Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Detachment from reality and delusions of grandeur.

Balbulican documents some of the blogosphere assholery that occurred in the wake of Ted's passing (including at least one blogger's effort to construct an alternate reality).

The problem with claiming that "for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole is respectfully marking the passing of Ted Kennedy" is that it is purposefully misleading, lumping left-leaning well-wishers, a goodly lot of people who (like me) didn't comment at all, and the right all into one unified mass when sharp distinctions exist. In the broad sense, what "for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole" does through inaction is fairly meaningless. It's what occurs through action that has impact. And to illustrate this, I suggest this challenge...

I think that for every respectful blog commentary on Ted Kennedy's passing, a disrespectful one can be found. Here's Pat's chance to prove his assertion (and since it was his claim, the burden of proof lies with him). I'm perfectly wiling to admit that I could be wrong in my skepticism, but I'm also willing to put it to the test and give him the opportunity to back up his claim with fact. Pat can use the comment section here to post links to "respectful" commentary, and anyone else willing to participate in this challenge may similarly post links to "disrespectful" commentary. A running tally will be kept via edits above the fold.

My prediction is that 1) there won't be an overwhelming disparity marking what "for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole"'s position is, and 2) there's going to be a distinct difference in the ideological leaning of those bloggers that were "respectful" in their commentary vs those who were not, and 3) we're going to see a really ugly aspect of the blogosphere that some would prefer (via proof by assertion) to gloss over.

Balbulican has already got the ball rolling at the above linked post, making Ross down 4-1 by my count. Will Patrick put his links where his mouth is? Will we see a rhetorical exercise in redefining what "respectful" means or an attempt to give attributes to an absence-of-post vacuum? What kind of tantrums will occur when it becomes painfully undeniable that a certain blogger isn't "the rest of the blogosphere"? Stay tuned...

(h/t to Dr. Dawg for inspiring the pic)


114 comments:

Sparky said...

You'll be waiting a while. Patrick never comes at one of his ineptitudes head on. From 'CC has links' to whatever else--he'll redefine his point until it has no bearing on his original point and call you a 'libby retard' for calling him on it.
His MO.

Patrick Ross said...

"I think that for every respectful blog commentary on Ted Kennedy's passing, a disrespectful one can be found. "

Hmmmm.

That's an interesting claim.

More interestingly, it's your claim. Thus, the burden of proof for that is on you.

Oh, wait. I forgot. Your "rules of rhetorical fairness" don't apply to you. My bad.

Sparky said...

There you have it ladies and gentlemen--Patrick Ross doing what he does best--not owning his own words.
C'mon Patrick, you said--
"At a time when, for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole is respectfully marking the passing of Ted Kennedy..."
Your words.
Others have pointed out that some of the biggest 'rightie' bloggers *didn't* blog respectfully.
What was your answer to that? "*I* did", as if that infers 'the blogosphere as a whole'...
So Audrey called you on it.
C'mon. Right now the score is 4-1
I've actually posted elsewhere a link to a news article written by an American conservative that called for respect for Kennedy, so it can't be that hard. You claim that there are respectful blog posts out there.
Where (beyond yours)? You need 3 more...
Or shall we lump these words of yours into the dustbin of "those are triangles!!" and "there is no deficit and there won't be!!!"

Dr.Dawg said...

ROTFL, that photoshop work is just brilliant!

Patrick Ross said...

Really, Sparkles? Really?

98 out of 100 hits on a Google Blog search say you're a bunch of fucking idiots in regards to this matter.

But then again, we didn't need a 98% margin of support for my claim to know you're stupid, did we?

Sparky said...

Heres one for Patrick--
http://gerrynicholls.blogspot.com/2009/08/putting-ted-kennedy-into-perspective.html
Oh wait, that's another for the 'not showing Kennedy respect' side...
Maybe you were referring to this one--
http://russ-campbell.blogspot.com/2009/08/sen-edward-ted-kennedy.html
but then again, the comments kinda give that away...
And I can't find the commenter that was disappointed that Kennedy passsed away before he was fed thru a wood chipper... slowly...
Oh well, still waiting for "the respectful blogosphere" to appear...

Patrick Ross said...

Hmmm. So you have what, then, six disrespectful blog posts?

I have 98. I could dig into the next hundred hits on Google blogs if I actually expected you to spontaneously sprout enough honesty to admit what the results are clearly showing us -- that maybe you can dig up a handful of aberrations from the general blogosphere trend as it pertains to the passing of Senator Kennedy.

But it does nothing to disprove that particular trend, especially when it's so overwhelming.

Patrick Ross said...

That is, I have 98 out of 100 blogs that marked Kennedy's passing respectfully.

Really, Sparkles, you should just stay down. You're humiliating yourself.

Patrick Ross said...

On second thought, let's take a closer look at what Russ Campell had to say about Ted Kennedy:

"The death of Edward “Ted” Moore Kennedy, the famous liberal senator, has brought both praise and some scorn from across the United States and throughout the world. His passing marks the end of an era during which the Kennedy clan—most notably its three famous brothers: John, Robert and Edward—fascinated a nation and the world beyond it with their ambition, style, idealism and tragedies.

I cannot fathom what drives commentators like journalist/broadcaster Michael Coren to so denigrate the achievements of this man. Without question, it is hard to forgive the man for the part he played in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne—when he virtually got away with manslaughter. And his private life has left much to be desired by one who should have been a role model for his fellow Americans.

However, do his well publicized misdeeds so overshadow decades of worthwhile service in the U.S. Senate that we should dwell almost exclusively on them? I think not.

His legislative legacy includes health insurance for children of the working poor, the landmark 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, family leave and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. He was also key to passage of the No Child Left Behind Education law and a Medicare drug benefit for the elderly, both championed by Republican President George W. Bush.

And although Republicans would open their wallets to fight anything Kennedy stood for, many of them respected and befriended him. To the end, Ted Kennedy remained the Senate’s foremost liberal and one of its legendary dealmakers. He’ll be missed in that august body.

As Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont said, “He [Kennedy] really worked at becoming the best senator he possibly could. And he did.”
"

Sure, he takes note of some of Kennedy's questionable deeds. Fair enough. But the bulk of that blog post praises Kennedy, Sparky. Did you even read the fucking thing?

You're a retard. Who's next?

KEvron said...

what photoshop?

KEvron

KEvron said...

sparky, you're scope is too broad; limit it to comparitive entities, say.... liblogs vs bt's.

KEvron

KEvron said...

er, "comparative"

KEvron

Sparky said...

that's what I was doing--I was searching the bt blogroll (hard to do, btw, since the search feature was removed)
Patrick, on the other hand, thinks that it's a surprising fact that non bt's wold be respectful of Kennedy's passing.
Jackass.

Balbulican said...

Patrick shares with Mike Brock and Raphael Alexander the sophomoric habit of seizing on a work, a phrase or a punctuation mark, and obsessively turning it into the core of a discussion. It's a way for bright but childish folks to "win" arguments, I suppose. One can only hope for them that they live long enough to be embarassed someday by their inanity.

Audrey II said...

Pat, I don't mind shouldering the burden of proof for my claims. I do indeed think what I claimed I thought, and since I'm the only expert on the subject of what my opinion is, I have no problem confirming that what I claimed I thought is indeed what my opinion is. Now, as I've posted above, I'm completely willing to admit that my opinion might be inaccurate and I'm fully prepared to re-examine it in light of evidence presented (note the difference between that and appeals to assertion or calling of others retards and stupid). When you neglect to include important qualifiers such as "I think" or "In my opinion" in your claims, you might tend to miss them in others'. Oopsies.

The problem with the blog-search that you've provided is that it 1) it isn't a random sampling, and blogs that have the same kind of vile, disrespectful garbage that Shaidle, Sullivan, Currie, etc... may not have had their Kennedy commentary be as popular(thus, not ranking high on the results), and 2) the sample includes a lot of news aggregating blogs that simply noted Kennedy's passing (as opposed to actually commenting on it).

Again, the problem with asserting things like "for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole was..." is that it intentionally blurs over important distinctions and sharp divides that exist. It would be more accurate to say that left-leaning blogs and respondents that actually commented on Kennedy's death that actually commented on Teddy's death were respectful while right leaning blogs and respondents tended (exceptions noted) to be silent or disrespectful.

That's why I challenged you to post actual links and why I think you chose to avoid that challenge by referring to a search engine result for "Ted Kennedy August 25". You know that what you posted is as ridiculous as saying that "for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole rejects the notion of torture". Yes, the majority of people who blog about torture or comment on torture might express a rejection of it, but that's not quite the same thing as the existence of a homogeneous sentiment existing.

I don't really expect for you to admit your error nor participate in the challenge in good faith, nor am I the least bit surprised at the effort to avoid dealing with the actual criticism and inclusion of examples that really don't support your original claim, but I'm satisfied with having drawn attention to yet another laughable claim. Watching you attempt to bluster around it is as amusing as ever. It does, however, raise the issue of whether or not you're really that self-unaware, or just can't help yourself.

The "for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole" template of glossing over stark and significant divides is going to be a gift that keeps on giving, Pat. Thanks!

Next up, for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole acknowledges man-made climate change.

Sparky said...

I was going to post a lenghty reply, but Audrey said it better.
All that I'll add is that Patrick appeared to be surprised that "for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole is respectfully marking the passing of Ted Kennedy".
Anyone outside the 28 percenters or anyone that didn't have a chip on their shoulder the size of
Massachusetts spoke well of Kennedy? Really??
Wow, the next thing you know Patrick will write a blog about 'dog bites man!' or 'sun rises in the east!' or 'neo celebrates the death of another off-colour victim in "The Big Smoke"' as if those are the biggest scoops around.
Keep it up, Patrick! You're doing a fantastic job!

Audrey II said...

Pat probably doens't realize that the "evidence" he's presented just fulfills prediction #2 I made in my above post. A lot of the examples that he's pointed to as representing "respectful" commentary are people simply noting that it occurred. That's a sharp contrast from the kind of foam-flecked-spittle that the "disrespectful" commentary represents. "As a whole"? Not even close.

(BTW, if anyone is interested in witnessing a bold faced lie in action, I encourage them to scroll up and note the claim made in this thread regarding 98 hits out of 100, follow the link, and do some clicking. I guarantee it will take far less that 100 clicks to find more than 3 examples of not-so-respectful commentary. ...Nothing like misrepresenting your own evidence!).

Patrick Ross said...

Hey, Audrey, you claimed that there would be just as many blog posts that were disrespectful of Kennedy as respectful.

When you make that claim, you have to support it. The burden of proof lies on you.

Now, when one examines the closest thing to an impartial sample of the blogosphere as one can find -- a Google blog search -- it becomes immediately apparent that you're wrong.

Just like Sparky was lying when he cited Russ Campbell's post above as "disrespectful" of Kennedy.

Face it, Audrey. You just lost. Again. You'd do wonders in terms of saving your credibility if you just admitted it.

Then again, we all know that will never happen.

I mean, seriously. One disrespectful post for every respectful post? Where are they Audrey? Where?

Your claim. Your burden.

Sparky said...

Again, I give you Patrick Ross--the joke that keeps on giving
Thanks Patrick! Keep it up!

Patrick Ross said...

That's the spirit, Sparky.

We wouldn't want you to have to admit that you're clearly wrong about this, now would we? I'd hate to see you doing something so clearly out of character.

Audrey II said...

Reading comprehension, FTW!!! That wasn't what I claimed at all, Pat, and I think most readers here are astute enough to catch your continual omission of important qualifiers.

Maybe there are more "respectful" than "disrespectful" blog posts out there. I don't really know. I do think that for every link to the former that you can provide, a link to the latter can also be submitted, but as I said in my original post, I'm willing to test this. The reason that I'm willing to test this is because I think that the exercise will uncover how misleading your original claim was. "For the most part, the blogosphere as a whole" is not the same claim as "The blogosphere was sharply divided along mostly ideological lines, with respectful praise for the Ted's accomplishments coming mostly from the left and news bloggers, contrasted by either silence or hateful vitriol coming mostly from the right". One is an accurate representation of what occurred in the wake of Ted's passing and the other is a poor attempt at a whitewash by asserting a homogeneity that did not exist. I think the absurdity of misrepresenting the hotly contested debates that occur in the blogosphere with the "for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole was ________" routine is self-evident, and I'd wager that I'm not the only one that feels that way.

I think that you're not posting links (as you were challenged to do) because it will reveal that the "evidence" you're using for your claim doesn't really support it. You own google search yields more "disrespect" than the 2% you claim it does (anyone interested can follow Pat's link above and verify for themselves that it does not show what he claims it does), is not a random sample, and brings up a lot of news aggregators that simply noted Ted's passing without much in the way of commentary, showing that you're so desperate to shore up your original misrepresentation of the truth that you'll rely on falsely represented evidence.

You're clearly not interested in participating in the challenge in good faith (most likely because you realize what it would uncover), you're own "evidence" isn't what you claim that it is, you're now distorting my own claim and dropping qualifiers from it in a pathetic burden of proof shift, and I'm comfortable having pointed these out. Watching you flail about, huff, and puff (both here and on your own blog) about it has just been icing on the cake.

Sparky's last reply was spot on. Keep on giving, Pat!

Sparky said...

Just need to clarify for the record since Patrick is on about it (and his reading comprehension is pretty mcuh nil so I'll try to dumb it down enuf for him...)
Quoth the not dumb one--

"Heres one for Patrick--
http://gerrynicholls.blogspot.com/2009/08/putting-ted-kennedy-into-perspective.html
Oh wait, that's another for the 'not showing Kennedy respect' side..."

See what I did here? I found a BT blog link that didn't show respect for Kennedy.

I wrote it in a facetious way--"Maybe Patrick has a point! I'll help him out by finding a blog entry that supports his claim!! Oh wait--nope!"

Everyone that can actually, y'now, read got that.

Then I go on with this--

"Maybe you were referring to this one--
http://russ-campbell.blogspot.com/2009/08/sen-edward-ted-kennedy.html
but then again, the comments kinda give that away..."

Hmmmm, what did I do here? I actually found a post that was civil to Kennedy. I posted it and inferred with my commentary "Maybe Patrick meant this blog was civil! 'Cause, y'know, it actually is!". Or were the words "Maybe you were referring to this one" too much for you, Patrick? Just trying to help you prove your point, buddy! That's the kind of caring and generous soul that I am!

But then I pull the rug from even that blog entry by referring to the not-so-civil comments--"but then again, the comments kinda give that away"

Understanding basic english comes into play here. I know, it may be too much of an expectation for Patrick, but what the hell--I always like rooting for the underdog.

So Patrick, as you say--next!

Next time you might want to do something that's "clearly out of your character"--read what's actually written instead of throwing one of your tantrums.

