Just A Note To Make Sure We’re All Clear On This
By Mitch Berg
Every once in a while, I’ll relate a personal anecdote in this space.
And, slightly more rarely, someone will chime in “I think that’s bulls**t”.
So – just for the record, and to be taken to the bank: if I write it in this space, and it’s not fairly clearly satire, then it’s the truth.
(While I regret any inconvenience caused by any misapprehension on the part of individual readers in determining what is and isn’t “clearly satire”, it’s not really my or my blog’s problem).
That is all.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:57 am
I thought that was a standard tactic on the Left when they couldn’t dispute anything else. Claim it never happened, not relevant, made it up….
May 17th, 2007 at 6:15 am
Mitch said,
“Every once in a while, I’ll relate a personal anecdote in this space.”
You mean like getting groped in the crotch by a drunken senior citizen during an anti-war demonstration?
May 17th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Not quite sure why you find that so implausible, Doug, but yes, it happened.
What? You think I’d lie about that?
May 17th, 2007 at 8:12 am
I think Doug might be a tiny (very tiny) bit envious.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Doug wants a verifiable citation of said groping, that’s all. Preferably in triplicate form.
Cause, see, Doug is all about citing or, in lieu of citing, he expects you to take his long, boring, rambling, incoherent filibusters as proof of whatever it is he thinks he’s talking about.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Could be.
I think the interesting thing about Doug is that he gets SO sensitive about people picking at his little “election judge” story that, depending on who you believe and how you read it, either got taken grossly out of context or showed him up as a petulant wannabee – to say nothing about people joshing about his “big career change” – and then has the dim-bulby gall to call anyone, much less me, a liar?
I’d reconsider your approach, Doug.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Mitch said,
“I think the interesting thing about Doug is that he gets SO sensitive about people picking at his little “election judge”
I think the interesting thing is that I incorrectly used the term, “election observer” which you and your buddies twisted and turned into charges that I claimed I was an “election judge”.
No dishonest there at all eh Mitch to say nothing of the fact that you repeated the lie again in your last post.
Gosh. I wonder where I get the dim-bulby gall to call you a liar.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Doug,
You’re losing it. Pull it together, little fella.
I didn’t “twist” anything about your little “misstatement”. Other commenters did. And you handled (and continue to handle) it with all the grace of a German funk band. Jeez, grow a friggin pair.
You have absolutely no credibility to call me anything
If I said something happened, it happened. Among people who can question me, you rate less than zero. You’re not even a even a rhetorical speed bump.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Perhaps instead of a verifiable citation of said groping, Doug would prefer a re enactment?
May 17th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Mitch said,
“You’re losing it. Pull it together, little fella.”
Uh huh. Sure Mitch.
I believe the Latin term for that would be argumentum ad personam.
Just so we’re clear, you’re dramatically over estimating my emotional investment in your blog comment section.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Doug Says: Just so we’re clear, you’re dramatically over estimating my emotional investment in your blog comment section.
Then why do you keep coming back?
May 17th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Quick Doug impersonation:
I believe it was the adequate greek philosopher, Mediocrates, who said “let he who has the thinnest of skins lash out against his detractors with lengthy treatises no one takes seriously and most dismiss offhand as blah-blah-isms.”
For I believe that perfectly sums up my pseudo-intellectual attempts to make points on this blog, which I assure you I have no emotional or sexual investment in, despite my near obsessive-compulsive need to comment here voluminously.
Further, I take umbrage with the commenters here who take literary pot-shots at me for sport, because that’s just bad form and unbecoming of the Internet; plus it makes me whimper and piddle a bit in my shorts, which distresses my dog immensely.
Finally, I really was an election observer, damn it! All day long, on Nov. 2, 2004, I observed the hell out of that election. Every hour, I’d look up from my desk and observe “yep, this is an election! Look at all the electioning going on! I’m election-ified. Hey! You there! Did you vote? Great! Because this is an election. Come, let’s observe this election together, you and I, while the evening is spread out against the sky, like a patient etherized upon a table! Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets, the muttering retreats, of restless voters in one-election cheap voting booths, and sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells, whatever the hell that means. Streets that follow like a tedious Republican, of insidious intent. To lead you to an overwhelming question… Oh, do not ask, “How did Bush win? Let us go and make our visit to Canada. In the country, the people come and go, talking of American Idol.”
