Friday, May 15, 2009

Friday May 15 -- Got news or an update?

If you have news or an update, leave it in comments.
.
.
.

52 comments:

Anonymous said...

***It's called logic and I'm aware from your posts and your ideology that this is an unfamiliar concept.***

John, he didn't ask for your reasoning. He asked for proof, which is what you are always asking for. So do you have proof, or not?

Anonymous said...

Please delete the first post. These useless posts have gone on far too long. These weasels have one obvious goal, and that is to drive John away. Using your name here makes you a target for their concerted attacks. I doubt anyone is enjoying these children at play. One of their really fun things is to be the first posters, and then to attack posters instead of the issue. The liberal trolls are ruining this blog, and it is sad to see if you have been a regular here for a long time.

Anonymous said...

The leftist trolls have followed the Soros/Obama playbook to disrupt a blog, and it is working. When I come to read articles I have to skip the comments, they have become boring with childish clutter. Ruining this blog using the guise of free speech is the backbone of their plan.

Taking a page from Barack Obama and Saul Alinsky...
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
That is what they are doing to John because he uses his name. I have to wonder if McClatchy is behind this smear campaign?

McClatchy Watch said...

I think bantering in comments is OK... John handles the weasels well, and the first post wasn't a personal attack.

I just came across these commenting guidelines at Patterico:

1. Feel free to discuss, debate, and critique the posts and comments.

2. Bantering and jokes are encouraged — we all enjoy and need a good laugh — but I hope you will also spend some time adding substance to each discussion.

3. Avoid mean-spirited comments that you would not like if they were directed at you.

(I admit I didn't follow the entire back and forth yesterday, so maybe it has gone on way too long... I'll try to keep a closer eye.)

Anonymous said...

John handles the weasels well, and the first post wasn't a personal attack.


=========

How he handles them is irrelevant and yes this is a continuation of a personal attack that has spanned days without address.

The goal is not only to slander and drive John away, but others too. This is the same one or two people over and over again. The same people that were responsible for the spam attacks and the continuous profane comments that you have been deleting all along. It is the same individual that invents death threats and all the other false allegations.

They then run to other militant gay sites and recruit others to join in.

If you don't wake up, they will be your only posters in short order.

Anonymous said...

I guess I came to the wrong blog ... I thought this was cancelthebee aka McClatchy Watch. Guess I'll have to keep searching. CYA!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Calling out John by name is not banter in my opinion, it is a move to isolate him. Why are several posters so dedicated to belittling his every discussion? He should not have to handle weasels at all. This blog used to be about discussing the issues, and it has now become one of John handling weasels, well? I don’t think so. I think if you go back and look at the threads, and see how many have been drawn away from any form of adult discussion, you will be surprised. Where have the stock experts gone? Where have the thoughtful commenters gone? Where has the joking gone? This blog used to be headed by conservative thought, but the lefties have taken over with their useless drivel. There are plenty of weasel sites for them to banter at will, but they choose to come here and ruin this one. I can certainly find other conservative sites to follow, but I dislike being driven away by a planned effort.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Case in point-
Weasel says:
“How is it a personal attack to ask John to live up to the same standards he asks others to live up to?”
----
This blog is not about John. He can state his opinions. Posters can rebut his opinions, but the constant use of his name no matter what he writes is a obvious attack to belittle him. Another poster has no right to demand anything of John, or anyone else for that matter. It reminds me of the lame ADN that wrote rumor after rumor about Gov. Palin, and then demanded she answer the rumors. It seems to me, this poster has asked the same questions over and over, and I am not here to watch these little games, and read absolute drivel.

McClatchy Watch said...

8:19 you are raising some good points, hmmmm.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

You know, a login might not be a bad idea.

I'm a liberal poster and I'd like to do away with the pettiness and name-calling that goes on here from both sides. I think having to give some sort of name would help with that. And give us more substance as called for in MW's 6:54 post.

Anonymous said...

Re: “I would "demand" proof of him even if I didn't know his name.”

You have no right to make demands on anyone. Who do you think you are? Discuss the issues, not John, and other posters personally. You have become like a broken record. Move on, or get the hell out of the way.

Anonymous said...

It is easy to determine what John says, but I have numerous times been accused of saying something that I did not.

=========

How terrible that must be for you to be faced with conversing with a group that cannot tell the difference between your posts and that of a griefing, low life, troll who's primary purpose in life is to cause others harm and silence opinion other than your own.

How do you reconcile with this realization?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

"You are now the second poster to do nothing but complain about a fact that I stated."


Even though you never stated anything that remotely resembles a fact, I was not complaining at all.

