EW: I know what you mean, in general, but I thought this one was pretty good. Amanda came across as a lot more of a reporter, which let Bill do the same. Also, it seemed like more topics were addressed, compared to recent episodes of TWIB, particularly in presenting some of the variance of right-wing perspectives. One thing that disturbed me: the notion, mostly implied by both, that using biofuels has anything to do with cutting C02 emissions. The real argument for biofuels (not that I much buy it, particularly when it comes to corn) is that they're supposed to cut dependence on foreign oil. As I understand it, the global warming impact of burning biofuels is about the same as burning petroleum. One thing that made me laugh: the news that Newt Gingrich and Arlen Spector are the latest to be exiled for apostasy.

Actually, I should clarify my "Gad, please go back to the old schedule" comment. It's more that I think, if we're going to be getting this every week, Bill Scher should find some really first rate Progressive to alternate hosting with. Both participants were fine this week. I just can't shake the bad taste of the gruesome performance last week where Conn Carroll just completely crushed Scher, batting him around like a tomcat high on catnip would whack around a mortally-wounded mouse. Makes me shudder. Anyway, just a suggestion coming from the "variety is the spice of life" camp. EW

Quoting Eastwest: I just can't shake the bad taste of the gruesome performance last week where Conn Carroll just completely crushed Scher, batting him around like a tomcat high on catnip would whack around a mortally-wounded mouse. Makes me shudder.

This has long been a problem. Scher is often far too eager to take on the burden of maintaining civility, frequently at the expense of the progressive argument. He resorts to changing the subject with lines like "well, I don't want to get into the whole Capital Gains debate with you..." The result being that his interlocutor gets in a solid talking point, which Scher leaves unanswered, appearing to dodge and implying that there isn't a persuasive retort (it doesn't help that Conn is a genuinely very effective partisan mouthpiece nowadays; maybe it's the suits). I still have nightmares about the dreaded "Scher/Goldberg Massacre", remembered for all time as the most brutal drubbing in the history of BhTV. Bill- you need to get on steroids or something. Do a bunch of push-ups before taping, blast some speed-metal, whatever. You gotta get your heart-rate going and pump yourself up so you can snap back with

Quoting bjkeefe: EW:

Amanda came across as a lot more of a reporter, which let Bill do the same. Also, it seemed like more topics were addressed, compared to recent episodes of TWIB, particularly in presenting some of the variance of right-wing perspectives.

In the spirit of bipartisan comity (non-Broder division), I just want to say that Amanda was fantastic. More Amanda please. No hackery, no baiting, no insisting that 2+2=5 just because the other side says that 2+2=4, just explication of what was going on this week in Right Blogistan. What a concept. (Am I by inference throwing Conn Carroll under the bus? Who can say...?) Looking at the list of topics and given the fact that it was TWIB, I was expecting (dreading) Kleiman-Jerrett Round Two, so maybe Amanda impressed me so much because of low expectations, but still. It must be hard, particularly in an election year, to be partisan and still avoid descending into either hackery on the one hand or Chicken-Little-esque reflexive contrarianism on the other (false equivalence alert: note that I consider the former a graver sin than the latter). While I'm on the subject of hackery and the lack thereof, I also want to say that Eli Lake

As I understand it, the global warming impact of burning biofuels is about the same as burning petroleum.

Bio-fuels don't increase average CO2 because they're part of this cycle: grow plants (which sequesters CO2), turn plants into fuel, burn fuel (which releases CO2), repeat. No CO2, etc. is added to the atmosphere. Burning petrol, etc. increases CO2 because it releases already sequestered carbon.

