When Liberals Consider Ad Hominem Attacks as a Logical Choice in their Debates

Sigh. I can certainly understand and empathize Michelle Malkin's feelings whenever she encounters Liberal extremists who have as much staying power with their logical arguments as a wet, limp noodle using Ad Hominem attacks as their soup du jour ("argument" of the day). Attacks are usually their "forte," so to speak, whenever they are unable to provide any platform to stand on in an honest debate without resorting to trickery and deceitfulness.

In the last two comments that had my name in Netrox's blog comment (now since removed per my request and you'll see somebody at the end apparently talking to himself frothing at the mouth. Thank you Netrox) in the "Supersize Me" debate were apparently inserted by somebody else who copied my own comments from elsewhere and inserted them into the comment box after I had apologized to Netrox on how other people's comments (and mine) deviated from the subject and I ended it right there leaving it as is. The last two inserted comments in Netrox's blog comment box were not my doing.

However, this somebody was so desperate to respond to my comments here in my own blog but were unable to since the person in question is currently banned from commenting in my blog comment box for apparent reasons by breaking the rules in my blog comment box. Anybody can post comments in my blog, even if I disagree with them. I've no problem with that. However, I do have a problem when people attack commenters using venom and foul language and will give them several warnings to cease and desist before I finally ban them. Another reason why one should get Haloscan. There are people out there who will froth at the mouths and spew absolute nonsense simply need to be locked out.

Now, this somebody (not necessarily the person in question) inserted my comments from elsewhere into Netrox's blog comment box hoping or knowingly that this person in question will at least have a place to desperately respond. Pretty low. An apt description of how some Liberals will do such a thing.

Desperate people will do desperate things and will go down the route using Ad Hominem attacks and foul language as way to counter an argument. Why? Just to make a point? What point would that be other than wanting to show people their excellent range of foul words and racist attacks?

However, my point here is that *I* don't throw temper tantrums like a prepubescent 12 year old, pimply, white-washed kid with pants drooping below the waistline with a bad mouth to sport. Dig? If other people prefer to go through the temper tantrum, bad boy route, then by all means be my guest and let the readers see for who they are.

And as a final note, the comment I made in my blog comment was not about the spelling issue or whether it's a slang word or not. I was making a point about using words that actually mean something. Using foul epithets that start with an "F" along with spitballing and name calling are hardly what a seasoned debater would use, such as Netrox or I. Which is why I suggested the Oxford dictionary.

Wishing the person in question luck in that arena. This will be my last post or comments on this matter regarding this person in question. Perhaps another round of English 50 for him instead?


UPDATE: I rest my case. I ain't surprised.