Contributors

Monday, February 16, 2015

Ranking the Presidents

Given that it is President's Day, I thought I would put up list ranking our nation's presidents from best to worst. It's a hard list to make when you consider that from van Buren through Pierce there isn't much to really say one way or another. And the Gilded Age presidents basically all phoned it in (which is why they are towards the bottom). But, hey, it was a lot of fun...so without further adieu, he is my list.

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. John F Kennedy
5. Theodore Roosevelt
6. Harry S. Truman
7. Thomas Jefferson
8. Bill Clinton
9. Dwight D Eisenhower
10. John Adams
11. James Madison
12. Barack Obama
13. James Monroe
14. Jimmy Carter
15. George HW Bush
16. Ronald Reagan
17. Woodrow Wilson
18. Ulysses S Grant
19. John Quincy Adams
20. Gerald Ford
21. Grover Cleveland
22. Grover Cleveland
23. John Tyler
24. Calvin Coolidge
25. Martin Van Buren
26. Zachary Taylor
27. Millard Filmore
28. James Polk
29. Rutherford B Hayes
30. James Garfield
31. Chester Arthur
32. Benjamin Harrison
33. Franklin Pierce
34. William McKinley
35. William Howard Taft
36. Warren Harding
37. William Henry Harrison
38. Herbert Hoover
39. Richard Nixon
40. George W. Bush
41. James Buchanan
42. Andrew Johnson
43. Andrew Jackson
44. Lyndon B. Johnson

80 comments:

GuardDuck said...

Here's an alternative view from another blogger:

Top Five:

#5: Calvin Coolidge

Nothing To Report is a fine epitaph for a President, in this day of unbridled expansion of Leviathan.

#4. Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson is perhaps the last (and first) President who exercised extra-Constitutional power in a manner that was unambiguously beneficial for the Republic (the Louisiana Purchase). He repealed Adam's noxious Alien and Sedition Acts and pardoned those convicted under them.

#3. Grover Cleveland.

He didn't like the pomp and circumstance of the office, and he hated the payoffs so common then and now. He continually vetoed pork spending (including for veterans of the War Between the States), so much so that he was defeated for re-election, but unusually won a second term later. This quote is priceless (would that Latter Day Presidents rise so high), on vetoing a farm relief bill: "Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character."

#2. Ronald Reagan

He at least tried to slow down the growth of Leviathan, the first President to do so in over half a century (see entry #5, above). He would have reduced it further, except that his opposition to the Soviet fascist state and determination to end it cost boatloads of cash. It also caused outrage among the home grown fascists in the Media and Universities, but was wildly popular among the general population which was (and hopefully still remains) sane.

#1. George Washington

Could have been King. Wasn't. Q.E.D.

Bottom Five:

#5. John Adams.

There's no way to read the Alien and Sedition Acts as anything other than a blatant violation of the First Amendment. It's a sad statement that the first violation of a Presidential Oath of Office was with President #2.

#4. Woodrow Wilson.

Not only did he revive the spirit of Adams' Sedition Acts, he caused a Presidential opponent to be imprisoned under the terms of his grotesque Sedition Act of 1918. He was Progressivism incarnate: he lied us into war, he jailed the anti-war opposition, he instituted a draft, and he was entirely soft-headed when it came to foreign policy. The fact that Progressives love him (and hate George W. Bush) says all you need to know about them.

#3 Lyndon Johnson.

An able legislator who was able to get bills passed without having any real idea what they would do once enacted, he is responsible for more Americans living in poverty and despair than any occupant of the White House, and that says a lot.

#2. Franklin Roosevelt.

America's Mussolini - ruling extra-Constitutionally fixing wages and prices, packing the Supreme Court, and transforming the country into a bunch of takers who would sell their votes for a trifle. At least Mussolini met an honorable end.


#1. Abraham Lincoln.

There's no doubt that the Constitution never would have been ratified if the States hadn't thought they could leave if they needed to. Lincoln saw to it that 10% of the military-age male population was killed or wounded preventing that in an extra-Constitutional debacle unequaled in the Republic's history. Along the way, he suspended Habeas Corpus, instituted the first ever draft on these shores, and jailed political opponents as he saw fit. Needless to say, Progressives adore him.

Nikto said...

It's amazing how conservatives blithely babble on and on and on about Lincoln's terrible crimes, complaining about the draft, suspension of habeas corps and jailing of political opponents, while totally ignoring the fact that 25 to 50% percent of the population in slave-holding states never had those rights, or even the most basic right of personal freedom. Slaves were treated like cattle: they could be bought and sold, their children taken from them, they were forced to breed like cattle, they could be worked to death or slain out of hand by a capricious master.

Slavery was an unmitigated evil. Conservatives hate it when people invoke cultural relativism to explain foreign customs, but they're the first to say, "It was a different time," when it comes to excusing the incarnate evil of their ancestors who broke from the Union to form the Confederate States of America so that they could continue to treat human beings like animals.

Even worse is when they say that the war wasn't really about slavery, it was about states rights, economic freedom and autonomy and abstruse points of constitutional law. Their economy depended on slavery and they used their autonomy to enslave human beings: these are crimes against humanity, not "states rights."

Today they rave about how any number of deaths in the United States is acceptable in order to keep guns freely available to any incompetent yahoo that wants them, but the president who saved millions of people from centuries of abject slavery went too far...

And President #1? He might not have become king, but he was a slaveholder; absolute king, lord and master over 150 human beings. He knew it was evil, and wanted to free them, but his wife loved having slaves, so what can you do? (Washington's slaves were freed on his death, but not his wife's: his marital bliss depended on denying the humanity of his servants.)

This country is still messed up because of the legacy of slavery. The attitudes espoused by most conservatives are direct echoes of the rationales Confederate separatists used to excuse and condone slavery. Southerners are still pissed off about "The War of Northern Aggression" and to this day many of them still cannot admit how wrong, and ultimately evil, their ancestors were.

Cuz, you know, it was a different time...

GuardDuck said...

Even worse is when they say that the war wasn't really about slavery

Find a congressional authorization for war in 1861 mentioning the freeing of slaves or the abolition of slavery. The Union did not go to war with the Confederacy to do either. It went to war to keep states from seceding or in response to the attack upon Ft. Sumpter.

The base underlying causes of animosity and the causes for secession may have been slavery. But do not mistake the causes for those actions as the legal reason the north would not let the south secede.

