MyDD :: *UPDATE* to "You know who you are, and you owe an apology"

UPDATE to "You know who you are, and you owe an apology"

by ChitownDenny, Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:04:05 PM EST

In the world of this blog, many have an opinion they feel confident enought to share. I am one of those many. In a diary I posted earlier today,

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/30/1150 2/0233#commenttop

I called into question the level of discourse that occurs on this site. The comments to that diary, and the "other diary" I cited, demonstrate the need to address this issue. A site with a reputation for its engagement in high minded discourse, needs to have the "high minded" reinforced, it appears . Let me be clear, when I say "high minded discourse", I'm saying share a thought or idea that can be justified, a perspecitve of thought that I might not have personally considered, and lets discuss it.

To support my premise addressing the level of discourse on this site, I supplied documentation that mirrored, in part, a diarists contention that the prayer left at the Wailing Wall by Barack Obama may have been political:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/ 2008/07/29/obama-publicized-his-own-secr et-prayer-wailing-wall

Others pointed to media that refuted my documentation:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank /archive/2008/07/29/obama-vindicated.asp x

more...

And I now provide additional documentation that, once again, calls into question the facts surrounding this whole episode:

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/20 08/07/28/wailing-wall-press-release/

Mind you, the purpose of this diary is not to reflect upon the veracity of the publication of the prayer. Nor was it the purpose of my earlier posting. (Though that would be an interesting conversation, but it's 6pm in Chicago and I haven't eaten yet, all day!) The purpose of this diary, and my earlier post, is to call into question the level of discourse engaged by those who, in dusputing the message, attack the messenger. Especially when the message is not black and white, but gray, at best.

You know who you are, and you owe an apology!

Tags: discourse (all tags)

Permalink :: 89 Comments :: Post a Comment

A fair point (2.00 / 9)

and one that you folks ruined.

My diary on the Edwards flap was deleted in under twenty minutes. Some posters demanded that I delete it, even though it was in no way a troll. You are correct in that we are a little screwball on what the community here considers acceptable.

However, cheerleading a fucking rightwing smear is not the purpose of this website or this party. You enabled that, whether you meant to or not.

I will not applaud.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:06:59 PM EST

Re: A fair point (none / 0)

I see you have addressed the publication of the prayer. I'm looking forward to reading it, later. But linfar, nor I, are in any manner attempting to smear Obama. And that's what I'm trying to address.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:20:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A fair point (2.00 / 5)

Actually, It's pretty easy to tell that your smearing Obama by linking a site that smears him on a regular basis. Reaper was right - you can dig yourself deeper.

by NewOaklandDem on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:22:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A fair point (2.00 / 1)

"I see you have addressed the publication of the prayer. I'm looking forward to reading it, later. But linfar, nor I, are in any manner attempting to smear Obama. And that's what I'm trying to address."

Nope...
the purpose of this diary is not to reflect upon the veracity of the publication of the prayer. Nor was it the purpose of your earlier posting.
Folks with access would/could never..ever find any post by you or linfar smearing Obama.

You could have posted your newsbusters/newsmax reference...and left it at that...

"But NOOOOO!"

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:27:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A fair point (2.00 / 4)

linfar's glee in the possibility of having found 'proof' of this smear belies your assertion that she is not attempting to smear Obama (at least in this instance).
It is truly reminiscent of the bizarre glee some took in picking apart the footage of Obama scratching his face, or the bizarre glee some took in the possibility of the Whitey tape, or the bizarre glee some took in the possibility of an invalid passport. In other words, nowhere near logical...and veering well into tin-foil hattery.

Basically....the exuberance shown for sharing such smears is quite telling.

by Kysen on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:29:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A fair point (2.00 / 2)

Kysen, here is the truth, the record, whatever:

I posted a diary expressing dismay and concern about Obama's overseas trip. There was one line in that diary about his prayer. I knew nothing--Nothing--of the controversy swirling in Israel about the theft of the prayer--or not. When I was smeared and attacked so viciously by you and others who persist in this vendetta, and then I saw chitown denny's diary-- which was a complete surprise to me-- you bet I sat up and took notice of the possibility that the so-called theft was a ploy by the Obama campagign.

