The (alligator) Tears of a Troll

In response to my earlier post, Those Scheming Weasels, I have received an e-mail from a relatively civil, albeit snide, troll.

Now, while I don't mind a fair exchange of intellectual dialog via e-mail, I really do mind when the trollespondent sends via e-mail, what should really have been a comment publicly written to the post in question.

Spewing trollpuke into my e-mail is far less honorable than just daring to spew it out into the open, where it's fair game for one and all. Especially when said troll uses a quote from my post and throws it into my face as it's e-mail's subject line.... "putrid, cynical and manipulative ....?"

So then, as I develop my own, unique rules for dealing with trolls, one rule I'll go ahead and act on now is this. Whatever you e-mail me is subject to appearing here, out in the open and for all to see.

Case in point?

UPDATE: Thanks to reader "A Recovering Liberal", for pointing out a math error I'd made in the original post. That's been corrected now.

jstans@*deleted*.net (my sole courtesy, and if it e-spews again, the whole addy'll be posted), wrote:

When time does not constrain you, from “a full take on this twisting of well understood and time-honored rules of campaigning” you might want to do a little superficial research into the $200 million raised by President Bush, largely through his corporate network. You want putrid and cynical – look no farther than your friendly local conservative.

Such outright hypocrisy, in the face of this fact:

So far, however, the Democrats' unrestricted 527 and 501(c)(4) groups, named after sections of the federal tax code, have already piled up more than $50 million to defeat President Bush. Counting on the likes of George Soros and the Hollywood left, they hope to raise six times that amount.

Trollpuke, you're bitching about a mere $200 million from a broad range of conservative Bush supporters...and all the while, your Boy Billionaire Soros and his Hollyweird ilk have upped the ante to raise over $300 million!

Pot, meet Kettle.

Troll, gaze into the mirror, and behold the asswit that you truly are.

Tell you what, trollspew. One of your own Liberal Icons is actually in agreement with me. Here's what George McGovern has to say about J.Fuckface Kerry's demented thoughts on perverting established political tradition:

Delaying the presidential nomination of Sen. John Kerry until after this summer's Democratic convention would be a terrible mistake, former Democratic standard bearer George McGovern said Tuesday.

Once each candidate accepts his party's nomination, he can only spend $75 million in public funds. Because the Republican convention is in late August and the Democratic convention is in late July, Kerry would have to make his money last a month longer than Bush.

But McGovern, a former senator from South Dakota who called Gannett News Service from his home in Montana Tuesday morning to protest the plan, said money shouldn't be the only thing that matters.

"I think it's a real bad idea. It sends the wrong signal," McGovern said in a phone interview. "The sense of honor to the nomination and to the established political process is important, too."

(emphasis, mine)

The whole of the article is quite worth reading, too.

A word on that established political process. If I'm not mistaken, the two major parties alternate the "who's first, who's second" order of convention holding, during each successive electoral cycle. So, this year, it's the donktards first, and the Republicans, next. Four years from now, the order reverses.

(and of course, if I'm wrong on that, I invite you kind readers to say so in the comments, please?)

And you can just imagine the reaction of "jstans", and his pack of yelladawg donks, should the 2008 Republican "presumed nominee", float the exact same idea as J.Fuckface Kerry has regarding his delayed nomination idea.

In fact, I can just see it now:

As soon as Kerry accepts the nomination the fund raising rules change and he will be at a considerable disadvantage – especially considering he is raising most of his money from folks that didn’t see squat from Bush’s “tax cut.”

Well, jstans the trollpuke just may have a point there. After all, twerps like Soros, Streissand and Franken surely sent their refunds and tax savings back to the IRS, didn't they?

.....Well? ............*crickets chirping*

Cheers!

Drink your Klinton Kool Aid on your own, pal. I'll stick to Maker's Mark. I may get drunk, but that KKKool Aid really has rotted your brain out!

One line bio: Sixty year old ex-military pilot, NRA member, skeet, trap sporting clay aficionado who hunts antelope with a 45-70 and who hopes George is tanked before he can kill as many American soldiers as the last “nation building” Texan, LBJ.

Don't even get me started on the NRA+hunting= 2nd Ammendment supporter bullshit. That's ripe for another post, but I'll hold on that one for now.

For your service to our country though? Thank you, sir! I truly salute and appreciate the sacrafice you made in so doing. I'll never denigrate the service of a veteran. I am one.

As for the rest of it? It's not that LBJ was either Texan, or "nation building" that got so many men and women killed in Vietnam. It was his lack of will, coupled with the subversion of liberals and their biased press.

And especially, the venomous lies and evil perpetrated by scum such as J.Fuckface Kerry, Hanoi Jane, Ramsey Clark, the SDS and their assorted demo-communist leftist traitors that really deepend the cut and let the blood flow even more freely that it sadly, already had.