It took me a little while, but I have hunted down my very favorite Devastating Rejoinder in the archives: Behold, as Ezra Klein makes short work of Will Wilkson's classic Libertarian "holier than petty, partisan special interest pandering" self congratulation. If Bill Scher could bust out one of these, he'd forever have my respect.

http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs...9&out=00:00:22 Maybe not such a bad idea after all -- now that he's just a particularly irascible Heritage attack dog -- and given that Amanda was able to be pleasant and discuss what's going on in the blogosphere without turning it all into furious overplayed attacks. For once I agree with EastWest: I think I prefer the every-other-week schedule. However, my guess is that they're planning to alternate Scher and Carroll, pairing them with a blogger on the other side? That might improve things quite a bit. Scher's approach and Conn's new approach don't seem to match very well (Scher was all right in this more reportorial role, but he's not a good counter-attack-dog.) And maybe Conn will be able to suppress his bitterness a bit better when he talks to other bloggers -- he managed to suppress his rage/contempt.
It's still not going to be my favorite feature, I expect.

I don't think there's anything particularly devastating about rebutting a point by saying, literally, "blah, blah, blah, blah." What did I miss?

Quoting breadcrust: Bio-fuels don't increase average CO2 because they're part of this cycle: grow plants (which sequesters CO2), turn plants into fuel, burn fuel (which releases CO2), repeat. No CO2, etc. is added to the atmosphere. Burning petrol, etc. increases CO2 because it releases already sequestered carbon.

I completely forgot about that aspect, breadcrust. Thanks for pointing it out. I don't think it's quite that cleanly closed a system, once you start adding up all the steps required to grow, harvest, and refine the fuels. Also, since the net yield of energy is so small, I would think these steps add a lot. But as a first approximation, your point is well-taken, and I'll have to look at some numbers before I could say how much these add. It's also fair to point out that getting crude oil from deep underground to the gas tank has its own processing penalties, of course.

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't think there's anything particularly devastating about rebutting a point by saying, literally, "blah, blah, blah, blah."

What did I miss?

Well, it's kind of in Erza's delivery, and his snappiness. Will is on this big high horse about how Liberals and Conservatives are all cravenly in hock to special interests, and Ezra throws it right back at him (replicating the condescending tone even). He points out that Libertarians are hardly some Enlightened Supermen, impervious to being bought off, but in truth do the bidding of those who pay their bills (Earlier in the vlog there had been a long debate about Wal-Mart, with Will defending the wage suppression policy of the company which, incidentally, happens to donate Will's salary to Cato). The "blah blah blah" signifies, IMO, "need I really go on, Will? Two can play at this specious argumentation game."

A couple things... First, I can agree the Scher does do better with someone he doesn't have to back up his skewed view against. In that way he can throw out the bull manure that liberals have grown to believe without being made to step into it later. Yeah...good for him. Don't get me wrong, I thought Amanda did fine... and smart, polite,and beautiful works well for her. Second, I find it funny that some of the regular commentors here continue to characterize Conn Carroll as some raging, contempuous, attack-dog. I am new here, but I have to say that in the couple times I have seen him, he comes across as pretty even-keeled while pleasingly, unwilling to let his opposite get by with the bull. So, I can only say that the regulars here are reacting as poor losers who don't handle being told they are not wearing any clothes when they are obviously naked. So, attack-dog? hardly. Lap-dog? You wish. Sorry, if disagreement makes you feel uncomfortable or/and immediately has you characterizing anyone with a contrary point of view as some angry hack well then I will have to be free to characterize you as someone who when a child stood in

True, I don't always come to bhtv with my game face on, gearing up for the smackdown. This Week In Blog is not supposed to be Crossfire. Sometimes when right-wing canards come up, I beg off so we don't get off track. If you care to waste another hour of your life listen to me blather, I did a debate with a local McCain campaign chair on the Pacifica radio show Midweek Politics where my approach is far different than it is here. The audio is here: http://www.midweekpolitics.com/shows...2008-04-02.mp3

Quoting Whatfur:

Second, I find it funny that some of the regular commentors here continue to characterize Conn Carroll as some raging, contempuous, attack-dog. I am new here, but I have to say that in the couple times I have seen him, he comes across as pretty even-keeled while pleasingly, unwilling to let his opposite get by with the bull. So, I can only say that the regulars here are reacting as poor losers who don't handle being told they are not wearing any clothes when they are obviously naked. So, attack-dog? hardly. Lap-dog? You wish. Sorry, if confrontation makes you feel uncomfortable or/and immediately has you characterizing anyone with a contrary point of view as some angry hack well then I will have to be free to characterize you as someone who when a child stood in the grocery store line screaming and crying for some candy and generally getting it.