I just wished to express my sympathy for others not being able to distinguish between your posts and those of a common troll.

I am not so sure I could be as at ease with leaving such an impression on others. To each his own. Just remember in the future, because you chose to do nothing, you will continue to be identified with the troll.

McClatchy Watch said...

Several posts deleted for going on and on about John.

John Altevogt said...

It's been a busy day. First, let me say that no one is driving me anywhere. I have dealt with authoritarian thugs for decades and will continue to do so until I drop.

Secondly, regarding this ludicrous demand for proof. Thank you for demonstrating my point that you have no concept of logic, or you would recognize that I offered you the best available "proof". You of course will continue to demand the one thing you know isn't available to us, namely the identification of the left wing trolls who are deliberately trying to damage the reputation and usefulness of a powerful tool against leftist abuses in the media.

Hence, your request is just silly. If you don't understand that you are too stupid to try and explain anything to and if you do, you're simply admitting the fact that you're here like some teenie bopper committing an act of vandalism. So which is it, idiot, or punk?

I agree on the idea for registration. The registration could be through a private email sent to Kevin (to keep the identities away from any hacking by McClatchy IT) and he could then grant permission to participate. That would allow us the very "proof" that our troll demands, so we seem to have reached a consensus. The trolls want proof, let us create a system to provide it.

I have a few other comments on what few comments I've seen today and I'll provide those later. In the meantime, enjoy the day, the battle against left-wing fascism is just beginning.

Anonymous said...

So MW deletes posts about 1 person, but yet, that person is allowed to continue to call others Trolls.

A little hypocritical don't you think MW?

Anonymous said...

"Trolls" is one of the milder names he calls anyone who disagrees with him or who has done something he doesn't like.

Anonymous said...

LOL at the liberals who whine about the moderator on a conservative Web site.

BTW, the Obamination backlash has begun. See today's Gallop poll -- America is trending rapidly conservative again.

McClatchy Watch said...

1:56 -- look up the definition of troll here.The shoe fits.

John Altevogt said...

Troll is a recognized pronoun for those who engage in the behavior the libs on this site have engaged in. And to suggest that I call people names simply for disagreeing with them is a lie.

It is one thing to come her and argue a substantive position on an issue. Our trolls have not done that. Indeed, their very mission is to create an environment that is hostile to any kind of dialog. So let us add fascist to the list of adjectives that apply as matters of fact to these individuals.

So for the benefit of our lying fascistic trolls, here's the difference between you and people we disagree with. You're not here to disagree, you're here to be disagreeable. You're not here to engage in polite discourse on mutual topics of interest. You're here specifically to disrupt, insult, spam and make any attempt to share information as impossible and unpleasant as possible.

You are the lowest of the low on the Internet. You are unworthy of respect. You have no claims to victimhood, because you are the victimizers.

One of our folks pointed out that your goal is also to trash those who are identified as being effective in the battle against totalitarian liberalism. That would apparently include McClatchy Watch and me as a participant here.

He is entirely correct in the process. For instance, some years back there was a poll on issues that listed most of the issues that were currently salient amongst religious conservatives. The positive ratings for these issues was in the 65-85% range across the board. Yet when asked about the perception of the "religious right" the poll reversed and only about 25% had a favorable view of the very people espousing the views they had just overwhelmingly affirmed.

This is the essence of totalitarian liberalism. They cannot win discussing the issues in a civil manner and so they vilify the messenger. Think of what just happened to Carrie Prejean. She stated her convictions on a topic of overwhelming popularity to the people of America. And what happened? The media fascists have attacked her, humiliated her. attacked her parents her siblings and everything else associated with her because they cannot win arguing against her message.

Think of the attacks against Sarah Palin and her children, her children for crying out loud. What kind of filthy, sleazy scumbags would attack a candidates children?

But such was the instant popularity with this wonderful woman that they had to destroy her, even if that meant destroying her entire family.

I remember here the daily hateful and vicious attacks (yes plural) by that filthy pig Yael Abouhalkah on Sarah and her children.

I've seen so much of that kind of hatemongering and the damage its done to my friends and yours that I will never allow these lying fascistic trolls to back me down, or run me off.

To the liberals out there who want to come and talk about newspapers and the problems they face, come, I'd love to talk to you. If you want to discuss issues, you're welcome to do that too. We're not the ones on here who want to stifle that dialog. That would be our lying fascistic trolls and we'll do our best to try and make sure they don't destroy your enjoyment of this site.

A little later, I'll discuss the moral equivalence argument one of the trolls wanted to push earlier.

