Anyways, OldManRick was the one who told the story. So the correction is that subman was not the one who spoke about the story in question. Change all references to the author of OldManRick’s story, to oldmanrick instead of subman.

This, changes the points only a little of course. Instead of sub bringing the story up, it was Rick.

It doesn’t matter who is part of the village or what people understands the story to be. It has already been admitted that this was someone’s village, just not necessarily my own.

Since obviously “neo-neocon” is not a bastion and outpost of the Left, it is obviously not the Left’s outpost. So to be consistent with Rick’s story, we have two sides slinging insults at each other over at one side’s village, instead of at a neutral river.

That’s what is sad. if it was just a neutral river, if we had as simple as a forum in which one part was devoted to argument and another devoted to comments about the post, it would not be as harsh.

Just to recap, every instance that I refered to “you” in my previous comment, to your story and you brought it up and so forth, should read as “Rick brought it up and Rick’s story”.

Everyone else can remain unchanged.

It’s just weird that someone wants to have an argument about a story that they didn’t even tell. I knew it was a possibily, but I didn’t think it probable until I checked.

Many comments threads seem to turn into a “Dead Birds” battle. Both sides hurling invective, incomplete/biased/easily refuted quotes, talking points and poorly reasoned arguments, then going back to their safe community to brag about how they gave the other side a beating.

Neo-Neo really doesn’t have a ‘safe’ community, to all extents and purposes. At least not safe from verbal abuse. There’s email, but that is not a base of logistics, not a community. It would have been better if sub had actually told the story, then he might have understood what it was all about without having to believe that it was about me and my village. It doesn’t matter if I’m part of this village or not, so long as this is a village of anyone’s.

As you admitted it yourself, this ain’t no river far from the homes of the two antagonists’ side. Obviously this is the logistics base of one side or another, and it isn’t the same as if both sides agreed to meet at a Neutral place, in order to expend their rage, only to return to regular life and existence in peaceful calm.

The only way to get peaceful calm at Neo-Neocon’s site is either ignore the trolls, ignore the arguments, or just don’t get into arguments that often. But obviously we can’t go back to some “village” of Neo’s if we get tired of slinging mud. Again, this ain’t the river in your story, and you have already admitted it.

I after all, did not bring up the story about two sides slinging insults at each other. You did. You delineated the circumstances for conflict and the geography of that conflict. Your point ostensibly, was to say that this has been going on for awhile. My point is not all that complex, in that I say that this (your scenario) all went on because it worked as a solution, and that what goes on now is different than what was portrayed in your story.

I’m not talking about me, if you paid attention to your own story, you know. You didn’t mention me in your story, so obviously if I’m talking about how your story applies here and now, I’m not talking about me. It’s best to get rid of the bad logic, first.

I thought you were banned. I guess they’re dealing better than I thought.

troutsky – “On the rare occasion i find an interesting thread going here i attempt to engage but find I am often not even allowed to have an opinion because of my politics.”

First, Ymarsakar, on what basis do you assume that you are part of this “village” and on what basis do you presume to dictate who is welcome and who is not? Since Neo posts this blog on an open site and imposes no obvious restrictions on who may reply my assumption is that this “village” is open to any and all who wish to visit.

Second, troutsky, while judging from you note we might not agree on many political points, I, for one, would welcome and encourage you to say what’s on your mind. I often get a bit of the cold shoulder when posting to some of the more traditionally leftist blogs I sometimes read, but I try to keep my posts on topic and non-confrontational (even if some replies are otherwise). Like trolls, I just ignoe those with nothing constructive to contribute.

If you go down to any infamous locale of revelry such as Bourbon Street in NO or Beale Street in Memphis on a Friday or Saturday you will likely encounter at least one group of people with huge signs emblazoned with Bible verses. Frequently these folks will use a bull horn to tell you how you are going to Hell and all the horrible sins you are committing. I have always thought of Blog trolls as their internet enabled cousins.

Yes, these “tactics” are not only futile but largely self-destructive if one assumes the goal is to convert or convince. I have always suspected, though, the real objective is the pursuit of self affirmation. I’m right, I’m better, I’m good and you are all that is otherwise. Every sign carried is a testimony to the individual that he is saved. Every troll post (and reply) is a testimony to the individual that he is right.

The sad thing is that they are actually at our village, Neo Neocon’s site. This ain’t no river in neutral territory, and they aren’t welcomed guests.

The tribal nature of man is more or less true, but that example actually shows a good solution, compared to the bad solution we see here.