Thursday, June 18, 2009

The Not-So-FIne Art of Keeping Your Fucking Story Straight

Canada's hateful left squirms in the light of day

The events that have transpired ever since Canadian Cynic, the spiritual leader of Canada's hateful left -- the bizarre collective of borderline fascists who define their left-wing political identity not according to their political beliefs, but rather by their hatred of those who don't share them -- have all at once been incredibly amusing and disturbing all at the same time.

The disturbing: Robert Peter John Day -- now outed as Canadian Cynic -- seems to be every bit as terrible and sociopathic an individual as his "CC" character was. Perhaps one shouldn't be surprised.

The amusing: Mr Day has taken his outing with the bizarre dignity of a person who doesn't realize that a very big smack is headed his way. His campaign of libel, criminal harassment and character assassination are set to bite him in the ass in a very big and very costly way.

But all Mr Day seems to want to do is attempt to lob around accusations that he'll take legal action of his own. Oddly enough, the hill he's chosen to die on is none other than that of the episode in which he encouraged his readers to go after Richard Evans' children, very literally asking his readers to stalk them to their school.

Mr Day seems to be all about intimidating Wendy Sullivan with legal action for so much as speaking about this.

But what's even more interesting is the extent to which other formerly-reputable bloggers -- such as John "Dr Dawg" Baglow -- are willing to surrender their reputations trying to defend Mr Day by saying things that they know full well aren't true.

One merely has to watch Baglow commit reputation seppuku:
"If I may say so, this is dirty pool. First you allow illiterate hacks to insist that CC’s concern for Dick’s kids is an attack on the kids–when we both know he was stating, clearly, that people might want to contact the school–not the kids, the school."
No one with any shred of honesty would even dare make an argument like this.

In fact, it's absolutely striking the extent to which Day's own words contradict this argument:
"“But, technically speaking, does that really prove that Dick is into child sex? To which the proper response would be, of course, who cares!?!? Normally, I’d be terribly concerned about accuracy but, given that Dick seems willing to publish defamatory accusations that come only from his demented imagination, I figure I should get to play by the same rules."
Interestingly enough, those who remember the infamous "CanadianCynic.net" redirect should also remember that it only stated that Day believed it was OK for older men to have sex with young boys. It never overtly stated that he was a pedophile.

That being said, Day's words speak for themselves. He couldn't say one way or the other whether or not there was a real cause for concern. His only interest was in disrupting the home life of Richard Evans (a textbook case of criminal harrassment) and counselling his readers to help him do it (a textbook case of conspiracy).

Now, those who have played close attention to Mr Day and Mr Baglow know a few things. One of them is that Mr Day and Mr Baglow are fairly good friends.

The defense that Mr Baglow offers in defense of Mr Day could only be offered by someone so intent on defending a friend no matter what manner of moral evil he's committed that he's willing to make a farce of himself in order to do it.

But one knows that wherever Day's honour is at stake, so goes the clowncar brigade -- a collection of internet trolls dedicated to making taking Mr Day on so annoying that it isn't even worth the trouble.

Amongst its membership are none other than individuals such as Ti-Guy, CherniakWTF, Kevron, liberal supporter and the individual who decides to act as Baglow's second in seppuku, Sparky:
"On the surface, the information on these here intertoobs implies that Richard doesn’t care about his kids. I’m sure that real life is completely different on this topic but–
It was Richard that posted his kids name on-line, on a very public website
It was Richard that purchased domain names and directed them to NAMBLA
It’s Richard that’s adamantly stating that there’s no problem with either of those two points.
Those are the facts that we know about…
It’s not up to cc to care about Richards kids here on the internet, it’s up to Richard. And, as shown, it appears that he isn’t doing well on that point.
"
First off, the sheer stupidity of Sparky's comments -- the one thing that this individual has a gift for -- is positively astounding.

How Richard Evans writing about his children on a website promoting his bid to be elected an Alderman of the City of Calgary and redirecting a domain name to NAMBLA -- while claiming that Mr Day stated that he had no problem with older men having sex with minors -- amounts to a conclusion that Evans doesn't care about his kids is probably understood by Sparky alone.

But it's amazing that someone like Sparky, who normally prides himself with never, under any circumstances, allowing his expressed opinions to deviate from those from whom he takes his marching orders, could fail to keep his story straight with Baglow.

It's a turn of events that only someone like Sparky could be embarrassed by -- responding to the revelation that a claim that Robert Day was only acting out of concern for Richard Evans' kids is fallacious by saying "well, he doesn't have to care".

No sooner had John Baglow driven the wakizashi into his reputation than Sparky swooped in for the decapitation.

One has to wonder if this is going to become a general state of affairs for the hateful left. Once upon a time, they seemed awfully focused and organized. Now that Robert Peter John Day no longer has his anonymity to cower behind, it seems that the clown car brigade doesn't have their standard to rally behind any longer.

28 comments:

Balbulican said...

Can I ask a quick question, just for clarification?

