This is not an attack on WD. It’s a direct criticism.

I’ll move on too.

rc21, after reading your post, I do believe I have some level or responsibility in this, albeit not the same level. I laugh when I hear you call his 12/21 post “direct language,” but whatever.

It’s like Allison always says, attack the idea not the person, if we all follow that rule we will all live in harmony – or something in the that neighborhood.

Btw, rc21 you should look inward at your ignorance as well, as should I and all the rest of us. Ignorance means not to know, and Socrates told us a long time ago that the greatest man knows how little he knows. I listen to this show to eradicate my ignorance and I blog with the idea of mining my own ignorance.

I’m moving on now.

I then saw several posts that talked about words that I would call anti conservitive or were used in that context. I see no problem in any of this.

It wasn’t until JonGarfunkel posted was there a personal attack(which I really don’t have a problem with),as we see in his first paragraph which was undeniably intended to ridicule WD. WD then responded. He may have used more direct language than I or others would use, but it’s a free country.

Truth be told it was JG who started the personal attack. Nother then made some vauge threats that he then backed away from,this I find a bit more serious and disconcerting. Potter then continued the pileing on with her post.

It seems as if some readers would like to have WD disappear from this sight . Nother says personal attacks are not tolerated on this sight. He then goes on to personally attack WD at length. Comparing him to a yahoo,calling him a bully and telling him to look inward at his own ignorance. Potter seems to be echoing the same sentiments only in a much more subtle way. Yet we hear nothing about the instigator of this whole fiasco,JG what do nother and potter have to say about him should he also go away?( I hope not)

JG and WD have a right to post there own opinions on different topics. Nothing they posted was out of line. Sometimes stronger then necesary language is used. I would rather look at the meat of what they are saying. As I said I would be much more concerned with the threat made by nother in one of his earlier posts. I don’t know what he really meant.so I guess I’ll take him at his word.when he said he only wanted to sit down over a beer and talk.

In case WD was not reading at the time we just had some sessions here with someone who had a difference of opinion strongly held as well as some obsession on certain matters. What became intolerable was not the point of view, or even the obsession in the end, but the total lack of respect for those with whom he differed. He too argued strenuously that “competition/challenge/struggle as the only way ideas flourish”. But after so much abuse and poisoning of threads it became apparent that this reasoning was an excuse for being “ utterly incapable of amendment by precept or example” (Jonathan Swift on YAHOOS) What was intolerable was the underlying intolerance, the lack of respect for the other person, and lack of respect for the opinion as well.

We all have some trouble occasionally (especially with the latter) but when it seems that this is the modus operandi of a person ( nastiness for it’s own sake, to test, to “dis” the whole site and effort here) it becomes a real nuisance to put it mildly and nicely, something those of us who came to dinner would rather leave over in fact than endure.

If, Winston Dodson, you have a real point to make here, I mean if you bother to come and post for any other reason than to trash and for reasons beyond insulting, then why sabotage yourself, why sabotage that communication? If you perceive yourself to be one of the few here (or the only one) of an opinion that is missing on this site, if you feel yourself in a strange land, why would you want to represent your people in such a way, appearing to us as a visitor from the land of YAHOOs , those untamable brutes described in “Gulliver’s Travels”?

Note: I did not call him a YAHOO. I alluded to that fact that anyone who reacted like he did should consider understanding such a word. (I don’t intend to develop my thesis any further however.)

I’ll try to respond point by point:

To respond to your thesis that ROS is “pathetic” because it lacks an environment of challenging, your anecdotal evidence confounds me. You have the gall; the audacity to cite an example of Chris spouting “unchallenged” facts on a show where the guest challenges him. Winston, you think it was an accident that Nail was on the show? Chris read his whole book before the show and fully expected to challenge and be challenged during the whole show – that was the point. I’m amazed that you would use this as an example. Is it because Chris was wrong about a fact? Is all his credibility nullified because a guest HE invited on corrected him (or in your eloquently manly words “slapped Chris silly.”

Your second example of pathetic statements going unchallenged is my “terrorism” comment. I was hoping to provoke a discussion about the word terrorism. You seem to have it down pat, so I ask you, would you please tell me your official definition of the word? When I looked it up it said the use of violence for political aims. With that definition, if you took a poll of everyone person in the Middle East and asked them if the actions of the US amounted to terrorism, what would be the results. Tell me your definition Winston and I’ll respond in kind.

I take your thesis to be that ROS and everything associated with is “pathetic.” By “pathetic” I’m assuming you are referring to the age-old definition – things I disagree with. That is fine, you can disagree with everything here, but there is one thing to keep in mind when you come our house for dinner, we have guidelines around here. You ask a direct question in your above post, you ask would I prefer a place where “One where an bunch of “_ussies” all comment on “how great the world would be if . . . ” and / or left comments / content / poems that obliquely related to the discussion at hand or a discussion where people challenged each other (as Chris challenged Nail and Nail responded) and where “name calling” happens on occasion.”