And it's mighty rich for someone who hasn't admitted that they're clearly wrong about stuff to throw that accusation at anyone else

Patrick Ross said...

It seems, Audrey, like you're starting to become more and more uncomfortable with the claim you've made here.

You claimed that there would be one disrespectful blogpost about Kennedy for every respectful post.

Not only do we see now that you and your pet retard evidently have difficulty defining disrespectful, but we see that you just won't admit that you're wrong.

Eight out of 200 hits on Google blogs were disrespectful of Kennedy. That's a margin of 4%.

This is a fight you should have thought more carefully about picking. Losing this one is making you look all kinds of stupid.

Not that you didn't before.

Sparky said...

Paraphrasing Patricks favourite blogger--
"Dear Patrick: A simple "Wow, you're right and I was wrong, mea culpa." would have been sufficient."

If you don't understand the big words or even the meaning of some of the smaller ones, you shouldn't be ashamed to ask for someone to dumb them down to your level.

First step is to admit that you need help.

We're here for you.

Audrey II said...

Once again, what Patrick claims "it seems like" isn't what exists. I'm actually quite comfortable with the claim that I've made, particularly given the lengths you've gone to avoid addressing it.

On the other hand, the claim that you're attempting to put in my mouth by the omission of relevant qualifiers is something all together different (although not the least bit surprising). You're not giving the readers of this thread enough intellectual credit by dishonestly attempting the substitution.

I've posted several times (including in the original post!) that I admit that I very well could be wrong in what I think, and proposed a test that you've subsequently avoided participating in (in stark contrast to your bluster). But for such an apparently easily winnable challenge, you've had quite the difficulty in meeting it. Anyone can click your above link and confirm for themselves that your "evuidence" doens't say what you've claimed it does. And now you're pulling this "8 out of 200 hits" out of thin air without any link whatsoever, all the while not posting (as was the challenge) any examples of links that support your original claim. As I've said above, I think the reason you're avoiding this is because at some level you understand what a thorough examination of the "evidence" you're referring to would reveal regarding your original claim about "for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole".

I didn't pick any fight, I (as other had similarly done) simply drew attention to the absurdity of something that you posted. I think your increasingly desperate attempts (both here and in the multiple posts now on your own blog)and avoidance of the challange posed illustrate exactly who it is that is "uncomfortable" with their claims.

Keep putting that rope to good use, Pat.

Patrick Ross said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Audrey, Audrey, Audrey.

You said you thought there was one disrespectful blog post about Kennedy for every one that is respectful of him.

And you admitted that you "could be wrong", and I'd almost be willing to say "fair enough".

But, Audrey, you were the one who wanted to try to quantify the matter. You were the one who insisted that I was "down 4-1". You said that.

Now, Audrey, within our Google blogs sample -- as close to an objective sample as one is likely to find (and much more likely than your little mutton-headed sidekick's proposed BTs vs Liblogs sample) -- we have you down, at the last count that I made, 300 to 15.

That's a 95% to 5% -- and a 90% margin of victory for myself.

And don't pretend you didn't pick this fight (which you just lost). You went off, you did your little photoshop, you wrote this post. And you can try to insist you "simply drew attention to absurdity". It doesn't wash.

After all, my opinion about the matter -- that the vast majority of the blogosphere marked Kennedy's passing respectfully -- is quickly bearing out to be truthful.

Yours -- that there would be an equal number of disrespectful blog posts -- has not.

I'm not only extremely comfortable with my claim, but the evidence so far examined has supported it, and continues to support it.

The evidence has not supported your claim.

You tell me to keep putting that rope to good use, but the truth of the matter is that I have so little desire to hang you. You, one the other hand -- you just wrapped that fucking thing around your neck and jumped.

It's not how I would have used it.

Sparky said...

Most people, when shown to be so full of it, know to stop digging the hole deeper.
Not Patrick. My goodness he loves to dig it deeper and deeper.
Audrey made her point fantastically, and Patrick came along every step of the way and reinforced it.
As per his usual MO, he tried to move the goalposts, he tried to change the meaning of, well, just about everything, he lied to make 'gotcha' statements, and threw out insults at the drop of a hat just 'cause he had nothing else, and when shown the actual evidence--when shown the truth--what did he do?
That's right--completely ignored and just went on doing all the above.
Thank you Patrick--you're the gift that keeps on giving.
btw, in the final analysis, I see the score being 6 to 2. I was going to go 1.5 due to the disrespectful comments, but that'd be wilfully dishonest and I'm not stooping to Patrick's level to make a point.

Audrey II said...

Once again, Patrick Ross puts on more show-battles against straw-stuffed shirts of his own erecting to desperately distract from his inability to actually respond to what has been put forward. The rhetoric of assholery never changes.

If the challenge I posed is so easy to meet and the truth of your claim so self-evident, then why aren't you posting any links? I've conducted the searches you propose and visited the sites they bring up, and pointed out above several times why I think they don't "prove" what you claim they do, but you continue not only to not respond to those critiques, but also not to participate in the challenge that was presented.

Really, Pat... If you think all this huffing, puffing, false representation of search engine results, and deliberate avoidance of the challenge as it was posed makes your position look stronger, you're even less self-aware than I originally though.

Patrick Ross said...

See, Audrey, you know this "strawman argument" complaint you've made is rhetorically dishonest.

You made a claim. Your claim was that there would be one disrespectful blog post marking Ted Kennedy's death as there would be respectful ones.

You also made a challenge -- to produce evidence supporting my claim that the vast majority of the blogosphere marked Kennedy's passing respectfully.

To date, the evidence has overwhelmingly supported my claim -- 95% of the blogosphere marked Kennedy's passing respectfully.

To date, the evidence has overwhelming rejected your claim -- that just as many bloggers had marked Kennedy's passing disrespectfully as respectfully.

I feel no obligation to waste my time -- since that's obviously what you're trying to do -- linking to 285 blogposts just so you can ignore the content of those sites, as you've indulged yourself in doing in the past. (I'll remind you of your "Gary Goodyear is a secret creationist" episode.)

Your critiques are entirely worthless, Audrey, as they are simply show a brazen disconnection from reality, as well as a self-serving attitude that simply doesn't lend itself to debate.

You picked a fight, have now lost that fight, and want to shift the goalposts just so you can lose that fight all over again.

I'm not prepared to indulge you in that, even if you insist on indulging yourself.

Sparky said...

The sequence of events thus far...

One

Patrick makes a statement--
"At a time when, for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole is respectfully marking the passing of Ted Kennedy"
--in order to take a potshot at CC.

Two

SL calls Patrick on "the blogosphere as a whole" being respectful--
"I was extremely heartened to hear that the “blogosphere as a whole” was “respectfully marking the passing of Ted Kennedy”. I set immediately on a tour of my favourite Conservative blogs to savour this new and uncharacteristic civility."
--and found no such civility

Three

Patrick states that, well, his blog was civil... and the logical inference there, as everyone pointed out, is that Patrick does not equal the 'rest of the blogosphere'

Four
Audrey challenges Patrick to back up his claim--
"In the broad sense, what "for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole" does through inaction is fairly meaningless. It's what occurs through action that has impact. And to illustrate this, I suggest this challenge..."
--and thus the challenge was laid down.

At which point, Patrick, being as pendantic as ever, chose not to make his point. Instead, he restorted to his usual "ROTFL" mentality.

And only when numerous other people called him on it--at two different blogs even, did he then do his other usual trick--change the rules and move them goalposts--lookie! Google hits!!

(As an aside, I seem to recall that Patrick disliked this same logic when CC stated "Hey, we get links!" Wasn't Patrick all "ROTFL!!--those aren't links!!! You're a poopy head and didn't prove your point!! ROTFL!!!" Anyway, I digress...)

Should you exclude any blogger that might post frequently on Free Republic, or any blogger belonging to the Blogging Tories, or any writer that doesn't believe that GWB and CrashCart did a fantastic jorb for those 8 years, more than likely they would have said something civil and respectful about Kennedy's passing had they actually written about it.

But then again, we all knew that--that wasn't the point of this excercise. As Audrey brilliantly pointed out, for the most part, the blogosphere believes in global warming. Yep--so noteworthy--as noteworthy as 'dog bites man' and 'sun rises in the east'.

Patrick infers that it's surprising that smart people that don't watch Fox News on a regular basis would actually have something good to say about Kennedy. OMG!!! Really??

No, the whole contest, and context of this particular issue, was "Hey Patrick--the blogosphere "as a whole" may have been 'kind to Kennedy', but your compatriots sure as hell weren't!" This point was explicitly laid out by Stage Left right back at the beginning when he linked to 5 blogs that, well, weren't respectful.

But then again, Patrick, you have a reading disability and maybe you didn't understand that point from the first dozen times people pointed it out to you.

Here's a way of making it all better. Edit your post as follows--

"At a time when, for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole (if you don't include the 28 percenters, the birthers, the deathers, the Cheney 2012 supporters, the 'shooting wolves from helicopter'ers, and mostly anyone that belongs to the BT blogroll) is respectfully marking the passing of Ted Kennedy, one may wonder... what was my point again?"

And I'll take it as a silent mea culpa on the 'disrespectful blog post' that you were going on about earlier, but now not so much. I accept you apology.

As you say... Next!

Patrick Ross said...

ROTFL

Hey, Sparky.

I have a margin of 285 respectful blog posts to 15 disrespectful blog posts on a Google blogs search.

That's 95% of the so-far examined impartial sample (or rather, as close to an impartial sample as we'll find) that marked Kennedy's passing respectfully.

No one has excluded Free Republic, the Blogging Tories or any Conservative blogger from the Google search. Seeing as how I have no control over Google's search algorythms, I couldn't even if I wanted to.

What I haven't done is what Sparky has done -- made the absurd demand that the partisan divide between the Blogging Tories and Liblogs (or even Progblogs) be taken as the entire blogosphere.

Nope. I've allowed an impartial (and automated! We all know how you love automated, Sparky) third party to present us with what the blogosphere has had to say about the blogosphere.

The results of that has spoken for themselves. As has the "evidence" offered by Sparky and company.

What I haven't done is cherry picked.

Balbulican offered four cherry-picked examples.

You, as I recall, offered two cherry-picked examples. But let's not forget that you lied about one of the examples, which turned out to be anything but disrespectful.

At this point, Sparky, it's impossible to take you seriously on this matter. Which I guess is OK to someone who actually lionizes their distinct non-contribution to intellectual discourse.

95% to 5%, Sparky. The evidence supports my claim that the vast majority of the blogosphere marked Kennedy's passing respectfully.

Now, we all know you'll never admit to this.

I know you're dishonest. And we all already knew you're stupid.

But the least you can do is stop humiliating yourself.


Oh, and like Balbulican, you apparently can't define "pendant". I'd advise you to educate yourself on that particular matter.

Patrick Ross said...

Heh. I meant to say "what the Blogosphere had to say about Kennedy".

That aside, you're still useless Sparky.

Sparky said...

"But let's not forget that you lied about one of the examples"
I did?
Where, exactly?
Wanna back this up? I've shown numerous times that I didn't, going as far as to dumb it down to easy words just for you, yet you keep claiming that I lied. Hell, you even wrote a blog just about this very topic--without, mind you, actually showing where I lied.
Put up or shut up, Patrick. Spell it out. Show exactly where the lie is.
Of course, you won't 'cause you can't. But you'll still go on. That's just what you do--make these claims without any sort of proof.
Yeah, I'll take lessons from you, the arrogant liar...
Oh, my error on the word (as if you've never made those)--I'm sorry, it's been a while since I used that word. An 'n' slipped in there. My gods!! It's the end of the world!!!
So I'll throw myself on my sword and offer up an apology. I misspelled the word I wanted to use. Which was this--
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedantic
See what I did there, Patrick. I acknowledged my error after it was pointed out. However, unlike you, my point didn't change one bit and is still completely true. Unlike, say, triangles, no deficits, and your comrades-in-arms being respectful of Kennedy.
'Cause you're still pedantic--focusing on those petty 'gotcha' moments as if having an extra 'n' in a word completely negates the entire point. You have no regard to the truth if it doesn't adhere to your worldview.
This is why you will never be taken seriously. Anyone with their mindset so clearly made up that they misrepresent the facts--either consciously or not, doesn't matter--to score points will always be a partisan hack.
Anyone who doesn't acknowledge their own errors, even when pointed out overwhelmingly by others, cannot be taken seriously.
So, Patrick, there is room here for your personal growth, or you can continue to obfuscate and lie.
And that choice lies entirely with you.
You could surprise me, but I highly doubt it.

Sparky said...

See ladies and gentlemen, Patrick does the exact opposite of what Patrick states. He doesn't cherrypick?
He certainly does when he wants to make his point--ignoring any truth and any idea that might negate his 'i'm right and you're wrong' mentality. He's a pitbull with a bone--no amount of truth telling will get him to give up his lies.
He claims others are dishonest and stupid. Well, the evidence in this very thread, and evidence in many, many other blog threads, point to the overwhelming stupidity and dishonesty of one Patrick Ross.
As another aside, I typed in "patrick ross dishonest" into google and it came up with 15,400 hits. I'll be the first to note that, just by going with the first page listing, many of those hits don't actually apply to the obtuse jackass we're trying to instill some sense into over this blog thread therefore we can safely ignore them. Some of the hits were to his very own blog and in Patricks little mind, he isn't dishonest.
So what do we have. on the first page o' hits that specifically relate to the wonderment that is Patrick Ross, we have 5 entries documenting Patrick's dishonesty, and 2 that, well, are actually blogs by Patrick.
So, using Patrick's logic, we can state "for the most part, the blogosphere thinks Patrick Ross is dishonest"--not one person outside of Patrick's little zone says he isn't.
See, this is how Patrick makes his point--he takes an overwhelming obvious point, blogs about it, and acts all surprised when people call him on 'the bigger picture'
Overwhelmingly obvious point--Many people said good things regarding Kennedy's passing. No one disputed that no matter how Patrick wants to obfuscate.
People pointed out 'in the bigger picture' (but we know that Patrick isn't a 'big picture' kinda person--he's pedantic--getting ensconsed in the minutae of his ideas, as if that's what matters...) that Patrick's very own peer group wasn't respectful.
Patrick's all "Well, mostly everyone was!!!"
Smarter people than Patrick, "How about your won back yard? where's the respectfullness??"
Patrick's all "ROTFL!!! You guys are dummies!!! Most of the blogosphere was respectful!!!!"
And again--"Hey Patrick, how about your cohorts? How about some respect from those that you consider to be good enough to hang around?"
Patrick--"You's all dummies!!!"
He's like the kid on Devil's night that got caught with a group of kids doing mischief--"I didn't throw any eggs!!! Most of the kids in the area are home in bed right now!! Why are you picking on me???"
He absolves his responsibility by saying "Hey, almost everyone was respectful, including me! Look how good I am!!" whilst completely ignoring the very people he chooses to be associated with.
Therein is the lesson. Patrick doesn't want to get it. Such is his way.
Absolutely no surprise that he didn't apologize or make ammends.
As stated earlier--keep it up, Patrick.