We know what happened in the real world as a result of Richard's revelation. Several folks on his site, and at Wendy's, are bragging about having called CC's clients, initially under the impression they were going to be able to harass him at his workplace.

Did anyone, at any point, make a phone call to the school attended by Richard Evans' children, as far as you know?

Sparky said...

Wow, read much, Patrick?
cc doesn't have to care about Richard's kids.
I didn't say 'cc doesn't care about Richard's kids' See the distinction?
Do you even know how to frame an arguement without resorting to deliberate obfuscations and misrepresentations?
You don't have to care about my kid. I have to--I'm the child's guardian and all that. I'm not only morally and legally obligated to so so--it's also the right thing to do
I dont' have to care about your kids. It's a statement of truth. However, should I find your kid in a situation where he or she needs help, I'll help where I can.
For a man who won't even face up to his blatant wrongness in the past, you sure like to call others out on the most obscure and misrepresented reasonings.
Keep up the good work!

Sparky said...

So let's get right into the sheer lack of, well, anything resembling a coherent arguement from Patrick...
...amounts to a conclusion that Evans doesn't care about his kids is probably understood by Sparky alone.
See what Patrick did here? He's stating that my conclusion was Richard doesn't care for his kids.
And lets look at what was actually stated
On the surface, the information on these here intertoobs implies that Richard doesn’t care about his kids. I’m sure that real life is completely different on this topic
I'm stating that the information given to us on the internet by Richard himself points to one conclusion, but I believe that real life is something completely different.
In other words (dumbing it down for mahmood), I'm sure that Richard does care about his kids, but what he's doing on the internet doesn't reflect that.
But it's amazing that someone like Sparky, who normally prides himself with never, under any circumstances, allowing his expressed opinions to deviate from those from whom he takes his marching orders, could fail to keep his story straight with Baglow
Patrick is attributing ideas and events that have never been shown as fact again.
Just because there are many people who point to the crap spewed by Richard, you (and whomever else spews crap) and say, "Hey! That's crap and here's why..." does not infer, imply, or otherwise mean that someone behind the scenes is sending e-mails to everyone else saying "post this or you're out of the club!"
Project much?
And then we have this--
It's a turn of events that only someone like Sparky could be embarrassed by -- responding to the revelation that a claim that Robert Day was only acting out of concern for Richard Evans' kids is fallacious by saying "well, he doesn't have to care".
I wasn't speaking for cc here. I was making the point--cc doesn't have to care about Richard's kids. Richard does. I did not say that cc actually doesn't care about Richard's kids. I stated this in the previous comment. You, me, the guy down the street... matters not. Only one person in this discussion has to take care of Richard's kids--that's Richard (again, helping mahmood, just in case he didn't get that)
We can have a nice academic debate about morally and otherwise, but there's this thing called taking responssibility for your own actions, Patrick. What happened to that concept?
If Richard's actions increase traffic to websites that want to harm kids--where in there is it cc's responsibility? Or yours? Or mine?
In order for you to 'score points', you have to leave out the good bits, or misrepresent what was actually said. I'll say it again here, so you can have it for all posterity on your very own website--
It was Richard that posted his kids name on-line, on a very public website
It was Richard that purchased domain names and directed them to NAMBLA
It’s Richard that’s adamantly stating that there’s no problem with either of those two points.
Those are the facts that we know about…
It’s not up to cc to care about Richards kids here on the internet, it’s up to Richard. And, as shown, it appears that he isn’t doing well on that point.

Let's remove the whole cc thing from the mix shall we?
Richard posted pics of his kids on-line--nothing wrong with that. I have pics of my kid up on the internet, others do so all the time. Hey, no worries.
Moreover, I think it's great that Richard posted these pics on a "website promoting his bid to be elected an Alderman"--no worries there, either.

Sparky said...

However, Richard--for whatever intent--also had a domain set up that increased traffic to NAMBLA websites. Richard, by his actions, increased web traffic to NAMBLA websites.
Richard, by bringing his kids into his election platform, is apparently running on this 'I'm a family guy' platform.
And he owned a site that redirected traffic to a website that I, and you (i'm not going to use the word hopefully in front of that, either--My belief is that you, Patrick, agree with this statement), and many other people, consider to be harmful to children.
These are Richard's actions. Not cc's, yours or mine. Richards.
So let's go back to what I said--
it’s up to Richard [to protect his kids here on the internet]. And, as shown, it appears that he isn’t doing well on that point
If you are aware of 'internet traditions', then you are aware that reprehensible (mahmood--that means bad) people use pictures and information found on the internet to do reprehensible things. And Richard, again by his actions, gave them more hits.
And if you don't want to understand that, you're being deliberately obtuse--there's just no hope for any meaninful discussion with you
(and if mahmood can't read it, well, that's just expected.)

Sparky said...