That legal reason was NOT slavery. As the quote points out, those states (as well a most of the northern ones as well) were not likely to have joined the union originally if they were told they could not leave after doing so.

It's all great and stuff to talk about the morality of 'freeing the slaves' as a legitimizing reason for the war. Does that mean you also are in agreement with Bush invading Iraq in order to depose a dictator responsible for great human rights violations? You know, because if the Civil War was legitimate and just in order to free the slaves, then the Iraq war has to be legitimate and just because it freed the Iraqi's. Right?

Mark Ward said...

I'll take note of your leaving out of a link as well as your continued inability to express your own views, GD.

Well said, Nikto!

Mark Ward said...

Find a congressional authorization for war in 1861 mentioning the freeing of slaves or the abolition of slavery. The Union did not go to war with the Confederacy to do either. It went to war to keep states from seceding or in response to the attack upon Ft. Sumpter.

And your evidence for this is supported by what unbiased source?

juris imprudent said...

Interesting that you adore FDR and disparage LBJ - considering that LBJ cut his political teeth as a New Dealer and fashioned the Great Society aping FDR.

The best...

#1 Washington, for declining to drag us into a New World nobility and for doing the historically unthinkable - peaceably turning over power. On top of that he had to invent the Executive branch.

#2 Lincoln, preserving the union when many in the North would've been fine with letting the South go, and ultimately bringing an end to slavery. This of course came at great cost both personally and to the country.

#3 Coolidge, quiet competence and rejection of executive majesty. Except in the most extraordinary of circumstances - this is what a President should be.

The worst...

#3 Adams, unfortunate of course to follow the best (and thus perhaps an unfair comparison); could've avoided this spot by vetoing the A&S Acts (and be considered just a mediocrity).

#2 Nixon, yeah - he really was bad; somewhat unhinged mentally with a busted moral compass.

#1 Wilson, involvement in a European War we should have avoided, then having arrived on the scene utterly failed with his naive diplomacy. A disgrace on race and civil liberties and perhaps the first President favoring principals over principles.

Bonus track - great men that were lousy Presidents: JQ Adams, Hoover, Grant, Taft (and in fairness he wanted the Supreme Court not the Presidency) and Bush I.

Mark Ward said...

Props to juris for taking a stand and offering thought provoking analyses.

juris imprudent said...

And your evidence for this is supported by what unbiased source?

The Congressional Globe should suffice, shouldn't it?

GuardDuck said...

I'll take note of your leaving out of a link

Not going to let you go pollute someone else's blog, I'm polite that way.


as well as your continued inability to express your own views, GD.

What, the post directly above yours escape your vision or something???



And your evidence for this is supported by what unbiased source?

Uhhhm....the lack of a congressional authorization for war in 1861 mentioning the freeing of slaves or the abolition of slavery.?

Mark Ward said...

GD, I'm well aware that this is a mythology being spun in the right wing blogsphere (hence your reason for not providing a link). What I'm looking for is historical evidence (unbiased, reputable sources) that slavery was not the reason for the Civil War.

GuardDuck said...

Mark, find a senate resolution for war, or authorization for hostilities dated 1861 that uses as a casis belli the freeing of slaves or the abolition of slavery. Further, if the north was fighting the south for the casis belli of eliminating slavery, show me the constitutional amendment dated prior to the start of the war that eliminated it in the territories under the legal jurisdiction of the north.

Think. I stipulated that the underlying causes and reasons for the South seceding were related to slavery. But the North did not engage in hostilities with them for the express purpose of freeing the slaves. That express purpose came later. If it came later, think, what then was the express purpose of the north going to war with the south?

Mark Ward said...

Once again, the pedantic and semantic games...

You are asking the wrong question, GD and I think you are doing this because you started with an answer you have an emotional attachment to and are working back...hence the narrow window and question...which ignores such legislation as the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave law, the Kansas Nebraska Act as well as the John Brown/Harper's Ferry incident.

You want to try to distance the slavery issue from the Civil War as much as possible because (once again) you don't want your side having to fucking own a racial issue. Well, guess what?

“The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating
questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it
exists amongst us, the proper status of the negro in our form of
civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and
present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as
the ‘rock upon which the old Union would split.’ He was right. What
was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact.

“[Our] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great
truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery,
subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal
condition.”

---Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederates States
of America, March 1861

There is also this...

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

The entire document is about slavery, not states rights.

GD, the Republican party was formed as a response to the Kansas Nebraska Act. Their core issue was extension of slavery into the territories.

Check this out...

http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/of-course-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery-26265

“Probably 90 percent, maybe 95 percent of serious historians of the Civil War would agree on the broad questions of what the war was about and what brought it about and what caused it,” McPherson said, “which was the increasing polarization of the country between the free states and the slave states over issues of slavery, especially the expansion of slavery.”

“The whole question of ‘states’ rights’ is sometimes misunderstood; that is, states’ rights are more a means than an end itself. ‘States’ rights’ for what purpose?” McPherson said. “Slavery was the substantive issue of the 1850s leading up to the Civil War, just like health care reform is today.”


Here's another source that I use in class all the time when teaching the Civil War

http://www.nps.gov/fosu/historyculture/upload/SLAVERY-BROCHURE.pdf

Compare the document above to what you are asserting here. Why are you leaving out so much information? It's hard for me to take your seriously when you aren't even mentioning the basic facts and events leading up to the war.







GuardDuck said...

I stipulated that the underlying causes and reasons for the South seceding were related to slavery


Is this statement substantially different from:

agree on the broad questions of what the war was about and what brought it about and what caused it

No, it isn't.

If you would bother to actually read what I write it would make communication much easier.


What is the casis belli? What is the legal, definable reason that the north engaged in open warfare with the south?

Yes, the conflict around slavery was what cause the disagreements.

But the north DID NOT invade the south to free the slaves.

If they did not do it to free the slaves - then why did they? What is the casis belli?


I'm trying to get you to think rather than regurgitate. Try it.


Does it even matter why to you? I suppose not. But if the ACTUAL legal justification for war doesn't matter to you, what does? Is it the end result regardless of the legality?

Mark Ward said...

I know what you are trying to do, GD, so knock off the bullshit. If you have an assertion to make, make it. I'd like to see how it stands in contrast to what the Vice President of the Confederacy said...

This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and
present revolution.








GuardDuck said...

I made the assertion. Not my fault if your blinders prevent you from seeing it.


Mark Ward said...

You mean this?

. It went to war to keep states from seceding or in response to the attack upon Ft. Sumpter.

