A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Not that being opposite is the problem, it’s opposing forces that refuse to coexist that breaks down the house. All of creation is filled with opposing forces, yet (besides the human) they know to give and take like the mighty oak gives way to the gusty spring winds. When one force imposes too great a burden upon the other, the result is chaos as in our recent wind and ice storms.

The problem is that every side is a taker and there are far too few givers.

For what it’s worth, I believe it is quite indeed hypocrisy on the Libs part in the result of Prop 8. In black and white, it stinks of things I can’t dare mention and is what some call “two-faced” and double standard. It is saying out of one side of your mouth : Democracy, freedom, equality ; out of the other side you say : I refuse to accept that I can’t have my way. Even though a “Democratic” process gave “freedom” for all to vote and have an “equal” say, when the majority voted in opposition it is somehow unfair ? The sickening part is they will continue to drag this into every courtroom until some legal system grants them their “right” to force their opinion on the majority opposing it. But, naturally, I just suppose it is because “they are right” and they know that the majority vote was wrong. Why vote on it in the first place when the extremist will rage a war until the judge puts a pacifier in their mouth ?

First, I want say that my reply to John wasn’t personal. The fact is, I’ve been blogging and working in internet publishing for about five years, now, and I’ve seen a lot in that time. My education on the blogosphere has been one of experience and sometimes instruction.

How does that apply to John? Simply put, I have learned that, in general, those who comment fit into neat little boxes or classifications. There are friends, trolls, lurkers, and flamers. If you scroll back up and look at John’s first reply, you’ll see that he fit the mold of flamer. Flamers usually buzz into a site hurl insults, etc. and then leave. Trolls are worse because they will hang around harassing people, threatening them with violence, you name it. Anyway, flamers will come into a site for the first time with guns-a-blazin’ and that is precisely what John did. What’s wrong with that? Well, let’s just say it’s a matter of blogging/commenting etiquette. It’s a matter of having good manners. When someone comes into my site, I will defend it and my contributors if the commenter is out of line. I think that’s reasonable. Here’s why.

A personal weblog is like someone’s home, and those who comment are sort of like house guests. When I’m a guest in someone’s home, I treat them with respect, I respect them…I respect their space…I respect their property. I, at least, give them a chance before utilizing what I call “the rake.” The analogy is that John was a guest in my home. But as soon as he came in, he unzipped his fly and began pissing on the livingroom rug. This is the essence of what John did in his very first comment. Coming into someone’s home and calling them a hypocrite isn’t what I’d call polite behavior. Adding insult to injury, John’s accusation was not only in error, but underscored his own hypocrisy, as he was basically doing the very thing he accused us of. If that weren’t enough, John then switched from “righteous” indignation mode to condescension when he tried to tutor Ron in the art of rhetoric. Condescension aside, this wouldn’t have been a bad thing, except that John didn’t know what he was talking about or who he was talking to. What John did was the same as if I came up to you (a master builder) and began telling you how to do your job. You and I both know what a joke that would be. I’m sure you wouldn’t be laughing, especially if I had insulted you just before I began instructing you on a skill you had mastered and I had not.

In short, John was accusatory, rude, and his accusations were off the mark by some distance. For that behavior, John, got very little mercy from me…or Ron, for that matter.

That leads me to another observation, several of our readers sent me emails inquiring why I have given you so much latitude when the tone of your comments weren’t much better than John’s. I’m sure your intent wasn’t to come off as smart-assed or whatever, but that is how these readers characterized your comments. I had to admit that the readers’ concerns weren’t completely without merit. But because I know you personally; I have a relationship with you, etc., I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I also was reluctant to reveal that our past history led me to believe I had some atoning to do. I also genuinely believe that you want to know why John was reprimanded in this forum and that given all the facts you would understand my position as your friend, even if you might disagree with my actions. I think the main thing is that I give you an explanation while affirming my respect and trust for you as a dear friend. I hope you feel the same way.

In closing, I want to add that John has since apologized for his behavior, which shows backbone as well as character. Both Ron and I have accepted his apology and also his explanation as to the misunderstanding. John will be welcome here as long as he doesn’t resort to the tack he took when participating in this forum for the first time. Like Ron, I welcome his cogent contributions here and look forward to adding him to our readership base.

