A Letter From Rhino Times Reader Austin Morris
A lot of decent and fair minded folk decry anonymity in public speech. They hold that you should stand behind what you say, although I’m not sure exactly what that means, other than simply identifying yourself.
This appears commendable at first blush, and I suspect that’s why so many people concur.
I don’t. Anonymous free speech is the bedrock of every free society – not every society that claims to be free, just every genuinely free society. Anonymity allows things to be said that otherwise cannot be said. Without anonymity the truth is suppressed, and debate is confined within boundaries determined by the state, societal norms, or thuggish ideologies that are both violent and intolerant.
Who dare affix his name to a trenchant critique of National Socialism or the Fuehrer in a German newspaper in 1932? You’d be guaranteed a visit from the SA or Brownshirts, and it wouldn’t be for a cup of tea. But at that point a persuasive Letter might dissuade some voters from voting for the Nazis – who were ultimately voted into power in 1933. Anonymous free speech could have made a difference.
And today, who dare level even mild criticism of Islam, or the more militant LGBTQ people? Islam’s violent intolerance is so extreme that they cannot abide even a drawing of their prophet. Putting aside that this is ridiculous, the point is that they will visit murderous violence on any journalistic organ that disregards their totalitarianism, as they did in the 2015 Paris murders of twelve journalists working at the Charlie Hebdo magazine.
And then there are the Brownshirts of the 21st Century – Antifa. There are others.
Are we to be silenced by violent murderous thugs? Should we have to place our families in mortal danger just to raise a red flag? Or a legitimate concern?
During the COVID-19 pandemic I was permanently banned from Facebook. My crime was that I said things that weren’t allowed. I said it was obvious that the virus was man made, not zootic. The bloody thing first showed up a quarter mile from China’s primary biological warfare laboratory, and we were supposed to believe that it was a coincidence? I also argued that the hurriedly developed, unproven, novel chemical cocktail “vaccines” that had been granted 100% legal immunity were obviously dangerous, and should be avoided.
For expressing these beliefs I was silenced. I had taken the precaution of employing a pseudonym, and I’m glad I did because the abuse and threats came thick and fast. I was “selfish”, “a danger to society” and needed to be confined to house arrest… How quickly we lose sight of constitutional safeguards. How quickly the majority becomes authoritarian. The mob easily descends into animalistic brutal behaviour, as Vladimir Bukovsky pointed out repeatedly.
Speaking the truth can be a very dangerous thing to do, even in contemporary America.
That’s why anonymous free speech is absolutely essential in any society that professes to be free.
I’m grateful to the Rhino Times for facilitating it.
– Austin Morris
Well said Austin, well said.
I and others have your six friend.
Thanks, Alan. I really appreciate you, and have been missing your comments and Letters.
Hope you are well, my friend.
Very well said sir.
Very well said and very truthful Austin!
“That’s why anonymous free speech is absolutely essential in any society that professes to be free.” You are 100% correct, Austin.
We live in a Police State, and our government only likes free speech when we agree with them.
Well said Mr. Morris, unfortunately I fear there aren’t enough people willing to speak out to save this country from SOCIALISM
What…Social Security, Medicare, aid to Farmers, Road Building and about all government in this Country is Socialistic. Heck a public Library is SOCIALISTIC. Capitalism can co-exist with Socialism. As a Capitalist I prefer Government to stay out of some areas of life but alas, if private enterprise cannot do the job then the government must resort to taking money out of my pocket for the common good. Many conservatives want Medicare for all. SOCIALISTIC yes! Necessary I am not an authority. But I try to be careful with these labels. And oh yeah, once In office the Mayor of New York is not radicalizing the City. So it goes.
A government’s role is critical to protect the public, environment and climate from the limited priority of business’ their myopic focus on profits. Deregulation only opens large corporations to abuse workers, the environment and the climate more than they already have….
Austin just wants to spew his support of racist principles against immigrants, LGBTQ, and people of color without concern of being socially or professionally outed for his ignorant rhetoric. That is his right.
Most off Austin’s ‘Truths’ he doesn’t want suppressed are just racist / willfully ignorant ideas that lack any support in science like the idea that some races are lessor evolved that others……or that covid vaccines have killed millions. These are not truths, they are hateful ignorance long disproven with actual studies, data and peer reviewed analysis.
