Sunday, January 09, 2005

About the integrity of my blog

Elsewhere on the internet, people have been accusing me of deleting posts and editing comments.

I really have no idea what they are talking about. I've never deleted any posts, and I've only edited them once or twice when I found a spelling or grammar error.

And with respect to comments, I have no power to edit them even if I wanted to. Blogger handles all of the comments; the only thing I can do with them is delete them, which is a power I haven't used yet.

12 comments:

John said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John said...

Check this post out.

Libertarian Hypocrite

Adam said...

Wow, LG, there are some people who really dislike you out there. By any chance, is John the boring date you went on a while ago? Seriously, I hope you don't let this stuff bother you. I only wish I could get liberals to make posts about how bad I am. I'd take it as a badge of honor.

(by the way, speaking of spelling errors, you typoed "Couch" in your blogroll. No "n". Noticed when checking Technocrati today. ^_~)

John said...

^^^^^

(1) I cannot dislike anyone I don't know. It's not about disliking people, it is about pointing out hypocrisies.
(2) Pretty simple argument you are making...that a "spurned" date would get on a blog to blast someone. That's pretty funny...but it isn't very deep in thought.
(3) I am not a liberal; however, you appear to be a labeler.

You need to bring more to the table if you are going to rebut someone's comment. JMO.

Publicola said...

John,
Your central point (LG is a hypocrit because she's a libertarian yet works for the government) is invalid. Now if LG was an anarchist then you my have apoint but libertarians, though often confused with anarchists, are not anarchists.

Matter of fact just as there are different levels of conservatism & liberalism there are many different levels of libertarianism. LG doesn't seem to be one of the most hard core libertarian types around so it'd be a stretch to confuse (what seems to be) her ideology with anarchism.

Now I could understans how some people could get the two confused if they were talking about me, but in LG it's just not a valid assesment.

So look up "libertarian" then look up "anarchist" & I'll think you'll see how your premise was flawed.

To make things simpler for you though most libertarians don't have a problem with taxation. They have problems with A: the method of taxation (i.e. a direct income tax) B: the amount of taxation & C: the size of government supported by excessive & immoral taxation but not that taxes are taken to fund government.

So a libertarian could work fo the government w/o being a hypocrit. Even if he/she is a "so called" blogger.

(BTW, if one has a blog, they are a blogger. Nothing "so called" about it.)

Adam said...

Oh for crying out loud, John. Are you serious? Let's take this apart, then, if you want me to rebut...

(1) I cannot dislike anyone I don't know. It's not about disliking people, it is about pointing out hypocrisies.Dude, you're not even close to the only person to attack her. The post she made, that you replied to with your name-calling, was talking about someone else attacking her.

(2) Pretty simple argument you are making...that a "spurned" date would get on a blog to blast someone. That's pretty funny...but it isn't very deep in thought.It wasn't meant to be deep in thought. It was snarky and sarcastic of me.

(3) I am not a liberal; however, you appear to be a labeler.1) You may not be a liberal, but others who have jumped on the content of this blog are, including the person who said she was evil and made a picture combining her, satan, some guy, and what looks like a GI Joe with the text "you = evil."

2) You called her a hypocrite. Therefore: Pot. Kettle. Black.3) What's so horrible about labels? Everyone labels somewhat. You've labelled me a labeler.

You need to bring more to the table if you are going to rebut someone's comment. JMO.I wasn't intending to rebut your comment. I don't care that much. I was pointing out that I'd like to get as much angry attention as she does from people, and I made a joke about you because at the time 1/3rd of your posts are about her.

Man, John: Xanax. You're like really high strung. This is just a blog, and I'm just a guy leaving comments.

John said...

"To make things simpler for you though most libertarians don't have a problem with taxation. They have problems with A: the method of taxation (i.e. a direct income tax) B: the amount of taxation & C: the size of government supported by excessive & immoral taxation but not that taxes are taken to fund government."

Oh, okay. I get it, Publicola.

