MadisonConservative on January 7, 2008 at 4:48 PM

While you’re doling out arm-chair analysis, what’s the term for this disorder?:

Subject suffers from delusion that he can read minds; subject reacts angrily and accuses people of lying when informed that he is not the gifted psychic he imagines he is; subject cannot reliably differentiate between fantasy and reality.

Here’s my diagnosis!

Buy Danish on January 7, 2008 at 4:19 PM

In the old days, making these assertions wasn’t seen as psychoanalysis or “quackery” as you like to say. It was seen as knowing what a person is like based on personal experience and knowing other people with the same traits.

You claim calling someone a “prick” is going ballistic, but you following people from thread to thread bringing up your long-winded frustrations over someone chewing you out for using “Eff” not ballistic?

I stand by my earlier assertation: You live in a world where you are right, and people who notice your neuroses are paranoid.

MadisonConservative on January 7, 2008 at 2:24 PM

I don’t care about other blogs. My identity on this particular blog, in what is sometimes referred to as the “Hot Air community”, is taken and no one else can use that name so your argument in that regard is without merit.

You are right about one thing. After being the subject of doriangray’s psychic quackery over a 24 hour period, I finally got fed up. Everyone has their limits, and I reached mine. However, considering the insults that you throw out to people (Bkennedy comes immediately to mind) in a manner which could also be described as “going ballistic” it is stunning that you are choosing to criticize me for that particular transgression. Indeed, I could easily claim that RushBaby went “ballistic”, and Doriangrey went “ballistic” with me over this comment and remained ballistic for 24 hours, yet I heard not a single objection from you:

I thought Mitt did very well, although I thought his summary was boring. Didn’t Fred interrupt that too? Fred totally turned me off with his rude, smartass comments, and constant interrupting. He did nothing to endear me to him tonight.
McCain was the big loser though, and that’s target number one through New Hampshire.
Buy Danish on January 5, 2008 at 10:39 PM

Next –

Charlatan: n.
A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge;a quack or fraud.

If you read what I said carefully you would have seen that I did not call you a charlatan yet, but you may infer that you (and others) may earn that appellation if you continue with your quackery and psychic readings.

It is one thing to suggest that someone suffers from something akin to BDS or is in the fever swamps; it is quite another to claim to read someone’s mind, or to say that someone is “insecure”, or to utilize other words which, by the way, are also favorites of jr. high school students.

/out.

You and others may want to leave the arm-chair psychoanalysis and mind-reading at home and stick to analyzing politics lest I conclude that you are a charlatan.

Oh, and I really hope that was meant as a joke, and not just a glaring bit of irony.

You seem to be arguing that our anonymity shields us from the consequences of our words or actions; that you can take a side and smear other commenters because, who cares, it’s just the anonymous blogsphere, after all.

No, I’m arguing that THEIR anonymity makes taking their comments personally absurd. It’s that simple. You’re trying to prove yourself to someone with no idea who you are, and so will accomplish nothing by doing so.

I certainly am not going to sit here and be trashed by other commenters and not respond lest you or others think I’m “taking things too personally” and might earn your guffaws in the process. Believe me, my integrity is far more important to me than your approval.

Your integrity seems to overshadow your dignity. You have no integrity when you are anonymous on the internet, okay? Anyone could take the name “Buy Danish” and go to any number of blogs or boards speaking crap, and tarnishing your credibility. That means there is no credibility, no integrity on the world where we are all entities speaking from behind names that may or may not have clues as to who we are in real life. You talk to a person on the street near where you live? Different. You go to a rally and argue with protestors? Different. You get a big debate going in a bar in your town? Different.

You and others may want to leave the arm-chair psychoanalysis and mind-reading at home and stick to analyzing politics lest I conclude that you are a charlatan.

It’s not armchair psychoanalysis to point out that you are going ballistic over what some stranger on the internet says. If you can’t handle a basic observation, then maybe you shouldn’t put forth your own.

MadisonConservative on January 7, 2008 at 12:27 PM

I’m not saying that I’m a blogger! I am addressing the issue of anonymity on blogs. You seem to be arguing that our anonymity shields us from the consequences of our words or actions; that you can take a side and smear other commenters because, who cares, it’s just the anonymous blogsphere, after all.