That's not very definitive, GD and, even if it is, you haven't backed it up with historical evidence and sources, preferably a primary source as I have provided.

So, let's see what you have to back up your statement.

Larry said...

Nikto-anus: It's amazing how conservatives blithely babble on and on and on about Lincoln's terrible crimes

Nice way to over-generalize, asshole. Based on the conservatives I've known, it's not even a sizeable minority. And you get more ignorant the further into your spittle-flecked rant you go. Given your own stated self-encapsulation in a bubble of security from thought-crime, do you even personally know know any conservatives that aren't in your daddy-issue-plagued family?

GuardDuck said...

I know logical thought is hard for you...but try to follow along.


Basis Belli means: An act or event that provokes or is used to justify war.

Justify means:

1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid
3. Law
a. To demonstrate sufficient legal reason for (an action taken).


Lacking an authorization citing as Casis Belli the freeing of southern slaves or the elimination of slavery from the U.S. government in 1861 then we must find WHAT the U.S. used as it's Casis Belli instead.

Here we find an original source - The Congressional Globe - and a proclamation by Lincoln himself

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=057/llcg057.db&recNum=19

Dated April 15th, 1861:

Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed and the execution thereof obstructed in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshals by law:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union to the aggregate number of 75,000 in order to suppress said combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed.


(Transcribed here: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=70077)

Nope, no mention of freeing the slaves. It does however mention that laws are 'opposed'. Seems that Lincoln is justifying military action to keep the states from seceding.

Then there's this one:

Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue can not be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States; and

Whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection have threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas and in waters of the United States; and

Whereas an Executive proclamation has been already issued requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, and convening Congress in extraordinary session to deliberate and determine thereon:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=70101

Again, not using as justification the freeing of slaves but rather "insurrection, assaults and disorder". So we can add as justification used by Lincoln himself the military action taken by the souther states. Such as the attack upon Ft. Sumpter.

This one:

The COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES

You are engaged in suppressing an insurrection against the laws of the United States. If at any point on or in the vicinity of any military, line which is now or which shall be used between the city of Philadelphia and the city of Washington you find resistance which renders it necessary to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for the public safety, you personally, or through the officer in command at the point where resistance occurs, are authorized to suspend that writ.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=69748

Yup, altogether a case from primary sources that the Casis Belli or justification used - at the time of use - for hostilities was either to keep the states in the union or as response to the attack upon Ft. Sumpter.


Now, are you going to take Lincoln at his word and accept this and move on to the next step of logic or are we going to be stuck at this point forever?

juris imprudent said...

This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and
present revolution.


You are quoting a rebel, not the U.S. government, in particular President Lincoln:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery.

That was already a year into the war. Consider yourself schooled "teach". If you had an ounce of decency in you, you would apologize to GD for both your ignorance and intransigence.

Larry said...

Also, the quote from the Coinfederate VP was from March, 1861, and was regarding secession ONLY, Teacher-Boy. The War started in APRIL, 1861.

Mark Ward said...

Nope, no mention of freeing the slaves. It does however mention that laws are 'opposed'. Seems that Lincoln is justifying military action to keep the states from seceding.

Again, not using as justification the freeing of slaves but rather "insurrection, assaults and disorder"

for hostilities was either to keep the states in the union

Now, are you going to take Lincoln at his word and accept this and move on to the next step of logic or are we going to be stuck at this point forever?


All three of these examples occurred because of the struggle over the issue of slavery. You seem to have some sort of mental block that won't let you rise to the level of evaluation. Ironic (but, as usual, not surprising) that you accuse me of being stuck. To think that the justification for war was merely what you mention above and existed in a vacuum is incredibly simple minded. So many events and actions led up to those events that to caterwaul over and over again about Casus Belli is most bizarre to say the least.

Consider yourself schooled "teach". If you had an ounce of decency in you, you would apologize to GD for both your ignorance and intransigence.

Hmm...juris, you may have missed this one, juris.

http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/of-course-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery-26265

No wonder you guys are blowing bowels everywhere...it's the whole accomplished scholars v blog commenters live from the parent's basement bugaboo. Face it, gents, there are people out there who are smarter and more successful than you guys:)





juris imprudent said...

Hmm...juris, you may have missed this one, juris.

Yeah, imagine me ignoring the words of the President during the war in favor of M's stupid link to an article on the internet. I sure wish someone knew something about primary sources.

No shame, no decency and apparently no sense of pain (considering you just got smacked in the head with 2x4). What happened to all that talk about being happy to admit when you are wrong? Just more bullshit from you, huh M?

juris imprudent said...

Face it, gents, there are people out there who are smarter and more successful than you guys:)

Oh that is perfectly true - you just aren't one of them (like you think you are).

Mark Ward said...

No shame, no decency and apparently no sense of pain (considering you just got smacked in the head with 2x4).

Why do you guys always feel the need to declare in a boisterous and obnoxious way that you "won?" You do realize how insecure this makes you look. When I see comments like this, the words blur for a moment and then shift to this...

Fuck! We can't get Mark to play our childish games. And once again, he's shown himself to be an equal if not superior sparring partner. We were so close!! Let's pretend we won...with words and stuff

The simple fact is that Guard Duck is playing the same tired old pedantic and semantic games again. He's trying to wordsmith and redirect his way into some sort of universe where the cause of the Civil War had just a little bit less to do with slavery and a whole helluva lot more to do with the "feddle gubmint" sticking their nose where it shouldn't. And now his feelings are hurt (and apparently yours as well...an apology demand...really? And here I thought Guard Duck was the Joan Collins of the comments section) so his Casus Belli has gotten all conflarnicated with Basis Belli (whatever that is).

I suppose this is all leading somewhere so I wish he would just complete his line of thought and wrap it up..as if I don't already know where it's going:)

you just aren't one of them (like you think you are).

I completely agree. Princeton Civil War Historian James McPherson and Civil War author James Loewen are much more intelligent and accomplished than I am. And yet somehow they are wrong and fat and stupid...how does that work out?

GuardDuck said...

You seem to have some sort of mental block that won't let you rise to the level of evaluation.


You're right Mark, I must have some sort of block to evaluate that 'of course the civil war was fought over slavery'...

It's almost like I never said - on this very page - things like:

"The base underlying causes of animosity and the causes for secession may have been slavery."

"I stipulated that the underlying causes and reasons for the South seceding were related to slavery."

"Yes, the conflict around slavery was what cause(d) the disagreements."



