After he declined to post my last reply, I posted a message that I intended to be just for him:
Either your moderation is malfunctioning, or it’s been tampered with.
Out of three comments I’ve posted here, only one of them has seen the light of day.
I guess, since I’m just a tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorist anyway, I’ll assume the worst and take my points to my blog, where comments aren’t so prone to going mysteriously MIA.
Isn’t it funny how he chose to post the one without any actual arguments to rebut…
But he does grace me with a reply:
Sorry Sailorcurt, the moderation’s not defective–it’s actually pretty effective and consistent and while I give posters plenty of latitude as far as discussing the actual topic goes, I also choose not to approve posts which learn towards discussing me instead of the topic at hand. If I really want someone to tell me what’s wrong with me, I’ll call that Dr. Laura radio shrink.
Now if you’ve got any more thoughts about the actual trial, and the jury decision to convict Olofson, preferably thoughts that don’t run in the direction of government conspiracies intended to “get” this guy for no reason that anyone can credibly suggest, then I’m all ears.
That’s funny right there, I don’t care who you are.
In in ironic sort of way. I guess he didn’t get the attempted humor…the issue involves a rifle that either malfunctioned or was tampered with, so I said about his moderation…oh…never mind.
Isn’t it convenient how he can just dismiss me without having to address my points by accusing me of engaging in some sort of personal attack…and observers have no choice but to just take him at his word because he refused to post the comment he claims was so egregious.
To be fair, I do think I said something to the effect of “methinks you are too emotionally invested in your position” or something like that. There may have been another mild statement of a similar sort at the end. I guess that qualifies as a personal attack, but implying that I’m a “tin-foil-hat” conspiricist and “stupid and/or criminal” is a perfectly acceptable and rational argument.
And, of course, he refrained from coming here to discuss it. No big surprise there. Heck, he might not be able to level false accusations at me if observers were able to read what I actually wrote.
Without false accusations and ad-hominems…why…he’d have no points at all!!!
Anyway, it’s not worth any more time. I just find it disappointing that we have people ostensibly on our side of the issues who resort to the same tactics as our opponents. It almost makes one feel dirty by association.