Patrick Ross said...

ROTFL

Well, Sparky, it's awfully hard to cherry pick whn I'm not the one generating the evidence -- I'm just digging it up.

What Sparky doesn't want people to realize here is the extent to which the best available evidence utterly contradicts him.

Apparently, I'm somehow lying when I state the fact that 285 out of the top 300 hits on a Google blog search from the very day of Kennedy's passing -- when his passing was the hottest topic, so to speak.

Sparky doesn't want to make any kind of realistic attempt to dispute that fact. My suspicion is that he knows full well that it's true, and simply wants to object to speaking of that particular truth.

See, in Sparkyland any truth that he objects to is automatically a "lie", regardless of how objectively true it may be.

(Considering that Sparkles was caught lying about Russ Campbell's blog post in this very thread, it's also impossible to take that complaint seriously.)

Now, because Sparky can't win this argument based on evidence -- and can't even justify the standard of evidence he demands -- he wants to resort to ad hominem attacks. Interestingly enough, mostly ad hominem attacks based on lies. Surely, Audrey will very quick to admonish him for the logical fallacy.

But that isn't even the most amusing thing Spark has attampted in the course of this thread. The most amusing thing he's attempted is to insist that he's simply illuminating the "bigger picture" by highlighting an extreme minority of blog posts about the passing of Ted Kennedy.

(I'd remind anyone reading this that even if we extended Sparkles the undue courtesy of polluting the Google blogs sample with his cherry-picked examples -- but not the Russ Campbell post, he was lying about that one -- and Balbulican's cherry-picked examples, this would still be an extreme minority of blog posts. Less than 7%, as a matter of fact.)

All of this while Sparky continues to misuse the word "pedant" while it ironically describes his conduct in this thread perfectly.

Ironically, I'd challenge Sparky's point regarding my alleged peer group. As I've already noted -- a point that Balbulican willfully missed -- my own comments regarding Ted Kennedy differ drastically from the comments of my alleged peer group.

Not to mention the fact that I never even read Jay Currie, comment on occasion that is rare ad extremis at HOM or at Gerry Nichols' spot.

The only two bloggers noted here who I have any kind of regular interaction with are Wendy Sullivan and Russ Campbell. I'll remind everyone here once again that Sparkles was lying about Campbell's post being "disrespectful" of Kennedy.

Interestingly, I never pretended that, as individuals, any of the individuals discussed above were anything other than an extreme minority of the blogosphere.

On their own, they are not nearly enough to validate Balbulican's claim that the "right is dancing on Ted Kennedy's grave" or Audrey's claim that there would be a disrespectful post about Kennedy and his passing for every respectful one.

What we see with this particular variant of Sparky's argument is a clear attempt to move the goalposts (although he'd bawl like a two-year old if someone attempted to do that to him -- hell, he cries about it even when it isn't happening) because he knows he's lost this debate -- mostly because he could never win it in the first place.

Patrick Ross said...

The argument was never that no one in the blogosphere -- including my friend Wendy Sullivan -- had been disrespectful of Kennedy after his death. The argument was that the vast majority of the blogosphere marked his passing respectfully.

The best available evidence bears that out to be true.

But Sparkles won't admit to this. Not in a million years. After all, if he loses this argument, apologizes and makes amends (a word he apparently cannot spell, but still wants to use) he won't have anything to brag about when he slithers back to the Groupthink Temple.

Instead, he'd rather continue to humiliate himself by continuing to lose this argument.

Sparky said...

"Hey Patrick, show me where I lied"
"Hey Sparky, I'll just spew more obfuscation and useless yippage that continues to make me look like an idiot"
No Patrick my friend, you don't get to tell anyone else what they mean. You can't even discern truth from your made up fiction.
You never answer anyone directly when they call you on your crap. I lied? Show where. As I've demonstrated (more than you, I might add), I'm more than able to admit when I'm wrong. You just have to show me, Patrick.
And ad hominems? Seriously Patrick, you want to walk down that road?? That's ironic.
You truly are the gift that keeps on giving.

Patrick Ross said...

Sparkles, I already pointed out where you lied.

I'm not wasting my time pointing it out over and over again. I'm not sure what you imagine it will change.

And at this point if you won't admit that you're wrong, Spark, after all the evidence showing you that you're wrong, you're never going to. Which is unsurprising. We all knew you were going to be wrong about this (you're wrong about everything), and we all knew you were never going to admit it.

And by the way, Sparky, I wouldn't lecture anyone else on what they get to do and what they don't get to do. I mean, come on. Seriously? You sound like a complete putz (which is also unsurprising).

Sparky said...

Ladies and gentlemen, Patrick "I can't prove any of my wrong and idiotic assertions" Ross.
A putz in his world is anyone who dares point out his blatant lies.
Has anyone else noticed that when Patrick lies about something, a huge comment thread seems to appear? I mean the triangles generated scores of replies, the 'there is no deficit and there won't be' got to be pretty huge... Patrick just doesn't get what everyone else does--hey, you make a mistake--you own up to it. This thread, and the others, should have been 2-3 comments--one of 'em from Patrick saying, "Oh, I didn't realize I couldn't see the truth in the matter. My bad!" and life would have gone on.
Nope, here we are, a bunch of comments later, trying to get Patrick to face reality, after he feigns ignorance as to what everyone else is talking about, after he zeros in on some minor point, lies about it, and then makes that the 'topic du jour', whines when people point out his absurd claims using his same style of language and says 'ad hominem!!', and after he throws around his ever-so-standard "ROTFL--you guys are all dumbheads (yeah, ironic considering the previous point)!!"
(sometimes he does all in the same reply! That's how good Patrick is!!)
And the 'zeroing in' bit above, Patrick? There's a word that could be used there to aptly replace that--pedantic. You just love being wrong, don't you? You wallow in it. You wear it like a badge of honour-- "I sure told dem dar guys, I did!!" yet, no truth, and definitely no substance.
Keep going, Patrick. You're doing a fantastic job!

Patrick Ross said...

See, Sparkles, you keep saying that.

But then why is it that the best available evidence has lined up solidly behind my assertion?

In order for my assertion to be "blatant lies" they would have to be blatantly untrue. Yet when one examines the best available evidence -- a Google blog search -- one finds that 285 out of 300 blogs examined to date have marked Kennedy's passing respectfully.

That's 95% of the blogs within that sample.

That's the reality of the matter.

See, kids, Sparky is a special case. To him, reality is whatever he says it is, regardless of whether or not the evidence contradicts him.

Is it in fact blatantly obvious that the vast majority of the blogosphere marked Kennedy's passing respectfully? No need for Sparky to admit this! Instead, he'll simply bury his head in the sand and insist "that's not reality".

But if this were really the case, one would expect that Sparky would be able to dispute the evidence offered, or perhaps even offer some evidence of his own.

He can do neither.

Instead he cherry-picked a couple of blogposts that he claimed were disrespectful of Kennedy (lying about one of them) and absurdly insisted that the sample examined should consist solely of the Blogging Tories and Free Republic -- perhaps even with a comparison to Liblogs -- and actually lied about one of them.

That is the kind of person Spanky is.

At this point, all he wants to do is wail like a two year-old, fling insults and vainly hope that someone will back him up.

But I don't think it's happening, Sparkles. Even Audrey has figured out that she's made a retard of herself on this one. Apparently, you just seem to think you'll eventually get the last word on this.

At this point, that's all this is really about to you.

Sparky said...

Wow Patrick, you come up with that all by yourself?
'Cause this has never been about me. This has always been about you and you being wrong on all accounts. You have this need to hurl insults at pepole who show you where you're wrong. Hey, if that's what floats your boat, then by all means.
And if there's anyone acting like a petulant two year old, it'd be you.
Prove your point--no one lied here but you.
The issue was your yippage about 'respectful bloggers' of which you conveniently overlooked your own back yard. This is what you were called on, and this is what you chose to misrepresent.
You then called me a liar and were called on that as well. But like all your many other past wrongs, you never proved it--you obfuscated.
As you still continue to do.
I love how you now say that lack of others posting responses equals you being right. Well, Patrick, I also note that you haven't responded to the thread over at StageLeft. So, by your very own logic, even you figured out that you made a retard of yourself on that one.
When you keep posting these blatantly idiotic, deceitful, and quite frankly, very sophmoric responses, you get your ass handed to you over and over again. Yet you keep coming back for more.
So keep it coming, Patrick. Try a little harder next time, though--your inane responses are very weak.

Patrick Ross said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Patrick Ross said...

Sparky, if I was wrong on all accounts, one would think that the evidence would contradict me.

Why doesn't it, Sparky? Why did 95% of the most impartial available sample of blogs mark Kennedy's passing respectfully, just as I said?

If I was wrong on all accounts, why did you need to lie about Russ Campbell's blog post in order to claim it supported your argument?

As you may recall, Sparkles, my original comment was never about my alleged backyard -- in this case, some blogs I never read, some blogs I rarely read, and one individual with whom I communicate by email.

My original comment was about the vast majority of the blogosphere. I know you'd just love to move those goalposts and examine only Blogging Tories and cites linked to Free Republic. But that isn't what's under discussion here, and it never has been -- not from day one.

To make matters even more hilarious, I haven't offered any kind of defense for the blogs that Balbulican or yourself have cited -- except Russ Campbell's, about which you lied. In fact, I've noted on numerous occasions now that if we included them in the Google blogs sample (even though this would pollute said sample) it would increase (by a tiny margin) the proportion of blogs that had marked Kennedy's passing disrespectfully.

So basically, Sparkles, I said the same thing about those particular individual posts as you have. If I misrepresented those posts, Spanky, then so did you.

The truth is that you're lying when you claim I've misrepresented those posts, and you know it. It's just another lie to add to your well-established reputation for ideologically-motivated lying.

It's funny, Spark -- you insist that I keep getting my ass handed to me, yet every time I separate you from the pack of Robert Peter John Day's other sycophantic worshippers, I hand you your ass. Every time.

I'm actually kind of surprised to see that the fact that you exist with your head stuffed inside your ass has actually prevented you from realizing this. I would have thought it would make it more obvious.

Sparky said...

There it is, ladies and gentlemen--proven yet again that Patrick coulldn't be truthful if he tried.
Quoth the idiot--"I know you'd just love to move those goalposts and examine only Blogging Tories and cites linked to Free Republic. But that isn't what's under discussion here, and it never has been -- not from day one."
From StageLeft (even the title gives it away, you disingenuous hack)--
"The “Respectful” Right Dances on Ted Kennedy’s Grave
...
I was extremely heartened to hear that the “blogosphere as a whole” was “respectfully marking the passing of Ted Kennedy”. I set immediately on a tour of my favourite Conservative blogs to savour this new and uncharacteristic civility. "
Wow, SL references "Respectful" right and 'conservative blogs' right at the beginning. But, according to the Patrick the obtuse, "that isn't what's under discussion here, and it never has been -- not from day one"
Yeah, Patrick and reading comprehension = 0.
And moving goalposts? Audrey's challenge was based on SL's point--something that you were so obviously purposely misconstruing, even after it was pointed out numerous times. But if you admitted that, you'd have no point and you couldn't throw out your google hits.
And you also keep cpming back to this--
"why did you need to lie about Russ Campbell's blog post in order to claim it supported your argument"
I've asked you to back up that assertion numerous times. I've posted my exact quote, and I've even dumbed it down to your level of understanding, but you keep on saying I lied.
When you were called on it, you went to that old 'I already did--I don't need to answer it again'. Well then Patrick, show me where? Quote your work. But you can't. 'Cause it ain't there. Yet another one of your lies.
Again for obtuse jackass, I stated that his blog was respectful but the comments there weren't. I even went so far as to add that blog to the 'the right was respectful' side of the equation, for a grand total of 6 jackass bloggers trashing Kennedy to 2 bloggers respecting Kennedy (yours and his).
I've stated that throughout this thread, and you ignore it.
So by any truthful examination of this in its entirety, you lied numerous times, you've misrepresented everything that you possibly could, and, in response to Audrey's challenge, you're still down 4 blogs.
But being the hack that you are, you won't deal with any of this and post yet more obfuscations and lies.
So agian, Patrick, keep it up. I have the time to keep showing that you're a lying hack here.

Patrick Ross said...

ROTFL

So apparently it's Balbulican's post that's day one?

Classic goalpost shifting by Spanky.

Nothing in the original post in question -- the one that Balbulican took umbrage with -- said that the Blogging Tories or Free Republic blogs had been respectful or disrespectful of Kennedy. Nothing was said about them at all.

Likewise, Robert Peter John Day's post said nothing at all about the Blogging Tories or Free Republic in particular.

In fact, the only one to specifically mention the Blogging Tories or Free Republic was you.

Classic Sparkles -- if you can't win the argument, move the goalposts. And when the evidence affirming my claim was heaped upon him, Sparky just knew that was his only option.

That's Sparky for you. When he isn't trying to shift those goalposts, he's lying -- and when he is moving the goalposts he's lying about that.

He's what you may call a hopeless case.

And to make matters the more utterly hilarious, he wants to insist that I'm somehow "down four blogs" when, in fact, I'm up at least 281.

Only Sparky could be stupid enough to not realize that. Only Sparky would be dishonest enough to never admit it even if he did.

Like I said, he's a hopeless case. Worthless and useless. There's a reason he spends so much time fellating Robert PJ Day.

Sparky said...

There you go, people--the wonder that is Patrick. Even when the truth is in plain view, he has to make it about him and his idiocy.
Note how he conveniently didn't address any of his lies.
Keep going Patrick. Just keep going.

Sparky said...

And, of course, the last refuge of the lying hack--when every other avenue is proven a dead end, make crude sexual statements about your opponent.
And with that, Patrick's shows in no uncertain terms he's got nothing.

Patrick Ross said...

ROTFL

Sparky just can't seem to own up to this, and can't seem to own up what the best available evidence has to say -- 285 blogs out of an impartially-selected sample of 300 blogs marked Ted Kennedy's passing respectfully. A margin of 95%. The truth very much is in plain view, and it isn't a reductionist truth like Sparkles would demand.

The vast majority of the blogosphere marked Kennedy's passing respectfully. A 95% margin on a Google blog search supports this claim.

Sparky and friends have, to date, produced four cherry-picked blogs as evidence otherwise. A grand total of four. Against 285. Regardless of what Spanky has to say about it, the jury is in folks -- Sparky loses. (Again.)