And I wasn't even going to touch this but...
First off, the sheer stupidity of Sparky's comments -- the one thing that this individual has a gift for -- is positively astounding.
Coming from a man who lies, distorts and misrepresents everything to make a point...
A man who can't face correcting his own record on octagons, the deficit, or (I can guarantee this) this very post (I could look up others, but I didn't get my marching orders)...
A man who just loves to bloviate ad nauseum on an issue, but gets all snippy when others have the audacity to post more than a 10 word rebuttal...
A man, mind you, that, when the facts are inconvenient, makes up statements out of whole cloth and treats them like facts...
These are your great gifts to internet blogging
Yeah, you're my role model for intelligent discourse...

mahmood said...

Ouch! that's a pretty sharp evisceration scapel you wield nexus-man...heh, Sparkles has crash landed here this afternoon, must be a tad slow over at the "CC HQ Sacks-of-Hammer-Handles Hardware Store"...say Sparks, you kinda let me down a couple weeks ago but not to worry, I don't carry a grudge.

Sparky gurgles...""you're my role model for intelligent discourse"...don't flatter yourself Sparks, by the looks of that pile of mumbo jumbo I'd say you got long row to hoe but do keep trying, something someday may stick.

Anywhoo Sparks my boy, must toodle and oh, Sparky, check your pager, incoming from "CC HQ Douchebag and Floral Arrangements by Rob"...BobbyBoy needs your assistance with a bouguet of Carrion Flowers...finger on the ribbon while he ties the bow...now don't screw-up.

Patrick Ross said...

Wow.

Sparky certainly seems to be outraged.

Sparky, you responded to a response to an argument with an incredibly disingenuous argument.

Mr Baglow's argument was that Mr Day was asking people to make allegations that Richard Evans is a pedophile out of concern for the children.

Yet, as it turns out, Mr Day had already demonstrated a complete disregard for the truth of the matter -- stating unequivocally that he doesn't care.

To which your response was "well, it isn't his job to care".

Which not only showed a complete lack of regard for the original claim being addressed, but in no way invalidated the argument offered as a response.

Which is a bone-headed act in and of itself.

But to claim that you aren't attempting to argue that Richard doesn't care about his kids is incredibly disingenuous. Your comments really do speak for themselves. If you don't like what they say about you, then maybe you should start thinking for approximately 30 seconds before you open your mouth.

That would save you all kinds of humiliation.

Sparky said...

I was going to point out your nonsense again, but I felt sorry for mahmood--he's still probably tired from the last one.
Just this--you disingenuous hack. Move those goalposts, Patrick. Obfuscate some more.
Nicely done! Keep it up,

Patrick Ross said...

You want to lecture on moving goalposts?

That's hilarious.

I just think it's hysterical that you helped Robert Baglow prove that, contrary to the impression that he's actually a more principled member of your hateful little pack of hyenas, he's actually just like you.

Which is absolutely tragic, when you think about it.

...And by the way, I'd still like to hear you explain how, precisely, your "argument" is supposed to explain away the fallacy of Mr Baglow's comments.

Sparky said...

I'd still like to hear you tackle any of my points without being disingenuous or obtuse or a liar.
Since I don't see that happening in the any future state, I don't think you have any call to ask for explanations from anyone else at all.
The tragedy here is yours and yours alone. You're so blinded with, I dunno, hatred for
"anything cc" that anyone that doesn't share your view of him is immediately cast down and anything they say has to be, well, wrong.
You attribute motive and intent that's not there--
But it's amazing that someone like Sparky, who normally prides himself with never, under any circumstances, allowing his expressed opinions to deviate from those from whom he takes his marching orders, could fail to keep his story straight with Baglow.
you ignore salient details--
It’s not up to cc to care about Richards kids here on the internet, it’s up to Richard
and you never answer any rebuttal directly--instead you obfuscate and move goalposts--throw some other point up and hope no one notices that you just changed the nature of your argurement (shall I remind you of cc's 'links'...)
You stand on your little soapbox here and preach to your own choir (consisting of basically mahmood...) and expect no one to call you to task on your erronous diatribes. And when they do, well, let's just ignore that and move on... or throw the word 'stupid' around lots--that's always a good rejoiner for people pointing out your fallacies. I especially love this bit of debate 101 goodness--"That guy should be embarassed for saying that..." What? For pointing out how wrong you are? Yeah, that guy should be embarassed... Never you--the guy that's actually wrong...
ROTFL!
Oh wait, no, you're just sad.

Patrick Ross said...

Sparky, Sparky, Sparky.

Still outraged, incoherent, and otherwise just being, well... yourself.

You want to criticize me for allegedly "moving goalposts" here -- a complaint typically vacuous of yourself.

And yet it's yourself who tried to step in and move the goalposts when it was pointed out that your good friend Mr Baglow was being incredibly disingenuous.

Not to mention making an incredibly retarded argument while doing it.

Now that your argument has been categorically rejected you're all hurricane-strength bluster. But there's a problem. You have no substance with which to back all that outrage up with.

Sparky said...