What on earth is wrong with you?

Not everything is a smear. Sometimes it is important to look into stories. But you seem not to care about facts or even opiniions if they disagree with your idea of the way it should be.

I am disappointed in your posting on this whole matter. I really thought you could think independently and cared about people being able to express their opinions safely.

You were so sympathetic when the Hillfans attacked me so viciously--you are behaving identically to them.

What would be so terrible if the Obama campaign did arrange the prayer theft? There is nothing sacred to political operatives and to political campaigns.

by linfar on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:32:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A fair point (none / 0)

When can we expect your diary wherein you prove that I've "been had?"

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:37:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A fair point (none / 0)

Just two more points, and then I am done with it...I said more than enough, and very clearly, in Chi's first diary.

When I was smeared and attacked so viciously by you....and then I saw chitown denny's diary

What on earth are you talking about? Prior to Chi's diary I had only mentioned the prayer debacle in passing...and NOT in your diary about Obama's trip! I did not make a single in that diary. I did not start getting 'heated' in my comments to you until you (and Chi) persisted in pushing the lie this afternoon...EVEN THEN, if you actually took the time to read the thread...I was pretty measured in my comments to you AND even took heat for 'defending' you. At this point, I believe you just enjoy playing the victiml....no matter how many contortions you must go thru to declare yourself as such.

linfar's glee in the possibility of having found 'proof' of this smear belies your assertion that she is not attempting to smear Obama (at least in this instance).

AT LEAST IN THIS INSTANCE. I clearly point out that my comment refers to today's debacle.
Again, if you took the time to read what I have written today, you would see that I have been consistent in my stance that, DESPITE THIS ISSUE, I don't think you a PUMA and I believe that you intend to vote for Obama.

You gave as much, or more, than you got today.
You have painted ALL involved with a broad brush...all in order to claim victimhood.

I cannot tell you how comical I find it that I was chastised BY you...AND by others for my defense of you.

You tsk tsk about being disappointed in MY behavior on this topic...perhaps you should take an honest look at your own.

Finis.

by Kysen on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:55:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A fair point (2.00 / 2)

Posting RW Noise as fact is smearing. Its trolling and it doesn't belong here.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:12:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A fair point (2.00 / 6)

I'm not even willing to go to the level of "a fair point". A source says something. It's retracted. You can't keep going on saying it's true.

If other evidence comes up, maybe a video, a link between the student and the Obama campaign, Nixonesque tapes, that's one things. But, as I say down thread, you can't simply keep quoting more people who quoted the same retracted source and say that's more evidence. That's all we have here so far.

by TCQuad on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:25:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Anything (2.00 / 1)

to tear down Obama I guess.

"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"

by Brandon on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:10:32 PM EST

Denny (2.00 / 5)

In your glee over a gotcha moment, you linked Newsbusters, a right-wing smear site. You credibility, that was buidling up to that point, is now shot with most of us here. No backtracking will restore it.

Time might, though.

So my advice is to step back, and take a fews days off. Really, you can't dig yourself any deeper.

by NewOaklandDem on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:11:50 PM EST

Re: Denny (2.00 / 4)

Wanna bet?

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:13:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This Cant Wait for Open Thread (2.00 / 2)

I want to thank Jerome for signing up an ad campaign with Snorg Tees.

Man, for the first time I LOVE banner adds.

Jerome, good looking out!

by DemsLandslide2008 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:13:16 PM EST

Re: This Cant Wait for Open Thread (2.00 / 3)

Those chicks are hot.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:13:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Cant Wait for Open Thread (2.00 / 1)

I dontated almost as much to Snorg Tees as I have to Obama. ;)

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

by fogiv on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:50:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wait. (2.00 / 5)

Wait, I'm confused.

Newsbusters quotes Maariv. The New Republic refutes Maariv, from people at Maariv, in a retraction. AOL's Howe quotes the old New Republic story that was retracted. Both TNR stories are from Zvika Krieger.

