Wednesday, April 1, 2015

A Look at Flogger Verbal Deceit

It's fascinating to see how floggers handle commenters they don't like, or who disagree with them. They will allow through what they think does not harm their assertions, or that they can used to snipe at their critics. But let a critic come back with a nick or a slice of his own, and it gets dropped down the memory hole, never to be seen by blog visitors.

They are so fearful of disagreement.

Here's an example. In yet another post and thread drumming up hatred for VaFlaggers, Simpson commented: 
The Virginia Flaggers have presented themselves as people of honor and principle. This incident provides an interesting test of that assertion. If that doesn’t bother you, then we know that you devalue those principles and disregard their assertions, and that’s fine by me.
Let's forget for a minute the bizarre ethical disconnect of this situation (that the man talking about honor and principles -- especially critiquing other people's honor and principles --  is the same one who posted on reviews of books he had not read solely for the purpose of harming the author) and move on to my comment: 
“The Virginia Flaggers have presented themselves as people of honor and principle.”   Where have they so presented themselves?
I knew how he would answer -- with a deliberate distortion of my question. Sure enough, he replied
"Are you now denying that they are people of honor and principle? Are you saying that even they don’t see themselves as people of honor and principle?  So it seems. Thanks for the concession."
Uh, nope. Anybody with average reading comprehension skills can see that's not what my question means. But he puts that interpretation on it, knowing that's not what it means, with the plan to refuse to post any response I may make.

This is because I show the progression of his verbal deceit. Here's my response, and you can tell right off the bat why he's not going to let it through. Too bad. Spelunker and Christopher Shelley need to have their shallow understanding smacked around by some truth. And Simpson will not allow that, especially at his own expense.

My response:
"Are you now denying that they are people of honor and principle?"

Why, no. What gives you that idea? How is asking you to clarify something a denial? I'm just asking you where they have PRESENTED themselves that way, which is what you claimed. Surely you have a link?

I'm asking because, by my observation, they don't go around presenting themselves that way because it would be boasting, which is probably against the religious teachings most of them hold to. Besides, if one is truly honorable and principled, the honor and principle will present themselves, and the people won't have to do any presenting. 

Also note, you didn't say anything about how they SEE themselves. You said PRESENTED themselves. You do realize those are not the same thing, do you not?

Your sycophantic followers may not be smart enough to see your verbal sleight-of-hand, but I do. You're really not that slick, you know?
Now y'all understand why my reply will never see the light of day at XRoads, don'tcha?

In fact, I have not observed the Virginia Flaggers presenting -- i.e., showcasing -- themselves as honorable and principled. However, they have gone about their activities with honor and principle. And this is one of the major things that sticks in the craws of their critics. In fact, I'd guess it is the major thing that gives Simpson and his ilk major heartburn.  Which tells you a thing or two about their honor and principles, don't it?

Yes, we all understand, clearly, why Simpson is making such a big deal about "the word of the Virginia Flaggers" -- over nothing... over a guy eating a hot dog ... over the VaFlaggers not taking him seriously and over their having fun with his bizarre notions. We clearly understand he is trying to distract from the numerous times his own lapses of integrity have come to the fore -- i.e., the lying (I don't really care about the VaFlaggers when his 250+ posts about them clearly demonstrates that he does... I'm only gonna post about heritage once a week and then post almost twice that much...not to mention those fraudulent book reviews on Amazon...and on and on and on...) 

But for some unfathomable reason,  he wants to come across to his followers as upright and ethical.  I have no idea why ... they don't seem to be any more honorable and principled than he is....

By the way ... does anybody remember Simpson, back in January, smearing and attempting to drum up hatred for the Harlem Globetrotters because they deliberately chose to violate the NAACP boycott of South Carolina? No? 

Simpson has demonstrated many times the double standard he wields... this is just one of them.

1 comment :

  1. Simpson simply uses the standard tactics of cyber bullying. He levels charges against people who don't know him or his blog, then scolds them for failing to respond to accusations that they don't even know exist and couldn't care less about, if they did.


Comments are welcome, but monitored.