Sparky knew this a long time ago, it's why he started lying in the first place.

Not only can Sparky not be honest about the evidence that he himself is positing -- lying about blogposts in order to treat them as disrespectful -- not only can he not be honest about the frame of discussion in the first place, but he can't even be honest about the evidence itself.

When Spanky doesn't like the truth, he rebrands it as a lie. Unfortunately for Spanky, this doesn't make that any more true.

Audrey II said...

After 4+ threads on multiple blogs and 50+ replies, we now have a whole lot of bluster, an ongoing appeal-to-repetition of claims that can be revealed for their falsity by simply conducting the search for one's self, a uniform reliance on "evidence" that doesn't support the claim being criticized, complete avoidance of criticisms that have been raised in response, the predictable effort to drag up a blogging vendetta as a distraction, desperate last-post-whoring, and amongst all of that, only one single link to one single post of "respectful" commentary to support a claim of "for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole...".

For such an apparently easy "win", there's been zero participation in the challenge/discussion from a particular participant and a whole lot of "rhetoric of assholery". Why, it's almost as if that's all that some are capable of.

"The gift that keeps on giving", indeed.

Sparky said...

Note again people--Partrick's truth requires that one suspend rational thought and reading comprehension.
Patrick's truth mandates we ignore the actual topic at hand and focus exclusively on what he thinks it is--which changes from one post to the next--funny that.
And when he knows he's lost it entirely, he throws down the CC card thinking that he's so clever.
Note also he didn't deal with any of the outstanding issues with any shred of proof or rational justification, 'cause in his little world, he's right and everyone else is wrong. IT doesn't matter if those really were octagons, it doesn't matter if there really is a deficit, and above all, it really soesn't matter if most of his own peer group wasn't civil towards Kennedy. 'Cause Patrick said so. Those points are beneath his regard--he just dismisses them outright. What? confront those truths? My gods man, Patrick wouldn't have a point to make if he did so!! And we couldn't have that, now could we, Patrick? Patrick wouldn't be able to bloviate ad nauseum regarding his own little version of the truth, now could he.
My goodness, expecting any sort of apology on those woefully inaccurate issues is so far below consideration of our lttle Patrick here.
Let's see waht he'll come up with next. Will tbere be ad hominems? Will he reference cc? Will he regurgitate stats that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand? Will there be more obfuscations forthcoming from 'The Bloviator'? Will he ignore any truth to further his already demonstrably proven falsehoods??
I await with eager anticipation.
As an aside, I know I've been slamming Patrick for his blatant idiocy throughout these threads. Note, however, I didn't stoop to sophmoric and crass sexual references, nor did I ever make moronic plays on his name. Unike Patrick, I can back up my statements with facts. Alas, that's what Patrick can't do... so on with the Spanky or Sparkles, Patrick. That's all you have left.

Patrick Ross said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Omigod what a loser.

This, folks, is apparently the best thing Sparky has to do with his time -- keep fighting a battle he's already lost, ever-so-desperate to get the last word.

Sparkles just won't admit that 285 out of 300 blogs on a Google blog search marked Kennedy's passing respectfully. He just won't admit it.

Now, Sparkles is digging up half-truths from someone else's hollow "triumphs". The same old half-truths, in fact. He really just can't let them go.

He was told a long time ago that this fixation on the past is just making him sick.

But one really does have to wonder what the same old half-truths Spanky likes to throw around have to do with the current argument, and how precisely they make him right when he is so clearly wrong.

Do those same old half-truths change the fact that he lied about Russ Campbell's blog post?

Do those same old half-truths change the fact that 285 out of a 300-count Google blog search support my claim that the vast majority of the blogosphere marked Kennedy's passing respectfully?

Do those same old half-truths change Spanky's desperation to change the frame of this debate that he clearly cannot win?

No. Of course they don't. Spanky's just dragging them up because they are quite literally the only things that he has to work with.

God knows he won't address the evidence in this case -- the evidence contradicts him so decisively that it isn't even funny.

At this point, Spanky just wants the last word. Well, it's too bad. I'm just going to keep pointing out that he has no credible argument, over and over again.

Sparky said...

You keep pointing out your fallacious claims, Patrick.
When you do, everyone else that's reading this thread will see that you've never backed up any of your claims. 'Cause, well, you can't.
And since you obviously know you can't, you've also added the technique comment spamming and trolling--you've not added to the conversation, and you've got nothing to say but you'll continue to post anyway.
Brilliant! And by that, I mean complete and utter jackass.
Address Audrey's points. Address any of your lies. Go ahead, try to dig yourself out of the hole you dug.
We're waiting.

Patrick Ross said...

Hmmm. "Fallacious" is an interesting re-definition of "accurate".

Anyone with a rational mind reading this thread, Sparky, is probably eventually going to start wondering why it is that you can't actually refute the evidence that I've offered up, and backed up -- whether or not Sparky wants to admit it, which we all know he never will.

The truth is, Sparky, that I have all the best evidence lining up solidly behind my claim. You know it, I know it, and any rational individual reading this thread will quickly know it.

They'll also quickly notice that you apparently have a very tenuous grasp on the concept of truth. After all, we find you here once again trying to re-brand truth as lies. This never works for you, Sparky. Are you ever going to learn?

Patrick Ross said...

It must be frustrating for you two to have lost this argument so completely and not even be able to get the last word.

Sparky said...

The last word?
Wow Patrick, is this your game now? Just trolling comment threads?
Hey, if that's the game you want to play, have at it.
Just a few things before I go. Audrey asked for links. You haven't provided one.
You continue to make the asinine statement about me lying. Rich coming from an unrepentant and provable liar.
Let's go to the exact quote--which, mind you, you've never dealt with, yet you continue to yip about--
"Maybe you [Patrick] were referring to this one [with regard to civility on the right]--
http://russ-campbell.blogspot.com/2009/08/sen-edward-ted-kennedy.html
but then again, the comments kinda give that away..."
Hmmmm... there's a lie in there?
Yeah, you were pretty much done a that point, yet you consistently came back, stating more lies and obfuscations over and over and over again.
And now all you've got is playing the 'last post' game. Well this thread, added with those other posts referenced therein, clearly show how much of a lying hack you truly are.
If I were you, I'd be ashamed. Then again, I don't go around having to lie about the facts in order to make my point.
You, however, really need to.
So, Patrick, have at it--have the last word for all posterity. Show us what you got--more lies, goalpost moving, obfuscations, name-calling and just flat-out trolling/spamming of this here comment thread. Show us how you've not dealt with Audrey's point honestly, how you've just made things up about my comments, and how you'll continue to act in an immature fashion.
One more 'ROTFL' for old time's sake. Just for us, Patrick.
C'mon, do it. You know you really want to. 'Cause you've got nothing else.
Pearls before the swine indeed.

Patrick Ross said...

Oh, please, Sparky.

You and I both know that of the two of us, you're the troll. If Audrey wants to spout off stupid bullshit about me, she should know I'm going to confront her about it.

So what do we have here?

For one thing, we suddenly have Spanky trying to change his story vis a vis the Russ Campbell post. That's amusing. (As I recall before, you were previousl;y trying to justify your fib based on the comments on that post.)

Sparkles really is either just completely out of touch with reality here or just isn't honest enough to admit that he lost.

For example, I provided the link to the Google blogs search sample I've been cited this entire time. Yet Sparky refuses to acknowledge this, because he knows that if he acknowledges the Google blog search sample he'll have to admit the extent to which he has lost this argument.

285 out of 300 sampled blogs provides plenty of support for my claim that the vast majority of the blogosphere marked Ted Kennedy's passing respectfully. Four cherry-picked blogposts does not support Audrey's claim that there would be an equal number of disrespectful as respectful blogposts, nor does it support Balbulican's claim that the "right is dancing on Ted Kennedy's grave".

What we have hear, folks is nothing short of the comical hubris and hypocrisy of people too stupid to know that they're complete retards.

Audrey insisted that the burden of proof for my claim that the vast majority of the blogosphere marked Kennedy's passing respectfully is on me. So I provided evidence -- I provided very strong evidence.

I pointed out to Audrey that the burden of proof for her claim that there would be an equal number of disrespectful and respectful blogposts is on her. She provided spectacularly weak evidence.

Spanky, meanwhile, is just outraged that someone would dare apply the same rules to he and his compatriots. He's become too accustomed to there being no rules at all for he and his ilk, and perhaps what makes him especially bitter is that these are rules of their own creation.

And he still refuses to admit that he lost. He continues to lie, continues to attempt to re-brand the inconvenient truth as lies, call names, and god only knows what else.

As he himself so succinctly described it, all he has left is this last comment game.

Just like he lost this argument, he's going to lose that game, too.

As everyone can now see, Sparkles is so pathetic that he can't even win at that.

Sparky said...

Keep going Patrick.
I love the 'Sparkles' bit--that makes your point so much clearer.
Fib? Only in your world. Since you've never shown where that 'fib' actually is (since you've never even bothered to post my actual comment), you've just proved yet again how much of a hack you truly are.
Besides the lack of ROTFL, you've covered every other salient point I made regarding you--
more lies--check!
goalpost moving--check!
obfuscations--check!
name-calling--definitely check!
trolling/spamming--absolutely check!
Not dealing with Audrey's point honestly--again, check!
How you've just made things up about my comments--wow, check again!
acting in an immature fashion--what, we expected anything different from you?? That'll be the day! That's a check!
Keep it up, Patrick! You're doing a fantastic job!

Patrick Ross said...

Yawn. Sparkles is now officially the most boring person in the blogosphere.

The irony of Sparkles accusing other people of lying, goalpost moving, name-calling and not dealing with points honestly while he does all of these things himself is probably lost on Sparky. Fortunately, however, it wasn't lost on Audrey, who clearly gave up the fight.

As for Sparky, well, he's like a retard with a nail gun, still trying to figure out why it hurts so much when he shoots himself in the foot.

Hey, Spanky, I think I'm starting to forget -- what did that 300-hit Google blogs sample say about how the blogosphere marked Ted Kennedy's passing, again?

Patrick Ross said...

And he still can't get the last word. God knows that's eating him up inside.

Sparky said...

That's your game, Patrick, not mine. I'm just here to correct the record.
You've clearly demonstrated that you're all about 'playing the game' instead of actually dealing with the issues.
You've clearly demonstrated that it's your lies that are important instead of what is actually true.
For a lark, let's look at what Audrey actually said (since Patrick really doesn't want to...)
And since Patrick is probably too dense to know how to use a scroll bar, I'll post it way down here--

"I'm perfectly wiling to admit that I could be wrong in my skepticism, but I'm also willing to put it to the test and give him the opportunity to back up his claim with fact. Pat can use the comment section here to post links to "respectful" commentary..."

Has Patrick posted 1 link? Should be easy, 'cause you know he's always yipping about his 'google hits'... let's scroll up through the comments (something Patrick can't do 'cause he's too dense...)

Nope. Not one link from Patrick. He didn't even post his own link (probably doesn't know how)

Let's go on...

"...and anyone else willing to participate in this challenge may similarly post links to "disrespectful" commentary. A running tally will be kept via edits above the fold."

I posted links--both from Patrick's very own peer group. The first was not respectful at all, and the other was respectful, though the comments weren't--a fact taht I stated quite clearly. But Patrick, being the obtuse moron he is, has been lying about those links ever since.

But onward...

"My prediction is that 1) there won't be an overwhelming disparity marking what "for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole"'s position is..."

No links from Patrick, but I'd have to surmise the same...

"...and 2) there's going to be a distinct difference in the ideological leaning of those bloggers that were "respectful" in their commentary vs those who were not"

This is the point I was making with my links and commentary, but again, lost on the willfully ignorant Patrick (who, again, has not posted 1 link)

"and 3) we're going to see a really ugly aspect of the blogosphere that some would prefer (via proof by assertion) to gloss over"

Well, Patrick's blog presence here has always been ugly--really didn't have to wait. And, as noted repeatedly both here and at SL, he glossed over anything that didn't reinforce his point. Oh wait, that means he glossed over any truth in favour of his outright lies (and still no posted links to boot).

(con't)

Sparky said...

"Balbulican has already got the ball rolling at the above linked post, making Ross down 4-1 by my count. Will Patrick put his links where his mouth is?"

No. As proven.

"Will we see a rhetorical exercise in redefining what "respectful" means or an attempt to give attributes to an absence-of-post vacuum?"

Absolutely. As proven.

"What kind of tantrums will occur when it becomes painfully undeniable that a certain blogger isn't "the rest of the blogosphere"? "

Oh we got your trolling, your obfuscations, your pedantic lying, goal-post moving, your game playing, post whoring and ad hominems all from Patrick.

"Stay tuned..."

We did. And Patrick did exactly what Patrick always does. Nothing of substance, and a whole lot of blathering.
Also note how when Patrick yips about what other people did or said, he never actually quotes them. 'Cause if he did, people reading it would say, "Well, Patrick, that person didn't say what you said he did."
Continue with your game playing, Patrick. I will be here to point out the truth that you so glaringly missed every time. Not only that, there appears to be a bunch of other people that have pointed out your glaring hypocrisy and general retardedness. Now that's gotta grate on your nerves--knowing that whenever you stick your head out of your dank hole and spread whatever lie you're on about that particular day, there'll be someone there to point out how much of a moron you really are.
This is why anytime cc's mentioned, you go flying off with an ad hominem. This is why anytime triangles or 'no deficit' are even alluded to, you have to yip about 'hollow victories' (btw, they're not hollow and they wouldn't be 'victories' if you corrected your record)
Yeah, if there's anyone that's being consumed inside, it's the guy who has this compulsive need to turn this into his own personal game at the expense of the truth.
You keep right on playing, Patrick. We're due for another ROTFL.
Signed,
Sparkles (or Spanky--whichever your petty little mind prefer)

Patrick Ross said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

See, folks, Sparky just can't be honest. He's incapable of it.

See, I didn't just settle for linking to a tiny handful of blogs like Audrey did. Far from it. Nope. I linked to a sample of Google blogs.

For your education, Spanky, that blue text is a link. You may want to try it out.

Apparently, Sparky is either too stupid to recognize a link when he sees it -- which wouldn't be shocking to anyone -- or he actually expects me to waste my time linking to all 300 posts separately.

(Spanky does seem to think he's entitled to waste people's time.)

So there we have it. Not only is Spanky too dishonest to admit that 285 blog posts out of a Google blog search-generated sample of Google blogs supported my claim, but he's too dishonest to even admit that a link was posted to it.

Sparkles is absolutely incapable of honesty about anything.