How is this more proof? How is this situation grey?

It looks just like an echo chamber where the accusation is moving faster than the retraction.

by TCQuad on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:14:35 PM EST

Re: *UPDATE* to "You know who you are, (2.00 / 5)

More questionable journalism. The person gets his analysis from Red State and can't help but make the "he didn't visit the troops because there wasn't a photo op" smear, which today even McCain's camp abandoned.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 708/McCain_campaign_backs_off_cameras_ch arge.html?showall

by rfahey22 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:16:30 PM EST

Re: *UPDATE* to "You know who you are, (2.00 / 2)

Fair. You can argue the journalism; that's the message. But to argue the messenger, that's purity. Wrong party for purity. We're a big tent.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:36:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *UPDATE* to "You know who you are, (2.00 / 4)

Well, the messenger is the one who brings us the "news." Maybe I'm assuming too much, but I would hope that the diarists here have functioning BS detectors and don't try to influence us by spreading along rumors and shoddy reporting as if they were true/genuine. That is why this reflects back on the messenger.

by rfahey22 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:39:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *UPDATE* to "You know who you are, (2.00 / 1)

Can you, and the many others who feel the need to impart their wisdom, take the blinders off, for just one minute. I'm not discussing the prayer! I'm discussing the discourse. The prayer is supportive to the point! A point that needs to be addressed, as is evidenced by those in this diary who feel the need to argue about the prayer.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:48:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *UPDATE* to "You know who you are, (2.00 / 4)

And therein lies the problem, Denny. You've managed to enrage basically everybody by pushing an obvious bullshit LIE and you want us all to hold hands and enjoy platonic discourse?

Your mother went down on a ferret. My uncle's driver saw it. There's a youtube clip of it.

What? You don't wanna have a reasoned discussion of your mother sucking off a ferret? I think his name was Chintznibbles.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:52:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *UPDATE* to "You know who you are, (none / 0)

Shameful. Is Obama your relative? Yet you trash mine? Shameful.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:04:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *UPDATE* to "You know who you are, (2.00 / 1)

BREAKING: Chintznibbles rumored to be darkhorse for VP nod.

Obama/Chintznibbles '08

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

by fogiv on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:54:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *UPDATE* to "You know who you are, (2.00 / 2)

Change (and a ferret) we can believe in!

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:57:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reaper..definitely you can make your (none / 0)

point (which you have done so far, very effectively I must say) without that unnecessary personal attack..that was not fair.

by louisprandtl on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:21:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *UPDATE* to "You know who you are, (2.00 / 4)

In using the prayer you have added that to the discourse you are trying to have. I said it before and I'll say it again: If you wanted discuss the discourse like you say then there is no reason to bring the prayer up. As well as trying to add new evidence that does nothing but repeat the old evidence that was refuted.

I see what you're trying to do but you're doing it the wrong way. One can only assume and think and believe so much in the face of proof. Now if something real and concrete comes along to turn it on its ear? Then an actual discussion can be had about it. But right now you're trying to wave something spent in the breeze.

by JBGolden on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:56:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *UPDATE* to "You know who you are, (2.00 / 1)

The wrong way for this audience. But let me be clear; I can understand the offense some may take. But I would expect the context to be addressed, not just the offense.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:02:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *UPDATE* to "You know who you are, (2.00 / 2)

There's many ways to address that.

On one hand you could possibly say that the people responding could be above that.

On the other hand it could possibly be said you're goading people if you understand the offense some may take.

This is politics. And some people are passionate about it, like religion. Depending on what things you say and how you say them the reactions you're gonna get are going to be all over the place.

by JBGolden on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:12:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There is no gray area to the episode, (2.00 / 7)

your account makes very little sense logically.