I debate people who I disagree with all the time and I do not consider them the “blood enemies”. It would never even occur to me to think of them in those terms, especially at a forum where, with few exceptions, we are conservatives. If I were dealing with a bunch of Code Pinko anarchists I might see them as the enemy because I view them as a threat to this country’s future, but I wouldn’t resort to their tactics in the process.

I certainly am not going to sit here and be trashed by other commenters and not respond lest you or others think I’m “taking things too personally” and might earn your guffaws in the process. Believe me, my integrity is far more important to me than your approval.

Finally, since you have doled out a lot of unsolicited advice to me, I have a suggestion for you:

You and others may want to leave the arm-chair psychoanalysis and mind-reading at home and stick to analyzing politics lest I conclude that you are a charlatan.

Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 12:49 PM

There is an inevitability you are overlooking: As long as there is anonymity, others will take advantage of it. Sure, you can choose to take responsibility for your own words and actions, but you can hardly control the actions of others, especially unknown others. That’s the essence of the internet. You’re on your own.

People who take what anonymous strangers on the internet say seriously are a special breed of seriously insecure person, and it can’t be helped.

This line of reasoning is why political blogs and the internet in generally are not taken seriously in regard to polical affairs. The inability for people to act civilized to one another automatically excludes them from the de facto social contract that we have. Until the net starts acting responsible and stops hiding behind altered behaviors due to anonymity, they will remain nothing but echo chambers.

The fact that this is an anonymous blog is irrelevant.

No, it’s not. That…is why you fail.

And as for your comment about being a blogger, this is not your blog. It’s Allah’s and Bryan’s and Michelle’s blog. If you want to take stuff personally on your blog, then I guess that’s up to you. I still think it would be silly to get mad over such things, particularly since you are voluntarily putting yourself up for ridicule on the internet, but I guess that’s me and my silly “responsibility” mindset.

However, this is not your blog. It’s your comments on someone else’s. So that pretty much triples how baffling it is to me that you would take things so seriously here. Take my feud with wccawa over tickleddragon. By your logic, we actually are blood enemies. See where I’m going with this? Of course you don’t. People who take what anonymous strangers on the internet say seriously are a special breed of seriously insecure person, and it can’t be helped. Sorry.

MadisonConservative on January 7, 2008 at 10:00 AM

Crude analogy much?

Personal integrity matters to me and I going to defend my integrity when it comes under attack. The fact that this is an anonymous blog is irrelevant.

There are a lot of very successful bloggers out there whose personal identity is unknown. If they come under attack do you think the correct course is to lash out at them for being attacked?

Does that make sense to you?

I don’t know Allah. I don’t know what he looks like or what his last name is. He’s virtually anonymous in that respect. Does his anonymity mean that it’s alright to say defamatory things about him, and if he objects, is the next step to tell him to chill and not take it “personally”?

Thanks for being the only person here who understands that a commenter cannot possibly know another person’s feelings.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 7:31 PM

No prob. I have been run through that ringer here also.

Heck, I’m sure you and I can find some differences we have and both of us will be perfectly able to debate them without getting all assbroke when our position is proven wrong by the facts. You could call my guy every name in the book and I wont take it personally (which was my deal and you have never done that I can remember). Unfortunately we support the same guys. Maybe I’ll start to support RP so we can prove that a debate on ideas doesn’t need to end up in personal attacks?

:-)

See you on a different thread.

He’s simply a bulls**t artist

I prefer the term “stand-up philosopher”…

You’re right. This is a comments section of a blog, and doriengrey conducted an outrageous personal attack on me. It was fueled by his politics but it was personal.

Outrageous. Outrageous. OUTRAGEOUS! Holy dogballs!

…you’re still not getting my point, are you? That’s okay. Like I mentioned before, you’re living in a world where what people say on the internet is no different than someone in your home having a diarrhea attack on your favorite rug.

MadisonConservative on January 7, 2008 at 12:56 AM

I deal in facts MadisonC. You and doriangrey deal in something else altogether.

You’re right. This is a comments section of a blog, and doriengrey conducted an outrageous personal attack on me. It was fueled by his politics but it was personal.

It is absolutely outrageous for a one commenter to call another commenter a disgusting liar because they expressed their honest opinion about another candidate and their debate performance.

What I said about Fred was not an “ad hominem” attack. I said he was rude and childish and I saw a side of him I had not seen before and that really turned me off. The idea that according to doriangray’s rules I am not allowed to say that, and that I am lying when I say that is insane.

