Jumping on the

Reasoned DiscourseTM bandwagon.

As most of my readers are probably aware, Robyn Ringler, a dedicated hoplophobe, blogs on the Albany NY Times Union’s web site.

She has had comment moderation on from the get-go and has only been allowing certain comments to be posted. Her excuse is that she won’t post insulting, demeaning or threatening comments.

Unfortunately for her, most of her commenters (including myself) are also bloggers and have been holding her accountable. Namely, those of us who tried to post non-insulting, non threatening comments that simply raised points which she couldn’t rebut have been calling her out for not posting our comments.

It is notable that she DOES post some insulting comments…either to make her point that she gets insults (welcome to the blogosphere)…or as fodder for her excuse to cut off comments.

The comments of mine that she has deleted have been uniformly non-threatening and not insulting (unless being proven wrong on various and sundry points is insulting to you).

In her most recent post she announced that she’s shutting down comments. I made a comment to that post, which has magically failed to appear in the comments thread. I wish I had saved my comment but, alas, I didn’t so I will have to paraphrase.

Point 1: I told her that I thought she was being overly sensitive about comments and was taking things as insulting when they really weren’t or were only marginally so.

Point 2: I defended thirdpower by saying that I didn’t take his snarky modification of “Ilovemydaughtermorethanyouloveyourguns” as some sort of sexual insinuation. I took it to mean that thirdpower was implying that “ilovemydaugher…” really DOESN’T love his daughter all that much if he doesn’t love her enough to provide for her defense and protection. I told Robyn that the fact that she assumed some sort of sexual connotation speaks more to her state of mind than others. (I suppose that she could have considered that insulting…I mean, I did criticize her and people with low self-esteem tend to take any criticism as insulting).

Point 3: I believe that this is why she didn’t post the comment. She had no response to my point and so, didn’t want to even acknowledge it.

In her post, she made mention of “those of you who are really fighting on both sides of the debate to find some common ground”.

The point I made is that “common ground” implies compromise. Compromise requires give and take on both sides of the debate. When have the gun grabbers ever expressed a willingness to give anything up in this debate? Giving something up in order to reach compromise means giving the other party something that they want in exchange for getting something that you want…not giving up one demand in order to get the other party to agree to a second demand.

To illustrate, I presented a simple question:

What three current gun control laws would she be willing to see repealed if the gun lobby would be willing to concede three gun control agenda items?

Notably, my comment didn’t make the cut for inclusion in her comment thread.

Reasoned DiscourseTM Indeed.

I’m actually glad that she’s completely cutting off comments. That means I won’t be tempted to waste any more of my time composing legitimate, well researched, annotated rebuttals to her drivel, only to have her refuse to post them.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.