19 November 2007

Another one bites the dust

Just like all the recent hysteria over Taser related deaths... it turns out the supposed rising tide of hate crimes in North America... is a myth.

Less than 10,000 total hate crimes of any kind in an entire year, in a country of over 300 million people? Only 7,330 known hate crime offenders?

That means that hate crimes are a drop in the bucket. They are the least of our problems.

The two-thousandths of one percent (.002%) of Americans who committed hate crimes against anyone in 2006, including Protestants (35 complete losers) clearly need help.
While we're playing around with numbers I have one final factoid for the Taser Death Squad Hysterical Society.

There have been 16 taser related deaths in Canada over the last four years.

That works out to 4 instances per year... which, my paranoid friends, is statistically insignificant.

In 2002 alone, twenty-nine Canadians were killed in avalanches.

I'm betting more than 4 Canadians per year, manage to run over and kill themselves with their own cars... and nobody's setting up a public enquiry into that totally predictable and avoidable stupidity.

You're being taken for a ride, folks... which sells a shitload of newspapers and commercial airtime.

Think about it.

**********

UPDATE: The RCMP speaks up
Many comments we have received seem to suggest that the use of a TASER is never justified based on the likelihood of inflicting serious injury or death.

In fact, our experience and that of other police services over the course of many years and thousands of incidents, as well as existing research, have shown that deploying a TASER is often the fastest and safest way to gain control of an individual.

We and other police services teach our officers that it is less likely to cause serious injury than other tactics.
**********

LAST WORD: A very special welcome...

To readers of noted humanitarian and progressive brown-noser "Canadian Cynic"

Little CC is the piece of dreck who told Wanda Watkins... the mother of a slain Canadian soldier... to "fuck off." Now he tries to wipe some of that shit off on yours truly.

Just another disgusting performance.
Make sure you check out his greatest hits.
Note to Canadian Cesspool... back to tasers yet again, huh?.

Are you sure you're feeling okay?

**********

FROM THE COMMENTS: Because he's all about the women...
Neo, since there is obviously no hope of reasoned discussion with a fuckwad like you, congratulations for demonstrating what a fucking wanker you are. Now you and your posse go out there and beat up some teenage girls so that you can feel like real men.
Hey... I recognise that lilting prose.

Technorati Tags: , ,


59 comments:

Anonymous said...

Beating the drums gets people upset so that they turn their minds off and their emotions on. (real conservative)

Anonymous said...

Sort of like beating the Mulroney- Schreiber drum...
over 300,000 private bucks!?!?

Anonymous said...

Cyntie hates an awful lot of folks. Mostly it's the 5.0 plus Canadians that voted for PM Harper. I believe the only thing the boy loves is his glow-in-the-dark blow-up boy toy.

Anonymous said...

Last I checked, no police force in Canada has been shooting anyone with avalanches...

Anonymous said...

Name the place neo. We'll meet. I'll taser YOU. I'll post the video. Think you can stand it?

Or are you a coward?

Neo Conservative said...

*
"cc, posting as anon, offers... Name the place neo. We'll meet. I'll taser YOU. I'll post the video. Think you can stand it?"

sure... as long as i get to shoot you... just once... in the chest with a .40 calibre glock... purely for comparison purposes, of course.

deal?

*

Anonymous said...

sure... as long as i get to shoot you... just once... in the chest with a .40 calibre glock... purely for comparison purposes, of course.

deal?


I am not CC.

You were claiming the taser is essentially harmless. No big deal.

Now I see you agree that tasering people is comparable to shooting them with a 40 calibre pistol.

No need to deal, since you now agree that tasers are deadly. Thanks for actually changing your mind. It is a rarity from you.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon hastily backpedals... I see you agree..."

well, my cynical and somewhat dim-witted friend... you're perhaps most famous for seeing whatever it is you want to see, aren't you?

let me try make this a little simpler for you.

when the metis kid pulled the knife on the cops... they basically had two options... tase him or use their service pistols.

i guess you'd rather have what was behind door number 2, huh?

nice try, though... and thanks for playing.

*

Anonymous said...

Ok then, you think getting tasered is no big deal. You don't get to shoot me in return. I taser you and it's no big deal, and you shoot me dead? No. Unless I get to wear kevlar, and then shoot you back with an bazooka. Fair in your view? Didn't think so.

Stick to the original premise.

Let's see how brave you are facing the taser. Probably a lot less brave than you are with the channel changer.

Where and when?

Rose said...

It's simple really, like the leftards, when a "Police Officer" gives you a lawful command (look it up leftards) you do as you are told. If you aren't breaking the law or acting like a retard in public or getting violent in custody the chances of you getting legally tazered is zero. Don't break the law or go off your meds!