Well, you discredit the basis of your objectivity by conceding that you have had a limited sample of Conn Carroll. Granting your clear bias, even you might accept the general complaint against Conn's new approach as opposed to his old fair and balanced explication of the

Quoting Bill Scher: If you care to waste another hour of your life listen to me blather, I did a debate with a local McCain campaign chair on the Pacifica radio show Midweek Politics where my approach is far different than it is here. The audio is here: http://www.midweekpolitics.com/shows...2008-04-02.mp3

Thanks Bill, I'll check that out. I've seen you defty dismantle some of these canards before, so I know you have it in you, but I often feel like you make a conscious attempt not to be contentious and "spinny", while the favor is not fully returned.

Quoting Whatfur:
..............Second, I find it funny that some of the regular commentors here continue to characterize Conn Carroll as some raging, contempuous, attack-dog. I am new here, but I have to say that in the couple times I have seen him, he comes across as pretty even-keeled while pleasingly, unwilling to let his opposite get by with the bull. So, I can only say that the regulars here are reacting as poor losers who don't handle being told they are not wearing any clothes when they are obviously naked. So, attack-dog? hardly. Lap-dog? You wish. Sorry, if disagreement makes you feel uncomfortable or/and immediately has you characterizing anyone with a contrary point of view as some angry hack well then I will have to be free to characterize you as someone who when a child stood in the grocery store line screaming and crying for some candy and generally getting it....................

Your commentary here has been refreshing W. The reason that so many here use name-calling and ad hominen instead of fact and fairness is because they have nothing to come back with of any substance. One of the most hilarious aspects of the conservative/liberal dynamic

Actually graz, you discredit YOUR response by even bringing up the supposedly kinder, gentler Conn of the past. My sampling IS purely his last 3 episodes and it was response to these that people like you were heavy into the castigation and characterization of him. I don't need past history, as like I said what I have seen is a calm, rational explainer of a contrary point of view where people like you see a foaming at the mouth conservative. I guess I will just have to live with YOU having the mental picture you have conjured up (maybe in comparison) and me living with the one I actually saw in the last 3 diavlogs. We can move on. I don't need to defend Conn...he does ok for himself.

Quoting Whatfur: Actually graz, you discredit YOUR response by even bringing up the supposedly kinder, gentler Conn of the past. My sampling IS purely his last 3 episodes and it was response to these that people like you were heavy into the castigation and characterization of him. I don't need past history, as like I said what I have seen is a calm, rational explainer of a contrary point of view where people like you see a foaming at the mouth conservative. I guess I will just have to live with YOU having the mental picture you have conjured up (maybe in comparison) and me living with the one I actually saw in the last 3 diavlogs.

We can move on. I don't need to defend Conn...he does ok for himself.

Feel free to move on...
As I was a participant and the gist of commentors complaint was not with his kinder, gentler self vs. his attack dog mode. It was in his parroting of talking points as opposed to reasoned, albeit prejudiced assessment of and critique of the blogosphere. That was his assigned role and stated mission. If you choose not to see his unhinged moments and talking points acid reflux, so be

Quoting Incompetence Dodger: I just want to say that Amanda was fantastic. More Amanda please. No hackery, no baiting, no insisting that 2+2=5 just because the other side says that 2+2=4, just explication of what was going on this week in Right Blogistan.

I liked this conversation and ID seems to have nailed the reason. I'm afraid Amanda might seem a little too "crunchy," in the Rod Dreher sense, and might not be pure enough to qualify as a spokesperson for the red meat types on her side; but I hope she comes back.

