not sorry, Margo_1837

Submitted on June 15, 2007 - 11:35am.

Subtitle: substantiate or withdraw, mk2.

Margo: Shall I give up? OK Phil, your very last post in this vein.

Me: Why should anyone give up, or worse, be forced to give up? You're a long time dead. Time enough then, and no rest for the wicked.

The only thing anyone might be forced to do is stick to facts; I feel impugned, unfairly impugned by stuff you moderated. Perhaps you might care to solve that?

«Margo: Hi Pаul. Yes, I chopped a bit. I don't want this thread to become a personal slanging match. As you may know, this thread led to the resignation of the writer of this piece from Webdiary. I know I'm being tough on editing all parties, but I really want this thread to get back on topic rather than descend yet again into personal abuse. Which is why I suggested wiping the slate clean on this thread and starting again.»

[from 'Questions and Liberty']

Some of this 'moderator comment' is IMHO a bit questionable, i.e. "this thread led to the resignation..." - is this a fact? Fascinating.

Then this: "...is why I suggested wiping the slate clean on this thread and starting again."

What a (suggested) luxury! But speaking for myself - as I often, almost exclusively do, I can't just simply ignore what I perceive as vicious slanders. Oh no!

In this frame (slander), let's take perhaps my central tenet: "NO WAR!" If I argue against war (and I do, continuously), then anyone aguing against me in this frame is arguing for war; the logic seems impeccable, also why the "with me or against me" meme is deployed. Sooo, I reckon that I have the perfect right to call any such opposing party a warmonger. Who can object to that? Or complain? And anyone who tries to call me bad names for arguing against war either needs his/her head read - or is simply wrong - or both. No ifs, ands or buts.

-=*=-

Margo, after your 'enough!' you allowed posts from both Mr Mоrrella and myself, posts which were probably 'on the way' before your 'stopper' became visible. Fair enough perhaps, but in Mоrrella's 'Questions and Liberty' almost all of his stuff that you allowed was, IMHO, toadally® scurrilous accusations, unsupported with any single shred of substance. I mean, that being allowed by you, Margo, as moderator/grounder. Really.

Then to add insult to injury, so's to say, you allowed another slanging-match piece gratuitously referring to me - 'The great man theory of history. So satisfying. So simple.' - by Eliоt Ramѕey on June 14, 2007 - 5:53pm. Exactly what does 'epistemology[1]' have to do with my generic challenge: "Dis/prove it!" Really again.

Lastly Margo, whether you acknowledge it or not, these two (Mоrrella, Ramѕey) appear to have come here primarily as disruptors. And they don't address the subject, so much as attack the person - for instance, me. First, they try to lay me out (alleging - without proof, see above, that I may be pushing propaganda - what a nerve! See my 'truth-seeker' etc claim), then they proceed to push their own pernicious brand of propaganda (for example, globalisation as 'cure-all'). One 'follows the money;' who benefits?

My comment: this is not some sort'a game; people, real people and lots of 'em (2mio Iraqis since '91?) are being slaughtered 'out there,' either directly or indirectly by USrael, and with the rest of the Anglo(Christian)CoW® all neatly summarised as: the wannabe world hegemon plus its illegal sprog and the poodle with dag, all mass-murdering to enable theft (of oil, land and water). I see my primary task as pointing this out; only agents wishing the slaughter-to-enable-theft to continue would seek to disrupt my work - or so it seems to me.

We get more and more distractions: 'No war ever justified?' All wars - apart from the current ones (see CoW®, mostly) - are in the past. It's the current ones which are, IMHO, both a) not justified and b) gotta be stopped. People can natter on about whatever they like, but reality should not be lost sight of (one might'a thunk) - and all the while, the gruesome greedastrophe® is getting ever-more unavoidable.

And I say again: your blog; do what you want. Just too bad, I suppose, if you (of all people) end up flushing it down the tor-let® tubes.

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] epistemology n. philosophy of knowledge.  epistemological adj. [Greek episteme knowledge] [POD]