As AI grows media should do a better job of automatically fact checking anonymous statements in online forums. Until then, I am happy to provide the actual truth by referencing actual studies, science, and data that Austin thinks is wrong to ‘believe’ over his “I thunk it so it mus be troo” approach to complex topics.
But you be you. Cheers
Don’t answer that question, Alan. It may be an AI trap from Chris.
FYI, when a Goldman Sachs financial analyst chatted with ChatGPT about how to murder his ex-girlfriend, the AI called the FBI.
Spew his racist principles against immigrants, huh? I thought he WAS an immigrant.
Try again, [deleted].
He will tell you he is ‘one of good ones’ while immigrants of color are the ‘bad ones’. Sure, he will lie and tell you that legal immigrants are fine….. it is only illegal immigrants he hates but then he rants about legal immigrants ‘making Engalnd unrecognizable’ and then spew hate about Muslims.
Yeah, he is bigoted against immigrants. No question.
————
Al is right, I am an immigrant.
I don’t think it needs to be said but obviously I do NOT hate immigrants. Furthermore, my best friend is also an immigrant; a Sri Lankan who I met at UNC-G and who now lives in Australia. Incidentally, he has much darker skin than most African-Americans, so if I’m a racist and a bigot, I’m a very strange one whose best buddy is as black as coal.
Or it could just be that there’s a bitter, angry little man who’s become fixated with me and tries to smear me because I always humiliate him in these columns….
As he might say….. LOL ! Ha, ha, ha, ha…. !
His consistent distinction is essentially: “Legal immigrants like me = good; illegal/Third World immigrants = threat.”
Quotes that make Austin’s denial laughable:
The classic ‘I hate immigrants” comment Austin loves to use is to refer to immigrants as polluting his country: “…..polluted their dear old country, and made it unrecognizable….”
In September 2023, Morris wrote that his native Britain had been: “made unrecognizable by mass immigration…..” (I can only assume he means people of different color and ethnic / religious practices)
He complained about the Islamic call to prayer, described Britain as having been “conquered,” and called it: “a de facto Third World country.”
He complained about Muslims gathering for prayers and wrote: “That is how comprehensively we have been vanquished.”
He subsequently referred to the London population being only 37% white and suggested: “Perhaps it’s time for some vigilante justice…?”
He more recent classic tripe: “Is it racist to state that non-whites vote much more Left than whites?”
He has a special hate for immigrant Muslims: “…their religion is murderous, debased, and evil.”
God forbid an American run for office if he is an immigrant of color: “An African Muslim Communist Mayor of New York City…” Austin will be sure to point out their ethnic background and falsely label their politics to attempt to scare people to also hate this person.
Let’s not skip the quotes that illustrate the racists views of Austin as well while we are at it:
My favorite is where he actually argues in support of the actual definition of racism as his personal belief: “it is extremely unlikely that the World’s different races have evolved to the exact same level of intelligence.” or “Different races DO HAVE different levels of intelligence, obviously!” or ““some races are smarter than others.”
Let’s not leave out his love of using antidotal evidence to demonize entire races of people: “…every time any member of my family has been the victim of crime, the perpetrator has been black, both in the US and the UK.”
The classic reference of ‘other races’ as animals” “We can only conclude that such people are less evolved – which explains why they act like animals.”
Happy to provide more as AI tools make assembling the list very simple.
Cheers
———-
I stand by everything I said – in context. But I doubt I ever called for vigilante violence. Doesn’t sound like me.
What’s really shocking here is your unhealthy fixation with me. Man, you’re creepy.
Get out of your basement, your pajamas, and your A.I. world. For the sake of your mental health.
———–
And I once told my own mother to “F**k off”. You forgot that one.
My fixation on you? Weird given how we have both participated in long winded back and forth with each other…..No, my fixation is with counter misinformation, bigotry and racism. Nothing more, nothing less.
I appreciate you acknowledging the words that support the labels I often use in reference to your character and person.
Most of your attempts to ‘humiliate’ are nothing more than childish words as I listed elsewhere and largely reflect far more about you than me.
Cheers ‘Ol Chap
I just asked AI to find the 10 or most bigoted comments about immigrants and Muslims on the site form the last few months by Austin Morris. It really took minimal effort. No fixation required. Just a distaste for bigotry and ignorance.