Hope that cleared things up for you, or at least helped you understand my position in this matter.

See you buddy and I look forward to chatting again soon.

I think you answered your own question. Nowhere on the site is there a proclamation of “changing the world.” It’s just an entertaining outlet for those of us that realize that we have little control in shaping the “world.”

My following comments are not meant to be condescending, so please do not perceive them in that fashion.

You inquired:

“Still trying to figure out why ‘John’ is so wrong , except that he did not conform to the ideology of this sites agenda. Therefore, ‘John’ is a scourge to the site’s society?”

First, you have to separate the two concurrent discussions. John’s agreement with my assertions or “conclusions” was never really a subject of debate. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I (I believe Chad, too) in no way would try to say that an opposing opinion or conclusion is incontrovertibly “wrong.” In fact, I believe John originally stated, “I am not accusing you of forcing your views upon me. I am just commenting on the fallacy within the quote.”

John clearly avoided debating the issues, which is perfectly his right, and I do not chastise him for that choice. Therefore, any “he said, she said” discourse was directed precisely at the secondary discussion: my proper use of logical reasoning in my assertions.

At that point, the debate at hand had nothing to do with one’s personal beliefs or views, but the validity of the construction of my statements. In a nutshell, whether we agreed or disagreed on opinion was never in question.

It may seem confusing, but the bulk of debate was on the logical construction of my assertions. He suggested I was using “fallacious” logical reasoning, therefore Chad and I were defending the “construction” of my assertions as logically sound.

Basically, it was a cerebral wrestling match on delivery and not content, and as you can see, it was “much ado about nothing.”

You stated, “they just bitch of how they are right and everyone else is wrong.” If you can sift through all of the “logical, illogical” debate, you will see that John was never indicted for his ideology. That would be a completely separate debate, one that never surfaced.

I hope that helps to clear the “smoke” surrounding this previously heated debate.

I know ahead of time that we will agree to disagree. But I will go ahead and try to clarify both my orientation as a blogger and my initial comments to John. I should also tell you the context for this site at some point. Some of this will be redundant, so I apologize in advance, Dave. But, before telling you why I was so hard on John, right at the start of our conversation. I’ll begin with a simple question to you, buddy.

You state: “What I do not understand is why everyone in this god-forsaken world (so it seems) seems to believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong.” You also state: “to say I am right and you are wrong is saying that you are as guilty as poor ‘John’…”

I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you’re saying I’m wrong to point out John’s muddy thinking. Is that your meaning? Or is it merely the packaging you find objectionable?

Thanks

Chad, god love him, blasts the poor guy (as I am sure he will do to me) with his intelligent rhetoric.
Chad says = “No one here has a problem explaining their point of view in a rational, logical, and forthright manner…”.

What I do not understand is why everyone in this god-forsaken world (so it seems) seems to believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong. It appears that only the “forum gurus” are wise enough to express “rational, logical, and forthright” points of view. That’s easy to solve…it’s their forum and only their thinking is allowed.
Seems that ain’t too much diff from the Libs thinking or the Conservative right.
Grammatical errors intended. !!!

With all this he-said, she-said………….”I know you are, but what am I? ” …playground trashtalk………………can any of you tell me what you as a blog site are actually doing to solve any relevant social, financial, or theological problems in this world ??? Didn’t think so. Just another typical site voicing a truthful and unbiased point of view. None of the thousands of these sites actually do anything to “change” America………they just bitch of how they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Don’t get me wrong, I love reading the stuff, and actually agree with most of the content. It is just when a guy gets slammed by fancy talk and (as we say out here in the cuntry) run ’round the bushes with alot of talk that says nothing, I can’t understand the motive beyond self-preservation of the ideology .Well, like when I tell my wife’s dog (Yorkie and yes, needs all the attention) I hear you , I hear you, I’m just not listening……..same kinda’ thing. But, to say I am right and you are wrong is saying that you are as guilty as poor “John” (crucified for being so wrong).
Geez, guess why I mostly keep to myself. That way, I don’t make somebody mad for just thinkin’.

I look forward to your input in the future.

Ron