If indeed Obama leaked his words to that one Israeli newspaper, why would his staff need to steal the paper out of the wall? Why would they have risked a huge international incident--that would be considered an insult to the Jewish faith--when Obama knows what he wrote and could easily have leaked his own words without having the piece of paper to quote from? And how would the actual piece of paper have surfaced if it wasn't given over to channel 2 television by the Yeshiva student who admits he stole it?

http://www.jewishjournal.com/politics/ar ticle/obamas_note_at_the_western_wall_as ks_for_gods_guidance_200807251/

There are far too many loose ends here. The only logical answer is that he didn't. And if he didn't steal his own words from the wailing wall, that means he also didn't leak it to the press.

But If your point truly was that we should be nicer to folks when they spread right-wing smears, I completely disagree. If you or the other diarists would like to make valid arguements which are supported by facts (that aren't only obtainable through right wing smear sites), we'd be glad to listen. Otherwise (as Reaper pointed out in his diary) we're going to push back hard.

by Tenafly Viper on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:17:53 PM EST

Re: There is no gray area to the episode, (2.00 / 1)

I;m arguing the level of discourse on this site. You are arguing the veracity of the publication of the prayer. While I think your argument is valid, that is not the point to this diary, or my earlier diary. However, I think I have pointed out an issues we, on this site, need to address. And, as a byproduct, made clear the whole prayer issue is gray.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:25:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is no gray area to the episode, (2.00 / 3)

Denny, you should have saved blowing your cover for a bigger scoop. But now you've wasted it on a cheap, rightwing smear that's been de-bunked.

Come back later with a different name, bide your time, and Try Harder Next Time.

by NewOaklandDem on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:28:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is no gray area to the episode, (2.00 / 6)

It was never gray! That's why we all flipped out! It never ever had a valid source!!! A total of like five people thought it had anything resembling merit. The rest of us went nuts because we could see through it.

It was obviously bullshit yet a handful of people kept peddling the smear. You want honest discourse? Understand the fact that people who honestly like and admire Barack Obama aren't going to sit idly by whilst people use our website to smear him.

It's one thing to relay the rumor, which is what I did with Edwards. It's something else entirely to spend multiple diaries (this one included, intentionally or not) to spread it and repeat it.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:28:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is no gray area to the episode, (none / 0)

You know what's funny? I turned the TV on to check the weather. Before I could change the channel to weather, Barabra Walters' show was on and they were discussing Obama, so I listened a bit. Walters said "the prayer was leaked". I googled to verify.
The issue is gray!

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:54:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is no gray area to the episode, (2.00 / 6)

There is no gray area. You're using a quote from a daily paper that has suddenly found itself facing possible criminal charges.

Jerusalem lawyer Shahar Alon asked Attorney General Menachem Mazuz yesterday to order a police investigation into the removal and publication of Obama's note.

"By making the note public," Alon wrote to Mazuz, "Maariv violated the law protecting holy sites, several clauses in the penal code and also infringed upon the basic rights of a person's honor and freedom."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1006 139.html

They are covering their ass, and have made more than one conflicting statement.
The source you're using is simply not credible.

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:05:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is no gray area to the episode, (none / 0)

The prayer was leaked--by a yeshiva student as I pointed out earlier in the posts.

by Tenafly Viper on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:12:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is no gray area to the episode, (2.00 / 4)

Why don't you make your point with a story that is, you know, factually accurate? On a Democratic website, Democratic politicians tend to get the benefit of the doubt. So far as I can see, the issue is "black" until proven otherwise.

I mean, what are you expecting? A Lincoln-Douglas-esque discourse on the nature of the prayer story? Should we have a high-minded debate about shark attacks next? A point-counterpoint on the Aruba case?

by rfahey22 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:31:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh??????? (2.00 / 3)

The entire point of your earlier diary was that Obama leaked the prayer and therefore people should apologize to you. If that wasn't your premise, you need to learn to write better.

by IowaMike on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:43:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh??????? (2.00 / 1)

You need to learn to be a better reader! Or just go back to KOS.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:56:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh??????? (2.00 / 2)

That's okay...you can create your second or third "update" (re-write) to re-explain that everyone just isn't smart enough to understand what you are trying to say.

by IowaMike on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:05:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh??????? (2.00 / 1)