Cheers
———-
You’re a hate filled little loser with a clear fixation on me. You have nothing to do all day, and you use your “amble time” {sic} to drag up anything you can find in an attempt to smear me.
You’re despicable.
Just calling out misinformation, bigotry and racism when every posted here.
————
No, you lie and misrepresent what I and others have said. For example, I have never said “I hate immigrants” as you claim in your comment (8/21/26 @ 08.21am). Never.
That is one of your many lies.
But hey if you deny it, just produce the quote.
Bet you can’t. Because you lie.
All.
The.
Time.
Never said you SAID that you ‘hate immigrants’. It is clear by all the quotes I shared above.
Hope that helps.
Cheers
————–
2026/8/21 @ 8.21 am : – You said
“The classic ‘I hate immigrants’ comment Austin loves to use…” – “Professor.
It’s right there in black & white, you lying little piece of [deleted].
——-
And I said that I bet that you can’t produce the quote – and you can’t. Because I never said that, and never would.
You are exposed as a liar who will deliberately attribute vile false attribution to me in a spiteful attempt to smear me.
My God, you’re a nasty little creep.
Wow, you really can’t read very well:
“The classic ‘I hate immigrants” comment Austin loves to use is to refer to immigrants as polluting his country: “…..polluted their dear old country, and made it unrecognizable….””
I am not saying you said ‘I hate immigrants’, I am saying that “…polluted their dear old country, and made it unrecognizable” is the phrase you use that shows that you ‘hate immigrants’.
I guess when you are blind with hate you struggle to read through hate filled vision.
Hope that helps.
————–
No, the problem is that you have erroneously used quotation marks, attributing a quotation that I never made.
So you’re either stupid – incapable of correct English – or sly, in a deceptive attempt to slander me.
You choose.
It’s you who has poor English skills.
Austin,
Very well said and very valid points.
America is slowly losing what made it that beacon on the hill President Regan made it. 45 years ago we used to sit around coffee in the snack bar and talk about the coming Second American Revolution. Looks like it’s not too far around the corner.
Ammo Up
Who exactly are you planning to Shoot Alan?
Professor what makes you think that your line of “truth” is any more valid than Austin’s. Sure you quote facts and figures by “them” Do you know who the “them” are in reality and that is a question
Great letter Austin, I’m in total agreement with you
———–
Thanks, Reb! The sentiments expressed in public forums should stand or fall on their own merits. The identity of the writer or speaker is irrelevant, unless he has failed to declare an interest.
Evidence.
Any well positioned statement or argument for Truth requires evidence. Austin rarely engages on any evidence (yes Austin, that means studies, data, science, etc…) for his opinion outside of antidotal examples (versus statistically valid studies) or he points to some correlation that lacks evidence of causation. And of course he ignores any studies that formally link causation to other sources than what he has positioned.
Thinking for yourself, means being able to tell if a statement is backed by actual verifiable evidence or just someone sharing their opinion using the “I thunk it so it mus be troo” approach to analysis.
Hope that helps.
So professor, I asked you a point blank question but as always you talk a lot but never answer the question. I’m better off just peeing in the wind.
Question: “Professor what makes you think that your line of “truth” is any more valid than Austin’s”
Answer: Evidence
The rest is clarification.
Hope thst helps. I can trype slower next time if you like.
———
You are so right, Rebel. Debating with this guy is a Sisyphean task, or as you put it more pithily, it’s like pissing in the wind.
Cheers Reb !
yet another ad hominem…. ‘yawn’
“The professor writes at length but says little or nothing.”
He obviously has too much time on his hands.
I am blessed to have amble time on my hands. Fortunately, I use some of it reading, researching, and supporting what I write with evidence. Critiquing the length is considerably easier than addressing the substance.” I get it, small minds have little room for substance, But you be you.
Cheers
————
That’s it buddy! You just keep on insulting us.
And then you claim that I’m an a-hole.
Take a look in the mirror.
————–
Thank you Alan, thank you Pat, thank you Salt Life, thank you American Believer, and thank you Patrick Henry.
In fact, thank you to everyone – except for the ranting, deranged, frothing at the mouth r*tard who can’t even spell his own name.
Cheers lads!
And there you have the other justification for anonymous free speech. The ability to act a child without fear of ever being accountable for your juvenile engagement with people who you dislike.
