It seems like The Canadian Cynic really hates me! First, a Canadian Cynic blogger incorrectly wrote that I have compared Stephen Harper's Prime Ministerial career with that of Richard Nixon. What I was trying to get at was that Nixon (and the Republicans) where able to appeal to the silent majority (something Harper's trying to do). I was not saying that Harper is corrupt like Nixon. Then when I tried to defend myself on that blog, I was continuously mocked by all of Canadian Cynic's cronies (something that did not surpries me).
Recently, Canadian Cynic had attacked Fox News and Bill O' Reilly's 'bias'. Just like The Canadian Cynic blog had torn up one of my posts, I had attempted to do do the same by saying that Fox News is not nearly as biased as MSNBC or CBC, and I pointed out that O' Reilly always says that he's an Independent. So, maybe I was asking for it, but Canadian Cynic wrote a new post entitled When Blogging Tories Comment Badly, and he points to an article from 2005 saying that O' Reilly is a registered Republican, he doesn't mention that O' Reilly said it was a mistake, and IS now a registered 'Independent'!
What I'm trying to get at is should I be concerned about Candian Cynic contributers continuously trying to rip me apart, or should I just regard them as a cynical lefties who are super pissed off that what they call 'NeoCons' are running their beloved country?
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
Congratulations.
You've made it to the big leagues. Getting CC mad is a badge of honour.
Sure he's pissed off..he's a lefty and that is their perpetual state of 'being'.It is bad for a Liberal to be kept away from the taxpayer gravy train, it is even worse if you are a dipper and aren't even let on the dinner car!
Ahh.... yes
You've been noticed by one of the little insects infesting the internet, a bitter, twisted loser with a limited vocabulary (most of it profanity) and an unlimited supply of bile, surrounded by a tiny coterie of like-minded contributors and followers, most of whom have several personalities, none of them capable of a level of discourse higher than that of the elementary school playground.
Noticing him validates his puerile existence, so set him on ignore and simply enjoy watching his futile attempts to shout out at the world that he matters.
Heh, CC's blog traffic comes from two groups.
1) Right wingers who constantly check back to see what CC's saying about them.
2) Left wingers (and some right) who think it's a funny website.
====
I enjoy reading CC, because they have a talent for comedic cynicism. However, I doubt anything they've ever written has had any real impact or has changed the minds of the people who read it.
Unlike other bloggers who engage, CC drives a wedge and fights ad hominem, and then wonders why no one takes them seriously.
Anyway, have fun with the attention while you can. It's really easy to get CC's attention too, just post "Canadian Cynic" somewhere in your post or the title, and as they come trolling bloggingtories for post material (as they can't think of anything original on their own) they'll bite your post.
Predictable, like a wasp ruining your picnic.
Join the club. cc loves to limk to my posts. I completely ignore it. it is a foul mouthed irrelevance.
He's really pissed now, cause someone named LuLu wrote that post about Nixon -not CC, but thats besides the point cause its on his blog -and I was referring to the candian cynic blog
And your right, he is foul mouthed! Also, its apparent that he's too dumb to think of anything original to write about!
CC is said to be one of the top political blogs in Canada with high readership,yet the link traffic he generates amounts to almost nothing. Something doesn't add up.
Don't blame CC for your inability to comprehend the concept of a group blog. (The Contributor list should have been a huge hint.)
And Mikey? Improving your reading comprehension, as well as your spelling, will not only improve your blogging, but your school work as well. I'm just sayin'...
Ouch! I'm going to go cry now.
Oh and if you read the post, you would have found that I corrected it, it now says: A Canadian Cynic Blogger, happy now? Whoever you are.
I've been snarked at by CC in a few profanity-laced posts. The last time it happened I got exactly 8 hits from CC. The last time I was linked by Small Dead Animals, I had over 2000 hits.
I'm just saying.
Treat CC for what he is. Scrap him off your shoe and continue doin' what you're doin'. Ignore the vile little cockroach.
