Reply #145: Sigh. Look Tinoire. [View All]

[DoveTurnedHawk]

You call it bullying. I call it strong advocacy.

You call what you're doing spreading the truth. I call it...well, in the interests of trying to increase the peace, I won't say what I call it, but I certainly don't call it anything nice!

Your premise appears to be founded on the notion that I am somehow capable of cowing people into silence, just on the strength of my words. I'm arrogant, and I'm good, but I'm not THAT good. People give and they get here, and everyone has to fend for themselves, ultimately. That's life on an Internet forum. It's like that here, and it has been like that for over a decade on USENET.

I think even people who you know and trust, like Forkboy, will hopefully be able to vouch for me in that I'm pretty fair with people who appear to be asking honest questions without a preconceived agenda. I try to answer their questions without malice, and I try to point them to relevant information.

The thing I have a problem with is when people who are CLEARLY ANTI-CLARK post a whole bunch of -- well, let's just call it "stuff" since I'm trying to increase the peace here -- in the efforts to further their anti-Clark agenda. It especially bothers me when the "stuff" they post is a hack job, or untrue, or misleading, or just plain weak.

I guess that, naively, I am genuinely puzzled sometimes as to why people feel like they have to tear down other people's candidates instead of just boosting their own. You don't see me slamming ANY other candidates. That's because all of the candidates -- even Joe Lieberman -- are Democrats and all of them are better than Bush.

I'm just NOT INTERESTED in slamming other candidates, because in the event MY candidate doesn't win, I'm going to have to live with one of those other candidates. I'd much rather have a nominee who DOESN'T have to heal a whole bunch of intra-party wounds before going off to face the largest goddamn blood money warchest in the history of this country.

So yes, it bugs me when people slam my candidate. It honestly bugs me when people slam ANY candidate (although while we're being completely honest, certain slams bother me a lot less than other slams). I just think, "Gosh, they don't see ME slamming THEIR candidate, why do they have to slam mine? Don't they know we have a general election to win, after we choose our own candidate?"

So that makes me mad, and I get frustrated, and I take my frustration out on those people who I believe possess an anti-Clark agenda and are ACTING on it by slamming him with, in my view, unfair material.

I've put twelve of the most irredeemable and least effective anti-Clarkers on my Ignore list, mostly for my own sanity since I'd go nuts responding to all of their attacks. I've really, really, really wanted to avoid putting you on Ignore as well, but maybe it's better for both of us if I do, at least until the primaries are over. I don't know. It just saddens me that we've gotten to this place, because it's really NOT what we need.

I get that you have REAL fears about Clark. I get that, I really do. Being as strong of a peace activist as you are, I can definitely understand why you have those fears. It's just that we have such DIFFERENT perspectives on this issue, and we apparently have such DIFFERENT levels of proof that satisfy us on what constitutes a real concern, and what doesn't, that it's hard to find any middle ground.

So that's my perspective, Tinoire, written honestly and openly. I hope you find it useful.

DTH