You know graz....the dingalink thingy is a neat little tool for backing up ones points with reality when it comes to your type of castigations. Maybe so I am clear as to degree, you can provide a little snippet of an "unhinged" moment.

There is this important factor to consider New Poll Shows McCain Trails Only Hugh Hefner As Luckiest Senior

Quoting Whatfur: You know graz....the dingalink thingy is a neat little tool for backing up ones points with reality when it comes to your type of castigations. Maybe so I am clear as to degree, you can provide a little snippet of an "unhinged" moment.

As I am relegated to wmv downloads it ain't gonna happen. As much as enjoy trading insults, my basic premise was to defend the just criticism of Conn vis a vis his substitution of talking points for illuminating blog recaps.
But in the spirit of your request my recollection has it that the example(s) would be exemplified by 3/21 - This week in blog: Obama's Speech.
Both the comments and Conn's performance might temper your original complaint. But due consideration would have to be given to the time frame and its relation to your three week cut-off. Anyway, it probably amounts to less than the effort we are putting in to this back and forth.

From http://www.cecarf.org/Programs/Fuels...s%20Facts.html

Ethanol

Q: What is ethanol?

A: Ethanol, also called grain alcohol or ethyl alcohol, can be made from any starch- or sugar-based feedstock. Corn is the most common feedstock used in the United States, whereas sugar cane is the preferred feedstock in Latin America. The energy content of ethanol is approximately two-thirds that of gasoline by volume. For that reason, and because of its higher cost, ethanol is typically used as a gasoline additive. Approximately one out of every eight gallons of gasoline sold in the U.S. contains 8% to 10% ethanol. All reciprocating engine vehicles can use ethanol blends in small quantities (up to 20%, or denoted as E20), and with slight alterations can accommodate ethanol blends as high as 85% (E85). It is also possible to run engines on pure ethanol.

Q: How is ethanol produced?

A: There are two different methods for producing ethanol, both based on breaking down plant matter into simple sugars and starches and then fermenting them to produce alcohol. Ethanol is primarily made through a distilled ethanol process whereby the sugars and starches from the feedstock are boiled and concentrated into grain alcohol (basically "moonshine," although ethanol is denatured to prevent

Please, Bill, don't go Rambo! Conn's work on the Blogometer was a good deed. I can't speak for others, but I wanted a similar format for this feature. The 'heads have so many outlets besides bhTV, so I just like summaries, like a blog Utne Reader, with commentary, and some crossfire. Dialogue comes in many forms. It doesn't have to be Buckley-esque or Matthews-esque conflict. Don't become like the MSM, i.e., Gibson and Stephanopoulos, and turn dialogs into Gladiator! I'd like bhTV to save us from that monotony.

Quoting Baltimoron: ... corn production is driving corn prices higher, setting up the possible future question, which is more important, people eating corn, or corn for fuel?

Obviously, that's a no-brainer. That's one of the many reasons I'm against the view that biofuels are a panacea, especially as it manifests as politicians pandering to Iowans and ADM.

graz, Well, of course, me going and watching it certainly does not answer the question of degree, does it? As already pointed out, I have seen comments from people like yourself concerning the last couple that also paint Conn in the "unhinged" light...yet NOTHING I have seen comes close. So I continue to be left with the impression that unless the discussion is one favorable to YOU and yours then the perpetrator of that which you don't favor is an "attack dog". Tell you what graz, we will wait for the next Bill and Conn show and I want you, pen in hand, writing down the point in the discussion where Conn becomes Mr. Hyde. Until then... ...side note to Balitimoron...sorry I don't have experience with the other programming entity either but have to say that I have watched pretty much every discussion in the last couple of weeks here and few are as entertaining as Bill and Conn. (Bob and Mickey excluded) It does not surprise me that many of you here prefer left vs. left. while trying to cover your ears yelling la la la la la when someone like Conn is painting reality.