Moreover, here's Mr Baglows statement (again, quoted by you) and your response--
"If I may say so, this is dirty pool. First you allow illiterate hacks to insist that CC’s concern for Dick’s kids is an attack on the kids–when we both know he was stating, clearly, that people might want to contact the school–not the kids, the school."
No one with any shred of honesty would even dare make an argument like this.

What did Mr. Baglow state? "..That people might want to contact the school--not the kids..."
Which, as anyone with any sort of reading comprehension would note was exactly what cc was going on about.
You, on the other hand, again with the "if you had any shred of honesty..."
Baglow stated the truth, you summarily rejected that truth (without any evidence backing your point). So again, your arguement was based on, what? What you thought you read? 'Cause it's obvious that you didn't base your arguement on what was atually stated.
I got in there to call people on the idea that 'cc should care about Richards kids', since that was what some were talking about--cc's calling on people to stalk the kids... cc's posting the kids pictures and personal information on the internets--doesn't cc care about the kids???
And what did I say?
On the surface, the information on these here intertoobs implies that Richard doesn’t care about his kids. [SUPPOSITION] I’m sure that real life is completely different on this topic [SUPPOSITION] but–
It was Richard that posted his kids name on-line [FACT], on a very public website [FACT]
It was Richard that purchased domain names and directed them to NAMBLA [FACT]
It’s Richard that’s adamantly stating that there’s no problem with either of those two points.[FACT]
Those are the facts that we know about…
It’s not up to cc to care about Richards kids here on the internet, it’s up to Richard. And, as shown, it appears that he isn’t doing well on that point [CONCLUSION]

See there? I came up with an arguement--a supposition as it were, and I backed it up with facts as gleaned from the interent.
You think that this means I'm not marching lock-step with the 'other lefties' (this was your point, was it not? 'get your fucking stories straight'???). You think that my comment contradicts Mr. Baglows?
As shown, again, you're either lying to score points or misinterpreting what was stated to score points.
Either way, until you actually can back up what you're going on about with facts--y'know, what was actually stated instead of what you want it to say--I'll go read other, better, stuff you've blogged about (and yes, there is actually some good stuff here--none of it deals with cc...)

Sparky said...

Lost the first part of my post--limit 4096 characters... whatever...
To summarize--
Patrick presents as facts ideas and concepts that are patently untrue
Mr. Baglow and I are not friends. I've never sent him e-mails, nor have we ever met. I do, for the record, have his blog bookmarked. however, I also have yours bookmarked, Patrick. I have also responded to a few of his comments in the past. I've replied to more of yours.
As well, to categorically reject something usually implies that one actually responds to all the points made--not none of the points made.
You're the one that has no footing here, Patrick. Everytime you respond you add more mistruths and more obfuscations.
You should have quit before you started.

Patrick Ross said...

Sparky, only someone hopelessly intellectually enslaved to Mr Day would even dare make that argument.

What do you think happens if someone calls up Evans' childrens' school with trumped-up charges that Evans is a pedophile?

And you honestly think that contacting the school, as opposed to the kids, doesn't involve them?

No one with a shred of integrity would dare try to make this argument.

Furthermore, this does absolutely nothing to change the fact that Mr Baglow's argument was still disingenuous -- not only did Day state that he didn't care whether or not pedophilia allegationg against Evans were true, but he told Evans that he would make the lives of himself and his family (children included), and I quote: "shit".

It doesn't change the fact that your argument does absolutely nothing to counter the base dishonesty of Baglow's argument, and it does nothing to change the fact that, when confronted with Baglow's intellectual dishonesty, you did what you so often want to excoriate your detractors for -- you tried to change the subject. You tried to "move the goalposts".

And now, just look at you squirm. It would be incredibly amusing if it wasn't so utterly tragic.

Sparky said...