If the criminal scumbags abandon their ciminal lifestyle they won't get tazered, don't commit a crime and you won't get zapped in custody. Honestly the leftards spend so much time opining the victimization of criminal scrum it makes one ill. No wonder we have so many repeat offenders, the fucking leftards coddle scum and then get outraged if one of them gets "Harmed". I could careless, if SAVES just one Cop's life then the tazer is worth it's weight (or zap) in gold.

Anonymous said...

Glad "rose" doesn't have a taser.

You'd just love to be able to torture anyone you don't like at will, wouldn't you? It doesn't usually kill people, but you'd get your jollies zapping people and throwing your considerable weight around.

Too bad the occasional person dies, eh rose?

Tasers don't save any police officer lives. It might save the lives of a few lowlifes they could avoid shooting dead, but you already said you don't care about them, right rose?

If that kid pulling the knife was truly a threat to the cops, why taser him? Why take the chance? Shoot him dead. But he wasn't really a threat was he? Just like the guy executed at Vancouver Airport wasn't really a threat.

That's the problem. Overuse. Use when there wasn't really that much danger.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"aristotle anon whines... Stick to the original premise."

sure... because you say so.

does this technique usually work with anybody over 4 years old?

*

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon posits... If that kid pulling the knife was truly a threat to the cops, why taser him?"

agree absolutely. the kid surely got the benefit of the doubt here.

all your horseshit about people enjoying torture, though... kinda sounds like some 'jeffrey dahmer' transference thing.

you might wanna see somebody about that.

*

Anonymous said...

as usual, neo hits the channel changer.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon whines... as usual..."

ya just gotta love you leftbot losers...

you make up some totally nonsensical challenge... (yeah, you've actually got a taser, right?)... and when i don't agree to meet you, so you can give me a make-believe shock... i lose, what... the bet, my first-born child, my manhood?

here, dopey... let me do one now...

"if the u.s.a. can put a man on the moon... why can't they do something about those poor people on gilligan's island?"

you guys crack me up.

*

Anonymous said...

you guys crack me up.
Interesting theory. I knew you were cracked, and I wondered why.

s said...

Once again, neo becomes a troll on his own blog. Hey shit for brains, I suppose 4 pigs holding down a 16 year old girl and tasering her in the crotch is not torture in your books, eh?

Anonymous said...

I am having a hard time understanding your original post, Neo.

Are you saying that hate crime actually does not exist because it is statistically insignificant? Are you then using this claim of statistical insignificance as an argument to denigrate the deaths of people who die as a result of being tasered?

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon says... I am having a hard time understanding your original post"

judging from your commentary thus far... we could write a book about stuff... you apparently can't understand.

not to worry, though... i'm sure the sheeple over at rabble will love you nonetheless.

*

Neo Conservative said...

*
"s screeches... I suppose 4 pigs holding down a 16 year old girl..."

yup... you're sure you're not leaving anything out of that fairy-tale, huh?

*

s said...

Yeah that's right, she jumped on a pigs back...then AFTER they removed her, they held her down and tasered her in the crotch. And he-men like you see nothing wrong with that? You're a fucking pathetic Walter Mitty type, typical of the majority of "law and order" right wingers in this country.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"s agrees... Yeah that's right, she jumped on a pigs back"

which puts her arms around his windpipe, you dumbstick.

remember, this isn't actually about your pornographic fantasies.

and try reading slower... it might improve your comprehension.

*

Anonymous said...

"judging from your commentary thus far... we could write a book about stuff... you apparently can't understand."

Actually that was my first comment in the thread.

I am trying to understand if what you are saying is that because only 4 people die each year as a result of tasers, then there should be no regulation, no investigation, and no restriction on when they can be used by police?

You also miss the point that the young girl was already subdued by officers when she was tasered, so this was not a form of subdual in a life or death situation, but a torture for being 'bad'.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon says... no regulation, no investigation, and no restriction"

i guess that's why everybody and his mom is running around shocking people... and we have hundreds of taser fatalities... oh, wait...

*

Anonymous said...

"i guess that's why everybody and his mom is running around shocking people... and we have hundreds of taser fatalities... oh, wait..."

I think you miss the point, a taser is a restricted weapon, not available to the Canadian public, and as such should be used only when it is necessary by security forces. It was not necessary to use a taser on a person already subdued and immobilised.

