Saturday, December 15, 2007
Why does "Amendment Nine" dislike tdaxp?
"Amendment Nine" is a blog that was started by "Federalist X." After FedX came Phoicon, who's second post attacked me personally:
Dan, the author of the blog TDAXP, was a favorite of Federalist X's. I have no idea why. I've visited Dan's blog often. The vast majority of what he has to say is completely incomprehensible, though there is a good deal of the Catholic guilt thrown in so it isn't all incomprehensible to me I suppose.
Now Phoicon's given up blogging, and the new guy (J Smith) attacks me in his second post:
Second, more skat, but a bigger mess. Let's call it moose skat (if you've ever seen the stuff, you know what I mean). Stepped in some over here with this post. Poor little tdaxp. Still lost in the term "race". Here's a hint big fella. Race isn't actually a "thing". Your scores and your tests talking about which race is what are worthless. They are just markers. Step out of the little world and step into the small one that you live in. Race is a concept whose time has long since past.
And now J calls me a liar, both here and there.
So what's up with the anti-tdaxp attacks from Amendment Nine? Am I really that aggrevating?
IMHO, calling someone a liar so publicly without evidence seems to verge on being libelous. Of course, intent can be difficult to prove. It reminds me of a post I read once on the three types of people who post comments. I wish I could remember the source.
Posted by: David Hallowell | Sunday, December 16, 2007
It's good to know that someone else realizes that the term race isn't valid.
But, I hardly see the point on making personal attacks on his space rather than posting about something worthwhile. Counter evidence would be great, personal attacks aren't so cool.
Good publicity at least huh Dan? ;)
Posted by: J. Kauffman | Sunday, December 16, 2007
Whatever happened to FedX ? Does he blog elsewhere?
I don't read A9 anymore. The FedX A9 was near the top of my reading list.
I suspect he is just trying to grow views by being "controversial".
Posted by: PurpleSlog | Sunday, December 16, 2007
My concern with comments is that they help me. My introduction to Kauffman, for instance, was his critical be useful initial resposne to what I wrote over at Shlok's blog...  I hope J Smith can be just as useful to me.
Agreed on personal attacks.
I'm interested in substantive criticms of my ideas. Personal attacks and bathroom humor are less edifying.
In fairness to him, I did not respond to his initial accusation against me because I did not see it until last night.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, December 16, 2007
I can't speak for Federalist X. I know he disliked your posts, but that's all I know. Federalist X quit blogging awhile ago. I don't think his life allows for time to blog. I don't really know what Phocion's problem is. He was kind of an ass to me too. I think he didn't like you b ecause he doesn't like most people. By the way, I'm not even sure Phocion is a he. Coulbe a she.
As for me. I dislike it when people try to make political points without having first studied the topic. Then, when they are given evidence to the contrary of their misguided conclusion, and they continue to argue as before without addendum, those people for me lack honor because they would rather save the argument than save the truth.
The semantic game about whether "Muslims" or "Sikhs" are victims of hate crimes is a game about a serious matter. Only kids play games like that. If you are going to argue in adult circles, then you should be prepared to have your comments attacked like any adult.
Calling you a liar is not a stretch. In fact, if adults fail to do this when they see a lie, especially a lie as serious as this one, then adults have in fact perpetuated the lie. Yours is a lie. I know Powerline wojuld never listen to me, so I hope you will.
You should either disclose to your readers the facts of which you have been apprised which make your claim salacious, or you should amend your post, or you should be prepared to be called a liar. Because that is what you are doing.
There have been more "hate murders" against Muslims since 2001. Adn there have been many, many more hate crimes, which is what you originally said was not tru.e. You have the documentation proving that. And the documentation you have isn't even up to date, it is years old, so it stands to reason those numbers have only increased.
The games with words and definitions, Sikhs v. Muslims, murders v. assaults, do not become you if you are really meaning for your readers to take you seriously. We cannot when you seek to change the plain meaning of facts simply to score political points.
Posted by: J Smith | Sunday, December 16, 2007
If you wish to discuss topics on this blog, please keep the conversation civil and please keep the conversation on topic.
Civility can be maintained by arguing logically, presenting evidence, and avoiding personal attacks. The "hate crime" thread you are referring to is available elsewhere on this site .
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, December 16, 2007
"Race is a concept whose time has long since past."
Posted by: Jeffrey James | Monday, December 17, 2007
I would say you are aggravating, but in a way that makes one sharpen their ideas when debating you. By the way, that was meant as a compliment! Hope all is well.
Posted by: TDL | Tuesday, December 18, 2007