The utterly comical thing is that link was posted, and any hope Sparky had of ever winning this argument destroyed, eight days ago. Sparky has been bloviating in vain against superior evidence for eight days. Eight days! Eight days and this retard still can't admit that he was clearly wrong, Audrey was clearly wrong, Balbulican was clearly wrong.

285 out of 300 blog posts generated via a Google blogs search -- the best method available for creating an as-close-to-impartial-as-possible sample -- supports my claim. And Sparky and Audrey have nothing but cherry-picked blogposts from a peer group that turns out to actually not be a peer group at all to back up their claims.

Why won't Sparky just be honest about this?

Audrey claimed that there would be one disrespectful blog post for every respectful blog post.

Why won't Sparky admit he was wrong? Is he incapable of rudimentary math?

Balbulican claimed that the right was dancing on Ted Kennedy's grave.

Yet the even significant portion of conservative blogs amongst the Google blogs sample marked Kennedy's passing respectfully.

Why won't Sparky just admit these things?

The answer is very simple -- he can't afford to. If he admits defeat, apologizes, and makes amends like he insists should be done, he has nothing to brag about at the Groupthink Temple. He has to go back and face his master in defeat. Again. As always.

Let's face it, Spark. You're a loser. You literally have nothing better to do than sit around waging lost battles in defense of utter sleaze.

You know full well that the evidence has spoken decisively against you. Despite your lies about it, you know this. Any rational individual paying attention to this blog thread has clued into that long, long ago. Even Audrey figured that out and backed out.

This is just you against the inconvenient truth, struggling desperately to get the last word in.

It's actually rather pathetic.

285 to 15, Spanky. I win. You lose.

Sparky said...

Note again that Audrey asked for links and Patrick didn't post any. Note how Patrick gives what he wants and never what is asked.
See, Patrick doesn't like to dwell on what is asked. He likes to dwell on what he wants

Let's see what Audrey actually said (again)--

"I'm perfectly wiling to admit that I could be wrong in my skepticism, but I'm also willing to put it to the test and give him the opportunity to back up his claim with fact. Pat can use the comment section here to post links to "respectful" commentary"

In other words, Patrick, "Hey, I could be wrong--you post your links and I'll post mine!"

Patrick's having none of that, however. Instead, he's rather post his google link, as if that satisfies Audrey's request.

So Audrey confronts him on that--

"Now, as I've posted above, I'm completely willing to admit that my opinion might be inaccurate and I'm fully prepared to re-examine it in light of evidence presented (note the difference between that and appeals to assertion or calling of others retards and stupid). When you neglect to include important qualifiers such as "I think" or "In my opinion" in your claims, you might tend to miss them in others'. Oopsies.

The problem with the blog-search that you've provided is that it 1) it isn't a random sampling, and blogs that have the same kind of vile, disrespectful garbage that Shaidle, Sullivan, Currie, etc... may not have had their Kennedy commentary be as popular(thus, not ranking high on the results), and 2) the sample includes a lot of news aggregating blogs that simply noted Kennedy's passing (as opposed to actually commenting on it).

Again, the problem with asserting things like "for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole was..." is that it intentionally blurs over important distinctions and sharp divides that exist. It would be more accurate to say that left-leaning blogs and respondents that actually commented on Kennedy's death that actually commented on Teddy's death were respectful while right leaning blogs and respondents tended (exceptions noted) to be silent or disrespectful.


(con't)

Sparky said...

That's why I challenged you to post actual links and why I think you chose to avoid that challenge by referring to a search engine result for "Ted Kennedy August 25". You know that what you posted is as ridiculous as saying that "for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole rejects the notion of torture". Yes, the majority of people who blog about torture or comment on torture might express a rejection of it, but that's not quite the same thing as the existence of a homogeneous sentiment existing.

I don't really expect for you to admit your error nor participate in the challenge in good faith, nor am I the least bit surprised at the effort to avoid dealing with the actual criticism and inclusion of examples that really don't support your original claim, but I'm satisfied with having drawn attention to yet another laughable claim. Watching you attempt to bluster around it is as amusing as ever. It does, however, raise the issue of whether or not you're really that self-unaware, or just can't help yourself.
"

She's stated clearly and concisely that she's willign to admit she could be wrong--if only Patrick would post the links! Not some google hits that don't take into consideration all the various points that Audrey listed.

Patrick, however, blatantly ignored that. Completely. 'Cause that would be... what? Too difficult, Patrick? You've shown a little growth by showing that you can actually post links. Now post links to sites that have 'respectful commentary'--not your google hits.

But no, Patrick will gloss over this point with his usual flair.

I then used 'hte google' and came up with my own--"Patrick Ross Dishonest" and noted that 5 out of the first 10 hits were about how dishonest Patrick is. None of the hits were about how Patrick isn't dishonest. How 'bout that?

And that was ignored.

So again, Patrick, you speak of dishonesty and inconvenient truths. Well, I've got exact quotes from the parties involved that easily refute everything you've yipped about.

Now how about you surprising us by, y'know, actually posting some links?

Right now--posted links here show you're down 4. Stop yer crying about 'all those links!!' and post 5 respectful links and then we'll see what happens.

Though, now after all your yipping, I woudn't blame Audrey at all if she continued to ignore you. it isn't 'cause you so fantastically refuted her point, it's that you're a complete and utter jackass.

The only reason why I'm still here is 'cause it's my mission in life to educate the ignorant. And this thread aptly demonstrates just how ignorant you truly are.

Love,

Spanky

Patrick Ross said...

So, apparently Sparky thinks he is entitled to waste my time.

It must be rather frustrating for him that I won't oblige him.

285 out of a sample of 300 blog posts generated via Google blogs marked Kennedy's passing respectfully. The hilarious thing about it is that Sparkles has being trying to deny this for eight days without making any kind of attempt to refute that evidence.

It's probably not the stupidest way Spanky's ever spent eight days. He may even keep at it for eight more.

Sparky said...

As everyone else can see here, Patrick's the one that's wasting everyone's time.
Note how he completely ignored Audreys points (again). Note how he deflects (again) at what was asked. Note how he 'wastes his time' when he takes the time (again) to bloviate about how this is wasting his time. Note how he tries to make this about me (again)--obsess much, Patrick?

Patrick Ross--the most useless tool in the blogosphere.
Did you know that 'most of the blogosphere' considers Patrick Ross to be a lying hack? This very thread supports that claim.
It's your time, Patrick. You go right ahead and keep playing your useless games. Every time you do, you demonstrate what a useless tool you really are.
For a guy who says I'm boring and useless, you sure put lots of effort into responding to me.
I, on the other hand, know you're a liar and I'm just here to correct the record, and will continue to do so as long as you keep posting your little idiocies.
Have at it, Patrick. Waste your time posting your lies. Waste your time not dealing with Audrey's points. Waste your time not correcting your own record. It's just got to grate on your nerves knowing that everytime you open your lying mouth, someone's going to be there to call you on it.
Sucks to be you.

Patrick Ross said...

ROTFL

Now if only everyone saw the world the way that Sparky does.

Unfortunately for Sparky, not everyone receives every "idea" floating around in their hands from a crazed ideologue.

Sparky just doesn't seem to understand evidence, what comprises quality evidence and what does not. It's a lack of sophistication that he and Audrey share.

At this point, one just has to assume that Sparkles doesn't understand that an impartial sample of blogs makes for a much stronger standard of evidence than the one that he and Audrey wanted to indulge themselves in here -- the opportunity to cherry-pick disrespectful blogs at will and inflate their significance, despite the fact that they are very clearly an extreme minority compared against the entire blogosphere.

After all, despite the fact that Sparkles just won't admit as rudimentary a fact that I linked to the sample in question.

Why wouldn't Sparky admit this? Because he's a liar. He's as committed a liar as anyone will ever encounter anywhere on the blogosphere -- literally incapable of honesty.

See, Spanky wants to pretend that he's "correcting the record" by simply ignoring the evidence -- the fact that 285 out of a sample of 300 blogs generated via a Google blog search marked Kennedy's passing respectfully.

Moreover, he wants to insist that this fact is a lie without ever addressing the issue of the evidence itself.

Because that's just the kind of person that Spanky is -- dishonest, disingenuous, worthless and useless. Probably about the biggest waste of space on God's green earth (and when you're a bigger waste of oxygen than Kevron you just know you're fucking worthless).

Patrick Ross said...

See, folks, I kind of suspect that Sparkles just doesn't understand how fucking stupid he sounds in regard to this issue.

So I did him a little favour yesterday.

You're welcome.

Sparky said...

Thanks for finally posting the ROTFL I asked for, Patrick! It's appreciated. You wouldn't be you without it! My god, I love your predictability!
I hope you weren't up all night clicking 'refresh', waiting for me to respond.
Note again (and again) that Audrey asked for Patrick to post links--not links to links. She stated why, and her points were not refuted by Patrick, therefore we can either assume that Patrick agreed with her valid concerns regarding 'google hits' or Patrick blatantly ignored her point altogether. Either way, matters not. Links were asked for--not a link to links. But Patrick's not interested in that. No, he'd rather obfuscate (again). See, this is the only way Patrick can 'win'--change the rules. He states something adamantly--"Those are triangles, therefore those guys can't be undercover agents!!" but when the truth comes out, "Those were blurry photos so I can't be held responsible for what I said!!". It's akin to this very issue--Patrick states that 'most of the blogosphere marked the passing'--hey, it's a statement that could easily be backed up by posting links to actual blogs. Audrey asked for those links--even stating that she could be wrong regarding her idea... Patrick comes up with something that's already rejected, thinking that he's 'won'. Well, no. Either refute Audreys points regarding your 'google hits', or post the damn links, Patrick. Those are your options right now. Anything else shows you to be the hack you are.
This is also why I stated clearly very early on in this discussion--I don't give a rats ass about what Patrick thinks of me. He can rant and rave and name-call all he wants. He can try to make this about me (obsess much?), but the rest of us can see that it just makes him look more like an idiot every time. I'm just here to point out the truth--the truth doesn't care about Patrick's ego.
Finally, for a guy who has stated only one thing clearly and concisely--
Because that's just the kind of person that Spanky is -- dishonest, disingenuous, worthless and useless. Probably about the biggest waste of space on God's green earth (and when you're a bigger waste of oxygen than Kevron you just know you're fucking worthless).
--I wonder how long it'll take Patrick to respond to this 'worthless waste of oxygen'.
Moreover, I wonder if he'll "waste the time" leting us know hat he's "wasting his time" responding to "this waste of time".
Your game, Patrick. But similar to how you always seem to get your 'facts' wrong, you can't even get play your own game right.

Sparky said...

Oh you want me to come to your litle corner of the blogosphere and play by your rules?
Where Kevron is perma-banned and I'm a "bigger waste of oxygen than Kevron"?
Is that your little game?
Yeah, there's no chance in hell that I'm commenting in your nexus anytime soon.
Let us recall the last time I commented there--what was that blog about again? Oh right, you stating adamantly that I lied regarding a blog on these here internets.
And what wasn't in your blog? Oh right--proof of that claim--A quote, written by me and you pointing out where that supposed lie was. Wasn't there and I called you on it. And what did you do? Oh right, went into more obfuscations.
'Cause you couldn't provide any quote of mine in which I lied. Once again, you can't back up anything so you resort to game playing.
That may work for you and mahmood, but it doesn't work for discerning any truth.
You're a hack.
I'll stay out here, so all can see what a hack you are. If you want to go crawl under your own little rock and hide, by all means.

Patrick Ross said...

ROTFL

Sparkles, you're a waste of oxygen no matter where you are.

I also remember what the excuse you offered for lying about Russ Campbell's blog, as offered over at my spot -- something about the comments or some other nonsense.

And as for obfuscation -- well, that's about the second funniest thing I've heard all day.

Oh, and the by the way,

285 blogs out of a 300 blog sample marked Kennedy's passing respectfully.

Sparky said...

That didn't take long at all, Patrick! Wow, I have my very own stalker!
Unfortunately for Patrick, most of his very own peer group didn't mark Kennedy's passing respectfully--a point consistently glossed over by him.
And he still has to continue the charade regarding my comment about Russ Campbells blog--without, mind you, showing where that supposed lie was. This has already been addressed numerous times and with complete clarity. Patrick doens't wnat to let it go, though, 'cause he couldn't go on 'wasting his time'.
And he still hasn't address Audrey's blog honestly.
Oh Patrick was pretty much done a long time ago. He's just trying to score 'google hits' now with 'sparky' and 'intellectual dishonesty' so he can go on about something else. There, Patrick, I just helped you out. I'm good to my fans that way.
Patrick Ross--a hack even on his own blog.

Sparky said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sparky said...

And since Patrick's all about 'hte googlez'... I had another look at his google search--"ted kennedy august 25"
As we know, Patrick is usually disingenuous, and that's already apparent in his google search--Patrick's claim was 'most of the blogosphere' was respectful of Kennedys passing but his google search encompasses the entire internetz... not just bloggers. So, well, he won't address that so we'll just move on...
I had a look at his search. Today ('cause it will change), the very first hit was to a site that wasn't respectful of Kennedy--
Conservative Beach Girl
Unlike Patrick, I know that google searches are pretty much in flux at all times.
So I tried to come up with something that would satisfy blogger hits for Kennedy's passing that would filter out non-blogging sites.
so I tried
ted kennedy august 25 blogspot since many bloggers use blogspot. Again, not perfect 'cause it doesn't encompass all bloggers, but Patrick states that 'most of the blogosphere...', so why not start here.
And what do we have...
Not hte numbers that Patrick was flouting (but then again, we knew he couldn't let the truth out)
ted kennedy august 25 blogspot
I went thru the first few pages o' links (as Patrick lies to do) and these are the numbers--
Respectful--20
Disrespectful--5
Marking the event--5
Newspaper 'blogs'--6 that ask for 'your comments'
And this is just from Blogspot--which, for the sake of clarity (since we know Patrick isn't about clarity), doens't include all bloggers.
As well ,there were some Youtube/non blogger hits in there which weren't added to the list.
So Patrick, using your own logic, 'most' is at best 75 percent.
And I think I stated right at the beginning of this entire conversation, all told the number of disrespectful bloggers would be around the same number as the people who think Cheney's a good hunting partner and that GWB didn't go AWOL--around the 28 percent(ers) mark.
Right now by my quick calculation it's running at 25, but eh, whatever.
Patrick Ross, ladies and gentlemen--he can't even be honest about his own numbers.
Are we finished now, or does Patrick Ross have one more ROTFL in him? Go on Patrick--I used your own google hits. Now what?

Sparky said...