Cheers Chickie Do
—————-
What, like you?
Says the guy that responds to differing points of view with childish name calling and personal attacks.
Cheers chappy
Well ain’t this strange? The so called Professor launches a long winded personal attack on the letter writer without addressing anything the letter said. Just a nasty personal smear. And this is the guy who never quits bitching and whining about ad hominem attacks! I guess personal attacks against him are only the ones that are bad. But when he dishes it out, that’s just fine.
What a hypocrite.
What a jerk.
It directly addresses the letter by stating why i think Austin values anonymous content beyond the reasons she stated in her letter. In an even broader context, it offers a perspective on the dangers of media allowing anonymous content by using Austin an example.
I can type slower next time if that helps. Crayon maybe?
. No, it’s just a load of crap. Vindictive, petty personal character assassination from you
– AND IT”S ALWAYS YOU.
Even this brief comment of yours is rude and insulting, as you put me down by calling me stupid.
Well I’m not stupid buddy, but you are a rude, patronizing, arrogant A*hole. And a hypocrite who uses a fake name while trying to argue against anonymous speech!
You’re an idiot.
And do you think you’re being funny by calling him “she” and “her”? You’re so childish it’s pathetic.
Go away and play with your crayons.
LOL, the hypocrisy of your own comment makes me giggle. Reap what you sow.
Cheers
.
Giggle away, girly man.
Criticize anonymous speech while hiding behind a fake title, “Professor” !
And then accuse others of hypocrisy!
You’re a joke in these comments, buddy.
.
I am not against anonymous speech, just noting that it has a large downside as well as it’s upside as illustrated by Austin here on a regular basis.
I clearly support anonymous speech given my username change after receiving threats on myself and my family. I am just pointing out that is has a very dark side that actually has far more a risk than what Austin was spewing about in his conspiracy minded point of view. I would support the elimination of anonymous chat within any forum I owned or controlled given how the biggest benefactors of it use it for dark purposes more than valid ones.
Happy to discuss further. Cheers
There ain’t no “dark side” to anonymous speech (racist terminology there, buddy). Speech is just speech.
Liberals are always saying that they find this or that speech offensive, that they are offended, so the speech must be removed. Hey tough sh*t little liberals wallflowers! You don’t have the right to censor other people for fear of your precious feelings being hurt.
And you can’t have it both ways :
1. “I am not against anonymous speech” – Professor.
2. “I would support the elimination of anonymous chat” – Professor.
Happy to discuss your inconsistencies, lies, and double standards, you hypocrite.
Weird you think using the work ‘dark’ automatically = racism. Really weird. Do you make the same conclusion when some says it’s dark outside?
To the actual topic at hand:
I strongly disagree. A few data points that support my personal point of view that anonymity contributes (although isn’t the only source) of online harassment:
– Pew found that 89% of Americans say anonymity facilitates cruelty and harassment
– They further found that….54% of people who experienced online harassment didn’t know the harasser’s identity.
– 27% of Americans had refrained from posting something after witnessing online harassment.
– 13% of people had stopped using an online service because of harassment they observed.
– 28% changed their privacy settings after witnessing harassment
– A study examining 1,400 comments from the Washington Post and New York Times found that 30.7% of comments from anonymous commenters were coded as toxic, compared with 20.5% from identifiable commenters.
Most important set of studies…..: six empirical studies with U.S. adults, followed by a seventh study synthesizing the results. They consistently found that: Greater anonymity was associated with greater cyber-racism, with online disinhibition acting as the mechanism connecting the two.
Cheers
———-
So when the proposition is that anonymous public speech is valuable and essential in a free society, the “Professor” says “I strongly disagree”…. while speaking anonymously in a public forum.
You can’t make up this level of hypocrisy.
Well you did make it up as that is not what I said.
I sad the real reason YOU want anonymity is to spew hateful bigoted and racist comments without fear of accountability which IS the dark side of anonymous comments.
————-
That is exactly what you said in your comment of August 23rd, at 8.03pm.
It’s right there in black & white.
You’re a hypocrite and a liar.
Oh right, you can’t read comment strings. I forgot. My bad. I will type nice and slow so you can understand:
I was responding to Al’s comment that “There ain’t no “dark side” to anonymous speech…”
THAT is what I strongly disagree with….not that “public speech is valuable and essential in a free society” as you falsely claim.