Taser.org lists the taser as a deadly weapon, I would consider this definition to be of paramount importance when one is used. Does the situation encountered require deadly force to deal with it.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon says... I think you miss the point..."

read slower, my friend... that is precisely my point.

and, in this case, a violent, impaired person jumped on a cop's back... had her arms around his windpipe... and as a result was tasered.

funny how all you folks mindlessly jump to the aid of the perpetrator.

what's up with that?

*

Anonymous said...

"and, in this case, a violent, impaired person jumped on a cop's back... had her arms around his windpipe... and as a result was tasered."

No. This is your story, and is not supported by the news story.

The Globe and Mail says quite clearly:

The girl, who was 16 at the time of the incident, said she was held down by four officers, one for each limb, while a taser was used on her legs and groin area. She said the third shock lasted between five and eight seconds and left her screaming in pain.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080725.TASERJAIL25/TPStory/National
It was not used as a defensive measure but as a torture device.

Anonymous said...

Neo says: "funny how all you folks mindlessly jump to the aid of the perpetrator.

what's up with that?"

In a fair society, the police would operate under the same basic laws as everybody else, except in circumstances where they are endangered. Suggesting that they have either the right or the power to simply use any force on subdued and immobilised persons is draconian. The girl if the article is to be believed, was immobilised, if officers cannot subdue her without the use of a potentially life threatening device, then they should seriously consider resigning from the force as their actions are far out of line. Despite your claim otherwise, there have been people killed by the use of tasers, and thus they should be used only in emergencies.

I will not even get into the potential problems of forcibly removing a minor's clothing, including a bra.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon bleats... This is your story...

nope... this came from the girl herself... in her initial "blurred out face" interview... broadcast nationwide on ctv national news this weekend.

she jumped the cop... she has to take her lumps... just like any other perp.

nice try though.

*

Anonymous said...

Neo says: "nope... this came from the girl herself... in her initial "blurred out face" interview... broadcast nationwide on ctv national news this weekend.
"


Would you have a link to this or do I simply take your word for it?

Let's get this straight; the girl says she jumped on the back of an officer, tried to strangle him by placing pressure on his windpipe, and was tasered 3 times before they were able to subdue her and restrain her?

The G&M article then was totally wrong; She was not held down by 4 police, and not immobilised when the taser was used?

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon asks... do I simply take your word for it?"

in truth, it wouldn't really matter what i say, would it? you had your mind made up before you got here.

here's an experiment you can work through, though... try choking a cop... and after you regain consciousness... try telling us about how unfair the whole thing was.

so i'm sorry... you can try spin this any way you want... but you're not gonna get any sympathy out here in the land of the law-abiding citizen.

i know, i know, sweetie... it's so unfair.

*

Anonymous said...

Neo says: "in truth, it wouldn't really matter what i say, would it? you had your mind made up before you got here."

So you can't back up what you claim happened. Rather than berating me for asking for proof of what you say, as it is at odds with the G&M article, why not simply provide a link for me to see for myself.

Unless there is no link available?

Neo says "here's an experiment you can work through, though... try choking a cop... and after you regain consciousness... try telling us about how unfair the whole thing was.
"


I don't dispute that the officers were within their rights to subdue the girl when she attacked them, but you ignore that the article I am referencing does not say she 'choked the cop' and that the tasering was done when she no longer posed a threat to the 5 or 6 trained officers present. She was immobilised, held down and the tasering was done as a sadistic act to teach her a lesson. There was no reason to taser her beyond the pettiness of the officers involved.

If 5 police can not handle a 16 year old girl who is in a holding cell, I can only hope they never come up against a real violent criminal.

Neo Conservative said...

*
sorry pal... didn't tivo the ctv piece... you'll just have to accept that it would be silly for me to put it out there, when thousands of people who watched ctv this weekend could refute it.

now, i could keep on repeating myself over and over... but you're just obviously not gonna get what you want (or more to the point, seem to need) here.

you're craving some sort of validation... you could head on over to rabble... they'll lick you up one slimy socialist side and down the other.

but you're just gonna keep on beating your drum here... aren't you?

well hey, stormy... you bring it... yet again.

*

s said...

Neo, since there is obviously no hope of reasoned discussion with a fuckwad like you, congratulations for demonstrating what a fucking wanker you are. Now you and your posse go out there and beat up some teenage girls so that you can feel like real men.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"recently created, drive-by trolling profile "s" screeches... fuckwad... fucking wanker... beat up some teenage girls."

whoa... that outburst sounds very familiar.

you just couldn't keep it bottled up any more... could you?

get your meds, get a cat... get some help.

do it now.

*

Anonymous said...