I had 15 in the 'respectful' column originally--15 respectful + 5 disrespectul and not including the irrelevant data would be 75 percent respectful. I had a look at more links and added to the columns, but I forgot to update my math--bad me.
80 percent at best. I could go back, but i think the point's been made.
And what's that, ladies nad gentlemen? Oh right--Patrick hasn't been honest through this whole ordeal about google links, comments, or, well, pretty much everything. He just likes playing the game (and losing, btw)

Sparky said...

Ummm... waiting, Patrick.
What say you?
You're the one yipping about google links... What? Nothing to say?
Here's more--go deeper in the google hits and there appears to be more people not being kind to Kennedy. Overall, I think we can safely surmize that the 20 percent as tallied from the first few pages would ever-so-increase to around the whatever percent(ers) that think Barack wasn't born in the US of A or that thought Sarah would've been a fantastic VP--you betcha!
What say you? Are these the numbers that you used when you stated 'most'?
I don't know about you, but when someone uses the term 'most' as you did, I'd expect a 95-99 percent. At least, the way you acted when you preened about your google hits. now we see it's really around 70-80.
Did you not stumble on one negative blog regarding Kennedy before you wrote your screed? You obviously acted like they weren't there. You obviously didn't want the rest of us to look in your own back yard. You obviously wanted to 'muddy the waters' by stating over and over again your fallacious google hits.
And the sad part of it is, you knew all this from the beginning. You expounded your 'facts' knowing that they were already wrong.
But then again, you've done it before and you'll do it again.
Starting right around.... now--

Patrick Ross said...

Sparky, you truly are dumb as a brick.

You know that a Google blog search allows you to set the dates without entering it in the search field, don't you?

See, I knew that.

What that little trick does, Sparky, is restrict the blog search to the actual dates in question, whereas your search will find any blog, written at any time, that mentions the date "August 25th".

There's a pretty good chance that a lot of those posts don't even necessarily have anything to do with Kennedy's passing at all.

Now, that being said, Sparky, because I restricted my search to the dates of August 25th and August 26th -- the day Kennedy passed away and the day immediately following it -- through the engine itself, the amount of change to that sample will be minimal.

But that isn't even the best part.

No sooner has Sparkles set himself up to take the fall with a poorly-engineered Google search, but he's already attempting to tailor the results to try to warp them to the conception he wants to push.

It starts with an evident attempt to redefine the word "respectful". In this case, Spanky seems to want to redefine the word "respectful" to mean "gushing with post-mortem ass-kissery".

It would seem to most people that those blogs that simply "marking the event" in lieu of commentary is still a fairly respectful way to mark someone's passing.

Nor do we exclude Newspaper blogs from the blogosphere -- especially since Sparkles is practically guaranteed to have no compelling reason to do so.

But is that the funniest part of Spanky's attempt to score a checkmate in a chess game he already lost?

Hell, no.

Sparky still doesn't seem to understand that 75% is still a pretty big majority. Perhaps even a vast majority. Furthermore, if Sparky himself can only find five disrespectful blog posts in a search that he himself engineered in an attempt to skew the results in the first place.

Not to mention that Sparkles didn't even run a blog search, like I did. Praytell, Spanky, were you aware of this search function?

Apparently, Sparky is once again trying to scale down the blogosphere in an attempt to skew search results in his favour by only searching blogspot blogs.

I'm sure your good friend JJ will be crushed that you didn't consider her Wordpress blog to be worthy of inclusion in your sample.

Whereas, my search was conducted with one restriction and one restriction alone -- that of date.

Sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, Sparkles, but the evidence I provided remains vastly superior.

But I'll give him this: at least he finally climbed down off that Cherry Picker.

Patrick Ross said...

Fuck, what a retard. Give him some rope and he can't help but hang himself. I'm almost ready to let him have the last word out of sheer pity.

Patrick Ross said...

Christ, I don't believe he actually played the stalker card.

Sparkles, take a good look at your buddy Robert Peter John Day. There's a real stalker.

Frankly, Spanky, I'm just glad you don't live in Calgary. I'd hate to think of what Richard Evans would have done if he'd caught you lurking in his bushes one school morning.

And we all know you would have done it.

Patrick Ross said...

And I still want to comment on Sparkles' complaints about Audrey "not being addressed properly", because this is pure comedy.

What Audrey wanted to do here was set the frame of evidence up so it was tailored to confirm her assertion regardless of whether or not it was true.

I could certainly sit here and post link after link to blog posts that marked Kennedy's passing respectfully. But then Audrey and her brainless little pet here could go out and cherry pick more disrespectful blog posts and conflate their significance in the blogosphere.

Whereas I deferred to a method that would give us an impartial sample of blogs -- after all, I can't control Google blogs to show us only respectful posts about Kennedy's passing, even if I wanted to.

Apparently, Sparky's been preening this time because I won't contest this debate by rules that were intentionally designed to be implicitly unfair to me. In fact, at times, he actually seems rather outraged.

Whatever Sparky has to say about the evidence that I provided, he credibly can't say that it isn't fair.

I think at a certain point here he'll break down and cry that it is all terribly unfair. But that doesn't mean he has so much as a shred of credibility.

And he's still a fucking idiot.

Patrick Ross said...

Man, this thing is already at 80 comments. I wonder how many it'll get to before Sparkles finally understands the sheer extent to which he's lost?

285 out of 300 impartially generated blog posts via a Google blogs search have supported my claim, Sparky.

So fucking eat it, loser.

Sparky said...

Where to even begin with the sheer overwhelming stupidity that Patrick just spewed...
First, I want it noted that Patrick, out of sheer desperation, dropped the Nambla linking Richard Evans name into the conversation. Up until now, we were having a relatively pleasant conversation calling each other names and such--me calling Patrick an idiot 'cause, well, he is demonstrably so, and him calling me stupid 'cause, well, he's got nothing else. Then he has to bring up Richard "I owned websites that linked to NAMBLA" Evans.
For what purpose, Patrick? What's your point? You thow out an idiotic claim about me wanting to stalk someone living halfway across the country?
The only thing I can surmise is that, well, it's obvious you got nothing else.
But let's continue anyway...
Patrick did what Patrick always does--redefine things so he can 'win'.
"For the most part, the blogosphere as a whole" means 70 percent
"For the most part, the blogosphere as a whole" means links that aren't blogs.
"For the most part, the blogosphere as a whole" means blogs that just marked the passing as if that infers some sort of respect (and I didn't even mention the comments associated with most of those blogs 'cause Patrick doesn't like anything that refutes his point. There were comments at these blogs such as 'i'm glad the bastard's dead!' and the like, but that won't do for Patrick)
"for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole" means a narrowly defined date stamp--'cause that's what Patrick wants!
"For the most part, the blogosphere as a whole" means whatever Patrick wants it to mean on any given comment.
And "Respectful"? As already demonstrated, Patrick wants to combine all blogs that don't explicitly condemn Kennedy (barring commenters as well). 'Cause a blog post that says name, date of birth, date of death and has a picture, to Patrick, is a glowing, 'angels are singing praises' case of respectfullness... 'Cause a newspaper blog post saying "What did you think of Kennedy" and having comments like "I wish he was fed through a wood chipper feet first!" shows so much respect for Kennedy...
This is what Patrick wants everyone to think so he can pad his numbers--but don't examine the evidence too closely! That wouldn't do!
I used his very google list that he's been going on about and the very first link was to a non-respectful blog.
Number 1.
Yet Patrick wants to gloss over that.
(con't)

Sparky said...

So I tried to come up with a better search. I even said it wouldn't encompass all blogs but it would cover many of them--unlike Patricks google list, which encompassed many links that weren't even blogs (but don't examine that too closely, either, 'cause that wouldn't do for Patrick's point)
Impartially generated blog posts? Whatever. Since you can't even tell the truth about other people's comments even when the truth is repeatedly demonstrated to you, there's no way in hell that you can be trusted on this. Show where that link o' yours encompasses all blogs, Patrick. Oh right, you can't. My first kick at the can after your sad attempt, was 'ted kennedy august 25 blog' (using Patrick's own search criteria and adding hte word 'blog'. What I found was even more blog hits to disrespectful sites, but also more sites in general that weren't blogs. So I put 'blogspot'--that got better results.
But that won't do for Patrick and his redefining everything to suit his little ego.
Note how much Patrick whines when faced with the facts--
I could certainly sit here and post link after link to blog posts that marked Kennedy's passing respectfully. But then Audrey and her brainless little pet here could go out and cherry pick more disrespectful blog posts and conflate their significance in the blogosphere
Shorter Patrick--I could do what was asked, but those guy's would just show me how wrong I was...
Note also how he diminishes 'disrespectful' blog posts--"conflate their significance" but the respectful blogs--well, they're all significant in Patrick's world. What colour is the sky there Patrick, btw? Note how the very first link in Patrick's list is not respectful, but we wouldn't want to 'conflate that significance' now, would we?
"Fucking eat it, loser"?
That's what you end with?
Yeah, you sure showed me, Patrick.
We can go another 80 comments if you so desire. I'm not tired of showing just how wrong you are. We'll add it to the 'octagons' and 'deficits' that you were ever so wrong about.
Octagons, deficits and 'the blogosphere as a whole'...
There's so much more here that could be said, but
I would surmise that Patrick's just itching to hang himself some more...
Have at it, my favourite little fan!

Patrick Ross said...

ROTFL

Sparky apparently just can't own up to the fact that his desperation argument just got utterly crushed, and I'd say that rambling and incoherent response is proof of it.

I mean, seriously, folks. Let's take a look at some of the things in the "blogging sample" that Sparky just submitted.

For example, just imagine how utterly amused I was to spot this in his sample.

It isn't even a blog, it's Kennedy's speech to the Democratic Convention (which happened on August 25 2008). It's a YouTube hit.

(You can imagine that Sparky had hoped that no one would see that.)

(And it's funny when you think about it. Wasn't Sparky just claiming that some of the hits generated via my Google blog search weren't blogs? Yet some of his hits can be videos and he figures that's kosher?)

So, just as I said, not only is Sparkles' sample not a valid sample of blogs -- as it's tainted by the presence of non-blog related hits -- but it also is not a valid snapshot of the blogging response to Kennedy's passing.

If one examines Sparky's whole sample how many references to Kennedy's August 25, 2008 speech to the DNC will we find? I can only wonder.

What we have here, in Spanky's sample, is a survey that lacks internal validity: it does not measure what it sets out to measure.

If Sparkles the magical retard over here had any knowledge whatsoever of what he's talking about, he would understand that his improper methodology renders his sample invalid.

But not only does Sparky not know what he's talking about, but he really doesn't care. At this point he simply must know what everyone else reading this thread knows -- that he lost this debate long, long ago. Now he just wants to convince himself that he won.

Well, that's too bad Spanky. I won. You lost. Your cherry-picked blog posts weren't enough to eek out a victory on this one, and your invalid survey sample (because that's really what we're doing here, is comparing surveys) has done no better.

So I'll be waiting for your next rambling and incoherent responsse, Sparky. If anything it's good for a laugh, and I could always use a good laugh.

Audrey II said...

5 threads and 90+ comments later, Patrick 1) hasn’t posted a single example to support his claim, and 2) has been reduced to last-word whoring and appealing to the same verifiably false claim, betting that readers won’t conduct the search for themselves.

The challenge as posed was never to aimed at proving whether the amount of angry, bile-filled, disrespectful post and replies penned by the blogosphere’s right outnumbered the respectful tribulations that came from the left and the normatively-devoid noting of Ted’s passing that occurred on newsblogs (note Patrick’s subsequent efforts to blow over that strawman), but rather to call draw attention to the lengths one must go to in order to support the absurd claim regarding “for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole”. Had the original claim been “the number of vile, disgusting, angry responses that came from the blogosphere’s right in the wake of Ted’s passing was outnumbered by the respectful and praising posts that came from the left and the normatively devoid noting of his passing that came from news blogs”, I doubt anyone would have taken issue with it. But despite Pat’s hamfisted attempt to move the goal posts, that wasn’t his claim at all. There was no respectful sentiment from the blogosphere as a whole, but rather deep contrasts along partisan lines. Equivocating the original claim with (as Pat’s none-to-subtly attempting to do) what a blog search engine for “Ted Kennedy Aug 25” yields renders the original claim essentially meaningless and misleading with respect to what actually occurred within the blogosphere. I think that on some level, Pat understands this, which is why he’s deliberately avoiding providing links to examples or participating in the challenge that was posed to him. I think that he understands what a closer examination of the contrast between the kinds of things that were said about Ted’s passing would reveal about his original claim.

All Pat’s left with is sputtering “ROFL”, “Yeah, but Canadian Cynic...”, calling others “dishonest”, and an appeal to the repetition of the same problematic claim attacking the same strawman, desperately hoping that if he repeats the rhetoric often enough, he might provide a sufficient distraction from the fact that he hasn’t participated in the challenge as posed, he hasn’t responded to the criticisms of his original claim, and he hasn’t addressed the criticisms that have been raised regarding his “evidence”. His participation in discussion has been essentially no different than that of the preschooler that sticks his fingers in his hears and repeats the same thing over and over and over again, regardless of the problems with it that others are pointing out. That isn’t substantive debate or discussion, and it certainly isn’t the mark of someone confident in his/her argument. It does, however, reek of desperation and a complete lack of self-awareness. Every post and reply in which Pat’s avoided the challenge that was posed to him simply illustrates the point it was designed to make (for those following, that isn’t the “blog search engine results” strawman Pat has been so frantically slaying).

We now return you to your regularly scheduled posting of facile “Oh my lord/ROFL”s, non-sequitur and demonstrably false blog search findings, and resurrections of old blogging vendettas unrelated to the topic at hand. Someone seems to think that there are people out there dumb enough to find that kind of thing compelling.

Sparky said...