As long as libertarians are PAID by those taxes (as in being a government employee), then they don't have a problem with taxation. All of a sudden, such governmental taxation is NOT excessive NOR immoral. LOL.

How silly of me that I didn't see that right away.

Publicola said...

John,
I shouldn't waste my time, as you seem to be too stubborn to admit you were in error. You've posted nothing substantitive to support your position so I assume your conclusion is based upon a misunderstanding of the facts. But let me try this again. I'll type slowly so you'll have an easier time following. :)

Libertarians do not oppose taxation, government or taxes being used to pay for government.

Liertarians would prefer a different method of taxation, as in replacing the progressive income theft..er I mean tax with a very modest sales tax.

Libertarians would prefer a smaller government, kinda like the one envisioned by madison & those crazy cats who thought the feds should be limited in scope.

Libertarians have no problem with people working for government & getting paid from taxes. We'd just prefer it if the taxes were collected in a moral manner & that the amount collected was just enough to support functions that are necessary for government to handle.

So LG is not a hypocrite because she works for the government.

If I worked for the IRSS (yes that spelling was intentional as hell) or the atf (don't tell me about the "E" that's been added - they'll always be over-glorified revenuers to me) then I would be a hypocrite considering my views on those disrespective entities.

Since we do not know what government agency LG works for, or her views on that agency's function we cannot accurately determine if she is or is not a hypocrite. Therefore you either A: misunderstand what a libertarian is (probably confusing it with anarchism) or B: misunderstand what hypocrisy is.

I realize it will take a lot of pride swallowing to admit that 1/3 of your blog is based on an inaccurate conclusion. The rest of us "so called" bloggers are usually pretty good about admiting to errors of fact & conclusion based on inaccurate information.

There are a lot of things to blog about. This however seems to be a non issue.

Charles said...

I actually kind of liked the date one. To the point and revealed some nice things about LG's personality. Definitely in my top 5 LG posts so far.

John said...

I shouldn't waste my time, as you seem to be too stubborn to admit you were in error. You've posted nothing substantitive to support your position so I assume your conclusion is based upon a misunderstanding of the facts. But let me try this again. I'll type slowly so you'll have an easier time following.Sheesh, it doesn't get more patronizing than this, does it? I shouldn't waste my time either, responding to such arrogant dribble, but call me "stubborn." (!)

If I worked for the IRSS (yes that spelling was intentional as hell) or the atf (don't tell me about the "E" that's been added - they'll always be over-glorified revenuers to me) then I would be a hypocrite considering my views on those disrespective entities.What a pill. It has to take a very small person to demonize government agencies and government employees whose sole purpose is to collect the very taxes that makes society, and this country, the best it could be. What, you don't drive the freeways? Tell me you don't drive the freeways, Publico!

Since we do not know what government agency LG works for...Bingo!

...or her views on that agency's function we cannot accurately determine if she is or is not a hypocrite.Oh, but you are so willing to come to her rescue, and make such assumptions that cast her in the best light? What if she works for the "IRSS" or the "atf," eh? I submit you are being disengenuous when you even allow for "her views" to be considered; the mere fact that she would work for one of these "disprespective" agencies makes null and void your entire comment.

I realize it will take a lot of pride swallowing to admit that 1/3 of your blog is based on an inaccurate conclusion.At least you are consistent. Consistenly patronizing.

Publicola said...

John,
I could be more patronizing.

But let's try a different approach. What is a Libertarian & how does a Libertarian ideology make working for an unspecified government agency hypocritical?

Jeremy said...

John: you apparently have a problem not only with the existence of libertarian politics and theory, but also the fact that actual people in the real world are interested in them. I guess the fact that none of us can realize all of our wishes 100% of the time makes all of us hypocrites. Which is really too bad, because the real world that we occupy is still a cool place to hang out, even if some things occur of which we disapprove.

I would advise you to "get over it" - but that would be asking you to deal with reality and consequently take you and your argument out the theoretical world in which you can continue to feel so absolutely righteous.

In other words: why's it always gotta be personal with you?