I’ll just chalk it up to Fred Mania.

Would you take it “personally” if you were called “dishonest” and “disgusting” for expressing your opinion on how a candidate performed in a debate, and how that performance affected your opinion of them?
/rhetorical.

Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 11:14 PM

It should be rhetorical, in the sense that the automatic answer should be no. This is a comments section on a blog. Seriously, you have an unhealthy sensitivity to what strangers on the internet have to say about you.

As for the whole Eff thing, give it up. You actually took the time to reiterate the entire thing step by step. Doesn’t that strike you as disturbingly obsessive? /rhetorical

Michael in MI on January 6, 2008 at 3:54 PM

Michael, I agree 100% with your points on AP. I think he has done a real dis-service when it comes to getting information out for people’s own consumption and interpretation.

AP strikes me as the guy who was raised on and never left the world of Simon and Garfunkel.

As for Fred, the more I hear him talk, the more I like him.

That sends shivers down the spines of Simon and Garfunkel devotees like Allahpundit.

It’s as if a Johnny Cash song was spliced into Mrs Robinson. Fred messes with their world a bit too much with his straight talk and self confidence.

RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 7:45 PM

…she’s expecting to be apologized to for being given the wrong link in a discussion on a comments board on a blog.

She’s severely deluded. Let her be.

MadisonConservative on January 6, 2008 at 7:50 PM

*SIGH* That is totally wrong. I am not asking for an apology because RushBaby’s link didn’t work properly; I am asking for an apology because of the snotty response I got from her when I asked her a polite question.

RushBaby said:

Ahem. I say again,
If you appreciate Robert Spencer’s contributions to Hot Air, please go tell him right now.
RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 6:04 PM

I clicked on the link and saw a discussion about hell. That did not provide a clue as to why she wanted us to go over there, so I said this:

RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Can you briefly summarize what the problem is here? I don’t have time to go through that entire thread to try to figure it out.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 6:25 PM

The response??:

Well never mind then. Obviously my little reminders to show Dr. Spencer some appreciation, maybe encourage him to stick around and keep teaching us about the Qur’an, was NOT aimed at YOU.
RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Do you think that was an appropriate response to my question?

NEXT

Entelechy, Doriangrey, it’s time for me to fill you in.

Buy Danish is someone who goes ballistic because one poster calls another poster polite after using the word prick, but criticizes her for using “Eff”, which is aimply an onomatopoeia for the first letter of word we all know and don’t use here because it’s one of the most profane words in our society blah blah blah…

MadisonConservative on January 6, 2008 at 7:26 PM

That is absolutely false, and you know it.

I did not go ballistic that you used the word prick – not even close. On the contrary I said that I did not care that you used it! For the last time, the point was that I had just been lectured to by Entelechy for using the “word” eff, but she had just finished complimenting you for how polite you were in a comment where you called someone a prick. I have repeatedly said that I was speaking about the hypocrisy of the double standard, not the use of the word. As far as I’m concerned, you may use it to your heart’s content and so will I.

NEXT

With my above post, I must give you a bit of friendly advice. Chill the hell out. It’s a damned comments section on a website. You need to push back from the computer, get some fresh air, and quit taking everything on here so personally.

MadisonConservative on January 6, 2008 at 7:37 PM

Would you take it “personally” if you were called “dishonest” and “disgusting” for expressing your opinion on how a candidate performed in a debate, and how that performance affected your opinion of them?
/rhetorical.

Because that is what doriengrey has been doing, and it began here at another thread last night. He is impugning my character, mischaracterizing my position, andcalling me a liar all because he thinks he knows how I “feel” more than I do! That is delusional.

If anyone needs to “chill the hell out” it is doriengrey and his positively unhinged assault on me for the crime of expressing a truthful and opinion.
/OUT.

He’s simply a bulls**t artist who’s exceptionally good at shoveling his bulls**t.

“Expert Excrement Expediter”, is what I believe you’re looking for

MadisonConservative on January 6, 2008 at 7:50 PM

I know a winner when I see one. :)

RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 7:45 PM

…she’s expecting to be apologized to for being given the wrong link in a discussion on a comments board on a blog.

She’s severely deluded. Let her be.

McCain 19%
Huckabee 19%
Giuliani 17%
Romney 15%
Thompson 13%
Ron Paul 4%

Wow! looks awfully horse-race-ish to me. Go Fred the field is leveling.