Whatfur: I think you're missing the point. Since so many people have already touched on this, I doubt I'm going to convince you, but I'm going to give it a shot anyway. As much as you would like to believe that most of us liberals here would prefer that BH.tv be a cocoon of a leftist echo chamber, that is really not true. We like to hear different points of view. That's why we're here rather than listening to Air America or reading The Nation. Many liberals on this board have reacted favorably to many conservative diavloggers and have been doing so consistently since the site first launched. What we don't like is mindless recitation of talking points, rehashing of attacks that have already been beaten to death everywhere else in the media and/or blogosphere, and the magnification of trivialities in a manner that mirrors cable TV news and talk shows. On the specific point about Bill and Conn's regular gig, you keep asserting that your liking for Conn's recent behavior is a fact that the rest of us will be forced to admit if you just

From the perspective of a more independent point of view I think that both sides in this argument are actually correct. The left preferred Mr Carroll when he was more natural and let Mr Scher express his partisan opinions with little if an kick back. Now that Mr Carroll is in a position to actually challenge Mr. Scher's partisan rantings, which he does a rather well, by countering with the view from the right he is no longer looked upon as favorably. Mr Carroll has not really changed just the perception of who he is and his acceptability ranking has.

On a lighter note - I can't have been alone in thinking... http://tinyurl.com/29wwcq

Quoting Sgt Schultz: On a lighter note - I can't have been alone in thinking... http://tinyurl.com/29wwcq

I dunno. I don't think that picture looks that much like Amanda. ;^)

Thanks piscivorous, I believe you pretty much nailed it but for Brendan's benefit I need to add a couple things. Brendan, let me start with the same challenge to you that graz conveniently was unable to meet. Produce a dingalink that shows Mr. Carroll in "attack-dog" mode. You have argued points here in the recent past with me that were not solely about content but also style. Show me that style that is so "unhinged" as to get "so many people" speaking of it. At graz's suggestion I actually DID go back to the 3/21 meeting of Conn and Bill and saw Bill a little more animated than the last one but also again Conn's approach was pretty even-keeled. Sorry...I just don't see the angry personae you and yours purport. Maybe I need to set the degree...you know that North Carolina ad... you know the one..."NOT GOD BLESS AMERICA, GOD DAMN AMERICA". This is "unhinged" (in both content and style). Show me something like that (or even half of that) outta Mr. Carroll. But sure, lets talk content...pretty sure you or "so many people" like you... out of one side of your mouth want to berate Conn's responses/points while I have also heard it here that the

Yeah Sarge, if Gary Oldman prompts the same response in you that Amanda causes for me, my only advice to a millitary man is don't ask, don't tell. She's very easy on the eyes, and pretty good as a BHTV guest. Bill, I think you're fine the way you are. Though sometimes I wish you'd call BS on Conn when he starts using GOP talking points, overall I like you're kinda easy-going style, and you always make some interesting points and ask good questions, even when I might prefer a little more "fight" from the liberal side.

Where is all the outrage and reverting to exponential math because of Amanda saying the PA win for Hillary was 8%? Amanda, that was brilliant. You gave up absolutely nothing while immediately creating a dirth of human putty here in oBHamaland. Related...I believe one of Kleimann's talking points was the much repeated Obama excuse/positive spin of "But, but, but Hillary had a 20% lead in PA a month ago so this is like like like a WIN!!!" Well one advantage of going back to the 3/21 Conn/Bill discussion was to hear Mr. Carroll predict a 10% win over a month ago. Thanks for that graz and Mickey...eat your heart out.