No squirming at all. Your point--'get their fucking stories straight' was shown over and over again to be wrong and idiotic. You based it on what you interpreted people wrote instead of what people actually wrote.
Your next point--'cc wanted to make the lives of the kids 'shit'' is, well, shit.
Again, I pointed out your erronous claims by going back to the original text--the actual text and not what your lack of reading comprehension interpreted it to be.
Since I easily refuted your wrong and idiotic claims regarding baglow and the rest, I then went on to state that it's Richard that has to take responsibility for his actions. Since apparently you're so hell-bent on protecting Richards kids (since you do seem so focused on the fact that you think cc isn't), look at the actions of the people involved.
cc correlated a link between NAMBLA and Richard based on the FACTS that were out there on the internets. Whether that correlation is true or false is irrelevant (again, where the 'who cares' comes in--Richard stated he didn't, and his actions show he didn't, so why should we?)--the corelation can be made based on Richards actions.
cc then went on regarding protecting the kids by bringing this information to responsible adults. Sure it's a pissing match between cc and Richard. Again, the 'who cares' comes in--nothing to do with lack of care for the kids. Moreover, the whole point has always been that Richard's the one whose actions are morally questionable, not cc's.
The only thing that cc may be guilty of is using somewhat 'artistic license' in writing.
You do it all the time--
'Sparky and Dawg are good friends' when I've shown this to be demonstrably untrue.
'They get their marching orders...'--again, completely untrue, but you wrote it anyway.
Why?
I can think of nothing else but to score points in order to 'win' your arguement.
Moreover, cc's 'artistic license' can be backed up with those pesky facts.
Yours? Demonstrably untrue.
After dismissing your moronic and sophmoric suppostions, I continued to say (as I've been doing form the start of this fiasco) that Richard's the one that has to care about his kids. Noy cc, not you and not me. Stating this does not invalidate anyone else's point. I backed this statement up by showing facts as ascertained through the internet. You took that to mean that i'm not marching 'lock step' with others--where'd you get that idea? What the hell are you basing your crap on? Faulty reading?? It's completely inaccurate.
Keep digging, Patrick.
Your whole point was that we couldn't get our fucking stories straight. You didn't show it. YOu based your entire arguement on lies and misinterpratations.
we were given marching orders--LIE
Dawg contradicted cc--LIE
I contradicted Dawg or cc--LIE
Dawg and I are friends--LIE
I'm suirming or moving goalposts--LIE
and the best
We can't get our fucking stories straight--LIE
Any more lies you want me to point out?
I suggest you just stop becase it's not looking good on you.
Or--and here's a thought--go write something good. I know it's in you. Whenever you write about cc, et al., you end up writing something wrong that can be added to your ever growing lists of wrongness.

Sparky said...

The Not-So-FIne Art of Keeping Your Fucking Story Straight [LIE as demonstrated in my comments above and below]

Canada's hateful left squirms in the light of day[LIE—no squirming at all. Proof!]

The events that have transpired ever since Canadian Cynic, the spiritual leader of Canada's hateful left [LIE—spiritual leader? Cc?? Proof!]-- the bizarre collective of borderline fascists [LIE—facists? What, you’re Mark Steyn all of a sudden?? Proof!] who define their left-wing political identity not according to their political beliefs, but rather by their hatred of those who don't share them [LIE—it’s the idiocy and hypocrisy in what’s written by others is what we dislike. Because there are some that post idicy and hypocrisy all the time is not ‘our’ problem, it’s theirs. And want to talk about a hate-filled blog? Read SDA] -- have all at once been incredibly amusing and disturbing all at the same time.

The disturbing: Robert Peter John Day -- now outed as Canadian Cynic -- seems to be every bit as terrible and sociopathic an individual as his "CC" character was[LIE—sociopath? Seriously? Proof!]. Perhaps one shouldn't be surprised.

The amusing: Mr Day has taken his outing with the bizarre dignity of a person who doesn't realize that a very big smack is headed his way. His campaign of libel, criminal harassment and character assassination are set to bite him in the ass in a very big and very costly way.[LIE—threats don’t constitute argument, especially empty ones]

But all Mr Day seems to want to do is attempt to lob around accusations that he'll take legal action of his own[tit for tat--meh]. Oddly enough, the hill he's chosen to die on is none other than that of the episode in which he encouraged his readers to go after Richard Evans' children, very literally asking his readers to stalk them to their school [LIE—proven over and over again that this statement is completely false. No where did cc ask anyone to stalk Richard’s children].

Mr Day seems to be all about intimidating Wendy Sullivan with legal action for so much as speaking about this[LIE—if legal action is required, it’s for defamation, not for speaking of this issue regarding Richard Evans and his past links with NAMBLA].

But what's even more interesting is the extent to which other formerly-reputable bloggers -- such as Robert "Dr Dawg" Baglow -- are willing to surrender their reputations trying to defend Mr Day by saying things that they know full well aren't true[LIE—Dawg spoke truth—because you say it isn’t, doesn’t make it so].

One merely has to watch Baglow commit reputation seppuku:
"If I may say so, this is dirty pool. First you allow illiterate hacks to insist that CC’s concern for Dick’s kids is an attack on the kids–when we both know he was stating, clearly, that people might want to contact the school–not the kids, the school."
No one with any shred of honesty would even dare make an argument like this [LIE based on misinterpreting what was written—Dawg restated *exactly* what cc wrote. He’s honest, you’re not].

In fact, it's absolutely striking the extent to which Day's own words contradict this argument [LIE—cc’s words do not contradict this point at all]:
"“But, technically speaking, does that really prove that Dick is into child sex? To which the proper response would be, of course, who cares!?!? Normally, I’d be terribly concerned about accuracy but, given that Dick seems willing to publish defamatory accusations that come only from his demented imagination, I figure I should get to play by the same rules."[where are the kids even mentioned in cc’s statement, Patrick? Where? Your point is a LIE]
Interestingly enough, those who remember the infamous "CanadianCynic.net" redirect should also remember that it only stated that Day believed it was OK for older men to have sex with young boys. It never overtly stated that he was a pedophile[What? This is your point?? CC never stated anywhere that it was ok for older men to have sex with younger boys—so again, LIE]

Sparky said...