McClatchy Watch said...

Good advice:

"To the liberals out there who want to come and talk about newspapers and the problems they face, come, I'd love to talk to you. If you want to discuss issues, you're welcome to do that too. We're not the ones on here who want to stifle that dialog."

Anonymous said...

"Gallop," like horses do?

Anonymous said...

MW, with all due respect, I think if you'll review John's posts for the last week or so you'll find many cases where his name-calling goes far beyond people who he thinks spam your blog. "Corrupt," for example. By the way, isn't that libelous without a conviction?

Anonymous said...

***I remember here the daily hateful and vicious attacks (yes plural) by that filthy pig Yael Abouhalkah on Sarah and her children.***

Can you provide specific dates, John, so we can check these "attacks" for ourselves? Or perhaps he was just expressing an opinion that you disagreed with?

John Altevogt said...

Dear LFT: corrupt isn't a name, it's an adjective. Remember my comments about your horrible grammar? Let's see what the dictionary says corrupt means. From the Dictionary.Thesaurus on my Mac:

corrupt
adjective
1 a corrupt official | corrupt practices dishonest, unscrupulous, dishonorable, unprincipled, unethical, amoral, untrustworthy, venal, underhanded, double-dealing, fraudulent, bribable, criminal, illegal, unlawful, nefarious; informal crooked, shady, dirty, sleazy. antonym honest, law-abiding.
2 the earth was corrupt in God's sight immoral, depraved, degenerate, reprobate, vice-ridden, perverted, debauched, dissolute, dissipated, bad, wicked, evil, base, sinful, ungodly, unholy, irreligious, profane, impious, impure; informal warped. See note at depraved . antonym moral.
3 a corrupt text impure, bastardized, debased, adulterated. antonym pure.
verb
1 a book that might corrupt its readers deprave, pervert, debauch, degrade, warp, lead astray, defile, pollute, sully.
2 the apostolic writings had been corrupted alter, tamper with, interfere with, bastardize, debase, adulterate.

Nice try, no banana.

John Altevogt said...

Dear LFT: Re: Yael. You're supposedly connected to the media. Get into The Star's archives and look them up.

Once again, no argument, no refutation, just behaving like an ass, or in this case, a lazy ass.

Anonymous said...

Now I remember why this site sucks

Anonymous said...

You delete the post of some simply because you disagree with what they have to say or because they pick on your friend John. How ironic that those of you screaming about rights and calling people Marxist are the ones that use censorship to make your point. You allow someone to post a long drawn out piece on Goebbels but you won’t allow someone to confront John and ask for clarity on things he says. I don’t recall John asking for help and I really don’t think that that is what he is about. If your argument is the comments are “off topic”, then WTF does Goebbels have to do with the spectacular train wreck at The Sacramento Bee and its parent company, the McClatchy Company or current events, the Iraq war, politics, and anything else that interests you. Sounds like what interest you is censoring anyone who does not conform with your line of thought. It’s a shame that this is what your blog has become Kevin. Next I suppose you will be burning books and goose-stepping.

Anonymous said...

"Please delete the first post. These useless posts have gone on far too long. These weasels have one obvious goal, and that is to drive John away."

How dare you refer to anyone as a weasel and equally ask for something to be deleted. How Nazi of you. John can take care of himself.

"Using your name here makes you a target for their concerted attacks."


I notice you don’t post your name here but I suspect that it would be Goebbels if you did since you like to reference him so much.

"I doubt anyone is enjoying these children at play. One of their really fun things is to be the first posters, and then to attack posters instead of the issue."

You attack everyone without the chance to debate so stop being the pot calling the kettle black. Oh, sorry I know you detest that because the Klansman in you wants to stay white.

"The liberal trolls are ruining this blog, and it is sad to see if you have been a regular here for a long time."

The only thing that you have been a regular at is spewing hate. I’m surprised that you didn’t ask Kevin to ban people or shoot off your mouth again about putting up IP addresses. Kevin has mine and he can post it if he likes. Are you going to show up at my house? I don’t think so coward. You would be more scared at the prospect of your IP address being exposed then anyone else’s.

Anonymous said...

***Re: Yael. You're supposedly connected to the media. Get into The Star's archives and look them up.***

Wrong. I'm not connected to any media other than as a reader. And since you called someone a "filthy pig," don't you feel an obligation to give a specific example or two of his alleged "hateful and vicious attacks" on Palin, with a date and source so we can independently check it out?

Anonymous said...

The only reason MW does not require an account to comment is he knows that he will have very little commenting and his page views and traffic will plummet.

Of course I started coming here for news about layoffs. Now this site just sucks and it is safe to assume that sharing a dissenting opinion on here will not be tolerated.

John Altevogt said...

Two more witty retorts.

"Now I remember why this site sucks

May 15, 2009 6:50 PM"

"The only reason MW does not require an account to comment is he knows that he will have very little commenting and his page views and traffic will plummet.

Of course I started coming here for news about layoffs. Now this site just sucks and it is safe to assume that sharing a dissenting opinion on here will not be tolerated.

May 15, 2009 7:38 PM"

And what logic makes it safe to assume that sharing a dissenting opinion won't be tolerated?

What logical, issue oriented argument have you made on any post that has not been tolerated?

John Altevogt said...

7:11 Dear LFT: If you feel I've libeled anyone, copy my comments and send them off to them.

Yael Abouhalkah writes for the KC Star and the comments were in his blog entries. Go look them up, we're not here to baby sit you trolls either.

Better yet, send Yael a copy of my comments and ask him for a complete list of his blog topics prior to the election. Make one of your own do some work for you.

McClatchy Watch said...

This has to be the dumbest comment of the week:

"... it is safe to assume that sharing a dissenting opinion on here will not be tolerated."

I only delete for profanity, spam, and personal attacks. Never fails -- when I delete a lefty's comment for profanity or a personal attack, they prance back in here and claim they were deleted "for sharing a dissenting opinion."

Anonymous said...

***Yael Abouhalkah writes for the KC Star and the comments were in his blog entries. Go look them up, we're not here to baby sit you trolls either.***

Notice that John refuses to specify exactly what the "attacks" were that caused him to call a writer expressing an opinion a "filthy pig." And asking him to defend his post gets the questioner labeled a "troll." Try answering legitimate questions instead of name-calling, John. You'd be a lot more effective.

John Altevogt said...

9:06 LFT OK, I'll play. You state that I haven't specified what attacks. Wrong, I specifically stated the attacks were on Palin and her children. If you want any more specific than that see my previous comments. We're not your babysitters, and if I and Keith and McClatchy Watch weren't effective, you wouldn't be wasting so much time trying to disrupt the discussions here.

Once again, no argument, problems with reading for comprehension, followed by their advice on how we can better succeed. Yep, you betcha. Keep it up. Your motives become more apparent and the argument for registration becomes ever more powerful. This site doesn't need you or any of these other LFTs.

John Altevogt said...

While we're at it. These are not legitimate questions. They are merely attempts to distract, to waste time by asking for responses that no reasonable person would ask for.

How many of you would remember the exact statements made during literally dozens of blog entries attacking Sarah Palin and her children.

And, I suspect they would not be cataloged, or otherwise indexed in a readily accessible manner. These idiotic questions are asked not for information, but to harass and distract. No substantive points are made, nor is any refutation even attempted.

SOS by the same two, or three Lying Fascist Trolls. When the time comes that they are bounced, they'll scream that they've been censored. But what will have been censored? No arguments made, nothing contributed. Useless fascist trolls. Beneath contempt, beneath respect.

Anonymous said...

So if I refer to John it is a personal attack?

"We would have all been better off had they shown his mom a picture of Michelle Obama and used a coat hangar on him?"

You mean that kind of personal attack? Oh, I get it, because we know his name and he is not anonymous then it is a "personal attack".

Pot meet Kettle.

Anonymous said...

So if I refer to John it is a personal attack?

=================

Yes, with your history and the knowledge that you are a griefing stalker, it is safe to assume that anything you say is a personal attack.

Confrontation and disruption are your only goals and it has been duly noted.

Anonymous said...

Stop the presses...someone cannot spell:

"Yes, with your history and the knowledge that you are a GRIEVING stalker, it is safe to assume that anything you say is a personal attack."

This should be front page material for all to comment on!

Anonymous said...

Is there a fancy new media definition for weasel, too? Or are we liberals just rodents?

Anonymous said...

****Or are we liberals just rodents?****

RATS, yes.

Anonymous said...

John, John, John. . .

Your desperate flailing around isn't fooling anyone. Stop digging youself in deeper.

You have Limbaugh's slash-and-burn playbook down pat. Unfortunately, your and his tactics are driving people away from your (and my) party. Your red meat thrills the (dwindling) base, but you are helping to assure that the Democrats will control things for the next 20 years.

Anonymous said...

Stop the presses...someone cannot spell:

And that someone is you:


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=griefing

Anonymous said...

So it wasn't a misspelling...it was a complete misuse of a word.

Same difference.

Anonymous said...

John who? Who is this guy? Does he think he is someone important or something?