Hope that helps.
I would also point out this quote from ‘Professor’, who changed his name from Chris (I’ll be spanked again if I put his last name in here as I was before) because he CLAIMS he was threatened.
“And there you have the other justification for anonymous free speech. The ability to act a child without fear of ever being accountable for your juvenile engagement with people who you dislike.”
So you agree with? Ok. Thanks. I think.
Cheers
————
Yes Alan, and the irony goes right over his head. He’s not very bright.
I wish you or someone with the same mindset would run for political office! I always appreciate reading your comments. Your background and insight would serve us well. Thank you, Austin.
————
Thank YOU, Kimberly!
For many years in America I was unable to vote, as a Briton who hadn’t bothered to become a US Citizen. But I’ve always loved this country and I did not want it to succumb to the socialism that has afflicted country of birth, and wrecked it. So I decided to try to win over hearts and minds by trying to persuade people with reasoning.
That’s why I write these Letters and comment on articles, in this and other outlets.
I don’t know if I have ever changed the beliefs of a single person, but sometimes I do get feedback that’s encouraging – including yours. Thank you for your kind words.
And now I’m a US Citizen I guess I could run for office!
But don’t hold your breath, Luv…..
‘Austin’ thinks calling people who have different opinions childish names when challenged with facts, data, studies, etc… that counters her unsubstantiated points of view. I get it…..conservatives hero worship Trump who uses the same strategy when challenged. They love a guy that has no value in truth or facts and hides behind false claims of ‘fake news’ anytime he’s asked a difficult question or has his lies challenged. Sad really that people find this approach appropriate for a real dialog…not to mention the highest office.
I dare Austin to actually engage in real diaolog outside her conservative ‘safe space’ and ‘conservative echo chambers’ and see how fast she folds and rants with nothing more than hate, childish insults and anger.
Dont worry. She won’t. She cant defend her opinions when challenged with real engagement. She has show this daily in her enagagement with me day after day.
————-
Oh, this keeps getting better and better.
Now this guy is referring to me as she and her, as if this would hurt my feelings. It’s the sort of thing you’d expect from a seven year old boy. And then he claims that I AM childish….
And FIY “Professor”, I have and still do comment in leftist forums, but the problem I encounter is that leftist newspapers always end up banning me.
They can’t tolerate a cogent and convincing conservative.
—————–
And pleeeze… try to get over me. You’re starting to look mentally ill.
Please share the leftist forums that you participate in…would be interested to see how you engage with them. Is it childish name calling, self-declaring victory, or just the classic 5 Ds of dodgeball?
Let me guess……did your hateful childish name calling comments become your last comments on those forums that banned you? I bet it was….or maybe it was the openly racist baiting you love to use such such as referring to Africans as ‘lessor evolved’ that had you banned.
Some sites have standards of engagement they expect from users. Some don’t. I bet a dollar and a nickel it wasn’t your political beliefs that got you banned…..but more your love of long-ago debunked misinformation, racists views, childish name calling or personal attacks.
But you be you.
————–
You throw a lot of accusations and smears out there, don’t you? You really need to get over me, mate. Your “hate” is showing. And your unhealthy fixation with me.
And the list has been the UK Independent, the Daily Mirror, The Yorkshire Post, “Yes! Weekly, the News & Record, and Time Out and Facebook.
Do you post under the same username?
Patrick
Austin’s point was well taken about how the left cannot suffer the slightest criticism. How ironic then that you and others lash out at any critique
of your opinions…
I thought that was the point of debate but it seems that you wish this forum to just be a cozy little mutual admiration society of the endless validation of each other’s opinions…classic definition of a circle_ _ _ _
Enjoy the shadows on the wall brother.
America First
LOL have you seen the head of the conservative party “Trump” react to criticism?
Hell, the guy tried to have some poor random guy locked in prison just to avoid having to admit the criticism about his handling of the reflecting pool was well justified.
I find most people like Austin refuse to actually debate. They will claim studies and science is rigged if it proves their point of view false or flawed. They quickly resort to personal attacks and childish insults versus actually discussing evidence that shows flaws in their point of view. I estimate that 90% of Austin’s replies to my critiques of his points of view are nothing more than ad hominems.