Stop being stupid.



Your block is that you refuse to read and comprehend the words right in front of your face.

Now think for a minute, teacher, if I stipulate that the causes of the war were indeed slavery, but am 'caterwauling' about Casus Belli then perhaps I am talking about something other than what you are assuming I am with this Casus Belli thingie.....Maybe, perhaps, just possibly your pre-existing bias is preventing you from understanding and evaluating what I am saying.

So why don't you actually read what I've said and not put your own spin on it. Read what I've said without trying to label it some 'right wing race hate' shit. Read what I've said, exactly as I've said it - don't add, suppose, translate or throw any of your other bullshit voices in your head to it.


Done?


Now, what was the legal, expressed Casus Belli for the North to engage in hostilities with the South?

Mark Ward said...

It was secession and the attack on Fort Sumter....which were caused by a years long struggle over the issue of slavery. Now, do you have any point to make past this pedantic and semantic game?

juris imprudent said...

Why do you guys always feel the need to declare in a boisterous and obnoxious way that you "won?"

It isn't about winning M - except for you of course. It is about MOTHER FUCKING REALITY and your refusal to deal with it.

And yet somehow they are wrong and fat and stupid...how does that work out?

Actually they aren't. You are, and your idiotic attempt to argue that Lincoln did not initially fight the war to preserve the Union (as I quoted him). I'm sure those good gentlemen would have no argument with either GD or myself. I quite imagine they would look at you and wonder what fucking drugs you are on.

No one, except the voices in your head has argued that slavery was not at the heart of the conflict, that it was not because of slavery that the South seceded in order to preserve it; that Lincoln did eventually re-cast the war as a fight against slavery and that ultimately the war did indeed end slavery. But it is NOT why Lincoln initiated the War of Northern Aggression as some like to put it.

Mark Ward said...

So, let me see if I am understanding you correctly, juris. The leader of the party that was formed expressly to be anti-slavery and won election was not thinking about slavery at all when he went to war. It wasn't even in his mind, right? Preserving the union was a policy that existed in a vacuum without slavery entering into the equation at all...is that what you are saying?

Think for just a minute, juris, why would Abraham Lincoln say he was going to war for the reasons he gave? Why would he insist, up until 1863, that the war was not about slavery? What political reasons would there be for this?



Larry said...

I can't decide whether you're falling back to the tried and true "I'm a deliberate fuckwit" tactic, or if you're really just a fuckwit with the reading comprehension of a crack-addled chimpanzee, Markadelphia. Try READING juris's comment for comprehension this time. Do it sloowly, reading it out loud so that the straightforward English-encoded message is also transmitted directly to your ears, so that three different parts of your tiny little brain are processing it at once (visual cortex, speech generation area, and speech recognition area). If you know Morse code, also tap out the message onto your little head (your choice as to which one to use), and you can get 5 parts working together on this issue. Do it several times, and perhaps you can decode simple English. Eventually. Do it for the Children (tm), Markadelphia. Do it for their sake.

juris imprudent said...

The leader of the party that was formed expressly to be anti-slavery and won election was not thinking about slavery at all when he went to war.

You don't need me to tell you, all you have to do is read the quote from his letter to the NYT upthread.

If you still can't understand that, maybe ask one of your children to explain it to you.

Mark Ward said...

Larry, I think you ought to be a little more grateful to me for allowing you to post as freely as you do on this site. Perhaps you might want to see how your style works on a larger forum with rules and such. The challenge is always extended:)

juris imprudent said...

Perhaps you might want to see how your style works on a larger forum with rules and such.

You keep thinking that makes some kind of difference in whether you have a grasp on reality.

It doesn't.

Larry said...

Yeah, well, on a new forum with people who have no idea of your long, sordid battle with reality and truth might find me offensive. At first, damn near everybody would, probably. But if they went back a few years here and elsewhere, and read forward, I wouldn't be surprised if a majority thought it quite understandable, if sometimes over the top. I can be an asshole (I don't suffer fools gladly), but at least I'm upfront about it. But at least I'm not a smug, patronizingly sanctimonious, seriously passive-aggressive asshole with Daddy issues who tries (not too successfully) to smear a thin veneer of seeming politeness over a rotten structure of distortions, lies, and slithering evasions.

Believe it or not, I mostly come here for the pure comedy gold that makes up so many of your posts. But delivering the beatings are enjoyable, too, and apparently you really like them, too. You take them from so many, and have so very, very few non-sock-puppet supporters besides Nikto, the crankiest old white male crank out there, as juris aptly called him. A fiercely atheist, Progressive statist version of Ron Paul -- who simultaneously seems to feel the siren song of the demons that inhabit the steel tools called firearms. Yeah, whatever.

By the way, have you managed to decode juris' plain English sentences yet?

Mark Ward said...

Let's test your assertion, juris. I'd like to see how you react when someone other than me calls you on your bullshit. Or several someones....:)

Larry, put your money where your mouth is. Honestly, at this point, not doing so would render your words meaningless. I've been on Quora for a while now (which has a link to this site) so people can read plenty of Markadelphia history.

Cowboy up, son. Personally, I don't think you can make a point without personal insult, hyperbole, and fallacy.

juris imprudent said...

I'd like to see how you react when someone other than me calls you on your bullshit. Or several someones....:)

Funny how you Quora posse won't bother to drop in over here, isn't it?

The President's own words M, the President's own words. Primary source if there ever was one (not that you would know).

Mark Ward said...

I take it this means you are (once again) refusing to take the debate to a larger forum. Why that is so is a much more interesting question considering your continual bloviation on here.

I assume that you didn't read either of my links above hence the refusal to move past the lowest level of Bloom's taxonomy.

GuardDuck said...

Now, do you have any point to make past this pedantic and semantic game?


Yeah.


Was secession legal in 1861?

Wait, hold that thought for a moment. Let's visit the idea of secession first.

Should secession be legal? Not just here in the U.S. but as a general principal. Do you think that the various states of the former Soviet Union were legally allowed to secede? What makes it's OK for, say, Ukraine or Lithuania to secede but not Chechnya or Ossatia?


Do we agree with the principle of self-determination? Do the people of a land have the moral right to choose their own government? Even if we consider their reasons or morals abhorrent?

If so, how can we take an example of a country that was founded upon the principle of self-determination, that required an act of self-determination to found and that required each state to commit an act of self-determination in order for admittance and then say that once committed further acts of self-determination are not allowed?