Whatfur: I am not going to offer you dingalinks for two reasons: One, what bothers me about Conn lately is less specific, easily quoted things that he said than it is his overall tone. The dingalinks I'd be inclined to offer would be pretty much his entire last few diavlogs. Second, I am not about to listen to him again, especially as I'm certain that no matter what I offer as examples, you'll just disagree with my characterization of them. It's a matter of perception, and I'm not sure why you find it so hard to accept that I, and others, find Conn's current attitude and approach different from the way he used to be. It's to your credit that you have strong convictions, but it's too bad that you are so locked into them that you can't recognize that they're as subjective as anyone else's. I also fail to understand why you are unable to post comments without speaking in such an insulting tone. However, this habit does illustrate why you think there is nothing particularly objectionable about Conn's change in manner. He's tossing you red meat, and you're lapping it up. That's fine

If you can't dazzle em with your BS and your argument is week; lay a guilt trip on them I guess. I can assure you as one of he conservative commenters here my point of view has been less than welcome or or well received by many commenters here on numerous occasions. I'll be looking for your new sprouted wings from here on out.

Whatever Brendan...maybe check your patronizing tone that you started in on me with and you may see something different from me. Until then, sorry, you will just continue to be Keefe. As to the rest of your response...well...if you now are just backpeddling to "tone" then why would you respond to my post at all. I was responding to graz and others who have tried to characterize Conn as "unhinged", "angry", "attack dog", "bitter", unable to suppress his "bitterness", "rage","contempt" and simply asked for an example which...surprise...surprise all I continue to get are excuses as to why they cannot be supplied. Still waiting.

Quoting Whatfur: Whatever Brendan...maybe check your patronizing tone that you started in on me with and you may see something different from me.

Until then, sorry, you will just continue to be Keefe.

As to the rest of your response...well...if you now are just backpeddling to "tone" then why would you respond to my post at all. I was responding to graz and others who have tried to characterize Conn as "unhinged", "angry", "attack dog", "bitter", unable to suppress his "bitterness", "rage","contempt" and simply asked for an example which...surprise...surprise all I continue to get are excuses as to why they cannot be supplied. Still waiting.

Hey ass gas. Can you scroll through my last three posts which clarify and address, what Brendan has twice spelled out for the aurally challenged - it is a difference of opinion and taste supported by examples not grasped or willfully ignored by you.

pisc:

I can assure you as one of he conservative commenters here my point of view has been less than welcome or or well received by many commenters here on numerous occasions.

It's not your point of view that has provoked ire. It's how you have expressed it. Like whatfur, you often come across as unnecessarily rude, self-righteous, or with an attitude that only your opinion is "right." Except for one occasion where someone told you to "go back to LGF," I cannot think of any other instances in which anyone wished you weren't participating in these forums. Do you get mocked, criticized, or dismissed on occasion? Yes, and probably once in a while, too harshly. But invariably, this happens in response to a specific post that you've made, and not to your presence in general.

Pretty funny stuff. Settle down graz, you might burst something. And Kweefe has anyone ever suggested you might be a bit full of yourself? No? Let me be the first then.

Quoting piscivorous: If you can't dazzle em with your BS and your argument is week; lay a guilt trip on them I guess. I can assure you as one of he conservative commenters here my point of view has been less than welcome or or well received by many commenters here on numerous occasions. I'll be looking for your new sprouted wings from here on out.

The self-pity doesn't suit you as well as Hillary wears hers.
But please keep the goods comin'
It needn't be a zero sum game with the new and improved Conn scoring points against the mighty Scher, that he once conceded. Their recent shortcomings are just jumping off points for our (left and right and points between) arguments. I just prefer the Blogometer Conn to the new Conn, would you allow (neo) con?

Whatfur:

Whatever Brendan...maybe check your patronizing tone that you started in on me with and you may see something different from me.

You have a little bit of a point. However, I don't agree that I "started in on" you. If you look back at what I said when I first jumped into this thread, you'll see no patronizing. My tone changed in reaction to your responses. And if you look at how I usually respond to others' posts, you'll note a decidedly more respectful and polite tone. I am happy to stop criticizing your behavior when you start cleaning up your act. I am happy to stop speculating about what drives you to act like a child when you start acting like an adult. I am happy to show you some respect when I see some evidence of this from you. To be specific, it's hard for me not to be a little patronizing when you can't get through a single post, even after a specific request, without grade-school level name-calling.

graz:

The self-pity doesn't suit you as well as Hillary wears hers.