The actual point of debate is a detail discussion of evidence that supports or refutes an idea or policy or opinion…..I find very little of that when engaging with conservatives. I suggest it is the main driver behind the movement to discredit science and education by the current administration so they can ignore the actual long-term impact of their policies.
Let’s remember what Trump said…..”smart people don’t like me”.
Cheers
OMG! I have read the writer (sigh) many many many times. I get it now…you hate the Left.
What is truley amazing is that Austin, despite his erudite knowledge of the sins of the extreme Left (and there are many), completely ignores the dangers to the Constitution presented by the extreme right. Does any one here on this forum not understand the current Administration is destroying everything the Founders put in place as small d democratic safeguards?
Together, the two extremes as the Uniparty are racing to the bottom to see who can best implement the tyranny of a digital concentration camp.
Its not just the Democrats.
Podcasters Carleson, Riley, Rogan and Owen’s have drawn the curtain back on this neocon betrayal of MAGA and the Constitution.
I suggest the writer spend less time watching Fox News and broaden his knowledge to include ALL the dangers facing our society.
Trump and team have sold out. PERIOD.
The good people of MAGA were just a vehicle to power.
Please read Plato’s allegory of The Cave.
————
I’m sorry, does this have anything to do with the issue of anonymity in public speech, or is it just another gratuitous and spiteful rambling rant against me?
Maybe you’re just jealous. A lot of insecure men feel threatened by me, for some reason.
Take a deep breath, mate And seek help.
Threatened by an anonymous online bigot spewing childish insults? Bahahahahahaha I don’t think so. Bahahahahaha
The fantasy land that ‘Austin’ lives in cracks me up. Thanks for the laugh!
Cheers
———-
Somebody here is clearly puerile and pathetic… and it’s not me.
‘wanker’
‘mentally ill’
‘deranged’
‘stupid’ ‘asshole’
‘little prick’
‘like a precious little girl’
‘little creep’
‘Shove your poison up your arse’
‘Village Idiot’
‘pretentious prick’
The words of the true puerile commenter of the Rhino Times. And they are just from the last couple of weeks and don’t include any words or phrases deleted by the editor.
Cheers ‘Ol Boy
———-
Those are trenchant and accurate insults, levelled a just one person – you. There is nothing puerile about them.
Your pitiful language skills are on display, wanker boy (and I’ve told you why you earned that epithet too).
A couple of those statements were made in response to commentor other than me, and yes, a child believes their childish behavior appropriate.
But you be you
———-
No, you’re either lying or mistaken. The shove your poison comment was directed at big pharma, not an individual. The rest were explicitly directed at you, and you alone.
You always misrepresent the truth, don’t you?
Go back and read it yourself. End of the day, it stands as one of many examples of your puerile approach to communication. As with a lot of conservatives, every accusation is an admission.
Cheers
———-
I don’t need to go back. I know that that comment was directed at the Big Pharma companies that created the COVID jabs. It wouldn’t make sense otherwise.
Stop lying.
Childish comment regardless of intent.
Cheers
————–
Now who’s deflecting?
Austin, Al hare, Rebel, Salt Life, and others
This is meant as a friendly suggestion, not criticism…Alan and I had a discussion and decided instead of feeding the latrine who call itself Chris, professor, Joebucket and other non-de-plums (that means alias’ Chris) we are going to be posting to simply participate in the discussion.
My Grandmother use to tell me don’t feed an idiot…allow it to become emaciated.
Just a suggestion, but regardless although we may occasionally disagree, I WILL have your 6.
Great suggestion Patrick, my dad always told me not to wrestle with pigs in mud. with pigs they are the only ones who are happy Stay vigilant and keep your ammo dry.
Alan talking to himself again?
It would be great if you all ignored me….the childish name calling and personal insults are just a waste of space.
Note, it won’t stop me from replying to comments full of misinformation, hatred, bigotry or racism. Would be nice to do without all the childish back and forth. Hope you guys have the self-control. I bet you don’t. Austin has claims she will stop reply to me a number of times. You can see how that worked out.
Cheers Alan.
————–
Maybe if you quit with the personal ad hominem attacks and insulting the intelligence of others, the level of debate might improve.
You are the problem here, mate.