Now back to the first question. Was secession legal in 1861? The Supreme Court ruled it illegal in 1869. Prior to that it was undefined in a legal sense. No definitive judgement either way.

My original quote said thus: "There's no doubt that the Constitution never would have been ratified if the States hadn't thought they could leave if they needed to." Possibly. Some of the Founders were of greater or lessor degrees of Federalists. But prior to the Civil War there were several occurrences of secession within the U.S.. Kentucky seceded from Virginia in 1792. Maine seceded from Massachusetts in 1820. So prior to the Civil War there are examples of secession being legal.

Additionally, Texas seceded from Mexico and then the U.S. accepted Texas as a state - prompting a war with Mexico over that act.

So, the U.S. had allowed territories to secede from states, as well as approving the secession of territory from a country.

During the Civil War itself West Virginia seceded from Virginia.

Now, even if you don't think that secession should be legal in general. If you don't think that people have the right for self-determination. You do have examples of such secession being legal, allowed and even approved within the U.S. prior to the start of the Civil War.

So, in 1861, prior to the 1869 decision of the Supreme Court secession was not decisively declared illegal while having several examples of legal secession - several states secede. Was it legal? Was it illegal?

It was neither, until the courts decided. That's their job.

So we have a case where an action is not determined to be either legal or illegal and when faced with such a case what does the President do? Go to war? With his own country? Killing his own people?


Sorry if I don't worship Lincoln as all good little school children are taught to. Yeah, slavery was abhorrent and had to be ended - but he didn't go to war to free the slaves. He went to war to preserve the union, which decision wasn't even for sure the legal one to make. A war that killed more Americans than any other war before or since. In prosecuting said war he blatantly violated more constitutional rights than any other president before or since as well.

The ends were correct. Slavery ended. The Union was preserved. But the means were not. Unless of course you believe that the ends DO justify the means.

Mark Ward said...

What would you have done differently if you were president? I think he did the best he could given the conditions at the time. He made the right call, although it should have been made much sooner...the greed of men getting in the way of progress again...

Solutions to problems as big as this one are often pretty ugly.

GuardDuck said...

although it should have been made much sooner.

What exactly do you mean by this?

He should have went to war before he was president?

We should have went to war before the states seceded? Over what cause?


Solutions to problems as big as this one are often pretty ugly

Which problem specifically? Secession or slavery?

Mark Ward said...

No, sorry, GD. Answering questions with questions is...what was that quote again?:)

What would you have done differently if you were president?

GuardDuck said...

Ok, since you aren't going to answer clarifying questions that allow me to figure out what you specifically were asking......


I would have not gotten us into a land war in Vietnam.....


Now, perhaps you can clarify what you are talking about so I can actually answer your question.

Mark Ward said...

I would have not gotten us into a land war in Vietnam....

What the fuck does that have to do with the Civil War?

You listed off a series of complaints about Abraham Lincoln. Fine. Now, what would you have done differently? It's easy to complain and judge, GD, but not so easy when you have to put yourself out there. This what you guys do all the time. You bitch and bitch about stuff but what would it look like if you were in charge?

Answer: Uh...not that!!

GuardDuck said...

What the fuck does that have to do with the Civil War?

Absolutely nothing. But I was asking CLARIFYING questions to figure out what you are asking. You refused to answer them. So I am left with not knowing exactly what you mean when you asked me what I would do different if I was president. Without know what you mean I can't reasonably answer the fucking question.

What would I do differently if I was president instead of Lincoln? In regards to what? Secession or slavery? War or no war? War over what? Get it? I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING SO I NEED MORE INFORMATION.

Mark Ward said...

You don't need any more information than the comment you offered. You listed a series of complaints. Great. What would have done differently, given your complaints?

GuardDuck said...

Oh bullshit.


My complaints? Violation of the Constitution. Nope, wouldn't have done that. Would you?

Killed my countrymen? Nope. Would you?

Preserve the union? Was it legal to secede? Was it illegal? Would I have went to war over something that was specifically illegal to do? Nope? Would you?



Answered. Your turn.

although it should have been made much sooner.

What exactly do you mean by this?

He should have went to war before he was president?

We should have went to war before the states seceded? Over what cause?


Solutions to problems as big as this one are often pretty ugly

Which problem specifically? Secession or slavery?

GuardDuck said...

Would I have went to war over something that was specifically illegal to do?

Should read:

Would I have went to war over something that was not specifically illegal to do?

Mark Ward said...

Answered. Your turn.

Hmm...looks like someone is getting schooled over on Quora...as well as picking up all that straw...:)

http://www.quora.com/Was-Abraham-Lincolns-decision-to-go-to-war-legal-and-was-his-prosecution-of-the-war-in-violation-of-Constitutional-rights-Why-or-why-not

Since I know you want take my word for it, time to defend your assertions on a larger forum:)

GuardDuck said...

Seen it.

A) After your obsessive/compulsive stalking behaviour towards Kevin I WILL NOT interact with you on Quora.

B) What is that you always say when someone claims they have 'schooled' someone?

C) Exactly what comment over there do you think represents me being 'schooled'?

GuardDuck said...

Oh, and still waiting for you to answer.

Larry said...

It's not at all clear to me that it would have gone to a shooting war had not South Carolina started the shooting. Lincoln didn't call for 75,000 volunteer troops until two days after Ft. Sumter was forced to surrender. This was 5 weeks after the Confederacy had called for 100,000 volunteers (for defense). There wasn't a lot of enthusiasm for a war in the North before Ft. Sumter, and a lot of people hoped for some sort of reconciliation. I doubt a Federal Army of a size sufficient to do more than guard the border could have been raised without the attack on Ft. Sumter.

It seems similar to the public sentiment before WWII. Some could see war coming, some thought we should do more to help England, but many people wanted us to stay the hell out of it. Not many were enthusiastic for war. Had Hitler not declared war on us four days after Pearl Harbor, it would have been "interesting" how Roosevelt would have handled it. The US Navy was already in a sort of undeclared war with the Ubootwaffe and probably there would've eventually been an incident severe enough that Roosevelt could've asked Congress for a declaration of war against Germany like Wilson did in 1917. But maybe not.

GuardDuck said...

Shhhh Larry....

It's so much more effective to watch Mark flail around forever trying to explain his nonsense before he finally finds the answer himself. Otherwise he will never accept it. Don't give it away.

Mark Ward said...

A) After your obsessive/compulsive stalking behaviour towards Kevin I WILL NOT interact with you on Quora.