I think you just saved me the time.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:10:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh??????? (2.00 / 2)

and you just proved my point....

by IowaMike on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:20:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh??????? (none / 0)

You've made a complete fool of yourself, and now you're looking like an ingenuous fool at that. You're now somewhere on the same level of credibility as Texasdarlin. Deal with it.

by duende on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:23:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dude (1.16 / 6)

you need to get the sand out of your vagina

From The New Republic:

I just spoke with an editor at one of those publications who broached the possibility that Ma'ariv was trying to deflect criticims of it by releasing these spurious rumors about the Obama campaign, but upon realizing that they'll have to back up those accusations, is now disavowing them.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank /archive/2008/07/28/is-anything-sacred.a spx

by hocuspocus on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:19:32 PM EST

Re: Dude (2.00 / 1)

dude, could you be a little less offensive?

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:22:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dude (none / 0)

as opposed to this freeper, hell I wish he would refute this shit in my face.

by hocuspocus on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:24:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dude (2.00 / 1)

Sorry Reaper, I know it might seem offenseive to you, but that phrase is common between men.

Im not saying its appropriate language, but dont HR over that, as I thought it was appropriate to Denny Worldpress as I laughed when I read it.

by DemsLandslide2008 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:34:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dude (2.00 / 1)

Heh. I'm a guy and I didn't HR him.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:36:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dude (2.00 / 1)

My eyes are playing tricks on me, I thought I saw your name.

It was my overly sensitive friend Kysen.

Oh well, he/she hr'd me today, but thats cool as I respect Kysen, cant say that about my other HR'ing buddies

by DemsLandslide2008 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:39:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dude (2.00 / 3)

Last I checked, I was a man.
This is NOT a phrase that is common amongst me and my fellow male friends.
We are not that classless.

by Kysen on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:37:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dude (none / 0)

I didn't say I say it, its something my ignorant brother has said to me.

I didn't say its common amongst mature civilized people, I just said dont act shocked if it enters our discourse with a troll.

I concede it's crude, and really kind of sexist.
But we live in a crude and free country so I get over it quick. just words man..........

by DemsLandslide2008 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:42:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dude (2.00 / 1)

What type of "men" do you associate with?

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:40:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Younger men (2.00 / 1)

20 to 30ish, predominantly straight, say it quite often when someone complains incessantly. Granted, saying it around women is frowned upon, but to say it isn't said by young men would be a lie.

I might be the only male in that demographic, but it is a rather known phrase.

"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"

by Brandon on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:46:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you want to be taken seriously here, (2.00 / 1)

you can surely clean up your language. Thanks.

by louisprandtl on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:35:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *UPDATE* (2.00 / 8)

There is nothing justifiable about this scurrilous smear.....there is nothing 'high-minded' in attempting further 'discourse' about it.

This whole debacle has been ridiculous...and your persistence in continuing to drag it on is a spectacle to behold.

It is a lie.
Those who knowingly further promote a lie...are, quite frankly, liars.
I don't care who they support.

by Kysen on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:23:13 PM EST

WTF? (2.00 / 8)

How much more thoroughly can this be debunked? The article was retracted and there is VIDEO of the scumbags that stole it and sold it like paparazzi outside Brangelina's house! Perhaps one day your feeling that Obama is a lying sack of shit will be vindicated and your conscience will be cleared, but today is simply NOT THAT DAY.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:24:07 PM EST

*headshake* (2.00 / 6)

Yeah, Chitown? Usually if you provide additional documentation it's seperate and different evidence and not just a repeat of something that's been proven false.

Especially when the additional documentation was written up the day before Maariv recanted.

You say you want honest discourse but do you really think this is the way to get it?

by JBGolden on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:27:10 PM EST

aww denny (1.50 / 4)

there is no mention of this on your site

http://777denny.wordpress.com/

by hocuspocus on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:29:56 PM EST

Re: aww denny (none / 0)

I do not believe, and have never believed, that that's the same guy.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:31:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: aww denny (2.00 / 2)

Dude you are living in denial if you dont beleive that.