I was thinking something similar: there's no one that plays the victim card as quickly as some conservatives. They spew bile all day long, and as soon as they encounter a little dispute, they're all, "The liberals are ganging up on me. Mommy!!1!"

First, not sure a couple like you can be considered a gang. But feel free to flatter yourself. Brendan, you fraud, I suggest YOU go up in this thread and figure out where the insults (not the accusation of insults, but the insults) started. In any case lets get back on subject boys and move on, beating you up on your projection of juvenility is getting a bit tedious.

I may be getting old but my memory differers somewhat from your and as the slurs and insults were directed at me you can be assure I am more aware of them than you are. Personally I don't give a rats ass what you think of the way I present my point of view. I really don't need your lecture nor do I particularly believe that you, having read many of your nastier comments, are in any position to lecture on how to address others in this or any other forum.

Quoting Whatfur: First, not sure a couple like you can be considered a gang. But feel free to flatter yourself.

Brendan, you fraud, I suggest you go up in this thread and figure out where the insults (not the accusation of insults, but the insults) started.

In any case lets get back on subject boys and move on, beating you up on your projection of juvenility is getting a bit tedious.

Whatfur, the insults started days ago when you waded into the middle of ongoing conversations and answered polite disagreement with useless, witless bile. These are public forums - everybody's welcome, even newcomers. Most people, when they arrive someplace new, hang back a little, try get the feel of a place, try to understand who they're dealing with. You've shown no particular understanding of your interlocutors, you engage almost entirely in ad hominem, and your attempted insults are mostly weak. I don't understand why anybody in the forum even bothers to engage with you. They get nothing back for the effort, except your spit in their eyes. As far as I can tell, the only thing you really care about is winning arguments, but you're apparently too unsure of yourself, too insecure to actually attempt

Jeff, Sorry you think so. I don't agree.
Again pretty funny stuff...let the sun shine in.

pisc:

I may be getting old but my memory differers somewhat from your and as the slurs and insults were directed at me you can be assure I am more aware of them than you are.

That could be true, I suppose. However, I have an overdeveloped sense of empathy for others who are being picked on, so I don't think I agree.

Personally I don't give a rats ass what you think of the way I present my point of view.

This does not seem to jibe your complaints of persecution.

I really don't need your lecture ...

Sorry you're hearing it that way. I am trying to explain my position while viewing you as an equal, and not trying to talk down to you.

... nor do I particularly believe that you, having read many of your nastier comments, are in any position to lecture on how to address others in this or any other forum.

Easy to make the sweeping statement, but I ask, first, why do you never respond to these alleged nasty statements in place if they bother you so much? Second, I challenge you to find something nasty I said that wasn't either a response to provocation or harsh criticism

Whatfur:

Brendan, you fraud, I suggest YOU go up in this thread and figure out where the insults (not the accusation of insults, but the insults) started.

Having a little trouble finding evidence to back up your claims? What I thought. Playing the kiddie trick of saying, "Do my work for me?" Why I laugh.

Brendan, I don't know, is that like the trick of deflection by denial in hopes that others won't go look also and see that I was telling the truth? Laughter IS the best medicine.

Quoting bjkeefe: pisc:Easy to make the sweeping statement, but I ask, first, why do you never respond to these alleged nasty statements in place if they bother you so much? Second, I challenge you to find something nasty I said that wasn't either a response to provocation or harsh criticism directed at a diavlogger (i.e., as opposed to a forum participant).

You know if I felt like going over your seemingly endless stream of comment I don't believe it would be that hard to do. But As I actually have better things to do than spend hours going through your comment history so I decline your bogus attempt at deflection.

Quoting piscivorous: You know if I felt like going over your seemingly endless stream of comment I don't believe it would be that hard to do. But As I actually have better things to do than spend hours going through your comment history so I decline your bogus attempt at deflection.

