As regular readers will already know, it all started from a single sentence in the original post.
And from the left we've already got someone insisting the
bridge wouldn't have collapsed if we hadn't invaded Iraq.
In all fairness to FP, that exact text did not appear in the original post. Then again, it was not posted as a quote, but clearly a summary or interpretation. Was it a fair one? You be the judge.
FP's post referenced two articles. The first was clearly in response to the I-35W bridge collapse and cited the fact that previous requests for more money to inspect, repair and replace the infrastructure (such as this bridge) were not acted on. The second was a report on the massive amounts of money being wasted in Iraq. It ties the two together with the flourishing, breathless question, " Does anyone else see a link between these two stories?"
Let's say for a moment that you published an article about hypothetical presidential candidate Maxine Morrison. You begin with an article saying that researchers at Chicago University have determined that lesbians tend to display a genetic trait where their ring fingers are the the same, or nearly the same length as their middle fingers - a trait more commonly seen in males. (That's an actual study, by the way. Interesting digression from the topic.) The article also points out that lesbians tend to congregate and socialize at gay clubs such as Les Femme in Manhattan.
You then quote a second article from the New York Times showing a picture of Ms. Morrison leaving a fundraising event and speaking engagement at Les Femme. The photo includes a closeup of the candidate's hand where her ring finger clearly appears to be the same length as her middle finger. You finish up by saying, " Does anyone else see a link between these two stories?"
When Ms. Morrison's office calls you to discuss why you accused her of being a lesbian, do you respond by saying, "Liar! I never said that! I'm going to sue you! Waaaaaaa!"
The follow-up comments and posts from FP and his/her (gender not available) supporters took this further into the land of tweedle dee and tweedle dumber. In particular there were some comments regarding Ron which I didn't appreciate. (And, incidentally, were also flat out lies.)
Your editor got it right, you flunk logic.
Update the editor at Middle Earth admits his co-blogger is a liar
Thanks, Ron, but I'd like the apology and retraction to come from the liar himself.
Somebody really needs some remedial reading comprehension courses. Or perhaps a visit to the optometrist. Ron made none of those statements and was merely drawing a distinction between points of view. Ron and I have been friends and worked together on independent progressive issues for years. While we have disagreed on some points and agreed on many others (that's the beauty of free thinking, open discussion) he's never been one to toss around casual insults and has not done so now. You also owe Ron an apology.
Here's one of my favorites:
Dude, you are a fool and still very much a New Republican in your unfairness, your unwillingness to admit your error and your fundamentally illogical thinking...
No Magical Thinking or Reading, nor GOP lie spinning can change the simple fact that you grossly misrepresented my post--your editor got this but, you, sir, are a cad.
I almost feel flattered. "New Republican?" As somebody who left the GOP after 25 years when the party was hijacked by the current crop of neocons who have completely abandoned tradtional small government, fiscal conservative policies, I must thank you for ending my week on a laugh. Having been labeled everything from a "traitor" to a "typical lefty moonbat" by some of the more prominent right wing blogs, you are indeed amusing. Figure out who you are talking to before you step off the porch. Remember... a closed mouth gathers no feet.
This continued defense of a clearly indefensible position is puzzling, particularly come from someone smart enough to operate a computer and allegedly pass the bar. Ron has already posted a follow-up article on how the blame game is playing out exactly as I predicted. We already agree on the fact that fa more resources need to be put into supporting the country's infrastructure. We also agree that the Iraq war was an insane mistake at best and a gigantic waste of money. We probably also have pretty much the same opinion of the Bush-Cheney administration in general.
FP, you really need to step back a ways from the edge and
EDIT by Jazz: (8/3/07 - 6 pm) After having posted that s/he was "done with this" in the comments section, someone claiming to be the anonymous blogger known as 'Faithful Progressive" sent a long, tearful, heart wrenching e-mail claiming that s/he does not, in fact, partake in the smoking of crack cocaine and was fraught with distress over the possible losses his/her multitude of financial enterprises might incur (clearly demonstrating a lack of understanding of the now more than common usage of the phrase, but no matter) should readers of this blog also be unfamiliar with the common parlance and mistake it for an actual accusation of smoking crack cocaine. While we have no way of knowing whether the anonymous author of the e-mail was, in fact, the same person as the anonymous author of the blog "Faithful Progressive", the heartfelt protest did, in fact, raise one valid point. There are many possible explanations for the inexplicable and illogical "arguments" put forth by the original anonymous author. While I was using a common modern phrase, the author may indeed be worried that people reading those posts and comments might think the author to be under the influence of some form of psychotropic drug. There are clearly any number of possible explanations for such behavior, ranging from physical, emotional or psychological maladies to simple ulterior motives of anything from inane to malevolent varieties. Since the alleged author has claimed that s/he does not, in fact partake in the use of cocaine in the form commonly known as "crack", and lacking any objective evidence to the contrary, I would ask that readers ignore the strike through text above, found at the end of the last sentence of the article, and instead substitute their own explanation for this puzzling behavior.