I gave up bringing it up as Student Guy decided to give him a pass, because after 3 months Denny started to deny it.

I guess at MYdd is if you troll long enough, you get accepted like Engels and Denny.

Dont believe me, search for his comments back in April. When he was first caught, he got all pissed and left the site for a week.
Then we posted it over and over, and he refused to deny it and would just reply with troll deflection dribble.

by DemsLandslide2008 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:36:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: aww denny (none / 0)

thats been debunked. im sure you know that.

by alyssa chaos on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:33:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: aww denny (2.00 / 1)

Who debunked it?

by DemsLandslide2008 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:46:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: aww denny (none / 0)

Who proved it Smearstein? I'm not about to justify you puny brain's inadequacies with a denial.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:57:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what's wrong with discourse? (2.00 / 5)

seems to be a gray area. Let's discuss.

by JJE on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:22:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what's wrong with discourse? (2.00 / 5)

I about choked on my Newcastle. Don't do that to me!

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:36:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what's wrong with discourse? (2.00 / 2)

Touche.

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

by fogiv on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:18:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: aww denny (none / 0)

Given the abortive republican smear job you've hatched in the last few days, it might as well be you Chitown

by duende on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:26:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm planning on getting high minded (2.00 / 4)

when I get home tonight.

I'll come back and comment later...I hope that I'll still be able to type. ;-)

Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:30:13 PM EST

Re: We are not idiots (2.00 / 2)

ChiDenny...Maybe I was too hasty...
Newsbusters may just the only source to tell the truth..
What are we gonna believe? ..

http://newsbusters.org/

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:31:29 PM EST

You have earned my pity (2.00 / 3)

That is the biggest insult I can hurl at anyone.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:31:42 PM EST

Re: *UPDATE* (2.00 / 5)

I have an idea....

Why don't you make this a series?

Tomorrow we can all engage in high-minded discourse about whether or not Hillary had Vince Foster killed.

Friday we can all engage in high-minded discourse about whether or not there was an actual Lunar Landing.

Saturday we can all engage in high-minded discourse about whether or not the Holocaust really happened.

After all...it's all just about high-minded discourse...right?

by Kysen on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:36:14 PM EST

the entire premise of your earlier post (1.66 / 3)

was that the Obama camp leaked the prayer, and so you deserve an apology.

You and Linfar are PUMA's (actions speak louder than words, and the the contimnued use of right wing talking points are your actions). We get it. You want to take your ball and go home because you lost.

Good, get out.

by IowaMike on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:38:01 PM EST

Re: the entire premise of your earlier post (2.00 / 2)

I disagree. I consider neither of them to be PUMAs. Just wayward, errant kin.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:40:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

*UPDATE* to "You know you're a moran" (1.25 / 4)

C'mon, head back over to Alegre's litterbox. You can drop n-bombs and exist peacefully inside a cocoon of your own little universe, convincing each other you all matter somehow.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:44:45 PM EST

And behold, the Rove machine in action. (2.00 / 5)

And stand witness as ChitownDenny becomes an unwitting cog in the Rove alternate-reality machine.

This whole brouhaha is a PERFECT example as how people are duped by Rove and his cronies. You make up a story and throw it to the media. Fact means nothing, indeed, anything but a passing resemblance to fact is counterproductive. All you need are two or three media folks pushing the story and citing each other as sources.
Then, when others try to set the record straight with facts, the Rove folks say, "Well, there's a difference of opinion, who knows what really happened? Maybe, maybe not."
And when we say "NO, there is no difference of opinion, it's a lie with no facts to support it. In fact, it has been DISPROVED definitively."
And the Rove folks say, "Hey, why are you trying to shut down honest discourse? I mean, I'm being reasonable, it's possible this didn't happen, why can't you admit that it's possible that it did?"