Neo says "you'll just have to accept that it would be silly for me to put it out there, when thousands of people who watched ctv this weekend could refute it.
"


So you are saying she was tasered while on the back of a cop, and the allegation she was held down and then tasered is wrong? I am not refuting what you say, but I would like a bit more than an "I said it, so it is so."

Neo says "you're craving some sort of validation... you could head on over to rabble... they'll lick you up one slimy socialist side and down the other."

So because I see a problem with police handing out sentences to captured criminals, which is what happened if G&M article is in any way valid, rather than merely dealing with apprehending and arresting criminals, I am a slimy socialist? Do you believe that all citizens should be treated equally before the law? Including our police forces?

Neo says "but you're just gonna keep on beating your drum here... aren't you?"

Actually no. Anyone can make an argument fit their belief if they do not have to post creditable evidence of what they claim happened. I am sure if the girl refuted the story as told to the G&M some other media would have reported on it. I have to assume that either the interview you reference did not say what you thought it did, or the actual incident was close enough to what was reported in the G&M as to be ignored by the other media.

Neo says "whoa... that outburst sounds very familiar. "

While I do not condone the use of profanity or insult I do understand the frustration of this person.

You are supporting the tasering of a minor by the police, and not only tasering but tasering in a manner that suggests it could be termed a sexual assault. You suggest that the police are only capable of dealing with a teenage girl if they are in numbers greater than 4 to 1. That they have every right to subdue a subject, and then once immobilised, electric shock them badly enough to burn the skin.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon protests... While I do not condone the use of profanity or insult... "

well, c'mon... you arrived here via a link from canadian cynic, right?

do you condone misogynistic language like "utter douchebag" or "dumb cunt"?

do you condone telling the grieving mother of a dead canadian soldier... "fuck you and your grief"?

'cos, surprise, surprise... your buddy cc does... and btw, those are direct quotes. maybe you can chastise him a little before you bring your taser-rage back here.

sure, sure... i understand... that's different.

hey, here's a question... somebody tries to choke you into unconsciousness... you understand their, uh... frustration?

*

Anonymous said...

Neo says "well, c'mon... you arrived here via a link from canadian cynic, right? "

Which has what to do with the topic discussed?

If you wish to debate with me the profanity and insults that CC uses provide the proper thread, and I will discuss it, and I imagine it will even provide sufficient amusement for CC and those who blog with him. Still, the thread is yours, and we will discuss the profanity and abusive language if you desire.

neo says "'cos, surprise, surprise... your buddy cc does... and btw, those are direct quotes. maybe you can chastise him a little before you bring your taser-rage back here."

Just as CC has used some controversial language to drive home his points, he focuses only on those he targets, not on the great number of politically oppossed to him. There are many on the right who are as guilty, or more so, as their comments focus hate and anger on all who believe differently than them.

As far as the quotes you list, they only relate what you want them to relate, they do not provide the reason for CC's outbursts, and do not address the context they were used.

Now, while you condemn cc, where has been your condemnation of the right talking heads who appear to have been instrumental in the Unitarian Church shooting?

Neo says "do you condone misogynistic language like "utter douchebag" or "dumb cunt"?"

No. I don't use those words, but I do not condemn those that do. While I believe it weakens an argument to use profanity, it is a personal opinion, one obviously cc does not share. This does not mean he is not a very intelligent and insightful analyst, it simply means he refuses to put up with Bullshit. AFAIK anytime that cc or the others on his site use these descriptions is when those they are discussing are posting unbelievably stupid things, or lying through their teeth. Links to back up the stupidity are appreciated at the Cynic, as it does make judging far easier than not having a link.

Neo says "do you condone telling the grieving mother of a dead canadian soldier... "fuck you and your grief"?"

The language is stronger than I would have used, but I support the actual pont he is making. Do you think that calling for the deaths of more Canadians soldiers, so she can feel her son did not die in vain, is defensible?

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon says... cc is a very intelligent and insightful analyst"

yup... another area where we very obviously part company.

here's a thought... when you get home tonight... try calling your wife "a dumb cunt".

when she starts screaming about throwing you out of the house... just tell her, it may be a little "controversial", but you're just not prepared " to put up with her bullshit" anymore.

let us know how that works for you.

oh yeah... anybody who would construe the words of a grieving mother to mean that she is "calling for the deaths" of anyone is simply beneath contempt.

it's exactly the kind of "sneering, profanity-laced dialogue" that your "intelligent and insightful" mentor is famous for.

so red, or ti-guy, or cc... whichever one of you this actually is... maybe you can sell this muck over at liblogs... but it sure ain't gonna fly here.

*

Anonymous said...

Neo says: "so red, or ti-guy, or cc... whichever one of you this actually is... maybe you can sell this muck over at liblogs... but it sure ain't gonna fly here."

Because there are only a few that would debate you on this, I must be one of them? Sorry to disappoint but you are wrong.


Neo says "yup... another area where we very obviously part company. "

I am pleasantly surprised you recognise your short comings.

Neo says "here's a thought... when you get home tonight... try calling your wife "a dumb cunt".
"

Why would I use those words on my wife, when I have already said I do not use profanity?

Neo says "oh yeah... anybody who would construe the words of a grieving mother to mean that she is "calling for the deaths" of anyone is simply beneath contempt.
"


I agree, ahe isn't 'calling for the deaths of others' but she is suggesting that keeping the Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan (where others are still in danger of being killed) will somehow make her loss easier to bear.

I dislike the thought of soldiers that are serving to protect other Canadians should die simply because they will assauge one woman's grief. Surely it would be more logical to suggest we have no moral right to be there, and others should not be in danger.

Neo says "it's exactly the kind of "sneering, profanity-laced dialogue" that your "intelligent and insightful" mentor is famous for."

AFAIK, He has long since given up attempting meaningful dialogue, as, according to them, those on the right tend to avoid any argument that deals in facts.

Another clue I am not one of the usual cc tribe.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon asks... Why would I use those words on my wife, when I have already said I do not use profanity?"

well... you don't use profanity for, what... some undefinable reason?

let's pull that apart a little, ok? because it looks to me like you're being more than just a little hypocritical here...

if you say it's perfectly acceptable for your ""intelligent and insightful" pal cc to direct profane and very personal attacks at the women on the bt blogroll, how can you possibly object to doing the same thing yourself?

to further follow your previous logic... don't think of it as profanity... think of it as transcending "the bullshit".

and one last thing... cc's whole shtick is making highly personal, offensive remarks about people (well, mostly women)... why is it... that every time someone turns the lens on him... he runs crying to stephen taylor?

see, in the real world, my young jedi... you can't have it both ways.

*

Anonymous said...

Neo says "well... you don't use profanity for, what... some undefinable reason? "

Because I do not see the need to use it. Of course others may use it if they want to, as that is their right.

Neo says "if you say it's perfectly acceptable for your ""intelligent and insightful" pal cc to direct profane and very personal attacks at the women on the bt blogroll, how can you possibly object to doing the same thing yourself?
"

maybe because CC and I have different temperaments? I am not able to control what CC or you or anyone else posts, and I am not going to try to censor anyone as that is impossible for me to do.

Neo says "see, in the real world, my young jedi... you can't have it both ways."

The problem is that in many ways you are advocating changes that do affect the real World, and not in a good way. Many of the opinions you express are not supported by research or facts, but rely instead on fear of change. As far as ignoring profanity goes, I can have it both ways, it's called ignoring the profanity and reading the rest.

Now, So far in this thread you have managed to change the topic from tasers, to the problems, (and by extension, how bad he is) you have with CC, and finally to a discussion on profanity.

You have suggested I am a hypocrite because while I do not use profanity (at least not often) I do not condemn those that do. You have suggested I am here only at the beck of CC, and am somehow connected to him/her.

You have constantly avoided an honest attempt at proving your allegation that a 16 year old girl jumped on a police officers back, and attempted to choke him, only being dislodged by the use of taser on her thighs and groin, at which point other officers were able collectively to leave the holding cell she was in.

In fact, in the entire discussion we have had, although civil enough IMO, you have failed to provide any creditable reason why I should believe your version of events, and not those of the G&M.

I thank you for the civility, but wish you had provided more substance to back up your opinions than you did.

Neo Conservative said...

*
anon says... an honest attempt at proving your allegation that a 16 year old girl jumped on a police officers back"

sorry, friend... not my allegation... it's what the girl herself stated this past weekend in her on-camera interview on national television via ctv... and all your shouting "prove it, prove it" like a cornered junkie... changes that, not a whit.

you should also note that it is not my mission in life to try convert the obviously otherwise committed.

it's obvious you've made your choice where you're gonna stand.

finally... i find your support for the vile tactics cc uses primarily against the women at bt... both hypocritical and cowardly.

but, hey... you get to choose.

that's what makes this country, despite its flaws, such a great place.

*

Neo Conservative said...

*
oh, yeah... one more thing.

i'm not sure i'd be braggin' up the integrity of the holy globe & mail.

*

Anonymous said...

Neo Con says "sorry, friend... not my allegation... it's what the girl herself stated this past weekend in her on-camera interview on national television via ctv... and all your shouting "prove it, prove it" like a cornered junkie... changes that, not a whit."

