Wednesday, March 16, 2011

The Black Pot Talks Again

[UPDATE Below]

UPDATE TO : The Pot Calls The Kettle BLACK, Again

The following is what Dave Stancliff wrote on this blog March 16, 2011 9:54 AM.

I've taken the time to repost it here because what he says is the absolute proof of why I commented below, "The Pot Calls The Kettle BLACK, Again," on his Sunday Opinion published by the Times-Standard. Apparently it is entirely alright with them (Times-Standards' publishers and editors) that he, again, demonstrates his incapacity to distinguish the difference of commenting upon the issues of which he writes and making "demeaning," "slandering," oportunistic "attacks" on him personally. What he wrote is there for EVERYONE to read. I didn't put words in his mouth. Since he equates his worthless opinions with his personal self-worth and self-esteeem as an individual, EVERYTHING becomes about him. Hence, all his perseptions and resultant foul accusations simply originate within his mind. To talk about what he writes is to talk about him. Disagree with his opinion writings and you demean and slander him. These are HIS rules of engagement as he defines himself.  That is also why he is totally and demonstrably incapable of defending his opinions and what he wrote, opting instead for his repeated ad hominem assaults.

His record for initially attacking me and judging my motives are extensive on this blog and is exactly what he just did - personally attack me again, exactly as quoted below. What's really scary is this statement and what it represents: "Slandering me does not strengthen your position, it merely reveals that you have a vendetta against me and take every opportunity to attack me." By definition, this state of mind as expressed in this statement, is a Persecution Complex. Wikipedia defines this repeated accusation as Persecutory Delusions.

I would encourage everyone to read the thoughtful, non-inciting article by Nat Hentoff in today's (Wednesday, March 16, 2011, Times-Standard) on this same issue and what Dave Stancliff says in the Sunday Times-Stanard and then compare what he says below:

Dave Stancliff:
"This article: “Recognizing when not to die over an issue" is a classic example of how emotional, effeminate blather can motivate people.."

You're showing your true colors again Joe, by personally attacking the messenger (me)with words designed to demean (and thus supposedly weaken my opinion)such as "effeminate." Slandering me does not strengthen your position, it merely reveals that you have a vendetta against me and take every opportunity to attack me.

You say you're not supporting the WBC to summerize...
so is a person supposed to ignore everything you said prior to that claim?

Perhaps you ought to re-read what you wrote.

You expect respect (and howl wehen you think someone has affronted you)but you show NO RESPECT for others opinions.

You're the one who needs to examine your conscience; not the grieving father (Albert Snyder)you've chosen to demonize.

What gives you th right to judge anybody...especially so harshly and mean spiritedly?

I just hope you don't have a loved one who dies someday - and their funeral is disrupted by a hate group (please don't waste your breath saying the WBC is not a hate group - read up on them).

[UPDATE :: Wednesday, March 16, 2011]

Here is another unrequested comment from Dave Stancliff. His issue with "me" is clearly stated. Why, is anyone's guess. His comment is quite clear and self-defining, as are his actions. He is totally incapable of understanding "HOW" he "attacked" me? UNBELIEVABLE! Why he is unable to distinguish the difference between his blatant accusatory comment and its self-defining reality, says more about him than anything. Compare's definition of:

ad hominem–adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

World English Dictionary
ad hominem (æd ˈhɒmɪˌnɛm)
— adj , — adv
1. directed against a person rather than against his arguments
2. based on or appealing to emotion rather than reason
[literally: to the man]

His As It Stands opinion in the Sunday paper is as ad hominem as anyone can get.


  1. What repeated ad hominem assaults in my reply to your post?

    Just name one.
    Can you do that?
    This is the here and now okay?

    How did I attack you?
    Be specific so anyone reading this will know Joe.

    You're making your case alright's just not the one you think your making.

  2. You two, Dave and Joe Blow, should know that if your blogs win your match-ups tomorrow (Friday)in the Humboldt Blogger's Tournament,than your two blogs will face each other in the Second Round.

    I had no idea that the committee set it up like that. (or, I had no idea)

    Anyway, just a note.