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Werner Patels said...
    Patrick, I didn't say "hope"; I said "he will" -- that's a prediction, not an expression of hope.


    Well let's take a look at a similar sentiment that you've posted before about RT's heart condition:

    Werner Patels said...
    I'd much prefer if RT drank himself to death. Hang on! He's already suffered a heart attack not too long ago, which put him out of commission for a while.

    You know what they say: the second, and more serious attack comes not too long after the first one.


    Now, technically, you didn't use the word "hope" here either, but instead opted for the word "prefer". I guess it's all in how one attempts to live with their "preferences" and schadenfreude.

    ReplyDelete
  20. CC — I’d prefer that my house didn’t burn down. One might even say that I hoped it didn’t. It’s quite easy to see how the two words can be easily confused sometimes. For example, I prefer that Werner doesn’t get crushed by a 20 ton weight dropping on him and hope that particular fate doesn’t befall him, and while speculating in this way unfortunately necessitates imagining his demise, it most certainly doesn’t mean that I necessarily derive any pleasure from the thought.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. RT - Oh...OK I see what you mean now.

    So, for instance, I could hope that no harm ever come to Mr. Patels, but I prefer that he die a slow, agonizing death. Or I could hope that Mr. Patels have a safe commute home, but I prefer that he had been on the I35W bridge at 6:05PM CDT.

    Thanks for the edification; educational as always.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Amazing, no response from WP or PR....

    ReplyDelete
  24. This morning, I posted a comment over at Mr. Pickles place. No swearing, just a response that was common sense to his idiotic ranting...
    Colour me surprised to see it removed.
    What's the point of having a blog and comments if you remove them?

    Really Werner, go back to the men's room an enjoy the glory holes...

    I may no like Patrick Ross, but at least he's earned a lot more respect than you ever will just by leaving post from people he does not like.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Patrick — You’ve demonstrated in the past an unwillingness to argue in good faith, so I really see very little point in the endevour."

    Nonsense. As a matter of fact, I put all the marbles on the table, RT, and you've never done that.

    You have yet to explain the practical difference between anonymity and pseudonymity, at least in terms of concealing one's identity.

    Comparing Canadian Cynic to the founders of one of the world's foremost liberal democracies, for example, is an exercise in pure intellectual audacity, and you've to date declined to back it up.

    "It’s unfortunate, because as I’ve said to others, I believe you’re actually quite an intelligent, articulate fellow whose ideas are reasonably moderate for the most part."

    Then what was the point of all the attacks, RT? You attacked me before I ever even considered you worthy of addressing, and resorted to the most absolutely silly means to do so.

    What was it about? Feel free to elaborate.

    "I only mention that to make it clear that I don’t regard you as a loopy wingnut with all the contemptuous scorn usually attached to that designation."

    Oh, yeah. That means a lot coming from you.

    "I’m quite certain you could probably even be quite delightful or charming if you chose to be, but for some inexplicable reason you don’t. Instead, you appear to delight in coming off as a pretentious, boorish, petulant jerk with no social graces whatsoever, whose primary concern appears to be focused on “winning” against people you regard as “mindless twerps” and then triumphantly claiming you’ve “owned” the other person(s). Well, that’s pretty groan-inducing and it’s a rather odd way of going about things, at least to my mind. It’s certainly not a game that’s of the slightest interest to me. Perhaps you can go pick fights with people who might derive some enjoyment from this rather perverse exercise."

    Again, RT, who picked the fight? You came onto my blog, picked the fight, went back to your blog, started the fight, then got mad because anyone would dare comment on your blog post that was about them in the first place.

    'Fess up, RT. You went looking for this fight.

    "If however you care to put things back on track between the two of us, I’m certainly open to that, as I like to think that I’m nothing if not a reasonable and fair-minded person (yes, laugh away…)."

    Trust me, I'm laughing.

    "To be quite perfectly honest, I’d much prefer to limit my rogues’ gallery of online foes and nemeses to people whose ideas appall and disgust me, or that I quite sincerely believe to be colossal buffoons and twits of the first water. Quite obviously, there’s no shortage of those fish in the sea."

    It seems to me that really make no compunctions about attacking someone based on your dislike of the person who's name is on the page.

    After all, you can't offer a coherent criticism, seemingly of anyone or anything.

    "The point of my silly little “open challenge” to you and Werner was merely to illustrate that when it comes to matters of privacy, we all draw our lines at different places in the sand. For example, it seems that Werner will not reveal his site stats citing the “privacy concerns” of his readers, whereas other bloggers are wholly transparent and open in this respect. Just because someone attaches a name to a blog doesn’t necessarily confer any sort of “accountability” or “credibility” to themselves or their opinions. There are many different criteria by which these things can be judged."

    You didn't issue that challenge as an issue related to privacy, and you know it. Werner declined your challenge as a privacy issue.

    "Seeing as the major sticking point and bone of contention to date has apparently centered on the irksome matter of my “anonymity” (which I still vigorously maintain is not the proper description), I’d be quite happy to resolve this mystery and settle the matter to your satisfaction if you like. Simply send me an e-mail to redtory@shaw.ca and we can quickly dispense with this rather tiresome consideration once and for all."

    I never addressed your anonymity, I addressed that of your cohort.

    In my actual opinion, RT, you haven't done anything so severe that you deserve to bear that humiliation out in public. Canadian Cynic has.

    This isn't an issue about mere anonymity -- this was an issue about anonymity used as a shield to protect one from responsibility for their comments.

    While your delight in attacking other people for the cardinal sin of not agreeing with you is boorish and obnoxious, that is nothing compared to telling the mother of a fallen soldier to "fuck off".