Whoops, there I go again, incoherently going on and on and on. It’s a good thing I have no emotional investment in this blog comment section. . .
May 17th, 2007 at 11:26 am
I believe the Latin term for that would be argumentum ad personam.
Ah! Invoking Latin! Excellent!
Your personam is the issue ad which I’m argumenting. You pull a gratuitous, insulting, mildly-defamatory assumption about something wrote, utterly de anus, based on nothing but your preening, unjustified sense of superiority – essentially calling me a liar, although you have no empirical basis to do it, which is the most craven kind of argumentum ad personam an anonymous commenter can make.
So while your opinion of me is worth less than my used breakfast, I believe the latin term to describe you would be capo dickissimus.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Doug est damnatio et excommunicatus.
Also a Latin word that starts with C, but I’m a gentleman, so it shall remain unuttered.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Predator? PREDATOR? Are you serious?
Good God.
Anyway, predator said,
“Then why do you keep coming back?”
Because, as I’ve explained many times to Mitch, I think it’s funny and mildly entertaining. It’s an alternative to Sudoku or Freecell.
“You pull a gratuitous, insulting, mildly-defamatory assumption about something wrote…
Jeez, grow a friggin pair.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Doug: you play boring games.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Pair, Schmair. I took your little defamations and spat them back in your face. You’re the one that mewls like a wet kitten when anyone dings on you.
You are wrong, everything I’ve ever said happened on this blog did happened, did. As you have no way to impeach ANYTHING I’ve said on that (or any other) subject, I’ll send the case to the jury.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Mitch said,
“I took your little defamations and spat them back in your face.”
Oh yeah? Well all I did was take your mischaracterization of what I said, called it what it was.
As for mewing like a wet kitten when dinged, if you could bottle your righteous indignation and faux umbrage, you’d be a wealthy man.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
It’s an alternative to Sudoku or Freecell
My record at Freecell is 23 straight wins.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
if you could bottle your righteous indignation and faux umbrage, you’d be a wealthy man.
Your clairvoyance is as dubious as your perception.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Yeah Doug, don’t you know Mitch bumped into Hillary Clinton in a St. Paul Starbucks today? Apparently in a chatty mood (or impressed by his ability to play the zither while speaking fluent Urdu), Clinton told Mitch that everything you say is wrong.
At least as far as anyone can prove, eh Mitch?
May 17th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Doug said: Because, as I’ve explained many times to Mitch, I think it’s funny and mildly entertaining.
It also gives Doug a chance to soil his monitor.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Doug says: Predator? PREDATOR? Are you serious?
Yes, P R E D A T O R. Glad to know that you could compete on that new Jeff Foxworth show. Smarter then a First grader.
For God’s Sake Man! At least take up Snood between postings.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Paul said,
“It also gives Doug a chance to soil his monitor.”
There you go with your homoerotic fantasies again. Oh. and I forgot to mention the other day when you babbled about a nine foot penis… You really need to find a boyfriend.
Mitch said,
“Your clairvoyance is as dubious as your perception.”
Who needs to be clairvoyant?
Example 1.
“You are wrong, everything I’ve ever said happened on this blog did happened, did.”
Example 2.
“has the dim-bulby gall to call anyone, much less me, a liar”
Example 3.
“You have absolutely no credibility to call me anything”
May 17th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Paul said,
“It also gives Doug a chance to soil his monitor.”
There you go with your homoerotic fantasies again. Oh. and I forgot to mention the other day when you babbled about a nine foot pen1s… You really need to find a boyfriend.
Mitch said,
“Your clairvoyance is as dubious as your perception.”
Who needs to be clairvoyant?
Example 1.
“You are wrong, everything I’ve ever said happened on this blog did happened, did.”
Example 2.
“has the dim-bulby gall to call anyone, much less me, a liar”
Example 3.
“You have absolutely no credibility to call me anything”
May 17th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
angryclown Says:
May 17th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Yeah Doug, don’t you know Mitch bumped into Hillary Clinton in a St. Paul Starbucks today? Apparently in a chatty mood (or impressed by his ability to play the zither while speaking fluent Urdu), Clinton told Mitch that everything you say is wrong.
At least as far as anyone can prove, eh Mitch?
— now that was f’n’ funny.
May 17th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
That was pretty damn funny…
May 18th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
This thread reminds me of a rather non-PC slightly mean spirited joke:
“What does arguing on the internet have in common with the Special Olympics?”