Patrick, as per his usual status quo, wants people to ignore the explicily stated facts so he can make a point.
OMG!! He found a link to a non-blog in my list!!! OMFG!!! Oh wait, what did I say again?
"As well ,there were some Youtube/non blogger hits in there which weren't added to the list."
Oh right. I already acknowledged those, dealt with them by not adding them to the respectful/disrespectful list, and went on. Patrick, on the other hand, never stated anything like that and just flaunts his numbers--hoping no one would look too closely. Turns out under scrutiny, my numbers are concrete numbers relating to actual blogs that show respect/disrespect/passing/news or non blogs. All listed and all there for people to see. Patricks numbers--not so much.
Patrick, again, wants people to ignore what's actually written so he can 'win'.
Patrick, can you even read?
Here's some more for you, Patrick--
"For the most part, the blogosphere as a whole" doesn't include Patrick's own peer group. On Patrick's specified 'days' (the only ones that count according to Patrick), we found 8 blog posts at the BT's regarding Kennedy. 2 were respectful. Patricks and some other guy. Who was that 'other guy'? Oh right, Russ--the blogger that Patrick is adamant that I lied about. What's he doing on the 'respectful' side? Oh I dunno, making Patrick eat his words (which he won't--he'll change it around to 'win'--he always does)--the comments there are a different story, but I already stated that.
So that's 2-6 in Patrick's very own back yard. 75 percent of Particks close compatriots that blogged about Kennedy on Patricks selected days were not respectful. But let's not talk about that--that wouldn't be good for Patrick's 'win'.
"For the most part, the blogosphere as a whole" must include the blog that started this little tirade of Patricks in the first place. I mean, by Patrick's very statements regarding what is respectful and what isn't, CC's blog post has to be included on the respectful side. There's no disrespect in cc's blog towards Kennedy.
What say you, Patrick? Does your 'for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole' include cc's post? If so, what the hell are you going on about? Wasn't your entire screed making the point that cc wasn't respectful? Well, by your very statements during this discussion regarding news blogs and blogs that just marked Kennedy's passing, we are forced to conclude that any blog that isn't explicitly trashing Kennedy must be on the 'respectful' side.
If so, then, quite obviously this whole discussion would be at an end for, again, your original point was crap.
But we all knew that from the beginning anyway.
For the most part, when someone has their point this thoroughly butchered, they either offer up a mea culpa or don't show their face again from shame.
Not to mention that Audrey's still waiting...
Wanna keep going, my favourite little fan?
Oh, and if you could do us all a favour, wanna read what was actually written before you go shooting off your mouth?

Patrick Ross said...

ROTFL

Look who finally decided to join us again.

So, Audrey, let me ask you this:

You claimed there would be one disrespectful post about Kennedy for each one that marked his passing respectfully.

Where are they?

Sparkles the magical retard over here can't seem to produce a valid sample of blogposts about Kennedy's death, even while he's attempting to skew the results in his own favour.

Even under the deceitful and inept means by which he wanted to contest this debate -- which I have to admit is comparatively honest compared to the deceitful and inept means by which you wanted to contest this debate, which would have conflated the significance of cherry-picked blog posts -- Sparkles can't seem to produce the one disrespectful blog post for each respectful one.

Do you know what that makes you? After all this time you still can't admit it?

It makes you wrong, wrong, wrong.

Audrey just can't seem to admit that I'm the only person in this entire wretched thread to produce a valid survey sample, and that survey sample has demonstrated my claim that the vast majority of the blogosphere (and these deceitful pieces of garbage can't seem to figure out that's what "the blogosphere as a whole, for the most part" means) marked Kennedy's passing respectfully.

285 out of a methodologically sound sample of 300 blog posts written specifically on August 25 and August 26 2009 supports this very strongly.

Audrey and Sparky are both apparently extremely bitter that I refused to contest this debate under "rules" (and it takes a particular amount of arrogance for someone like Audrey to assume that she gets to make the rules) that were custom-made to give them an unfair advantage, and instead contested this debate by means that were implicitly fair to both sides.

And all one has to do to discern this bitterness is read Spanky's various rambling and incoherent posts, and realize just how stupid his arguments are, and how easily they're debunked.

For example, Spanky continues to claim that the "peer group" in question (which, as mentioned beofre, are not actually my peers, but actually a pair of blogs that I never read and a pair of blogs that I rarely read) were excluded from my Google blogs search.

I couldn't do that if I wanted to. I don't think Google provides that option. Even if Google did, all one needs to do is examine the original sample -- almost ninety fucking comments of Audrey and Sparky being humiliatingly wrong ago -- to see that I've done no such thing.

Now let's compare that to Sparky and his treatment of his methodologically-impaired sample. When a non-blog hit shows up in his sample, he thinks he can just exclude it and move on.

Which makes it evident that Sparkles doesn't know the first thing about survey methodology. A proper survey begins with a properly-generated sample. One doesn't have the option of discarding portions of their sample, as this undermines the validity of their sample.

Comparatively, I haven't had to discard a single search result from my sample. Not one. They're all valid -- they're all blogs and all written on August 25th and 26th 2009.

I have the best evidence, and neither Audrey nor Sparkles can credibly argue otherwise (laughably, note how Audrey won't even try to!). The vast majority of the blogosphere marked Ted Kennedy's passing respectfully -- my methodologically sound sample of 300 blog posts generated via a Google blogs search confirms this.

285 out of 300.

That's 285 to 15, for those who are paying attention to the real score.

Sparky said...

Patrick is being disingenuous again--he doesn't want people to look closely at what he's spouting.
See, he yips about my non-blog links as if that invalidates the arguement about 'respectful blogs'. Since those links weren't used in the respectful/disrespectful tally in the first place, I'm on pretty solid ground. More importantly, Patrick already admitted the point that his google search has non blog-related links (or you can just go look yourself) but to him that's kosher--those are his links. They prove his point. Again, changing the rules to suit his argument.
But that's not even the most important bit. No, here we have Patrick already knowing he's lost but continues to forage on, focusing on the minutae (the pedantic guy that he is) when the actual battle is is lost.
He doesn't want to deal with the fact that cc's blog wasn't disrespectful. No, that wouldn't do at all.
Let's see what Patrick wrote, shall we?
"At a time when, for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole is respectfully marking the passing of Ted Kennedy, one may wonder:
How is it that Robert Peter John Day marking the occasion?
You'd be better off not even asking. Really.
"
What is Patrick saying here? Since Patrick's all about the clarity of prose, we have to go with the obvious--Patricks point is cc's post was disrespectful to Kennedy.
No more, no less.
(Patrick, note how I quoted you when I show you what a disingenuous hack you are? When you yip about how I lied about something, quote me and show you work, jackass)
Let us then see what cc wrote, shall we?
"Speaking of dead Kennedys ...
... you might admire someone, but there's still something utterly unforgivable about killing somebody through your own utter and wanton recklessness.
Whoops, sorry, wrong link. It happens.
"
And cc had a link to an unfortunate death caused by Laura Bush.
Any wood chipper stories there, Patrick? Any "Kennedy's first dead intern gets a pass with the law"?
No.
Patrick reads 'Kennedy's disrespected' in cc's statement.
People with reading comprehension greater than grade 1 saw that cc was making a point regarding all the 'disrespectful blogs and commenters' that were yipping about how bad Kennedy was because of an unfortunate death many years ago, and how those very same bloggers/commenters ignored a very similar incident involving Laura Bush.
No more, no less. No disrespect to Kennedy at all--just calling out the hypocrisy of others.
(con't)

Sparky said...

But Patrick wasn't having any of it. No, he wanted to make his little point and he really didn't want anyone calling him on it.
Through this thread, however, we did get Patrick to admit what he considers a 'respectful' blog post--it's one that doesn't explicitly trash Kennedy. That's Patricks stated criteria.
This is why he was shocked (shocked, I tells ya!) when I didn't include news blogs that just asked the question "What did you think about Kennedy" or blogs that just marked Kennedy's passing in the 'respectful' column. I had stated valid reasons not to, but again, Patrick was having none of that--wouldn't do for his point.
See, Patrick wants those included because they pad his numbers.
I want this point to be crystal clear, so even the willfully ignorant Patrick will understand--The blogs themselves don't have to be explicitly respectful, says Patrick, to be included in his 'respectful' bucket--they just don't have to be condemning Kennedy--Patricks very own definition.
However, and here's the point that Patrick won't like at all--then he has to include cc's blog on the respectful bucket. As we can see by cc's own words, there is no disrespect of or to Kennedy.
So Patrick's original blog post--
Robert Peter John Day -- "Brave"ly Blazing a New Trail for General Sleaziness
At a time when, for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole is respectfully marking the passing of Ted Kennedy, one may wonder:
How is it that Robert Peter John Day marking the occasion?
You'd be better off not even asking. Really.

--is null and void.
For by Patricks very own definition, cc's post is respectful.
Sleazy? The guy who calls other people liars, yet won't admit the truth regarding the sheer idiocy of his very own blog post--idiocy as proven by his very own words and logic?
But Patrick won't deal with that point. Just like all the rest.
No, he'll come up with something else--just wait and see.
Keep going, Patrick. Just keep on going.

Sparky said...

And here's something (not to give something else for Patrick to focus on instead of dealing with his complete and utter ineptitude as pointed out above)--
Patric's google links.
Click on it. Seriously, go do that.
I'll link it here for ya--not changing a thing--
Patrick's Links
And then click on this one--
Another list o' links
See, if there is one thing that Patrick can do obviously very well, it's how he can use these here internetz and searches (he's got some of that there l33t h4xZ0rsZ sK1lLz)
Note any differnce between those two searches?
They both limit their searches to the dates that Patrick's all bothered about, so that's the same...
THey both search blogs for 'Ted Kennedy', so that's identical...
Oh wait--Patrick has the additional search criteria 'August 25'. Hmmmm, that's interesting.
Now what do you think that'll do for the search results?
Do you think that would pull up more blogs of people disrespecting Kennedy, or fewer blogs?
I wonder...
If I had a chip on my shoulder with regard to Kennedy, would I be bothered to put the actual date of his passing in my 'disrespectful' blog post?
Probably not. Probably wouldn't take the time.
However, should I want to be 'respectful'... I'd probably go into all the details--time, date, etc.
As a matter of fact, just a quick perusal of Patrick's links vs. the other set o' links bears that out on the first few pages. Again, I'll be the first to admit that it won't be a 50/50 split between respectful vs. disrespectful, but again the average is around 80-90 percent respectful--not the 285 to 15 Patrick loves to yammer about. And that's just a quick boo! Again, I would surmise that, in the end, the percentage of people disrespectful with regards to Kennedy's passing would be around the same percentage of people who thought Joe Wilson shouting 'you lie' was something to applaud.
Now that leads me into wondering why Patrick would want to skew his stats by putting the 'august 25' in there...
Oh right, already asked and answered.
Disingenuous hack.
CC's blog was respectful by Patricks very definition of what 'respectful' consists of, and Patrick's very own blog search that he states adamantly and repeatedly is so impartial is, well, not.
C'mon Patrick, are you done yet? Whine some more, please!
wv-liess wow, poignant.

Patrick Ross said...

Oh. My. Dear. Lord.

Do you honestly mean to tell me that absorbing a near-100 comment ass kicking hasn't smartened you up?

Sparky, you have, to date, offered incredibly weak arguments, methodologically-invalid blog samples, and outright lies.

Now you want to offer a re-definition of the word "respectful" -- apparently Sparkles the magical retard over here is too dense to clue into the fact that simply noting someone's passing without commentary is one of many respectful ways to mark someone's passing, whereas using the occasion of their passing as an opportunity to transform them from a person to be remembered and into a weapon with which to attack one's adversaries is not.

What else have we had here? Oh, yes. Sparkles' having a distinct difficulty in recognizing what a link is -- he had to have it explained to him -- and his apparent inability to make us of a Google blog search -- he had to have that explained to him as well.

What we have seen here, folks, is Sparky attempting to contest this debate under every disingenuous, dishonest and (quite franky) inept tactic in his repertoir of disingenous, dishonest, inept hackery (and make no mistake, this idiot has probably failed to comprehend the irony of him labelling anyone a "hack").

At the end of the day, he has nothing to work with. Nothing.

The score, ladies and gentlemen, remains the same as it has been ever since Sparky started scrambling, changing his argument and his standard of evidence over and over in order to try to eek out the last word in this argument:

285 to 15.

285 posts that marked Kennedy's passing respectfully to 15 that did not.

285 to 15.

I win. Sparky loses.

Sparky said...

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen--Patricks own logic used to refute Patricks own points, but he won't admit it.
Patrick stated what a valid respectable blog was. He stated, and here's a quote--
"It starts with an evident attempt to redefine the word "respectful". In this case, Spanky seems to want to redefine the word "respectful" to mean "gushing with post-mortem ass-kissery"."
Did cc 'ass kiss'? No.
But Patrick, as he is wont to do, had to redefine things again--
"using the occasion of their passing as an opportunity to transform them from a person to be remembered and into a weapon with which to attack one's adversaries is not"
OMG!! cc used kennedy's death to point out the hypocrisy of others!!! OMG!!! Oh wait, he didn't. cc made a salient point regarding the hypocrisy of others and juxtaposed two similar incidents. Nuance? Lost on Patrick.
And who the hell is Patrick to be yipping about cc's 'disrespecting Kennedy' when, if we apply 'Patrick logic' to Patricks own post--
"At a time when, for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole is respectfully marking the passing of Ted Kennedy, one may wonder:
How is it that Robert Peter John Day marking the occasion?
You'd be better off not even asking. Really.
"
Pot, kettle, black.
Not only are you a disingenuous hack, you're a hypocritical disingenuous hack by your very own logic. Let's quote that again--
"using the occasion of their passing as an opportunity to transform them from a person to be remembered and into a weapon with which to attack one's adversaries" and his other quotation--
"At a time when, for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole is respectfully marking the passing of Ted Kennedy, one may wonder:
How is it that Robert Peter John Day marking the occasion?
You'd be better off not even asking. Really.
"
And note how he's still touting his provably false 'impartial' google hits. I used his very own methodology that he's going on about, but leaving out 'august 25' in the search field--'cause that might skew the results as Patrick keeps on yipping about--everything else is exactly the same... and the numbers are not as good for Patrick.
Note he didn't want to address that at all.
Note also, when he says 'for the most part, the internet as a whole...', he means 70-80 percent.
Watch out when Patrick trys to sell you a car. "For the most part," he'll say, "the car as a whole functions perfectly..." Don't notice that it doens't have tires or a distributor cap--it's still 70-80 percent there...
Keep whining, Patrick. Just keep whining.

Patrick Ross said...

Sparky is apparently too stupid to realize that all you "ladies and gentlemen" had it a long time ago.

Let's go back and take a good long look at this debate, and look at Sparkles the magical retards' amazing transforming argument.

Sparky's original argument was essentially to echo Audrey's arguments that, if one post disrespectful to Kennedy could be found to counter each respectful blog post about Kennedy's passing, that he and Audrey would be right.

A 300 blog post Google blogs sample quickly disproved that.

Sparky's next argument was that I hadn't posted any links at all.

Eventually, a jpg image had to be used to rub Sparky's face in that particular fallacy.

Then, Sparty attempted a Google search that included YouTube hits and discarded many blogs that marked Kennedy's passing respectfully in order to attempt to skew his own sample.

Then, Sparky used an "August 25" argument that is, quite frankly, too stupid to justify with any kind of serious response.

That's four arguments Sparky has raised, all four defeated (the last of which was oddly self-defeating).

Whereas I, all along, have used one argument, and one sample, one that Sparky can't confront directly so he has to try to sew some confusion to try to make it look like he hasn't spent 100 blog comments getting his worthless ass kicked.

Too bad, so sad, Sparky.

255 to 15.

I win. Sparky loses.

