Sunday, February 17, 2008

He Can't Handle The Truth

The word debate can be defined as: To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.

Apparently, that is not the definition Fred Dooley chooses.

He is again going through selective outrage and melodramatic histrionics. The selective outrage came from, what could be described at worst as a misinterpretation but is really nothing more than semantics. The melodramatic came from a slight from a commentator that he chose to conflate to much larger proportions than was needed. Now, apparently feeling the need for attention, Dooley again goes into histrionics, this time using me as the object of his "affection." This seems to be a pattern for him, doesn't it?

Now he has decided to target me for his hissy fit:

That brings me to Capper who wanted to know last night why I had deleted one of his comments yesterday (now 3). Capper attacks me personally on his website and in comments at every other opportunity across the web. Then he comes here and tries to play nice with his attacks. I’m tired of his antics.

This would be like a bully hitting you at every opportunity wanting to be welcomed into your home because he had not hit you there.

I’ve said before that tone matters. Capper’s tone towards this blog and this blogger are atrocious everywhere except here. I’ve decided to no longer give him a pass on this. If Capper would like to add to an issue and do so in a proper manner he is welcome to do so (as is PCD) but he has worn out his welcome on snark from his own actions across the net.

For the record, he did indeed erase three of my comments. Of course, the thing he doesn't want to tell you is what my comments were. Fred had put up a post regarding the AFP Defending the American Nightmare event. In his post Fred included this paragraph:

Sheriff David Clarke made a couple of interesting points. In four consecutive budgets the Sheriff has returned money to the county. (I wish more department heads were so responsible) He also shared a plan he had to privatize a small part of the prisoner transfer process. That procedural change would have saved the county $1.5 million over five years. The Finance Committee voted it down 7 to 0 saying they would NEVER vote against union jobs. Who do these people work for anyway, the taxpayers or the unions? Wait, we know the answer to that one apparently.
I left a comment asking if Clarke had mentioned all the money he has cost the taxpayers with all of the lawsuits that he has lost. (By the way, if you think I was making up my points about Clarke, go here.)

That's it. I didn't mention Fred, insult him in any way, or use any vulgarities. All I did was point out that Clarke is not exactly the taxpayer's friend. But he still deleted it. I left a second comment asking why deleted the first one. He deleted this one as well. Dooley did send me an email in which he wrote:

You want to know why I deleted your comment.

Because it offered nothing. Good people put on a good event and you have to come in and try and slime it. It's mean and hateful, par for your course.

You continually slime me on your blog and on virtually every place you see me leave comment on the web.

I'm tired of it.

Be civil and offer something of worth or I will not welcome your comments. Your continued pattern matters and I'll look at the entirerty of your work rather than judge it comment by comment.

I'm sure this will generate another ridiculous post showing me as some ridiculous hard case. Go ahead what else is new, you'll show half the story and draw whatever your conclusions you want.

I don't know any reason why I should welcome someone at my blog who seems to have nothing better to do than attack me at every opportunity.

I have better things to do.
I then wrote a third comment agreeing to his request for civility and said that I expected the same in return. He deleted this one as well. I really fail to see how any of this is hateful or slimy. Perhaps Fred just is unable to differentiate himself from his blog, or from his opinions.

I should also mention that there are plenty of examples of Dooley going around stalking other people he is mad at, with the most recent target being Jay Bullock. I suppose he will start doing that with me now as well.

I could go into this further, but I won't. I could point out all of the true debates I have had, on respectful, if not amicable terms, with various conservatives, but that would start being too redundant. I just wanted to have it clarified what Fred considers "slime" as opposed to be a "real debate."

If you are reading this Fred, I would encourage you to go back to the top of this post and reread the definition of the word debate. Then compare that to the phrase "echo chamber." Judging from some of the comments left on your post slamming me, I am not alone in the perception that you have the two terms confused.

I don't expect this to change anyone's opinion. Those that know me, already know what the truth is.


  1. He is truly not worth the time and energy you expend on him. My advice would be to let him rant on. He wants attention. As someone once suggested to me in another instance, "Don't even ignore him."

  2. Oh, I know, xoff. I guess it's just one of those car accident-type of things. You know it's horrific, but you still look.

    But even as patient as I am, I too get tired of him.

  3. In the geek world, we have the phrase "He's not even wrong".

  4. Fred and the like really have serious issue...I am starting to sound like a broken record but it is true. They talk down to everyone that voices a different opinion than they do. I also agree it is like a car's hard not to look. I really wonder why they don't see themselves the way others do.

  5. As to the rest of you, go on I could care less.


    I tried to make a bigger point here and tie in your overall treatment of my blog and my person, not on just that one post but here and around other places.

    My analogy of the bully was sound.

    I also made an attempt to keep it private.

    Like you always do though you used it in another attemnpt to defray personal responsiblity and tell half truths to further your attack on my person.

    Did you ever wonder why there are no blogs dedicated to the idiotic things you liberals do and say?

    Nobody cares.

    And BTW, your Bullock example is bunk. Bullock mischaracterized my position to attack someone else. This speaks to integrity something you have proved time and again you know nothing about.

    This shall be my only response on the issue.

  6. BTW, FairPlay... Serious Issue?


  7. Fred-

    Yes, I have confronted you on issues where I thought you were wrong. I have also confronted you on your behaviors. It is not my problem if you choose to be insulted rather than wonder if I, and so many others, might have a point.

    As to your claim to trying to keep it private, is that why you wrote a post on it? You were the one that made it public. I only included your message so that you wouldn't be able to twist it in a way to try to make me seem like the one who is lying.

    If I told half-truths in your eyes, add it to yours for the whole truth.

    You really need to learn to separate yourself from your opinion. If someone says that they think you are wrong, it is not an insult, it is a debate.

    And out of respect to others, I won't go into the whole integrity issue with you. All I can say, is that I have never written anything in public or private that I should feel the need for shame. Can you say that?

  8. You could care less? So, in other words, you actually care more.

    Well, at least you care enough to keep in touch.

    So who're you voting for tomorrow Mr. Dooley?

    I've got Republicans voting for Hillary because 1. "She is definitely beatable by McCain; 2. Obama is even More liberal than Hillary."

    So, are you going to follow Charlie's suggestion and vote for Hillary? I mean it IS a secret ballot, isn't it?

    Do you feel lucky?

  9. I'm voting for Hillary sparky.

    There is a post up on it at my blog.