It's insidious, it's evil, and it's the same gossip-mongering used by high-schoolers. And thank you, ChitownDenny, for showing us all EXACTLY how it works.

by EvilAsh on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:48:44 PM EST

You want an apology? (2.00 / 3)

I'm sorry you are so damn stupid.
Hope that helps.

by tonedevil on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:50:48 PM EST

What BS. (2.00 / 3)

You're the one who owes an apology. Publishing rumor and BS ineuendo as fact is one of the scummiest things you can do.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:06:09 PM EST

Nasty Dirty Troll (2.00 / 4)

The more I think about this, the more douchey this diary is. YOU SERIOUSLY ARE POSTING RW NOISE AS FACT? WHAT KIND OF DEMOCRAT AND PROGRESSIVE ARE YOU? These are the actions of a troll... an opinion of you I have had for a long time and have seen you further and further prove. A RW dick on AOL, blogs about a BS article from a conservative publication WHICH GOTS ITS FUCKING INFO FROM REDSTATE!!!!! REDSTATE!!!!!

Your credibility goes out the door whenever you post Redstate as fact. You don't deserve an apology you deserve a slap upside the head and a banning for being a nasty troll.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:11:07 PM EST

Discourse? Don't make me laugh. (2.00 / 3)

Mind you, the purpose of this diary is not to reflect upon the veracity of the publication of the prayer.

Of course it is, Denny, you're not fooling anyone.
You post a two day old article from AOL as some sort of proof of claims made in some earlier diary, and then you pretend to be offended when people call you a liar and a fraud?
I can't wait until Linfar tries to publish that video of those students stealing the prayers and tries to make the claim that those are from Obama's "entourage", then the shit will really hit the fan.
How's that for discourse?

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:29:47 PM EST

Look in a mirror (2.00 / 5)

Sure, Denny. Let's have a discussion about discourse.

You post a diary calling for people to accept divergent views and to apologize to linfar for making a sttement that implied the Obama campaign was behind the leak of his prayer. You offer a link to newsmax as support for that view. Everything is fine up to this point.

People then post links to articles that debunk the article you provided. Do you accept that disproving false claims is a legitimate part of discourse?

Once your claim had been debunked you continued to push it. This is where the failure in discourse started to appear.

Your claim was disproved over and over in the comment thread of that diary so you write another diary making the same claim with the same 'proof' that has already been debunked. Here we have the second failure in the course of discourse. Again, it is you who breaks the rules of legitimate discourse.

Your new 'proof' is disproved by multiple posters in this diary and you still refuse to acknowledge the flaws in your claims while arguing that everyone else is at fault for a failure in discourse. Once again we have the guilty party pointing the finger at everyone except himself.

So it appears as if you were right about a failure to have honest discourse on this site. You just pointed the finger at the wrong people. You need to look in a mirror.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:46:22 PM EST

Re: Look in a mirror (2.00 / 2)

Plusity plus plus

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:51:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look in a mirror (2.00 / 2)

It's okay. I am sure that Denny will keep dredging up older, debunked articles to make a point, no matter how dishonest it is.

Chitowndenny is either a liar or an idiot.

If you are not voting Obama, please let me know so I can replace your sorry ass with another new voter.

by Darknesse on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:10:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look in a mirror (none / 0)

I'm sorry but I've only been provided with one link disputing the claim. As such, I still find it a gray area and I find it plausible action undertaken by a politician. (Others have addressed the plausibility on this site more eloquently than I.) To justify another diarists' assertion that the leak could have been staged, I provided documentation, 2 links. And I heard Barbara Walters state Obama leaked the prayer this morning.
But the issue I addressed in my diary isn't the leak of the prayer, rather the plausability of Linfar's diary and the attacks she suffered, which do not lend to the discourse.
Now you can read into my post anything you please. You obviously have. Have fricking at it. If do my laundry or walk my dogs, I'll actually give more consideration to what you think.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:51:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *UPDATE* to " (2.00 / 2)

Denny, true believers do not see gray. They are completely unable to grasp the concept.

by linfar on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:35:40 PM EST

Re: *UPDATE* to " (2.00 / 2)

Still waiting on that diary.

Please recall I uprated your posts, as a courtesy, so you could get your message out.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:39:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.