Militarily, Vietnam was, and should have been, nearly as quick a rout as was the march on Baghdad.

But with the help of fuckwits like jstans and his cadres from the moonbatted left, it was the will of the American people which was routed, and which resulted in something much less than the "Peace with Honor" by which Richard Nixon ignominiously ended U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia.

The real danger is letting that same circle-jerking circus of Internationalists, Communists, Socialists and general Anti-Americans anywhere near the reins of power. For how long?

Until the radical islam has been ground into the earth like the poisonus snake that it is.

And not a moment sooner.

Comments

[Rivrdog]

Fine rant, but your troll succeeded into widening the scope too far in your little debate. The "postpone the nomination" stunt that the (D)onks are pulling should remain on the front burner for us until they promise to actually NOMINATE KERRY, and not hold the back door open for another nominee with this postponement process.

As it stands now, Kerry can't actually be nominated to any more degree than he is now or he will have to stop spending PAC money and go with the Federal $75mil.

If he waits until around Labor Day, and then the (D)onks spring Shrillary or some shape-shifter like McCain on us, the entire process will be shoved into the sewer of darkness.

What this amounts to is the (D)onks running a write-in or "sticker" campaign on a national level. Such campaigns are only ever successful at the local or maybe State level, but theoretically, one could work at the national level. The thing is, the (D)onks are displaying the highest possible level of situational ethics here - they don't give a rip for the traditions of the election process.

The only thing left for the GOP, in this instance, is to announce that all bets are off as to who will be Bush's running mate. That will drive the lefty press nuts, but it will take the wind out of the (D)onk's sails, and may make them want to get back into the traditional mold.

It isn't the $$$ that's driving this, it's the (D)onk desire to set their own rules and stiff in Shrillary, who they know is the only sure-fire candidate who can beat Bush.

[Mrs. du Toit]

Jim, may I respectfully disagree?

I believe that when someone e-mails you, instead of posting in comments, it is because they really do want to discuss the issue further. They want to engage you personally.

We all have our own definition of trolls, but the key difference between a troll and spam is that the troll posts a comment as a means of Grand Standing--they're after attention by doing it in public. The fact that they've taken it private, in e-mail, means, by definition, they are no longer to be labeled a troll.

Real trolls can be harmless, generally poking fun at traditional arguments as a method of heating up a discussion (such as Um Yeah on Misha's site), who has no desire to actually discuss anything (and I do not believe for a second that he actually believes the crap he posts). It's a kind of conversation bomb, intended to cause bunched panties among the regular commenters. Those kinds of trolls are best ignored (actually, that's the only way to deal with them).

That said, if someone e-mails you with content not directed specfically to you (a kind of spam), then I'd agree with you.

[Daniel Day]

Jim, You (or whoever originated it, if you got it elsewhere) ought to make T-shirts with that Seal of the Democratic Party. I'm still laughing as I type this.

[Jim]

Rivrdog, you're right absolutley right on the need to stay on point regarding the donktard's pseudo nominee. And especially on their capricious attempt to delay the actual acceptance.

I did try to emphasize that in my response to the trollspew, but *sigh*...I did let him drift me off target there towards the end.

Still though, that crybaby logo pretty much does sum up his, and his party's position on things.

Mrs.DuToit? First ma'am, please accept my welcome here aboard the Sloop New Dawn! It's an honor to have you grace the decks here, ma'am.

But regarding your respectful disagreement; I think your post thereto would serve as a perfect example of how one should respectfully disagree when desiring to initiate an e-mail dialogue.

Conversely, the troll's blurt into my mail was merely a snide, guttersnipish shot across my bow.

In that e-mail, I did not see anything less than the routine regurgitation of Terry McAwful's lockstep talking points of the day/week/month.

Had Mr. Troll had sent a note of disagreement as polite, orderly and insightful as yours, I would have been more than happy to have engaged in a protracted back-channel discussion by e mail.

I do have some of those ongoing discussions with a few who routinely disagree with me. Obviously, their mails have yet to be, and never shall be, posted openly.

And of course, had said troll been even one-tenth as amusing as the "UmYeah-s" of blogdom, I may have even tossed it some popcorn, just as a bribe to continue.

Perhaps I'm of short patience with almost all trollish behaviors, having seen how they are in so many other sites.

I don't have to have a polecat prove to me that it stinks, before I shoot it at a safe distance.

That said, any troll who wishes to truly engage in a reasonable discussion, or even a heated one, is welcome here.

Just so long as they leave the McAwful daily scripts ashore before they step aboard.

But you're always welcome here, ma'am. I make one helluva great pot o' coffee here, too. Conversation always goes good over a fresh, steaming hot cuppa joe.

Best to everyone! (and yes, even ya trolls)

Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX