Tuesday, September 02, 2008

More on Werner Patel's double standards...

I commented in my last post about Werner's ethical inconsistency.

Here he is today prattling on about about how it's wrong for Jason Cherniak to vet the comments on Mr Cherniak's blog...

Here's Jason Cherniak's latest example of "Liberal" when it comes to freedom of speech:

I am also going to be picky about comments. Responding to a story about income trusts with some accusation against Ralph Goodale will not get in. Responding to a story about In and Out with "well you're responsible for sponsorship" is also not enough. However, if you mention sponsorship in an intelligent way and actually make an argument, then I will allow it. Think of your comments as letters to me, where I will print what I find interesting. I know some people do not like this form of comment moderating on blogs, but my experience is that there are many Conservatives who spam Liberal blogs during an election. I am not going to allow this blog to become a victim of that.

So, you can't write about the truth? The sponsorship scandal never happened and must not be talked about? Is that it? Liberal digressions must be swept under the rug?

...and here he is telling me he doesn't want me to comment on *his* blog...
From now on, please stay on your blog, and keep your anarchy BS off this site. You have not contributed anything substantial to this discussion, except sing the praises of your own selfishness and disregard for democracy and those living in it.
Now, Werner claims I "didn't add anything substantial" and was only "sing[ing] the praises of [my] own selfishness" with my comments. Decide for yourself, here and here.

12 comments:

Werner Patels said...

You are a troll, which is why I asked you to stay away. You totally failed to make constructive contributions and were acting like a fool instead.

Your lack of commitment to democratic principles is your business, and you're entitled to your opinion, but you only argued and belaboured the same point again and again, without providing any real argument why people should not be required to vote. Instead, you were only there to pick a fight. That's the definition of a troll, and your recent blog posts have all the characteristics of a troll.

Werner Patels said...

Lest I forget, you have never been banned from my site. I merely asked you nicely to take your trolling elsewhere, and you were kind enough to comply.

You can still post comments on my site -- I'll ignore them and not reply, this is what one does with troll comments, but you are not banned or blocked from posting comments.

Ron said...

Yes, of course, Werner. A request not to post there is not a "banning"; it is--as you say--a request. Except I take property rights seriously, Werner. All you *had* to do was ask. I'm the consistent one here.

Anyways, now you've call me a "troll", something I've never been accused of at any other site where I post. I gave the links, so your readers are easily capable of deciding or themselves whether I was trolling.

Ron said...

A couple of other things, Werner:

First, you wrote, today: "You [meaning me, Ron--ed.] are a troll, which is why I asked you to stay away...You can still post comments on my site -- I'll ignore them and not reply, this is what one does with troll comments."

Is that really what "one" does with troll comments, Werner? Ignore them and not reply?

Because you're saying I'm a troll, and yet it's decidedly not what *you* did regarding my "troll comments" here, today.

Second, as for this: I merely asked you nicely to take your trolling elsewhere, and you were kind enough to comply.

Now, can you make the intellectual leap required to understand that there's ethical principles in play here, and that just like your blog is your blog, my life is *my* life and it's not yours to play with or order about?

Would you then understand that includes no matter how much you, for example, think it's proper to force me to vote?

You wrote: "you were only there to pick a fight."

Bullshit. I was only trying to change your mind. I wasn't threatening you with anything; I was simply communicating with you. I wasn't attempting to force you or advocating you be forced to do anything.

*You*, on the other hand, were expressly recommending a real, actual physical fight.

You were explicitly advocating the physical violence that would be required to compel me to court, and then to fine and/or imprison me if I wouldn't go along with your plans.

It's a typical thug tactic, tough, blaming the victim:

"Gol'darnit, she was jist aspoilin' fer a fight--I wouldn'ta hit 'er if she'da jist did what I told 'er..."

Werner Patels said...

You really do need a shrink. Where did I advocate physical violence? Show the link, you mentally deranged fool.

You'll be facing criminal charges soon if you don't stop your deranged behaviour, you sorry excuse for a human being.

Ron said...

Werner, are you really so dense that you think advocating forcing someone to attend a court, then fining them and incarcerating them if they don't comply with your wish (to have voting made compulsory) *isn't* ultimately and always a threat of physical violence, actual physical compulsion?

Why then do you think cops and prison guards have guns? What do you think happens when folks don't obey laws like the one you advocate? Do you think the courts, cops and so on just keep asking nicely until folks get tired of refusing?

Anyways, Here's the link where you advocated it. Seriously, Werner, what the fuck do the think the bottom line to "mandatory" is if it's not the threat of violence? And you call me a fool????

To make my point clearer, what exactly did you mean by this of yours, then: "I would slap a stiff penalty on laggards like yourself (stiffer than what they have in Australia)"? Stern lectures perhaps, but only if I wish to attend?

As for this from you: "You'll be facing criminal charges soon...

Really? For what? For disagreeing with you? For noting--and proving--that the bottom line to compulsory is always violence? Do you not understand that you're now advocating violence again?

Words mean things, Werner. You're a writer...you should know that already. Do you not understand that the "compuls" part of compulsory references "compel"? Do you not understand that the "mandat" part of mandatory references the State's ability or mandate to do exactly what I describe above?

You don't exactly think things through, Werner.

Mike said...

I find it amusing when one of the most intelligent bloggers and commenter in the Canadian blogsphere is called a troll by a person with a reputation as a "serial blogger", who has has switched political allegiances at the drop of a hat, libelled people then claimed it was "an experiment" when threatened with action.

My dear Werner, you have a great writing style, but you are out of your league when it comes to logic and debating skills. And I suspect that is really the problem. I have read Ron's comments at your blog and just about every post on his blog. He simply beat you fair and square in the debate. He has exposed your cognitive dissonance and the faults in your argument and you don't like it. So no you have resorted to calling him a "troll" (ad hominem) and threatened him with police action (a threat) in order to silence him.

Ah, free speech.

When Richard Evans seemed to be actually physically stalking you around Calgary, I almost felt sympathy for you. Now I just shake my head at your intellectual dishonesty.

I suggest, as Ron indicates, that you re-read his comments and actually try to understand what he is trying to tell you. And thank him for his patience in trying to impart that wisdom.

As he well knows, I certainly wouldn't have put up with your attitude as long as he has. He is a better man than I, that's for sure.

Somena Woman said...

"When Richard Evans seemed to be actually physically stalking you around Calgary, I almost felt sympathy for you."

When did NAMBLA-STORMFRONT "Dick!" start doing that?

That's off the hook!

I can't think of two many bloggers who deserve each other's giant cups of crazy more than these two.

Werner Patels said...

If you call mandatory voting "physical violence", then you only prove how deranged you are. You need not only a shrink, but a closed institution with padded cells.

You're an idiot. And by stating that I threatened physical violence by saying that I think that voting should be mandatory, you are committing criminal libel, for which you can go to jail for up to 5 years (check Criminal Code s. 298 and following).

It also proves that you have no sense of democracy, as I pointed out to you in our original discussion.

Did you mommie drop you on the head when you were a baby?

Ron said...

Well, seeing as since you dropped the same reply to two threads, I'll just post this reply in both and be done with it--and you. So from now on you've probably got your wish: I'll do my level best to leave you to what I imagine to be both of your remaining readers from now on.

I've pointed this out a couple of times but, in the obviously very dim chance you'll realize what I've been saying about violence/physical coercion connected your "mandatory" dreams regarding voting:

Most folks who understand law realize that, as refusal to comply with a law continues, the level of actual physical coerciveness/violence on the part of the State does, too.

Consequently, (although my resistance would only be passive, a mere refusal to comply) since I won't comply at any point should your dreams become reality, you logically are assumed to advocate that same and usual instigation and escalation of coercion: the end points which are always a threat, then imposition, of increasing violence, as further described in this post from Stephan Molyneux entitled "The Gun in the Room".

You possibly won't parse or accept that, but other folks will and already do, and any judge is very,very likely to concede that my understanding of the flow of State actions when it comes to refusal to comply is spot on, completely accurate.

That means what I said is true about how the law works, and about what you advocate.

And did you not read as far as sections 310, 311 and 312?

Rejoice, Werner. Unless you come at me some more (like with your threatened legal action), I'm done with you. And that's more truth.

Ron said...

oh yeah, and 309...

309. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes defamatory matter that, on reasonable grounds, he believes is true, and that is relevant to any subject of public interest, the public discussion of which is for the public benefit. [R.S., c.C-34, s.273.]

Anonymous said...

Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!