What I'm trying to get at is should I be concerned about Candian Cynic contributers continuously trying to rip me apart, or should I just regard them as a cynical lefties who are super pissed off that what they call 'NeoCons' are running their beloved country?
When discussing climate change, and citing the views of the IPCC, I usually say "but they could always be wrong". Typically the "dissenters" will never say they could possibly be wrong, and instead launch ad hominem attacks, often using religious metaphors about "prophet suzuki" or "the goracle".
So to answer your question, you should take your first option. You should be concerned about CC and others "trying to rip me apart", if you are the kind of person who always keeps in mind that you could be wrong about something.
But if you are one of those who is quite convinced your views cannot be wrong, then you should follow your second option.
You second option amounts to a kind of ad hominem attack, in that you try to belittle your opponent as being emotional and hence irrational.
You will find many who take the second option. Just look at the comments here! Your first commenter refers to "getting CC mad". Your second commenter refers to him being "pissed off" and that this is perpetual and is somehow related to taxes. That is common too, weaving code words like "taxpayer funded" meaning bad. (Despite the fact that no party has a platform advocating abolition of taxes.)
Your third commenter continues your second option. I can't really call it "ad hominem" since commenter 3 denies CC's humanity at all, calling him an insect, and then engaging in yet another technique, the phoney psychoanalysis, even using good old schoolyard analogies.
Your fourth commenter is the high water mark for discourse in this thread so far. He actually says something positive! He complains about CC searching out BT blogs and then mocking them. He considers it ad hominem, though the mocking is usually tightly tied to what the other blogger actually says, as opposed to the kind of simple characterizations "yer a lefty!" you are seeing here.
Then we see your fifth commenter. This person denies any gender by referring to CC as "it". Though English is not this person's mother tongue, he is very deliberately employing this sort of dehumanization. He knows the English personal pronouns very well and uses them in the conventional way.
Next you return, reiterating the emotional projections of anger and providing your professional opinion of CC's intelligence.
Then, it's your seventh commenter, going with the conspiracy theory, hinting that something is amiss in CC's blog ranking.
Noticing a pattern yet? Nobody is addressing what CC actually says about anything, they are simply sneering and trying to encourage people not to read it.
Finally, your eighth commenter insults your reading abilities. A garden variety insult to be sure, but it is an insult of your intelligence as opposed to the other drivel seen from the earlier commenters. By definition, it is not ad hominem.
Then you demonstrate that you have indeed read the BT manual (the one published after the CPC published its manual for making Parliament dysfunctional). You engage in the passive aggressive sulky style which you can see regularly in any of the blogs of the earlier commenters.
Your tenth commenter continues the "something is amiss" conspiracy, moaning that he didn't get very many hits when CC wrote about compared to thousands from SDA.
Here's a couple of hints: People are often laughing too hard at the BT silliness documented daily that they don't bother following the links. I seldom do. Plus there is usually a complete argument provided so you don't have to.
Contrast with SDA type entries, often not much more than "quips" with a link you have to follow to understand what she is on about. That of course translates into hits, and the readers (and some bots) routinely follow the links.
And of course you should know that "hits" are the name of the game. You can make a good income with AdSense if you have a lot of hits and Google believes they are genuine. It is serious business for some of these people who will be deliberately provocative and outrageous but cryptic at the same time, to get the hits and clickthoughs, and hence the adsense revenue. CC, on the other hand, is a consultant who does this for fun. That is one of the things that angers his opponents. If you think he's angry or mad or pissed off, guess again. He's just laughing, and his opponents are often left spluttering how "angry" and "vile" he must be, when they can't make a counterargument that flies.
So in conclusion, I'd go with your first option, if it was my choice.
liberal supporter.... sunshine
The day CC actually makes an argument to which one can make a counter-argument will bring a new dawn to the internet. All he can do is post profanity and insults. Pretty juvenile, no? But I guess when you live in that dream world of liberal thought, profanity and inanity passes for intellectual discourse. And yes, I include your inane pretense of analysis in the inanity that pervades the left, which cannot argue a point without calling people f**kwits. Back to the playground with you, little boy
And yes, I'm getting a jolly good laugh too, since I get to practice the art of the insult without using profanity - a display of my obviously superior intellect. I challenge CC to do the same. Alas I fear arguments without profanity are beyond him.