But you will obsess and stalk me here. Yeah, that make sense.

to watch Mark flail around

And yet you refuse to engage in a wider audience. Makes sense. I'm calling it, GD.

You are a fucking coward.

Stalking and obsessing has nothing to do with it. You simply can't take any more than one person telling you how batshit nuts you are not to mention completely wrong. As juris recently said, if two or three people are telling me something, I'd pay attention. Read all the answers. Read TR Livesy's comment in his answer. I know how important external validation is to you:)

I have zero desire to give any sort of credence to your lunacy regarding the Civil War. In fact, your entire argument is based on massive error, as has been shown to you on Quora.

And the way I see it, the only reason why you want me to answer is to fuck around and take the focus off your wacky, ideological nonsense. You've stated repeatedly that you consider my views to be worthless and yet here you are, begging for an answer from me...pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Wacky is you. Proven here and at quora. Just because you have a few more wacky people there does not justify your poor grasp of logic and reason.

juris imprudent said...

Why that is so is a much more interesting question considering your continual bloviation on here.

You're forgetting, I did go over to Quora - it is as childish a forum as this is. It really is no different than ANY Internet venue. I also saw that you do the same shit there that you do here - ignoring what is actually said to you in favor of the voices in your head filter. Doesn't matter the handle/avatar associated with the words - you refuse to understand them when they won't comport with the stereotype in your head.

Larry said...

And here I was actually hoping that reading out loud would help with that... :)

juris imprudent said...

Quora - where Mark Ward and Brian Baldwin prove that real names are no impediment to Internet stupidity.

GuardDuck said...

But you will obsess and stalk me here

Compare and contrast:

A: A blog at which a person posts open commentary to the internet - which has open comments.

B: A site in which people can choose to ask or answer questions.

On site A, commenting in the open comments upon the commentary of the blogger who posts to the open internet.

On site B, dragging the name of a person into conversations upon which he in not involved using inferences that he would either be for or against whatever the inference is, thereby requiring the person to defend themselves in a thread they aren't even involved in.

I know you don't see anything wrong with your actions regarding Kevin at Quora. That's why I won't get involved with you over there.


batshit nuts
lunacy
error
wacky, ideological nonsense


You said it so it must be true....

I suppose there's no chance that you would substantiate your wild accusations is there?


completely wrong

Like how what I said was wrong until you agreed I was right?

massive error, as has been shown to you on Quora.

Actually it hasn't Mark. You posted ONE comment taken from a series of commentary in a back and forth conversation. Talk about out of context.

TR Lively's answer was pretty good. Of course you are failing to note the parts of it that completely validate what I've been saying. You also fail to note that his answer was within the context of what YOU asked and not what I have been talking about. No surprise since you don't bother listening to what I say.

This is all really too bad. Despite your entrenched stubbornness you did actually - eventually - show a small amount of openness to other viewpoints and facts contrary to your own bias'. Then you threw it all away and went to the collective to find out what your thoughts should be.....



Mark Ward said...

I suppose there's no chance that you would substantiate your wild accusations is there?

Not until your behavior changes, GD. In fact, your recent comments about "stalking" (nice Rove, BTW) have led me to conclude that if you are that concerned about me, then perhaps you shouldn't post here anymore.

GuardDuck said...

I see,

You claim that until 'my behavior' changes....

But refuse to substantiate what that 'behavior' is.

Gotcha.


And I see you still don't know, or care to understand, why your behavior at Quora was wrong.

juris imprudent said...

Not until your behavior changes

When are you going to hold yourself to that same standard M? Anytime in this millenium?

Mark Ward said...

Given your continued desire to post here, GD, your accusations of "stalking" have now been invalidated. Like Kevin, you simply cannot allow a "win" for me...especially in such a larger forum. I have to ALWAYS be wrong otherwise it's the end of the universe or something. This is also why I was voted off of TSM. You guys need to have your little bubble of unreality protected. It helps control the propaganda:)

Please feel free to enlighten me if you think I'm in error in this assessment.

Mark Ward said...

When are you going to hold yourself to that same standard M?

I'll accept that challenge, juris. Starting today, I'm going to keep a running total of all the personal insults, adolescent games, and fallacies that people make in comments. Let's see how well you guys do compared to me:)

GuardDuck said...

Please feel free to enlighten me if you think I'm in error in this assessment.

Yes, you are in error. Let me enlighten you.



Given your continued desire to post here, GD, your accusations of "stalking" have now been invalidated.

Again, since you said it, it must be true right?

Since you didn't do a single thing to substantiate that claim...should I really be required - again - to explain the differences?

This site - An open internet blog at which a person posts commentary and has an open comments sections for other people to comment upon that commentary.

Any person commenting upon the commentary at a site with open comments is using the site in a manner consistent with standard practices.

Quora - A site in which people ask questions and people answer questions at their own desire.

Do you see in that definition somewhere that it is appropriate to call out a person unaffiliated to the question or answer and expect them to defend whatever you are calling them out for?

Perhaps rather than just claim something is, because you say it is, if you persist on claiming this - you could provide some substantiating reasoning to why what you claim is so.

Like Kevin, you simply cannot allow a "win" for me...especially in such a larger forum

You can't 'win' if you refuse to defend your allegations. You don't need Quora to do that. You can do that here. Further, a larger forum for what? Opposing viewpoints? I'm pretty sure when you and I are discussing something WE don't need to find more opposing viewpoints. Validation? If we were discussing whose opinion was more or less popular, sure Quora would be a great place to get a handle on which opinion is more popular. Maybe you care if your opinion is the popular one.... Except when it comes to Quora you discount that opinion about guns (because of the supposed 'gun cult mafia' there), or that so many of your own answers and comments get downvoted (you even asked a question intimating that Quora get rid of down-voting because you got down voted so much). Really Mark, you discount so much about that 'wider audience' already that holding it up as some sort of holy internet grail is rather amusing.


I have to ALWAYS be wrong otherwise it's the end of the universe or something.

Now that is a straw man. I've even agreed with you many times. However, when you are wrong you seem to always insist you are right - up to the time that you can't prove it. Then you ignore questions, leave the conversation, change the subject or just insist that the proof isn't really proof without explaining how or why....


This is also why I was voted off of TSM.

No it isn't. There is a very large thread or two over there that goes into great detail - by many people - why you were voted off. Nowhere in those commentary will you find as a reason that you 'can't be allowed to win' or that you 'have to always be wrong'. This self-blindness regarding that issue is further collaborating evidence of your self-blindness regarding your Quora behavior.