    "There are lines of communication quite apart from the blog that are free to be opened up, as many others have done, so consider this an invitation to explore that avenue of discussion if you care to."

    I really don't care to have any sort of personal contact with you, of any manner.

    "As I see it, we both have certain matters of faith to establish first before an argument can be entered into with any reasonable possibility of it being at all worthwhile. I’m not prepared to invest the time/effort into arguing a point when I feel you might well simply chose to ignore everything I’ve said (or distort it beyond recognition)..."

    Try writing something worthy of not being entirely ignored.

    "...Simply repeating your original assertions over and over..."

    If you can't refute my original assertions in any debate, I'll stand by them.

    "...Before finally pulling the plug at the moment of your convenience, jumping up and down, shouting “Victory is mine!”"

    Like your bosom buddy Mentarch chose to do? No. I don't do that.

    I could have deleted your comments from this blog. I didn't do it. I could have deleted your groupie Cherniak's comments from this blog. I didn't do it. I could delete Counter-Coulter's comments from this blog. I won't do it.

    Unlike your "Thinking Blogger" cohort, I'm not afraid of real debate. Like your other assorted cohorts and groupies, I'm not afraid to get nasty, either.

    "Likewise, you may not have much regard for the opinions of someone who you regard in the first instance as an “anonymous coward” who’s unwilling to suffer the consequences of whatever he writes."

    You're right, RT. I don't have much regard for your opinions. To be frank with you, you never really express any. You content yourself to launch empty, meaningless attacks on other people who would probably prefer to blog in peace.

    You see, the hilarious thing is this: you like to try and castigate me to suggest that Canadian Cynic should own up to his rather vicious comments, arguing that I apparently want to be some sort of one-man morality police.

    You, on the other hand, troll other people's blogs all day, looking for ideas that apall you so you can act as, well... some sort of one-man morality police.

    At least I save my protest for when someone violates actual demonstrable societal mores. You just harrass people.

    "Anyway, I’ve nattered on here long enough. Consider it an open invitation to put this nastiness behind us and move on. I’d be happy to argue/debate with you or discuss various things — openly, honestly and in good faith — but first I think there are some issues that need to be resolved. If you want to do that, great; and if not, well that’s okay too. I would rather that people of reason and rationality focus their efforts on more pressing matters of concern than fractiously quibbling between themselves. I happen to think that your rhetorical efforts may be better directed elsewhere than yours truly and the reciprocal of that holds true as well."

    If you want to end this, you can end it at any time. And you don't even need to publicly apologize, or anything of the sort. All you need to do is... stop.

    I'll take this as far as you take it, and no further. If you bring it to me, I'll take it back to you. If you're cool, I'm cool. It's that bloody simple.

    "It may be naïve of me to think so, but I’m confident we can rise above our petty differences and perhaps even come to some sort of common ground of understanding. If you wish to pursue that path, then I’ll be happy to join with you in the venture. Otherwise, we’ve arrived somewhat abruptly at a rather dull and uninteresting cul-de-sac from which we’d both be the wiser to avoid from here on in."

    Like I said, the power to decide is yours. If you decide to end this beef, I won't even gloat.

    If you want to squash this beef, it's squashed. That easy.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I am, however, going to start erasing any comments that express a desire for harm to come to another individual.

    Werner, Counter-Coulter, you've both been warned about this now. Please don't make me do someting (deleting comments) that I don't want to do.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Patrick Ross said...
    I am, however, going to start erasing any comments that express a desire for harm to come to another individual.


    Just for the record: I was not expressing any desire for harm on Mr. Patels. I was merely demonstrating the semantic game that he employs to express said desires while attempting to maintain plausible deniability. If you search any of the messages that I have left on blogspot (or anywhere else for that matter) I have never done anything of the sort...which I'm guessing is more than Mr. Patels can claim.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Fair enough. Blog in peace. Enough time wasted.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Look, Counter-Coulter, I said it and I meant it.

    Let's make a deal with one another: if we're going to castigate someone for something, let's not turn right around and do the same thing ourselves. I think that's a pretty fair deal.

    I don't want to delete comments, but wishing other posters harm is the one time I will break this personal rule of mine.

    And being sarcastic or immitating someone is one thing. But consider this: someone may not get the joke, and it is possible someone may get in trouble for remarks they don't necessarily mean.

    In a sense, this is as much for your protection as to satisfy my own concerns.

    I'm not saying you aren't welcome here (you are), I'm just laying what I think is a necessary ground rule.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Cherniak_WTF:

    I have never seen a comment by you in the timeframe you mention.

    But I have to admit that my blogging software had a few hiccups recently (tried a new template, which turned out to be somewhat unstable and didn't work equally well with IE and Firefox; then, there were some server problems on the part of my provider, and finally, the spam controls implemented by my provider are sometimes too harsh, I find -- there was a time when I was unable to post comments to my own blog for 48 hours until the provider fixed the problem).

    So, to Cherniak_WTF I say, please post your comment again (or, at least, try posting it again, I should say).

    If there are any problems, let me know.

    As for Red Tory, I have cleared your commenting privileges (I hope I picked the right IP address -- give it a try). If you have something to say, I invite you to come over to my blog. If you can keep it civil, I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to post comments. Frankly, I don't know why I banned you in the first place (several months ago), but I am willing to move on and give you another chance.

    ReplyDelete

Post your comments, and join the discussion!

Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.

All comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read. Also, if you begin your comment by saying "I know you'll just delete this", it will be deleted. Guaranteed. So don't be a dumbass.