...it is a little embarrassing for folks to find out that you place an adult sexual spin on Nickelodeon cartoon characters.It is? Embarrassing for whom? Is it embarrassing for you, Simpson? Or is it a verbal taser-equipped cattle prod for you to wield?
And what folks are you referring to? Maybe the witch hunters who follow your blog, but they're predators, so what do you expect? Normal people have a more, well, normal attitude. Besides, "adult sexual spin" is a weasel phrase that does not accurately descibe Carl's story.
Basically, you are trying to leave people with the impression that the story is erotic or pornographic. It is not. Not even close. But even if it was, what's it to you? Are Nickelodeon cartoon characters sacrosanct in the world of civil war blogging?
It is a little romantic story, and it has an element of sexual attraction common to all romance writing.
If memory serves, it was Eric Berne, developer of Transactional Analysis, who described romance as friendship plus sex.In romance writing, sex means sexual attraction. People who write romance must include both the "friendship" (caring for another person) plus sexual attraction. Without sexual attraction between the characters, it's just a friendship story. Without the friendship, all you have erotica or, worse, pornography.
What used to be the romance genre has become inundated with erotica (which Carl's story emphatically is not, btw). This transformation is a reflection of the hedonistic culture we live in; the inevitable result of the leftist, especially feminist, war on family and religion.
One of the reasons I, as a writer, cut back on participation in crit groups was that too frequently, I found myself in the position of having to help someone improve the grammar, spelling, composition, GMC of sheer smut and outright obscenity. No, thanks.
I would just point out to Simpson that different types of writing have different objectives and are aimed at different audiences. If something’s not your cup of tea, fine, but that in itself does not make it embarrassing, or a reason to try to embarrass someone.
The impression Simpson is trying to project about Carl's fan fiction is a blatant lie, prompted by his hatred of someone who doesn't worship his "authority" about the civil war. It is yet another manifiestation of Simpson's desire to denigrate, his thirst to hurt other people. There's absolutely no other reason for him to reference Carl's fanfic writing at all.
Brooks Simpson on the Virginia Flaggers
I am saying that they have a fondness for the camera, which is what drew them to Mr. Walker in the first place.Simpson has put forth this lie repeatedly. It remains a lie every time he does it. Mr. Walker approached them, not the other way around.
Regarding Susan Hathaway, he has said,
So she wants to admit that she’s a fool who invited a spy into the camp of the Flaggers, only to be betrayed?And,
Hey, if Susan Hathaway wants to draw attention to the fact that either she’s been fooled or she lied, I’m fine with that.As I made clear in an earlier post, if Walker had given any indication he was out to set up the VA Flaggers and embarrass them, they would not have accepted his services.
But Simpson just can't leave it alone. He tells Tripp Lewis,
"But you're a coward to fail to admit that you welcomed Mr. Walker into your group and bought his story."All that has been explained, but that's STILL not good enough for Simpson. He needs an excuse to use his verbal, taser-tipped cattle prod, and he'll misconstrue nearly anything for a chance to use it. He prefers a living person, but if he can't find one, he'll happily beat a dead horse with it.
But why shouldn't they have bought Walker's story? As I've noted, he gave them no indication that he was anything other than he appeared. Only God is omniscient, but I guess Simpson is now expecting Flaggers to be omniscient, and will verbally taser-cattle-prod them if they aren't.
I wonder if Simpson voted for Obama. I can't imagine he could resist showing what a good little non-racist he is by voting for the black guy. If he did, he's a far bigger dupe than any Virginia Flagger, and he needs to turn his cattle prod on himself -- and about half the people in the country -- because they knew what Obama was long before the election (buddies with domestic terrorists, absentee U.S. Senator, bullying "community organizer" [Obama's cattle prods were the knee-pad media, i.e., Ezra Klein's left-leaning Journ-O-List, and SIEU]-- and they voted for him anyway.
As for a "fondness for the camera" -- you betcha. Mr. Simpson, you may have a blog, and you may Tweet and get on Facebook, but you don't seem to be really comfortable with the digital revolution, or other people's use of the technology that has resulted -- i.e., the democratizing of communications, promotion, organization and a host of other endeavors.
Video is a huge part of the revolution. The days of monopolies by ABC, NBC and CBS are long since over. Over 100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute. More than a billion unique viewers visit YouTube each month (http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html). Anybody with a cause ignores this resource at their peril. It is not to the discredit of the Virginia Flaggers that they use this medium. Indeed, they'd be crazy not to.
Brooks Simpson being a blatant liar
Now learn something about the people who support the Flagger proposal.This comment accompanied a graphic on the "Richmonders against the Confederate Flag on I-95" Facebook community page, whose creators are not named, which has all of 33 likes thus far, and which Simpson seems to have taken over.
(Hmmm.... I wonder if he's the creator? But even if he's not, insinuating himself into a a flag issue of a city where he does not live, that is in fact 2241 miles from where he lives, negates all his criticism of non-residents of Lexington insinuating themselves into the flag issue there -- and shows him for the colossal hypocrite that he is.)
The graphic is from his blog, a screen shot of a thread from the Southern Heritage Preservation Group. It is supposed to show how "racist" the group is; but his Facebook comment is a blatant lie because of one word -- "people," plural. Because, you see, only one person in the copy-paste made objectionable remarks and he was removed from the SHPG for doing so. But, of course, Simpson doesn't tell you that.
BTW, I've already dealt with that idiotic hate-mongering, HERE.
Dare I say to him,
"But you're a coward to fail to admit that only one person made the objectionable posts and he was removed from the group for it."Yeah. I dare.
Images: U.S. Gov. (Public Domain) and Wikimedia Commons (GNU Creative Common license)