More Fun With Comments

Over on the Connie-bashing thread at Crossroads, a few more brave souls have posted, knowing, presumably, they risk having their illogic, their mendacity, and their maliciousness -- not to mention their extreme humor impairment -- exposed by yours truly.

But it can be very instructive to analyze the writings (posts and comments) at Crossroads. So let's get on with the next round.

Simpson tells Jimmy Dick, "Logic is not a Chastain strong point."  This follows Jimmy Dick's pronouncement, "Note how she advocates secession from Florida now. ... she wants to secede from the rest of the state because of those people changing things in ways she doesn’t like."

Mr. Dick's hallucination, steeped in illogic, comes from this paragraph in this blog post -- http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/06/fun-with-comments.html:

In the time I've lived here, there've been occasional "movements" for the secession of the Panhandle from Florida to either become the state of West Florida with Pensacola as its capital, or to become part of Alabama. (The idea has also been floated that south Florida break away from Tallahassee.) West Florida's secession movements are, of course, tongue-in-cheek, usually designed to show the region's displeasure with something or other going on in Tallahassee at the time, and have produced some absolutely hilarious articles and essays. But I, for one, think it is a great idea.

What do you suppose it is about "movement" being in quotes, and the term tongue-in-cheek, that Mr. Dick doesn't understand? Does his humor impairment limit him that much? Or does he really understand, but takes a page from Simpson's book and pretends not to for the sake of denigrating someone?  But, giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe a short remedial lesson in figures of speech would be helpful to him.

From Wikipedia: Tongue-in-cheek is a phrase used as a figure of speech to imply that a statement or other production is humorously or otherwise not seriously intended and it should not be taken at face value.

But Blough's humor-impairment is even more pronounced. In all seriousness, apparently, she responds to humorous secession by wearily quoting the Constitution. It is possible, though, that she did not visit Backsass and see "movement" in quotes and the term tongue-in-cheek. I would expect someone as scholarly as Blough to know what that means -- but then, I would expect her to know better than to accept at face value what somebody's critics say about them, and check it out for herself.

One can only imagine how Blough and Dick and the whole humor-impaired crew at Crossroad would take Lyle Zapato's secession-for-yuks website, The Republic of Cascadia http://zapatopi.net/cascadia/  (Zapato, btw, is the originator of the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus site and the Aluminum Foil Delfector Beanie site. They're both knee-slappers.)

The Cascadia site initially identifies Washington and Oregon (and British Columbia in Canada) as the areas that should join together as the sovereign nation of Cascadia.  It notes, "The Republic of Cascadia is not yet officially recognized by Canada, the United States of America, or the United Nations. Not that it is any of their business." 

Farther along, though, the site includes northern California, which is "...rightfully and naturally is a part of the Republic of Cascadia. The Cascade mountain range, the backbone of our nation, stretches majestically down from the head of British Columbia and seats itself in this occupied region. This land -- the Coccyx of Cascadia -- is a natural and vital extension of our nation that was robbed from us by distant Federalists who were easily bought with Californian promises of gold."

The entire site -- from the header with its UFO, to the links to the Bureau of Sasquatch Affairs and the Sasquatch Militia -- ranges from giggle to guffaw, and would no doubt render the humor impaired log-bumps at Crossroads either totally apoplectic or completely speechless.

Simpson notes, "I don’t see where it pays to get into a discussion with Connie on anything. She avoids questions, makes insinuations (and then declared them as fact), and, when you grow exasperated with her nonsense, she decides you’re scared of her. In short, she’s boring and predictable, and it’s child’s play to set her off in a tirade where she reveals her barely-concealed ugliness. She’s a very bitter person.

"Watch her blog about this. :)

"I think she’s a fine representative of the Confederate Hysteria Movement. No wonder she works with the Virginia Flaggers and is embraced by the leadership of the League of the South."

What this really means is that he doesn't like my pointing out the foibles, the contradictions, the sheer nastiness and meanness exhibited by him and his followers, not to mention the humor-impairment.  What's fascinating to note is that everything he said about me applies to him (and some of his sycophants).

Simpson and crew...
Avoids questions? Check. (Andy Hall, how frequently do you hear heritage folks claim slaves were like family? Simpson, do you believe white Southerners should not be portrayed positively in fiction? Do you believe they should not be portrayed as suffering injustice?)
Makes insinuations? Check (sometimes, that's all Simpson does)
Boring? Check (Vivarin, anyone?)
Predictable? Double Check.
Child's play to set him/them off in a tirade?  Check, check, check, check, check, check...  That's what the whole post about me, and the comments following, are -- an odious, ugly tirade.
Bitter? Check. In fact, bitter enough to attempt smears of me and my novels numerous times...

And, yep. I'm bloggin' about it.

I'm proud to be affiliated with the Virginia Flaggers, even if the extent of it is just to help with their blog.

All of which, or none of which, changes the fact that you are skeered of me. All you floggers are. That's why you and Levin disallow all but a handful of comments from me, and Andy never lets them through. He claims he banned me from his comments because I "...question the motives, or agenda, or character..." of Southern heritage critics rather than contributing anything of substance. Andy conveniently fails to notice that he (and his fellow floggers) continuously question the motives, agenda or character (and intelligence) of Southern heritage folks (while pretending it's about "history."). What's okay for him isn't okay for other folks, presumably.

I understand people don't like having their motives question and character questioned -- but in that case, don't do it to others.

Simpson: "The only time there’s much traffic on her site is when someone else calls attention to it. In truth, Connie can’t generate any traffic on her own, and she’s unable to create any conversation on her own."

Once again, this is hilarous. I do most of my conversing on Facebook, but when it comes to my blogs, I indeed get the readers I want. You should see my hit counter -- see just who visits, and how often. Oh, I could get huge numbers of visitors/readers if I would but trash and lie about the good people of my region (just as I could sell tons of books if I'd do the same thing in my novels), but I'm not going to do that. I love my region and my people. I'll leave the lying and trashing to the floggers, the Mississippi anti-racists and all the others who hate us.

Rob, buddy, obviously, if I asked you a question, I will post your answers. You're always complaining about being banned.  Well, here's your chance.  Skeered to take it? 

Stew? In our own juices?  LOL~ I'm cool as a cucumber, Simpson -- and that's yet another thing that sticks in your craw -- which has to be really, really full by now. No wonder you're so cranky.




_______________________
Photo: C. Ward