Actually, you are saying that the article from the G&M is basically a pack of untruths, and you expect me to take your word for it. Surely if you wanted to you can come up with a transcript or something of her interview.

While I am sure your word carries a lot of weight amongst your family and friends, I would rather see verification of your 'proof'.


Neo says "it's obvious you've made your choice where you're gonna stand. "

It is obvious you cannot prove what you say, although I am hoping you can provide me a link.

Neo says "finally... i find your support for the vile tactics cc uses primarily against the women at bt... both hypocritical and cowardly."

I am sure that if a woman is capable of forming an opinion, and allowing others to comment on it, that she is mature enough to accept criticism of her viewpoint. I fail to see where I am supporting anything that cc or others post. That I do not get outraged at their supposed profanity is no different than me not getting outraged at your conclusion that tasering young girls is acceptable.

It is a large internet and I am not willing to take blame for anything that I am not personally posting.

Neo says "oh, yeah... one more thing.

i'm not sure i'd be braggin' up the integrity of the holy globe & mail."


You believe that blogs and newspapers that change or delete comments have no integrity?

Interesting.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon asserts... Actually, you are saying..."

see... actually, i am not... but please, don't stop now... you undermine yourself every time you try this this sort of thing.

and this piece of condescension... "I am sure that if a woman is capable of forming an opinion..." just ices the cake.

"if?" a woman is capable? "if?" and you're "sure" are you?

that certainly goes some way to explaining why you're so casual about cc crappin' all over women.

keep diggin', pal.

*

Sandy Crux said...

I find this an interesting thread re CC. As an older woman who gets dumped on regularly at CC (as well as at Red Tory), I can tell you that, what they write may be analytical, but because of the way they write it, their argument gets lost in the venom.

And, what does CC and his supporters do? They degrade and ridicule my person, my academic credentials and my work on the blogosphere.

And, what do I do? Do I trash them in return? No, actually I don't. I try to ignore what they say and simply carry on.

In fact, as I said in a comment at James Bow's blog yesterday on a similar thread as this, beyond my criticism of what has been written about me, I have NEVER EVER said anything negative about another blogger.

And, there is the rub. It is one thing to leave a negative comment but when bloggers put a fellow blogger's name on their post or in their first few lines, it will get posted on the search engines and be there forever.

That is, in my opinion, defamation and libel.

And what,you ask, do I get in return?

(1) I am a pathological liar.

http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2008/07/yeah-yeah-autistic-kids-whatever.html

(2) Degrading descriptors I won't repeat.

http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2008/07/and-they-called-it-puppy-love.html

(3) Personal and professional ridicule.

http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2008/07/you-keep-using-that-word-pedagogy.html

And, those are just a few posts.

For some reason CC seems to be obsessed with my list of the Harper Government Accomplishments. There are no embellishments in that list. I did them on my own. Moreover, other than being a member of the CPC, I have nothing to do with the party.

The list represents reality -- what the conservative government has actually done. If someone wants to do a similar list for the Martin or Chretien government, they can do so. All the data is still available in the government's search engines.

An "initiative" is an accomplishment. The fact that something goes wrong with the tendering process or the like does not change the reality that it is part of the "record."

Moreover, when I have discovered an error, I fix it. But, when I do that I am then ridiculed in a "gotcha" type of reaction.

Reality check: I have never claimed to be perfect and I always thank people for tips or for pointing out mistakes.

As a result, it would be more civil for CC or anyone else to simply e-mail me and explain how I am wrong.

Oh I know, CC goes on about the purchase of the Arctic patrol ships. That is government business. I have the link showing the longterm timetable and I am waiting for updated information. When I get it I will revise the item.

But, the real problem is that CC and others simply hate the Harper government so much that anyone like me who can write positive things is trashed. The messenger again.

You know, it may be old fashioned for me to say so, but I don't care if it's Neo here or anyone else, we shouldn't be trashing each other. It serves no purpose at all. That's not discussion or debate.

That's the start of verbal abuse which leads to verbal violence.

Which is why I delete certain types of comments at my blog. Not because we disagree but because they are meant simply as putdowns and bickering or to change the subject.

Violence doesn't just happen. It starts with words first and then goes to deeds.

Therefore, can we not all be at least civil?

Neo Conservative said...

*
"sandy says... And, what does CC and his supporters do? They degrade and ridicule my person, my academic credentials and my work on the blogosphere."

over to you, anon.

*

Anonymous said...

Neo says in other threa:
or you can just pound away until people get tired of replying to your nonsense.

I take it that was meant for me.