Calling it a "bogus attempt at deflection" itself sounds bogus. If my habit of unprovoked nastiness is as prevalent as you claim, it shouldn't take much effort to find an example or two. Just click my username and then click "Show all posts." Granted, this only shows the first few lines, but anything that stuck in your craw in the past ought to jump right out. Oh, wait. You already tried that, and you couldn't find anything, right? Just like Whatfur, "passing" on my invitation to show how I "started it." One of these days, you're going to be man enough to admit that you're occasionally wrong. I hold out hope, if not my breath.

Quoting Whatfur: Brendan,

I don't know, is that like the trick of deflection by denial in hopes that others won't go look also and see that I was telling the truth?

Anyone who wants to jump in and offer a link in support of your claim that I "started it" is welcome to do so. It's fairly telling that you can't supply one yourself, however.

Quoting bjkeefe: Anyone who wants to jump in and offer a link in support of your claim that I "started it" is welcome to do so. It's fairly telling that you can't supply one yourself, however.

I want to offer a link in support of his claim... oh wait, that would be in support of your defense - fellow gang member (proceed with the secret handshake now). Quote: Whatfur: "Second, I find it funny that some of the regular commentors here continue to characterize Conn Carroll as some raging, contempuous, attack-dog. I am new here, but I have to say that in the couple times I have seen him, he comes across as pretty even-keeled while pleasingly, unwilling to let his opposite get by with the bull. So, I can only say that the regulars here are reacting as poor losers who don't handle being told they are not wearing any clothes when they are obviously naked. So, attack-dog? hardly. Lap-dog? You wish. Sorry, if confrontation makes you feel uncomfortable or/and immediately has you characterizing anyone with a contrary point of view as some angry hack well then I will have to be free to characterize you as someone who when a child stood in the

Brendan, I assume you've never learned the first rule of holes.

graz, Good effort. Although there is one problem. It seems to be missing any names so any insult taken would have to be by those who feel they emulate the entity described. So graz are you ascribing to the notion that you have trouble with "confrontation" and because it makes you "uncomfortable" you start lashing out at others as being "angry hacks"? Or are you projecting this on Brendan? Just wondering.

Quoting Whatfur: Brendan,

I assume you've never learned the first rule of holes.

Seriously, that's all you've got? Especially as you're the one with the shovel?

Is it immature of me to find the degenerative nature of the discussion on this diavlog to be fricking hilarious?

Quoting Whatfur: Jeff,

Sorry you think so. I don't agree.
Again pretty funny stuff...let the sun shine in.

Note the link attached to my name. My wife fully endorses this judgment.

Glad you found something there jh, I REALLY did wish to move on...not sure if it was the pomposity of Keefe (and Jeff) or the dishonesty of graz that kept me dancing with the gang. And Jeff, I like your wife already.

Quoting Whatfur: Glad you found something there jh,

I REALLY did wish to move on...not sure if it was the pomposity of Keefe (and Jeff) or the dishonesty of graz that kept me dancing with the gang.

And Jeff,

I like your wife already.

Your "Stooges" reference allows a little slack. But I wish that you would consider our respective surety about arguing in good faith too count for more in the future. Like I said before, as much as I enjoy a good name- calling session, we are accountable to others here as well. We aren't going to convert each other, so no Rodney King pleas from me - but how about a truce? As it is a public and community forum, ignoring isn't an option.

Ahhhh! Graz, you now have proven me wrong and I admire you for it. You are much larger than I imagined. One might even say BIG! (I'll let you even be Hanks, as Loggia at least looks more conservative)
Crappy outside (Global Warming be damned) but I can't stand it, I have to get out in it. I want to apologize to Amanda (and Bill) also as she deserved the discussion to be more about their informative and interesting work here. Hope they were able to cherry pick the good stuff out. Truce it is.

Whatfur, Crappy here too; snow and 40 mph winds on April 25 make me crabby. So I did enjoy the laugh, but now I think it's time to play nice.

i hope conn wasn't forced out of BHTV.

bill had an easier time with amanda.