And who the heck hires a consultant with such poor writing skills anyway?
Thanks anon 9:04. You do recall the "no swearing day" at CC's a while back. It was not difficult to do, but the BTs did not meet the challenge by spending a day not being complete idiots.
Funny how I did not use one swear word here, or even the kind of copout asterisked word like you did here. Even though you talk like I did. Yet you claim superior intellect because you are not using profanity? While using asterisks? Sure chum.
But you did remind me of another "second option" ad hominem. The old "you're just a kid" routine, get back to the playground, it's past your bedtime etc etc.
And that is what passes for discourse in BT land.
michael, I rest my case.
Don't feel alone, CC et al hate all of us.
There unhealthy obsession is pretty pathetic really...CC and indeed all people with intellectual incapacities should have our sympathy.
There ... should be their
Damn you spell checker....
I maintain this blog becasue I am a young canadian who is passionate about politics. I really get turned off from the political system when my political views are continuously called stupid and immature, Cc should be ashamed of himself.
liberal supporter... you amaze me.. you fail to address my points and choose to take offence. Typical lack of intellectual rigor among the left. And as for the so-called "no swear day" I challenge the left to drop profanity for a single week, and I will vote NDP.
Not much risk there is it? Puerile minds cannot refrain from lowering themselves to the furthest depths.
And yes, child, I am smarter and better looking than you are, and I earn more money. How do I know? Guess.....
There should be a blogroll for those that CC hasn't espoused his mental midgetry on.
Wouldn't take much room.
Michael
Fox news is not as biased as MSNBC etc.
Yes they are they are just as biased, however ole Keith and crew have never lied about their bias. Fox news lie about theirs all the time.
I'm relatively new to politics in N America and blogging. But I have noticed that while CC has a penchant for the vernacular, the underlying argument is pretty sound on most occasions. I recently had a discussion with a clearly deluded gentleman called neo of "halls of macadamia" on this matter.
What I have noticed is that those on the right dislike CC because he spots their mistakes and highlights them and continues to do so when they try and justify them through lies or obfuscation.
His evisceration of Sandy Crux is good journalism, albeit a tad "anglo-saxon" in tone.
As I've played sports in Europe I guess I can strip away the emotion from the message and still appreciate what was being communicated. The right in N America seem to be of the pearl clutching persuasion and ignore the argument because of the tone.
Not really the right wing that I am used to debating, more a club for shrinking violets.
liberal supporter... you amaze me..
Thank you.
you fail to address my points and choose to take offence.
I did address your points. All of them. Mostly you called my analysis "inane", then proceeded into standard BT ad hominem. You again resort to smirking about being angry and taking offense.
Typical lack of intellectual rigor among the left.
Standard fact free insult. Classifying an entire group of people is typical for you.
And as for the so-called "no swear day" I challenge the left to drop profanity for a single week, and I will vote NDP.
Michael, are you taking notes? Here we have an example of moving the goalposts. The "no swear day" is "refuted" by demanding a no swear week. If that was done it would be a month. As you should know, appeasement never works with far right ideologues.
Not much risk there is it? Puerile minds cannot refrain from lowering themselves to the furthest depths.
More fact free assertion. Because the fact is you are the one who used asterisked swear words, not me.
And yes, child, I am smarter and better looking than you are, and I earn more money. How do I know? Guess.....
I thought the current BT meme is that those lefties are elitist and think they are better than everyone else. I must have been mistaken.
Still happy with the company you are keeping, michael?
Are you a lawyer? You seem to like cross-examining people's arguments. You have to understand that many BTers do not like Cc very much, they probally gave up being rational with him years ago!
Post a Comment