Let's look at the way you argued the issues:
You said that the G&M article was incorrect, but you are unable to provide any other link that would support your position. In absence of any other evidence I advised you of the value of your word, which is little, when placed against a national magazine, which is not a lot but still slightly higher than your word.

You then, unable to provide proof of your position, changed the topic of the discussion to cc, how I was one of cc's 'group' and how bad he is. I replied that I was not connected to cc, and that it did not bother me that he uses profanity because I am not in the habit of censoring people who have something to say, especially when they are able to provide basic evidence for their reasoning. In fact, if I worried about profanity or political correctness I would never have discovered the works of Mark Twain or Shakespeare or Voltaire, or Vonnegut.

It then became a discussion of how I am a bad person for not criticising cc for profanity but instead expressing concern about an attack on a restrained and immobilised teen ager already in a holding cell. The attack and the areas targetted, suggest a sexual nature nad sadism by those involved.

At no time did you provide a logical or consistent reason for me to change any of my opinions, and you provided no proof beyond a plea of "trust me".

So there was changing of discussion, obstruction of main points, failure to prove your points. Yea, you obviously have me tired of replying to your nonsense.


Neo says *
"sandy says... And, what does CC and his supporters do? They degrade and ridicule my person, my academic credentials and my work on the blogosphere."

over to you, anon.



How does saying you are doing something, without actually doing it, become an accomplishment, Sandy?

You can complain that you are being abused and that the language is harsh, but do not complain that cc and the others at his site are wrong to point out examples of you simply posting something that has not been accomplished, and may never be accomplished.

You also fail to post that the PC's have created a deficit through their policies, when the Liberals had a surplus, you ignore the Bernier affair, the Cadman affair, the AECL affair, and other scandals that have become simply an ongoing revolving door for the government.

If a person posts that he is Jesus Christ, I have every reason to criticise them, and point out the ways they are misguided. In the same way when you post things that have not yet been accomplished, we have every right to criticise you for it. I personally would not use profanity to make my points, although I can understand, given the methods used to actually debate in this thread, the frustration some do feel in debating political issues.

Neo Conservative said...

*
anon asks... How does saying you are doing something, without actually doing it, become an accomplishment..."

hmmm... you could ask steffi.

say... you must be awfully sympathetic to his frustration as well, huh?

*

Anonymous said...

sandy says "The list represents reality -- what the conservative government has actually done. If someone wants to do a similar list for the Martin or Chretien government, they can do so. All the data is still available in the government's search engines "

Your post does not list what the Conservatives have done, it shows what the Conservatives have said they will do, which is a different matter altogether. I am sure that there has been many iniatives launched by Liberal, Bloc and NDP governments that were never accomplished, are we supposed to believe that simply saying they would do something, that they should be credited with it?

sandy says "An "initiative" is an accomplishment. The fact that something goes wrong with the tendering process or the like does not change the reality that it is part of the "record."

Okay, my previous question was answered.

sandy says "You know, it may be old fashioned for me to say so, but I don't care if it's Neo here or anyone else, we shouldn't be trashing each other. It serves no purpose at all. That's not discussion or debate"

I think there are many who can debate without profaity or insults. Unfortunately these people are lost because both sides of an issue are more interested in either changing the debate to other areas, not interested in providing factual information, or focusing on personalities of either the blogger himself or people they believe the blogger supports.

Again I am thankful of the polite discourse you and Neo have engaged me in. You have not changed my mind on issues, I doubt I have changed yours. I do hope you can understand, as I do, that many on both sides of the issues become extremely frustrated by what they see as unreasonableness and pettiness by political opponents.

sandy says "Violence doesn't just happen. It starts with words first and then goes to deeds. "

The original thread was about the myth of hate crimes, and the myth about the dangers of tasers. The use of tasers can be an important tool for the security forces of countries, but just because they are authorised to use them, does not give any type of police force a right to use them indiscriminately. There are times when a certain tool is indeed needed, professional craftsman can tell when these times are. Unfortunately I can not say the police in the article have shown sufficient knowledge to know when a taser is or isn't appropriate.

As the original post concerned tasrs, I find the ability of you to ignore the inappropriateness of using a taser on the girl already in police custody, and already in jail, while expressing outrage at CC's use of insults and profanity revealing. While I do understand your concern about personal attacks, Where is your outrage at the police for tasering a child?