That being said, Day's words speak for themselves. He couldn't say one way or the other whether or not there was a real cause for concern. His only interest was in disrupting the home life of Richard Evans (a textbook case of criminal harrassment) and counselling his readers to help him do it (a textbook case of conspiracy) [LIE—Richard Evans owned a website directing traffic to NAMBLA. Cc was ruminating on the idea that maybe responsible adults would like to know. No conspiracy or criminal harassment].

Now, those who have played close attention to Mr Day and Mr Baglow know a few things. One of them is that Mr Day and Mr Baglow are fairly good friends.

The defense that Mr Baglow offers in defense of Mr Day could only be offered by someone so intent on defending a friend no matter what manner of moral evil he's committed that he's willing to make a farce of himself in order to do it [LIE—moral evil? Who owned a website directing traffic to NAMBLA? As shown, no moral evil on cc’s part].

But one knows that wherever Day's honour is at stake, so goes the clowncar brigade -- a collection of internet trolls dedicated to making taking Mr Day on so annoying that it isn't even worth the trouble [LIE—“so annoying that it isn’t worth the trouble”? And you’re going through so much trouble to make your faulty points to people not worth the trouble??] .

Amongst its membership are none other than individuals such as Ti-Guy, CherniakWTF, Kevron, liberal supporter and the individual who decides to act as Baglow's second in seppuku, Sparky [LIE—I didn’t decide to act on behalf of Dawg]:
"On the surface, the information on these here intertoobs implies that Richard doesn’t care about his kids. I’m sure that real life is completely different on this topic but–
It was Richard that posted his kids name on-line, on a very public website
It was Richard that purchased domain names and directed them to NAMBLA
It’s Richard that’s adamantly stating that there’s no problem with either of those two points.
Those are the facts that we know about…
It’s not up to cc to care about Richards kids here on the internet, it’s up to Richard. And, as shown, it appears that he isn’t doing well on that point."
First off, the sheer stupidity of Sparky's comments -- the one thing that this individual has a gift for -- is positively astounding.[IRRELEVANT and, as shown continuously, attacking the messenger because your point’s idiotic—nice!]

How Richard Evans writing about his children on a website promoting his bid to be elected an Alderman of the City of Calgary and redirecting a domain name to NAMBLA -- while claiming that Mr Day stated that he had no problem with older men having sex with minors -- amounts to a conclusion that Evans doesn't care about his kids is probably understood by Sparky alone[LIE—should say ‘understood by anyone that has a grade 4 reading comprehension’].

But it's amazing that someone like Sparky, who normally prides himself with never, under any circumstances, allowing his expressed opinions to deviate from those from whom he takes his marching orders, could fail to keep his story straight with Baglow [LIE—marching orders? Proof! LIE! Statements made by Dawg and me are not contradictory].

Sparky said...

It's a turn of events that only someone like Sparky could be embarrassed by [LIE—I’ve never been embarrassed by stating truths—apparently, Patrick doesn’t get embarrassed by stating lies]-- responding to the revelation that a claim that Robert Day was only acting out of concern for Richard Evans' kids is fallacious by saying "well, he doesn't have to care". [that’s my point, but you love ignoring stuff on the other side of the comma—taking this out of context—‘it’s not up to cc, you or me to care about Richard’s kids, it’s up to Richard’.]

No sooner had John Baglow driven the wakizashi into his reputation than Sparky swooped in for the decapitation [a statement based on lies].

One has to wonder if this is going to become a general state of affairs for the hateful left [conclusion based on lies]. Once upon a time, they seemed awfully focused and organized. Now that Robert Peter John Day no longer has his anonymity to cower behind [LIE—cc doesn’t’ appear to be cowering], it seems that the clown car brigade doesn't have their standard to rally behind any longer [LIE—there will always be those that point out truths, outed or not].
So you see, Patrick, what are you left with?
Absolutely nothing

Sparky said...

Oh wait, you are left with one thing--my bad--
Now, those who have played close attention to Mr Day and Mr Baglow know a few things. One of them is that Mr Day and Mr Baglow are fairly good friends.
I believe this is true.
So Patrick, that's something you got right.
Score 1 for you.
I'd go through your comments, but I think I've disseminated enough of your lies for one day.

Patrick Ross said...

Sparky, when you start making multiple posts at a time is when I stop wasting my time reading them, because that's when the stupid really starts to flow freely.

Your good friend Mr Baglow made a disingenous argument. You tried to move the goalposts for him. You're a hypocrite. Go find something else to cry about.

Sparky said...

This is why you have to stop writing about cc and the rest--you can't make your point honestly so, after being called on it over and over again--having every one of your fallacious points (easily) refuted-- 'nothing to see here... move along...'
If you're done with it, so am I.

Patrick Ross said...

Sparky, Sparky, Sparky.

You seem to be missing the point.

Not only can you not be honest about Robert Peter John Day, he can't even be honest about himself.