Sparky said...

Hypocritical Disingenuous hack
Note how Patrick avoided completely how he's hypocritical with regards to his first point
Note how Patrick never proved this supposed lie of mine.
Note how Patrick dismisses anyone else's criteria but his when it comes to 'blog links' and he redefines 'respectful' as he wants to pad his numbers. btw Patrick, there's video links in your listing as well, but you already knew that...
Note how he wants to keep the "august 25" in his search string 'cause he knows that'll pad the numbers to his favour.
Note how, after 90 posts of people easily pointing out Patricks lies, deceit, hypocrisy and general shifting of goalposts, he still reiterates the same crap over and over again thinking that he's 'kicking ass'. No, for the poor, unfortunate Patrick, it just continues to prove his complete failure on this. And that is now added to the other things he's been a complete failure on.
70 - 80 percent does not the 'whole of the internet'--or even 'most of the whole of the internet'--make. But even if you don't accept that, your original point was demonstrated wrong and hypocritical. So why are you still trying to prop it up?
This is just like 'cc doesn't get links' or 'those weren't octagons' and something that's just recently come back in a big way in the news--'there is no deficit nor will there be...'
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and oh wait... wrong. How does it feel to be this wrong, Patrick? Every single time you even yip about cc, you're wrong. You'd think you'd learn to stop that.
Too bad, so sad, Patrick.
Keep whining, my favourite little fan. I have the time to keep easily refuting your idiocy.

Patrick Ross said...

Now all Sparkles can seem to do is call names.

He's offered four separate arguments, all four of which have been defeated in turn.

285 out of 300 hits on a Google blog search marked Ted Kennedy's passing respectfully, and he can't even credibly deny it.

I've offered one argument, which Sparky has failed to defeat.

Furthermore, I haven't tried to drag other people's hollow "triumphs" into the argument.

The evidence speaks for itself.

285 to 15. I win. Sparkles the magical retard loses.

Too bad, so sad, Sparky.

Sparky said...

Oh wait, Patrick wants to focus on one of his points? He doesn't want to talk about how he states I lied, tyet has never shown where...
He doesn't want to talk about how his original point regarding cc's blog, by his very own logic, is idiotic and hypocritical.
He doesnt' want to talk aobut how he never satisfied Audrey's request through this entire thread...
And he sure as hell doesn't want to talk about why 'august 25' is in his search criteria. Oh wait, that's what he wants me to address. Asked and answered already, jackass (proving once again you can't read)--Your google list is not impartial--it pads numbers to your favour as I already pointed out.
What did I do then? Oh right, I used your very same blog search, using your selected days, and put in 'ted kennedy' as the search criteria--leaving out 'august 25' in the search field. Most people would understand that this would be a more impartial lisitng of all blogs on those two days relateing to Ted Kennedy.
But you can't have that. No, 'cause that would prove again that your point is completely wrong.
Since you dismissed my previous google search 'cause it has non-blog links in it, you would then necessarily have to dismiss yours 'cause yours has non-blog related links.
Your logic, Patrick.
Once again Patrick won't own up to that at all.
So where are we? Patrick redefining the argument and criteria as necessary so he 'wins'. He says that I haven't addressed his argument when, as shown, I did. Moreover, it's again hypocritical that he's whining that no one's paying attentino to his argument when he never addressed anyone elses.
Patrick, every time you open your mouth, a lie comes out--you may want to look into that sometime.

Patrick Ross said...

Considering that there are no non-blog items in my Google blogs search, Sparky, I'll have to reply to that with an unequivocal "no".

After all, Sparky, my sample actually was a blog search.

Beyond that if Sparky's "points" weren't so unspeakably stupid, perhaps they'd be worth addressing.

If Sparky wasn't so busy abandoning them as soon as they're shown to be dishonest and fallacious, perhaps that would be one thing.

But Sparky has raised four separate arguments, all them incredibly poor, and all of them have been defeated.

Whereas I have raised one argument, and Sparky cannot effectively refute it.

285 blog posts out of 300 generated via a Google blogs search confirms that the vast majority the blogosphere marked Ted Kennedy's passing respectfully.

285 to 15. I win. Sparky loses.

The truth of that is utterly evident.

Sparky said...

Refuted every time, Patrick. Just 'cause you can't actually, y'kow, read it, doesn't make it any less refuted.
And since I didn't abandon any part of my argument, yet, if you were trying to write something honestly instead of being a hack, you'd have to abandon all your points
Your point number 1--'for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole' was respectful to Kennedy. 70-80 percent isn't 'the whole' or even 'most of the whole'.
Point number 2--I lied about, well, anything. Since you never even quoted it, it's jsut you spewing garbage again.
Point number 3--cc was disrespectful to Kennedy. By your own definitions and logic, it isn't, so your main point is crap.
Point number 4--you put August 25 in your search criteria--this just pads the number of respectful posts as proven by running the exact same google blog search but not adding 'august 25'--see, my search got better, yours stayed consistently biased so you could 'win'.
point number 5--you whined when no one would answer one of your sophmoric arguments, but you've never conducted yourself with any shred of honesty from the very beginning as to what Audrey asked (nicely) for.
See, what Patrick fails miserably at is owning up to his own crap. I may have evolved my methods through this little thread, but the points above didn't change at all. From the beginning, you were called on how you dealt with Audrey's request. From the beginning, you were called on your asinine google hits. From the beginning, you were hypocritical on calling out cc when, by your very words, your own blog post is as disrespectful--even moreso because you lied in yours--"For the most part, the internet as a whole..." Yeah, if you think 70 percent satsfies that statement.
You were being a hypocritical disingenuous hack from the very beginning, and then you have the gall to whine repeatedly that you're wasting your time when you're called on it.
I'd love to put odds on what's going to be in your reply--285 to 15 comes to mind. You just might as well write 'triangles' or 'no deficit' there instead, Patrick. They're all part of the same personality disorder you have regarding the complete disregard for truth.
The utter truth is that you can't face your own lies. And that's just sad.
Sucks to be you--to know you're so wrong about this and yet you just have to continue to try and salvage whatever shred of whatever you think you have left.
That said, I'll still be here to point it out.
Have a good weekend, Patrick. Go outside and get some sun. Go for a walk and clear your head. Maybe some time away from here'll do you good. Maybe some sober reflection regarding all the crap you spewed here will do you some good.
Maybe, but I doubt it.

Patrick Ross said...

Really, Sparky, if you haven't abandoned any of your argument, why does so much of it seem so different from your original argument?

Originally, you and Audrey were insisting that if you could produce one cherry-picked blog post for every respectful blog post (which oddly enough, would be cherry-picked themselves) would somehow prove that there as "one disrespectful blog post for every respectful one".

An impartially-generated sample of blog posts shot that one right in the foot.

So then you tried to generate your own Google search, which turned out to be more than a little bullshitty, as you failed to properly restrict it in terms of date or medium.

What else was there? Oh, yes. There was some lunacy about excluding a "peer group" that I didn't even know that I had. Which actually turned out to be tacitly untrue.

What else was there? Frankly, you've flung so much stupidity in the course of this thread that I've lost count of it all.

What I do know is this, Sparky:

I generated a 300-hit Google blogs search. Out of those 300 blogs, 285 marked Kennedy's passing respectfully.

285 to 15. I win. Sparky loses.

Sparky said...

Patrick just loves proving me right.
"I'd love to put odds on what's going to be in your reply--285 to 15 comes to mind."
And along comes Patrick in the very next comment flouting his disingenuous numbers. See, as already noted elsewhere in this thread, Patrick's numbers are biased on the 'respectful' side--but he knew that 'cause he's all sorts of 'l33t' when it comes to these here internets. That's the only way he can make his point--deceit and lying. Watch out anytime Patrick uses the word impartial--you know it isn't.
And note, not only is he a lying disingenuous hack, but Patrick has to have 'gall' added to that.
Patrick, You have alotta damn gall to even say this--
"Originally, you and Audrey were insisting that if you could produce one cherry-picked blog post for every respectful blog post (which oddly enough, would be cherry-picked themselves) would somehow prove that there as "one disrespectful blog post for every respectful one"."
Since you've never produced one link to a blog through this entire thread of 100 comments.
A link to a google list (that's proven biased) isn't what was asked for, Patrick, so whining about Audreys request is rich, coming from you.
And let's also note what my very first comment in the thread was (oh, 100 comments ago)--
"You'll be waiting a while [for Patrick to post links to blogs]. Patrick never comes at one of his ineptitudes head on. From 'CC has links' to whatever else--he'll redefine his point until it has no bearing on his original point and call you a 'libby retard' for calling him on it.
His MO.
"
Reiterating--here we are, 100 posts later and still Patrick has yet to post 1 blog link.
No, Patrick redefined the whole discussion around his 'google list' (that's biased, but again, he won't admit that) and, as we can see through 100 comments, that's what he's sticking with.
Moreover, I've stated continuously that the numbers wouldn't be 50/50. And, I might add, Audrey herself stated she could be wrong about the 50/50 if only Patrick would post blog links. Since he's never (reiterated) prodiced 1 link, Audrey's request has never been honestly dealt with.
But Patrick won't admit to that. Not ever. No, he'd rather redefine things (as I stated in the very first comment) so he can have a 'win'. Forget truth and honesty--those won't do for Patrick's point.
And finally Patrick has even more gall to accuse other people of 'flinging stupidity' around here . Not just from the points I just mentioned above, but who, in this thread, brought up Richard Evans? Who in this thread yipped about 'fellating'? Who in this thread brought up so many non sequiturs to 'muddy the waters'?
Oh right, you.
You've never dealt with your lies, your faulty google list, and you've never addressed Audreys request.
You lose, Patrick. On every point.

Patrick Ross said...

HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Holy shit, what a fucking retard. This moron has got to be fucking kidding.

285 to 15. I win. You lose.

Getting the last word isn't going to change that for you Sparky.

You lose.

David said...

Where's the ROTFL, Patrick?
Note how Patrick's doesn't address any of the points raised with regard to his lies.
Note how he whines when people don't address his point, but completely ignores the truth when it's pointed out to him.
Note how he throws around non-sequiturs and ad hominems when he knows his point is complete crap.
Note how he continues to flaunt the 285 to 15 based on his disingenuous google search--even when he knows his search is crap.
Yeah, this is exactly the same as triangles, no deficits, and what aren't links.
Patrick proves once again that he's never met a lie he didn't love to go on about.
We're laughing at you, Patrick--the consumate hack.
What's the next non-sequitur you're going to bring up? What's the next ad hominem?
Patrick Ross--disingenuous, lying hack.
Truth wins, Patrick loses.

Patrick Ross said...

Right. More complaints about "lies" that turn out to be the truth.

285 to 15. I (and the truth, as supported by the best available evidence) win. Sparky loses.

Sparky said...

"more complaints about lies" that are backed up with quotatins, proofs, reasonable arguments, and otehr stuff. Unlike your 'facts' that have never been backed up or argued--you stated I lied about a blog link. Where? You've never even quoted and showed where I lied.
You continue to flaunt your numbers--the 'best available evidence' shows those numbers of yours to be biased.
Moreover, 'for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole' isn't 70-80 percent.
As well, as proven by your own logic, your original blog post was crap because cc's blog wasn't disrespectful.
Also, as proven by your own logic, your original blog post was hypocritical.
So what's that leave you with? Oh right, nothing (again).
Yet here we are, 100+ posts later. Why?
Because Patrick Ross wants to 'muddy the waters' enough in order to squeak some disingenuous point across to satisfy his ego.
Well, I'll be here to continue to point out the truth, no matter how many times Patrick produces his lies and obfuscations and try to make this about me.
Truth wins. Patrick, the lying disingenuous hack, will continue to lose if he maintains the same behaviour.

Patrick Ross said...

Here we are 100+ posts later because Sparky is still living in some kind of fantasy world where 15 disrespectful blog posts out of 300 means that the right was dancing on Ted Kennedy's grave. Or that there were an equal number of disresepctful posts as respectful posts. Or some other lunacy.

But in the real world, the evidence speaks for itself.

285 to 15. I and the truth win. Sparkly loses and will continue to lose on a pretty much permanent basis.

Sparky said...

Are you still here souting your lies Patrick? Your numbers are based on your biased google search that you already proved was biased and wrong.
You dismissed other searched because they had non-blog-related links. Note how you just glossed over the non-related links in your google search.
Moreover, as you already know, your google earch is biased because you searched for "ted kennedy" and "august 25" knowing that this would generate more respectful links.
In the real world, everyone else would call that 'disingenuous'.
I just call it 'hack'.
285 to 15? based on a very biased search? Yeah, you win on being a hack.
I'll still be here to point out the truth, Patrick--don't worry about that.

Patrick Ross said...

Sparkles, Sparkles, Sparkles.

285 to 15. I win.

Holy shit, were you ever desperate to get that last word. Can I call it or what?

Sparky said...

Holy Shit! Patrick posted his lies again! OMG!!! Huge surprise!!!
Desperate? Thy name is Patrick

Patrick Ross said...

Desperate like waiting two days, hoping I'd forgotten about your stupidity here, in desperate hope you could get the last word?

I'm sure you'd like to think so.

And lies? Hardly. The evidence backs me up so splendidly!

285 to 15. I win.

Sparky said...

Yeah, I'm the one looking desperate here.
Oh wait, no.
Desperate?? I wasn't the one sitting by a computer screen all weekend waiting for a response in this thread. Oh right--you were.
Your evidence has already been shown to be biased. A simple fact that you continue to ignore.
'the whole of the blogosphere' is not 70-80 percent. Those are the real numbers that you want to ignore.
Keep going, Patrick. Flog those faulty numbers again. We're due for a ROTFL, Mr. Predictable.

Patrick Ross said...

ROTFL

If you say so.

I just noticed you leading with your chin over at Raphael's spot, and figured you'd pull something this pitiful over here.

And by the way, Sparkles, 285 out of a sample of 300 blog posts is not 70-80%. It's 95% -- a pretty vast majority, if you ask me.

(And, by the way -- I win.)

Math impaired little retard. Stop wasting oxygen. Useful people need that to breathe.

Sparky said...

Lie some more, Patrick.
Flog your faulty numbers again, Patrick.
Last post whore some more, Patrick.
Your little games are meaningless. I'll just keep pointing out the truth that you so obviously want to wish away.

Patrick Ross said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Holy fuck, what a worthless retard.

Just keep lying, Sparkles. Just keep last post whoring. I'll just keep on coming back here and telling everyone the truth -- the real truth, not the lies you're spouting:

285 to 15. I win.

Sparky said...

Name calling?? wow!
Keep flogging those disproven numbers!
You win only in your little world, where your bloviating equals truth.
Have at it, Patrick.

Post a Comment