SONICFROG DOT NET

The War At Gay Patriot Continue….

More on the war at gay Patriot. Here is the latest.

————————————-

Jeff, also known as ILC, wrote:

Since sf talked yesterday about rules, enforcement and banning people, I’ve been thinking about those questions.

Again, it’s not my role to ban people here and I’m not about to. But hypothetically, before I did, I’d want to summarize things in my mind. Here is my view of the fight. (Yours may vary…as may Bruce’s or Dan’s, if they were here.)

NDT:
1) Opened the fight, by calling sf a bigot. (Personal attack on another commentor, violates GP rules.)
2) Has thankfully not called for sf to be banned.
3) Is a conservative, here at “the Internet home of the American gay conservative.”

sf:
1) Attacked NDT’s integrity. (Personal attack on another commentor, violates GP rules.)
2) Called for NDT to be banned. (The ‘nuclear weapon’ of personal attacks. Only the making of threats would be more of an attack.)
3) Is not a conservative, here at “the Internet home of the American gay conservative.”

Point (3) has the following dual relevance: Conservatives have an obligation to be good hosts to their non-conservative guests…and the latter have an obligation to be good guests, not trashing their hosts’ home or friends. I think there’s a breakdown here, on both sides of that equation.

Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2013 @ 12:25 pm – June 23, 2013

Jeff.

If you’re going to make a list, let me help you here. Here is the specific rule for comments at Gay Patriot:

Remember that the people under discussion are human beings. Comments that contain personal attacks about the post author or other commenters will be deleted. Repeated violators will be banned. Challenge the ideas of those with whom you disagree, not their patriotism, decency, or integrity.

Here are the litany of accusations and falsehoods NDT made on this post. Note that I had not made a single comment on this thread prior to this, which makes it an unprovoked attack:

Dan, honest question: when are you going to get mad about this?

Don’t you realize that bigots like Pat, like Sonicfrog

Personal attack # 1

like rusty, like Vince Smetana, like concern-troll mike, actually believe, support, and endorse this?

Personal attack # 2.

Kirsten Gillibrand and Chris Coons get votes BECAUSE they say these things from people like Pat, Sonicfrog, rusty, Vince Smetana, and concern-troll mike — plus the people whose Facebook pages you cite.

Both those politician do not even live in the state I’m in, so I couldn’t vote for them. Even if they did, they would not have my vote, no matter what party they are in. This is not a personal attack.

However:

Every one of them [on his list of villains, which includes me] is calling you a racist.

He’s accusing me, with no evidence what-so-ever of calling me a racist. THAT is slander, and personal attack # 3.

Every one of them is calling you an extremist.

Personal attack # 4.

And every single one of them believes the government, the FBI, DOJ, IRS, EPA, the works, should harass and punish you because you do not vote for or obey Barack Obama.

More slander. Personal attack # 5.

Indeed, they even think you should kill yourself.

Personal attack # 6.

One can no longer assume leftists are misguided.

Am I a “leftist”???? No… And he knows it. But I’ll let this slide, even though he’s wrong, ones view on whether someone is conservative or liberal is, in the end, a matter of personal opinion.

Next bit, still talking about his list of malevolents, which includes me:

As statements like these from SENATORS show, they simply are evil and malicious bigots who will say and do anything to hold on to power.

Personal attack # 7.

When are you going to get mad about this, Dan? When are you going to stand up and say that these people [those of us on his list of malevolent] cannot call you names any more and tell you to kill yourself?

Personal attack # 8.

Again. note that I had not offered a single comment on this thread, so there is no way anyone can claim he is responding to something I said.

Further. When I asked him to back up his claim that I had done ANY of the things he accuses me of, he can not and does not offer any proof what-so- ever that I done any of them. And since, for at least five years, I have been contributing some material here via Dan, comment on this blog almost from its inception, and have myself been blogging for the last 8 years… You would think if AY of the things he says is true, there would be ample enough evidence that would confirm his accusation.

But he didn’t. Because he can’t. He can’t find a single thing to substantiate his claims, especially the most serious, that I have called Dan a racist, and extremist, that I want a Government agency of any type to harass and punish Dan, and especially that I want Dan to kill himself.

Here are the offenses that merit a ban as laid out by Bruce and Dan:

Remember that the people under discussion are human beings. Comments that contain personal attacks about the post author or other commenters will be deleted.

And now, the key section of the rule:

Repeated violators will be banned.

This behaviors as you know is nothing new. He has been making these same types of false, slanderous, and mischaracterizing accusations against me for at least three years, if not more. Multiply this post by three years and the number of “personal attacks” infractions is… well… quite large to be kind.

Are the rules enforced, or not?

Here is last part of the rule.

Challenge the ideas of those with whom you disagree, not their patriotism, decency, or integrity.

Did I violate that part of the rule?

Yes. There is no denying that.

However, here is what you wrote concerning my violations of the rules:

sf:
1) Attacked NDT’s integrity. (Personal attack on another commentor, violates GP rules.)

Yep. Note, the rule does not specific ally state that commenters who challenge another integrity will also get banned. But that’s legal parsing. I accept that challenging the integrity of another commenter is bannable.

2) Called for NDT to be banned. (The ‘nuclear weapon’ of personal attacks. Only the making of threats would be more of an attack.)

Are you kidding? Pointing out that a commenter should be banned due to multiple…. no, hundreds… of very specific and irrefutable violations (even you admit he’s guilty) is a “personal attack”?????? By that logic, those in the State Department are indeed guilty of personally attacking Hillary Clinton as the Democrats defending her claim!

Sorry. You lose on this one.

And

3) Is not a conservative, here at “the Internet home of the American gay conservative.”

Point (3) has the following dual relevance: Conservatives have an obligation to be good hosts to their non-conservative guests…

Why is that not required of NDT? Obviously it’s not, or else you’d be jumping on his case with the same veracity that you are with me.

and the latter have an obligation to be good guests, not trashing their hosts’ home or friends. I think there’s a breakdown here, on both sides of that equation.

Trashing hosts…

I’ve NEVER said a bad word about either Dan or Bruce! NEVER! Have I sometimes been critical of one political position or another? Sure! But isn’t that what this is all about, discussing similarity and differences about things?

I’m kind of thinking that one commenter, NDT, falsely accusing another, me, of wanting the host to kill himself, is trashing the host much much more than my defending myself and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that NDT is not only wrong in his accusations, but broke the rules of this blog multiple times.

And I do hope you’re not saying that Conservative are more equal under the law than non-conservatives, because, my libertarian friend, that would also sooner or later put you in the cross hair, and you would also be insinuating that Gay Patriot operates in the same fashion as Animal Farm, where all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others, which would, by your interpretation, also make you a candidate to be banned.