When you start peddling the same rejected fallacies that Mr Day offers in his own defense -- or in Richard Evans' condemnation -- you yourself are falling into the same nonsensical trap.

Only Robbie PJ Day would dare argue, for example, that randomly-generated links from a computer program are actually cause for self-aggrandizement.

And only you would back him up on that argument.

Only Robbie PJ Day would dare argue that a Canadian Cynic look-alike site which tells those who visit it that Mr Day's views on the age of sexual consent are similar to NAMBLA's is actually promoting NAMBLA, regardless of where it may be re-directing traffic.

And only you would back him up on that argument.

Only Robert Baglow would dare argue that someone who promises to make the life of Mr Evans and his family "shit" actually cares about Mr Evans' children.

And only you would try to move the goalposts on that fallacy, while complaining all the while if you think someone else is doing it.

It's what makes you a hypocrite -- the fact so well demonstrated by this entire conversation.

But, quite franky, it's hard to blame you. You're only doing as you were told. God knows you're incapable of anything else.

Sparky said...

Wow, I thought you were done...
Can you reply to any comment here without lying?
So far you're batting 1000 in this regard.
And I continue to love how you not only lie about the facts, you continue to make up things out of whole cloth.
Nice
There's an old story--
A parishioner in charge of cleaning up the pulpit after services found a copy of the padre's sermon for that particular Sunday.
He noticed that the padre had the sermon typed out neatly and had some handwritten notes in the margins regarding presentation--gesture here, pace there... One handwritten note said "this point weak! Yell like hell!!"
Somehow when you rant about others saying stupid tings or going on about others being disingenuous, I'm reminded of this. Except in this case, your point's not weak--it's not even the truth.

Patrick Ross said...

Leave to Sparky to conflate truth with lies.

Let's go over the facts one more time, so that Sparky's attempts to write them off as "lies" (factual lies -- it's a novel concept, but one that only truly finds fruition in the mind of a sycophantic ideologue):

-Fact: Robert Baglow attempted to argue that Robert Peter John Day was only encouraging people to contact the school of Richard Evans' kids because he was conerned for them.

-Fact: Mr Day said in the very same post that he didn't care whether or not allegations of pedophilia against Mr Evans were true.

-Fact: Mr Day also promised, in a blog post, to make the life of Evans and his family "shit".

-Fact: when these facts were pointed out to Mr Baglow, thus invalidating his argument, Sparky not only attempted to argue that it isn't Mr Day's obligation to care for Evans' children (thus attempting to move the goalposts of the argument), but also insisted that Evans doesn't care about his own children.

So, what we see is, while Mr Baglow once had a reputation of being a little bit better than Sparky and his fellow worshippers at the Temple of Sycophantic Groupthink, Sparky instead helped demonstrate that Mr Baglow is not one ounce better than the rest of them.

And even after desperately attempting to move the goalposts of this particular event, we have Sparky crying on numerous different occasions that I'm "moving the goalposts", and yet, oddly enough, I was the one arguing on the basis of what this particular debate was actually about.

And somehow Sparky just can't seem to accept yet another pertinent fact about this debate:

He lost. Again.

I'd actually make an attempt to explain to him how, but sometimes there's just no talking to stupid people. Seriously.

Sparky said...

Fact--You lied when you state that Mr. Baglow and I are friends
Fact--You lied when you state that people are sending or following 'marching orders'
But more important Fact--You based your entire arguement on a few lines that can be attributed to, shall we say, artistic usage of the english language--something you yourself do all the time.
Fact--you're so caught up in that minor point that you missed the bigger picture--something you seem to do whenever cc's involved
Fact--cc never once called for harming or stalking Richards children.
Fact--Dawg did not once contradict cc's point, nor did I contradict either
Fact--I went thru your entire post and showed--with evidence, mind you--your lies and/or misinterpretations. You keep on stating the same thing over and over again mostly without any evidence--and when you actually try to bring in some, it ain't truthful
But much like the triangles vs octagons--a point that you were so gung-ho on... what was the bigger issue? Were those guys cops or not?
And what was the fallout? Oh right--they were plants.
And the deficit? You were so hellbent against psa because he wrote that there probably would be a deficit...
And the bigger picture? Oh right, we're in one...
And the pissing match between cc and Richard and what dawg correctly stated?
Oh right--only one person in all that actually sent traffic to NAMBLA websites
So you can call others stupid all you want, You can get so focused on the triangles, and who's writing about future deficits, and whether cc cares or not vs what dawg says about it...
And you can even pretend that your very wrongness on these issues doesn't matter and hope no one else notices...
It won't change the facts--you were wrong.
Screaming at me and calling me stupid lots doesn't change that.
And every comment you've made here just reinforces how wrong you are.

Patrick Ross said...

So, then, Sparky, is it merely a coincidence that you and Mr Baglow seem well acquainted, and that you chose to leap to his defense with so poorly-conceived an argument?

Is it merely a coincidence that you so often turn up wherever Robert PJ Day instructs you to go?

If there's anything "artistic" about your attempt to move the goalposts on the argument between Mr Baglow and myself, then it must certainly be the most piss-poor example of post modern art ever conceived by a moron.

If there's anything "artistic" about Mr Baglow's counter-factual argument that Robert PJ Day was only acting out of concern for Mr Evans' children, then that is likewise.

Quite frankly, Mr Day's call for information on Mr Evans' kids itself is stalking. It's like a jilted lover hiring a private eye to follow their former paramour. How do you honestly believe you can make that argument?

Oh, wait. I forgot. This isn't one of your arguments. It's one of Mr Day's arguments that you're regurgitating, like the mindless little automaton that you are.

Another FACT is that you're retarded enough to regurgitate these arguments without so much as a single pretense of critical thinking.

For example, your argument that Richard Evans was promoting NAMBLA by directing traffic to their website.

By that same logic, Robert Peter John Day is the internet's leading promoter of the Blogging Tories -- he directs more traffic to those sites than positively anyone. By the same logic it actually doesn't matter that Day vociferously condemns the Blogging Tories -- he directs traffic there, and by his logic, which you steadfastly refuse to question, that's all that matters.

And here you are. Again. Trying to move the goalposts of the discussion, trying to change the subject, trying to dredge up the distant past, trying to do anything at all that prevents you from addressing your own hypocrisy.

If it wasn't so utterly comical, it would only be pathetic. It doesn't mean that it isn't pathetic, it just makes it a little more tolerable.

You lost. Again. Give it up.

Sparky said...

wow again!
To start, I love how you turnd on comment moderation--a lark considering the other post around here regarding cc.
And if you want to infer that blogging tory websites are equally as heinous as Nambla sites, go right ahead. I, for one, don't appreciate that equivalence.
There's a world of difference between cc writing about, say, one of your blog posts that he thoguht was particularly asinine and linking to that post, and Richard creating a website that directs traffic to Nambla because he's in a pissing match with cc
If you can't see that, then again, there's no help for you.
The equivalence would be what you sometimes do--if you take issue with some blog post somewheres on the internet, you make your point and, whilst making it, link to the blog post in question (if you so desire). It's what cc does, it's what you do, it's what many many bloggers do.
It's not what Richard did, is it?
So again, for the obtuse that just can't get it, you lied from top to bottom here and now you bring in false equivalences between what most every other blogger does and what Richard did in order to again score a point.
Another point based on crap.
Seriously, you have to stop doing that.
Can you make one truthful point at all?

Patrick Ross said...

Comment moderation is automatically turned off after seven days so I can keep track of the comments made on all the posts here.

At other times, comment moderation has been turned on in order to keep a lid on Groupthink Temple worshippers whose sole intent is to post ludicrous comments merely to annoy.

I allowed you a pretty long leash on this one. You should actually be thanking me. It's nothing at all like your good friend Robert PJ Day who deletes any comments on his blog that are unsuitably truthful about the degeneracy that tends to ensue there.

Now, that being said, Sparky, you may suddenly want to try to introduce a distinction between Mr Day's links to various Blogging Tories and Mr Evans' link to NAMBLA.

But I don't see that big a difference between linking to a Blogging Tory post to criticize it -- sometimes on very specious pretences -- and Richard Evans linking to NAMBLA because he wants to educate people about Mr Day's supposed views on the age of sexual consent.

In any case, the intent of Evans' link to NAMBLA certainly isn't what Mr Day has insisted it was -- that Evans may be a pedophile who wants to promote NAMBLA.

No more than is Mr Day's intent to promote the Blogging Tories. Not truthfully. But if Mr Day's reductionist logic in this case is good enough for you when applied to Richard Evans, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be good enough to apply to Mr Day himself.

And that, my dear Sparky, is the elephant in the room that you seem to refuse to address. The fact that Mr Day makes these arguments in extremely bad faith -- knowing full well that they aren't true.

Much like, for example, Mr Day's argument that I support the murder of abortion providers. Anyone who familiarizes themselves with my position on the matter knows that it unequivocally is not true. But Mr Day seems to have no problem whatsoever attempting to make an argument that he knows full well isn't true.

It's one of the reasons why Mr Day is going to be facing a libel suit if he hasn't been removing those comments.

It still continues to amuse me, Sparky, that you simply refuse to denounce that kind of conduct out of Mr Day, even as you attempt to invent it in other bloggers for the express purpose of being able to denounce it.

Just like flinging vacuous accusations that someone else is "moving the goalposts" when they aren't and you know full well that you're attempting to do precisely that.

Like Mr Day, you have no problem, whatsoever, trying to make an argument that you know full well isn't true.

It's one of the reasons why no one takes you seriously, and it's one of the reasons that when you start to post three or four comments at a time, most people just plainly tune you out.

Most people can't take that much stupidity or hypocrisy at any one time. But somehow you have no problem at all producing it.

Post a Comment

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.

Also, all comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read.