Neo says "say... you must be awfully sympathetic to his frustration as well, huh? "

Unfortunately you have just become irrelevant in your own thread.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon proudly announces... you have just become irrelevant in your own thread."

sure... because you say so.

you must have learned that one from your "intelligent and insightful" mentor, huh?

thing is, nonny... your multitude of pompous little lectures (well, actually the one same lecture vomited up over and over) tells the real story here.

and i'm perfectly willing to let people read the thread and make their own judgements.

but don't let that stop you now... i'm sure the socialist lily can always use a little more gilding.

*

Anonymous said...

Neo says ""anon proudly announces... you have just become irrelevant in your own thread."

sure... because you say so.

you must have learned that one from your "intelligent and insightful" mentor, huh?"


You are irrelevant because you have become a troll in your own thread.

Which mentor would that be?

Neo says "and i'm perfectly willing to let people read the thread and make their own judgements."

As am I.

Neo says "thing is, nonny... your multitude of pompous little lectures (well, actually the one same lecture vomited up over and over) tells the real story here."

Aren't facts that can be backed up by links, a bitch to disprove.

Sandy Crux said...

Contrary to the opinions of some, most of my list has actually happened and for over two years in some cases.

For example, check out these Harper Government Accomplishments:

(1) The child tax credit,
(2) The monthly child tax benefit,
(3) The sports tax credit for children;
(4) The public transit credit;
(5) The GST reductions of 2%,
(6) The tax fee savings account, and
(7) Income splitting for seniors (which really helped my husband and I this spring),
(8) Redress for Chinese Canadians;
(9) Monuments for Air India victims and their families; and
(10) A government apology to the Aborginal people of Canada for the residential school policy put in place by previous Liberal governments.

I could go on and on but readers will get the drift.My list is not me doing a "rah rah" for the conservative party. I haven't time for that type of nonsense.

And, NO, the items listed are not promises. They have happened. They are reality. They are truly accomplishments -- in just a little over two years!

But, I will make one commitment here. In a few days, when we are back from vacation, I will re-examine my entire list - which is now posted on the header bar at Jack's Newswatch -- since my blog is now almost entirely about educational and disability issues.

Then, if I find anything that does not have a linked source and/or is only a promise, I will remove it and post the revised version.

But, to those who hate my list, do me a favour. Don't change the subject by asking me about issues that have nothing to do with my entries.

I am just one citizen -- a volunteer blogger. I am not responsible for the government of Canada, Stephen Harper or the conservative party.

And, for that reason, I have also made a point of never including CPC related sources and commentary of other bloggers. I use only government search engines and mainstream media.

In any event, my thanks for a civil debate. This thread may have gotten off topic from tasers, but sometimes I feel like I have been hit by one, symbolically speaking.

But, no matter, I plan to keep harping on that list until after the next federal election, whenever that may be.

In fact, I just thought of a great idea. I may put together a blog just about the accomplishments.

What do visitors think about that? In case I don't get back here to Neo's site while I am travelling, e-mail me at: crux-of-the-matter@hotmail.com

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon crows... Aren't facts that can be backed up by links, a bitch to disprove."

you mean the lone globe article you refer to endlessly?

i think i'll still go with the interview the girl herself gave to ctv.

but c'mon back... i'm sure nobody is tired of hearing your cough, cough argument.

*

Anonymous said...

Neo says "you mean the lone globe article you refer to endlessly?"

The G&M article taht I provided a link to, and thus provided a source for others to make their own judgement about the story; as opposed to your word without any other proof.

Neo says i think i'll still go with the interview the girl herself gave to ctv. "

You mean the interview you can not seem to provide a link to?

Neo says "but c'mon back... i'm sure nobody is tired of hearing your cough, cough argument."

Until you can back up your proof with some type of evidence that I can actually read, look at or consider as to it's worthiness, you have provided no argument to rebut me. Perhaps you should ask Sandy how to provide proof when you are asked to. A simple link to the interview is all I am asking.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon pleads... A simple link to the interview is all I am asking."

ask away, my friend... but sadly, my purpose here is not primarily to satisfy your requests.

i know, i know... you're simply providing a shining beacon of socialist light... just like cc.

and don't imagine for one second, we don't appreciate it.

*

Anonymous said...

Neo says "ask away, my friend... but sadly, my purpose here is not primarily to satisfy your requests.

i know, i know... you're simply providing a shining beacon of socialist light... just like cc.

and don't imagine for one second, we don't appreciate it."


Not only do you post lies Neo, as you assert things as fact when you do not have the ability to prove them (nor the decency ) but you are dishonest to your readers by posting opinions that are not supportable by facts, and thus obviously not supported by reality.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon says... thus obviously not supported by reality."

and you, my friend, are the arbiter of reality? ya gotta love that.

hey... we're getting close to a record here... just keep 'er comin', slick.

*