Friday, October 8, 2010


Y'know, it's been so long since someone pointed a good unhinged armchair-psychoanalytic rant at me that I was beginning to think nobody cared.

An excerpt, from the comments over at James's place:

But you don’t want to touch that point, now do you? You sure as hell didn’t in your response, despite how it’s the main thesis of my comment. Your response has almost nothing to do with that point; in fact, due to your lying misrepresentations, it appears as if you’re *trying* to not just avoid it, but cover it up and distract people from it.

Which is likely why you tried — and failed — to criticize what I said by deceitfully rephrasing it in your own grossly exaggerated misrepresentation. The odds are it’s because on some level you realize that you can’t defend your own position honestly and fairly, and thus have to *cheat*.

To say nothing of how your laughably unconcealed attempt to fallaciously argue from authority as well only goes to further demonstrate that likelihood.

...I see you lying about what I actually said in order to knock down a couple of straw men of your own misrepresentation.

And I don’t like it, and I’m not going to let you get away with it. You owe me an apology.

Now, as a value-added service, a multiple choice test. Is the radical, abusive, chauvinistic theory I'm being so, ah, eloquently smacked down for:

A - The Aryan master race must take its place at the head of a glorious new world order.
B - The Jewish untermenschen are corroding our Glorious Republic from within.
C - The African dog must be sent back to his own degenerate continent.
D - Maybe not all single mothers are selfish bitches who abuse their children.

Like I've said many times before, it's one of the most gratifying things in the world when people you disagree with bring so much crazy to the table that they prove your point for you.


  1. I've seen people babble on like that before...seemingly furious to make their point, but what set that post apart, to me, was this:
    "And I don’t like it, and I’m not going to let you get away with it. You owe me an apology."

    That pushed the post from MAYBE being someone having a bad day...exhausted...perhaps self-medicated, to just moon-bat crazy. Someone needs to learn to keep some emotional distance online.

  2. Yup. And the guy even seemed to have a point at one time--that it isn't fair or reasonable to automatically assume every single mother is the victim of a bad man--but he brought so much emotional investment and personal baggage, and overstated his point so badly, that he killed any credibility he might have started with.

    I mean, we've all been there, but you're supposed to grow out of it.

  3. Interesting original post, and discussion.

    I do wonder, how many people have known someone of either sex with a dangerous dog they described as "sweet 95% of the time", or "he's a good dog, you just can't X, he doesn't like it", or "he's just playing" and maintained this right up until the dog mauled somebody? Do they think this self-delusion has anything to do with sex or what people in general are attracted to in a dog?