You guys need to have your little bubble of unreality protected

Huh, it's almost like you are claiming I don't engage in conversation with people having opposing viewpoints.....

Except you are claiming that while I am having a conversation with a person who does have opposing view points....


Do you even read what you type?

GuardDuck said...

Starting today, I'm going to keep a running total of all the personal insults, adolescent games, and fallacies that people make in comments. Let's see how well you guys do compared to me

That will be interesting.

Of course before doing so you will need to define those terms. Plus in order to categorize something as falling within one of those items - you must be able to explain why it does so.

Mark Ward said...

Quora - A site in which people ask questions and people answer questions at their own desire.

A publicly sourced site...you forget that part.

Do you see in that definition somewhere that it is appropriate to call out a person unaffiliated to the question or answer and expect them to defend whatever you are calling them out for?

Then why are there "ask to answer" links whenever I ask a question? Why is there a tag function on Quora? Give that these functions exist exactly to do what you think is inappropriate, your definition of Quora isn't accurate at all.

Now, what is inappropriate is personal insults which, I think, is the real reason why you don't want to engage with me on a forum where there are rules. If you take those away, what else do you have? Adolescent games and fallacies...speaking of which...

You can't 'win' if you refuse to defend your allegations.

I've defended assertions on here repeatedly both in comments and posts. In fact, the more I do engage with you, the less I "win" because I'm giving weight to arguments that are complete nonsense. That's the point, right? You answer my questions with questions, play childish baiting games, and flat out refuse to look at any fact that disrupts your ideology. And then you have the gall to accuse me of doing the very thing you are doing. I can "win" by a large margin by refusing to acknowledge your invalid assertions and irrational comments. They are not worthy of reply...

You don't need Quora to do that. You can do that here. Further, a larger forum for what? Opposing viewpoints?

No, I can't and perhaps you are right. You are 100 percent set in your ideology and more people illustrating how you are wrong may not help either. That's the power of the bubble in which you live. I take heart in the fact that it's contracting and more people every day are leaving it...





Mark Ward said...

Of course before doing so you will need to define those terms. Plus in order to categorize something as falling within one of those items - you must be able to explain why it does so.

Well, let's see, these...

Nikto-anus would turn into if he actually had one of the Evil Instruments of Doom (tm) in his possession. (Larry)

you leave me no choice but to treat you like the idiot you are acting like

Because you are an idiot
(Guard Duck)

OK bitch, erh I mean M

You don't answer my questions you shit-eating weasel.
(Juris)

are personal insults. And that's just one thread on here.

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-answer-to-most-pressing-question-of.html

I think we'll start by keeping a tally just on personal insults. That should give us a preliminary assessment on good and poor behavior.



GuardDuck said...

I think we'll start by keeping a tally just on personal insults. That should give us a preliminary assessment on good and poor behavior.

Good idea, considering my entire response to that was regarding your definitions of 'adolescent games' and 'fallacies' - but you knew that.

Mark Ward said...

my entire response to that was regarding your definitions of 'adolescent games' and 'fallacies' - but you knew that.

It will be fairly simple to track those as well, actually. I'll largely be ignoring those comments along with the ones rooted in wacky, ideological nonsense. Given that I have been challenged to behave better, I'm going to start with "If you don't have anything nice to say..."

GuardDuck said...

A publicly sourced site...you forget that part.

Didn't forget that. Irrelevant as well.

Then why are there "ask to answer" links whenever I ask a question?

Do you not see a difference between sending an invite to someone to ask to answer a question and PUBLICLY posting their name with a link to their profile asking them to defend something in a thread in which they have not participated?

Do you not see this Quora policy:

Engaging in a pattern of behaviour that constitutes harassment of a targeted person or persons, e.g., by making threats, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks, or posting personal information.

repeated annoying and unwanted contacts

Kevin wasn't involved in conversations. You didn't @mention him in order to thank him for input, to build upon something he said, to ask him to answer a question or to reference his answer. No, you mentioned him, in an attack upon his views, in order to draw him into something he was not involved in or to vilify his viewpoint.

You did the Quora equivalent of having a conversation with a bunch of people and telling them: "That Kevin guy over there minding his own business has these views so opposite to you that you should all berate him." While publicly yelling to Kevin that you were telling all these people stuff about him and he better come defend himself.

Your behavior was also in violation of this Quora policy:

1. Questions about people that are clearly hurtful or mean-spirited, or are likely to make the person or persons uncomfortable, aren't allowed....questions that solicit answers that name non-public figures may be deleted.

Mean spirited, designed to make the person uncomfortable. Yup. Soliciting commentary on a person. Yup.

con't...

GuardDuck said...

... con't



I've defended assertions

Really? How was my comment on the gun thread 'acting like an 8 year old'? What comments here were and how were they:
'batshit nuts
lunacy
error
wacky, ideological nonsense'?

That's just in the last few days. Those are assertions made by you. You made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate them to begin with. Hell you can't even say you've defended them - that would indicate that you had given them at least a token of substantiation for you to have to defend.


giving weight to arguments that are complete nonsense

Well, that makes sense..... If the arguments are indeed 'nonsense' then you could easily disprove them. What you are really complaining about is that you don't like them or can't effectively argue against them. Kinda like how you were sooooooo sure that I was wrong at the beginning of this thread and then....viola....you admitted I was right.


refuse to look at any fact that disrupts your ideology

I look at every 'fact' you post. Then I come here and ask you about it, ask you to clarify about it, ask you to defend it..... How could I possibly even ask you things about your 'facts' if I haven't looked at them. Just because I don't swallow every piece of bullshit you put out there doesn't mean I don't look.
repeated annoying and unwanted contacts
And then you have the gall to accuse me of doing the very thing you are doing.

Show me where I am refusing to substantiate my claims. Where I refuse to explain what I said. Where I refuse to define what I'm talking about.

No, no no, not where I refuse to go off topic. Not where I refuse to talk about something not relevant to what we are talking about. And remember, even then I tell you that if you can show how what you want would be on topic or relevant I would gladly answer it.


refusing to acknowledge your invalid assertions and irrational comments

Really? It's invalid because you say so? And your assertions are valid because you say so. Wow, solid reasoning there. Almost...wait for it....irrational even.

GuardDuck said...

It will be fairly simple to track those as well, actually. I'll largely be ignoring those comments along with the ones rooted in wacky, ideological nonsense. Given that I have been challenged to behave better, I'm going to start with "If you don't have anything nice to say...