I have a direct answer for you Winston. The place where “name calling” happens is not only not “preferred” it’s not tolerated here. That’s not just my opinion, it’s the community’s opinion, something we’ve worked hard to cultivate. Jon Garfunkle, the man you insulted, Chris, Nick, myself, along with others have worked hard to manicure the lawn to this house, you come along once in a while, decide you don’t like the look and piss on the grass. Considering you only gave me two options, I guess I prefer the first one where I’m part of a bunch of _ussies commenting on how great the world would be if…

I’ll end by responding to your statement, “most of my post supply links materials where many other are “poems” etc Yes, to this reader anyway, many of your posts have been a refreshing voice of difference. But one mean, nasty, post can negate all of the positive. For some reason you seem to sense that it’s you up against all of us at ROS. I realize you want to correct the error of our ways, but try writing for yourself – not us, a little more often and you might feel more enriched by the process. You write Competition / challenge / struggle is the only way any ideas flourish.” I agree but that means challenging yourself to be civil and struggling to look inward at your own ignorance. Just one time I would like to read a post by you where you question yourself, where you are secure enough to show a little vulnerability, I promise I won’t call you a _ussy.

P.S. Please take a look at the guidelines

First you suggest that I “spend a lot of time in Cyberspace”. I do so “in spurts and fits” but that is mostly in contributing content to other peoples blogs. But I suggest that it is you who seem to spend too much time “bottom feeding” in Cyberspace. I mean really, please asking yourself, what useless excuse of a person that considers themselves someone who “thinks” could make the statement that the US involvement is equivalent to terrorism? Since I cannot believe that you actually had a single thought in your head that argument can rationally be made I assume you simply reflexively “spit it out” after continually reading after hanging out on and reading the tripe on “idiotarian” / moonbat websites. And I wish to submit that statement as an example of the PATHETIC tone of the VAST MAJORITY on comments on this site.

Next, I think that you might spend some time understanding how your emotions / pre-depositions bias your judgment / understanding.

I didn’t call anyone a “_ussy”. I alluded to that fact that anyone who reacted like he did should consider understanding such a word. And I will standby that statement as well as using the description again of PATHETIC. And I am going to use that phrase to develop my thesis.

Next. I didn’t call Chris a “coward” I called him a “moral coward” and I’d dearly love to discuss my use of that term with him or anyone else. Chris long ago passed from the space that could be described as “rational skepticism” into “reflexive cynicism” re: many subjects that frankly, despite his towering intellect and experience, frankly he knows nothing about. He seems to do this out of a deeply held belief that he is right but that is under the surface and he trys to maintain the facade of the “noble questioner searching for truth”. This is moral cowardess” – if you can’t say it don’t hide behind some blind claiming some other motive.

But this really gets to what I find most disturbing about the comments contributed to this site and some significant portions of the on air content.

The word I will use once again is PATHETIC. Why? Because it is simply unchallenged drivel that would / does fall apart the first time in was / is challenged. I will give 2 examples: The first an “on-air” then the one that I cited here.

In a show with Nial Ferguson Chris tried to get away with beginning the argument that the USSR had no real aspirations for expended any real efforts to expand their influence into the Middle East Africa. As we were listening to this show, my wife and I were driving and when she heard Chris start making this statement she said (something like – to paraphrase) “Winston, don’t you have a piece of a Russian Aircraft in your study that you got from an old aircraft setting abandoned next to a runway in Somalia?”. To which I replied “Yes I do and this host’s attempts and overlooking / denying the fact of the extensive Russian presence there is like my uncle, who is a conservative Christian, denying the fact of evolution as I talk with him with a 300 million year old fossil in my hand”. Well, I didn’t have to wait long as on this show, Nail quickly “slapped Chris silly” on this point and moved on. This is an example of a “feed back loop” where, if the guest is chosen correctly, Chris excesses can be checked.

The next example is online comment re: trying to equat the US’s actions in Iraq with terrorism. Whether it is the fact that millions of people there have stood in line more than 3 times to participate in voting at risk to their own safety or the fact that we convict and jail our own people when it is found that they “acted like terrorists” it is obvious that the claim of US’s participation in terrorism there is only credible at “un-credible” sites like Kos et al.

The fact that the comments like this can be made on this site yet not challenged nor even that there are no comments from ” the other side of the “political spectrum” makes this entire endeavor seem PATHETIC.

Yes, I know Brendan and it is hard to say because it is obvious he tries to foster a more robust discussion on this site but I can’t say that it has succeeded. Iintially, in my other blogging “adventures” I tries to steer others of a different philosophy towards the site by links emails etc and the general comment I got was “pathetic, why bother, it seems like the “community there is very comfortable not being ‘disturbed’” etc etc.

Well, when I am here and contributing I don’t mind ‘disturbing’ and I might point out that even though you seem to imply that all I do is “call names” most of my post supply links materials where many other are “poems” etc or links to inane (although interesting to the poster and some other readers) that will NEVER be even considered be presented to the guests on air.

I might suggest a thought experiment. Which type of discussion would more like foster learning, support the on-air show and be more “fun”. One where an bunch of “_ussies” all comment on “how great the world would be if . . . .. ” and / or left comments / content / poems that obliquely related to the discussion at hand or a discussion where people challenged each other (as Chris challenged Nail and Nail responded) and where “name calling” happens on occasion.

Competition / challenge / struggle is the only way any ideas flourish as only those that survive will have a chance. Without this the only way that they can be discribed are pathetic.

I live and work in Boston and am in Cambridge on occasion so I hope the chance to share a conversation over a beer is good. I’ll try / suggest that Brendan facilitate that.