Since you haven't been able to define or substantiate anything that you allege as 'adolescent games', 'wacky', 'ideological nonsense' that was my point. You claim, but fail to explain.

In fact, if you say somebody is wacky, or any of that other stuff, but do nothing to substantiate what you are saying.....aren't you just calling them names? At least you are labelling what they say in a marginalizing way. If you could substantiate it as factual that would be one thing. But without that substantiation it's nothing more than school yard taunting. So yes, by all means, abide by the 'if you can't say anything nice' rule.

Mark Ward said...

It's not surprising that you would inaccurately describe my Quora interaction in this way, GD, considering that you behave on here in exactly the same manner in which you describe. In fact, I think your concern about fair treatment about commenters has convinced me to rethink my policy on comments.

You might be interested to know that a few people reported me to Quora regarding my interactions with Kevin. Their response was simply that he block me and they messaged me saying that I did nothing wrong in terms of their policy. Since he blocked me, I have not interacted with him at all and have respected his wishes. I have also not posted on his site any longer even though he still has my name highlighted on the sidebar.

So, here you are...posting three long comments that are really obsessive with me. Why? Maybe you can't tell the difference between normal behavior and abnormal, obsessive behavior.

This comment, from another thread....

Gun 'Cult' Ideology:

RULE 1
ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

RULE 2
NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY

RULE 3
KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER TIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

RULE 4
BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET


Always treat all firearms as if they were loaded.
Never allow the muzzle of any firearm to point at anything you are not willing to destroy.
Never put your finger near the trigger until you are ready to fire. Do not depend on any mechanical device for safety!
Always be sure of your target, and what is behind and in front of it.


So, despite you claiming this is 'gun cult' stuff - the actual 'gun cult' ideology specifically forbids it. How many ideological rules of the 'gun cult' were violated for this to happen?


totally cool.

This one...

I don't have any problems with guns, per se, if they are in the hands of professionally trained people like Army rangers or police officers.
-Markadelphia

I have stated repeatedly that I have no problem with trained police or private security being in school buildings
-Markadelphia


Guess not.


obsessive and not cool.

If you are that concerned about treatment of people in comments sections, why not start with yourself?

GuardDuck said...

It's not surprising that you would inaccurately describe my Quora interaction in this way, GD, considering that you behave on here in exactly the same manner in which you describe.

Really? I comment here about you to people who don't interact with you? I comment here about you or things you say in threads that you've never commented on or participated in?

You might be interested to know that a few people reported me to Quora regarding my interactions with Kevin. Their response was simply that he block me and they messaged me saying that I did nothing wrong in terms of their policy.

Awesome-sauce. I didn't say you violated Quora policy. I pointed out the policy AND LINKED YOUR BEHAVIOR TO IT.

How so you ask? You were asked not to comment at Kevin's site. Hmmmm, almost like being told your contact was...what was that term? Unwanted. Then you FOLLOW him to another site and continue making contact....Hmmm, Unwanted contact. Wow. It's almost like Quora has a policy about that. OF course you didn't violate Quora policy as per the admins - they didn't take into account the totality of the event.

Great to know you've left him alone since he's blocked you. I have a feeling that you were the one who went running to Quora about the block though - as I never receive notification from them when someone blocks me.

On the other hand, and this illustrates that you STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU DID WRONG - why the fuck would you, after being told someone doesn't want to interact with you - keep trying to do so?

even though he still has my name highlighted on the sidebar

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?


So, here you are...posting three long comments that are really obsessive with me. Why?

WTF? Dude really?

They are long, because unlike some people who apparently can't actually be named I tend to EXPLAIN myself when discussing things.

They are about some people who apparently can't be named - because we are discussing THINGS THAT YOU ARE SAYING AND DOING.

Does it make any sense, in a discussion about things that you've said - TO NOT SORTA SEEM LIKE THEY ARE ABOUT YOU? And then I have to bring up that this very post is really seeming pretty obsessive about me......


obsessive and not cool.

Again, it must be true because you said so - right?


What make it obsessive and about you? That in a reply to something that YOU posted I quoted something YOU said?

Wow. and double wow. Are you claiming that you can't be quoted? That when debating something with you your own words that appear to be in conflict with a later statement cannot be used? That's a load of BS and you know it.

You really should get over this idea that when people are discussing something that YOU brought up and presented as YOUR opinion or YOUR conclusion that any reference to the words you say are out of place.

You also need to get out of your head the misconception that when having a discussion with you, that talking about the way you conduct yourself in that discussion is not out of bounds either.


If you are that concerned about treatment of people in comments sections, why not start with yourself?

Holy crap! If only you would. You keep claiming I say things - then when I ask you to quote it - silence.

You keep saying my words/ideas/statements are X - I keep asking you to explain.

Please Mark - treat me in these comments with the same respect I do to you. Like respond to my words with words. Read what I say. Don't assume you know where I going or what I am saying and ask for clarification to be sure....

Mark Ward said...

In my view, GD, you are spending a great deal of time arguing about arguments. Me and my behavior take the central focus of this and it's getting to be somewhat disturbing. Why you are doing this is known only to you. I'm going to ask you kindly to self regulate and leave me out of your comments.

Note that in the first comment you made in that other thread, you articulated a counterpoint to what I posted. You focused on the idea, not me. Those sorts of comments are fine. In the second comment, however, you were childishly baiting me and making it more personal. In this comment thread, you have been incredibly obsessive and I have to wonder why you are spending so much time on this. It's not even your blog.

I'm going to give a chance to see the difference. This is actually a good exercise in whether or not people can self regulate. Do they need to have rules to keep them in line or can they be responsible on their own? If I see another lengthy comment here and/or more childish baiting and personal remarks about me, I guess I'll have my answer and then I'm going to start regulating comments.

Btw, that's why people don't post here. Juris was wondering why buddies from Quora haven't come over. In fact, that's the main reason I hear in the emails. "Nice site but you need to be more professional and regulate comments." Perhaps they are right. Given your recent behavior, it might be time to listen to them.

But that's going to be up to you.

GuardDuck said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mark Ward said...

Your comments will now be moderated, GD.

Larry said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
GuardDuck said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
juris imprudent said...

I'm going to keep a running total of all the personal insults, adolescent games, and fallacies that people make in comments.

Your own as well?

Mark Ward said...

This no longer applies as I've decided to take it further with comment rules.