My comment above is not an ad hominem:
Pointing out someone’s behavior isn’t the same thing as an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem fallacy is dismissing an argument because of the person making it. I’m not doing that. I’m saying that name-calling and personal insults are childish and that I intend to address the substance of comments containing misinformation or bigotry. If you think one of my factual claims is wrong, address the claim rather than simply labeling my criticism of the discussion an ‘ad hominem.’ And yes, ‘Alan talking to himself again?’ was a sarcastic jab. That’s sarcasm, not an argument.
I’ll continue discussing the issues. You’re welcome to continue discussing me. We can all contribute according to our strengths.
———–
I didn’t say that specific comment was an ad hominem attack. I said that your remarks are often personal attacks that don’t address the issue itself. This can be seen right here in this comment column, where all your irrelevant BS never even addresses anonymity in public speech.
And I’m not the one who constantly complains “Another ad hominem”. You are, aren’t you?
Stop misrepresenting what others say. And stop lying.
Odd, it seem to have been implied. My mistake.
Feel free to point out anytime I use an ad hominem. Always happy to improvement my debate skills. I don’t think I do it often as you do for sure but happy to improve.
Cheers.
.Aww, we are all so stupid!
We just don’t get it that Professor is a brave saint who fights against bigotry, racism, and hate – by using his keyboard. And his mouth. He’s a hero, even if he says so himself. You know, if spitting venom from your basement makes you a hero…. while hiding behind a behind a fake title (he’s not a professor).
And the poor martyr has to deal with our “childish insults” – while he says he’ll use crayons to explain his comments to us. And he’ll also type slower for us, to help us understand. And then he refers to male commenters as ‘she’, in a schoolyard level insult that displays his 3rd Grade maturity.
And claims that WE are childish…
This guy’s a joke.
I give as I receive. You should learn to take as well as you give.
Cheers
So should you – so quit your whining about ad hominem attacks.
Right?
If you have an example of an Ad Hominem I have made, please share. Not really my thing.
———————————
Really ? Really…?? You’re really claiming that ad hominem attacks are not your thing?
You lie – but boy, do you lie.
– I’ll type slower so you can understand. Next time I’ll use crayons. Bigot! Hater! Racist! Ignorant. Moonshine swilling rednecks.
Your snide and condescending insults are everywhere. These are not remarks that are a reasoned point of debate. They are directed at persons – ad hominem, literally.
Either you engage in psychopathic lying or you really cannot discern reality. Both are classic indicators of mental illness.
To be clear, just because a comment includes a jab or insult doesn’t make it an ad hominem. To be an ad hominem, you need to avoid addressing the topic at hand and just attack the person making the argument as a means of deflection and avoidance. I try to make sure after I insult you (I give as I receive), that I also address the topic at hand.
I typed that really extra slow so you could understand.
See…..I addressed the accusation with a rationale counter argument, THEN I insulted you. Ergo, NOT an ad hominem.
Hope that helps.
Cheers Chappy Pants.
————
You can’t even spell “rational” , buddy.
You’re a joke.
That is a good example of an Ad Hominem. Well done!
—————-
Good ! I love insulting you. I don’t complain about ad hominem attacks – you do !
And that’s after you start the mud slinging.
You’re a blatant hypocrite.
———–
I respect and accept your position, Alan and Patrick, but my personality has never been “Turn the other cheek”.
If somebody attacks me, I respond in kind – and I make sure that they receive just a little more punishment than they dealt out to me.
You might know that I have built a door-to-door sales business in this great country. I’m cut out for it because I have the skin of a rhino (!), and a determined persistence. Door to door sales is not for everybody, but I like it. Anyway, we get a lot of rudeness and hostility on a daily basis, and it’s like water off a duck’s back for me. Yeah buddy… whatever. Have a nice day!
But even for me, sometimes I get a really unpleasant guy. They don’t know I’m the boss, so I’ll stand my ground and give their verbal abuse right back in real graphic terms right away. You should see their face! They can’t believe it. How dare I? ! Occasionally they’ll want to fight, but it’s pathetic, and just turns into a shoving contest.
Ninety-nine per cent of the time they call the 800 number on my truck, feign outrage and demand to speak to “the boss”. When I’m out of the office I forward the calls to my cell phone in my truck, so the call comes straight to me. I’ll answer by speaking in a Southern voice so as to disguise my British accent. I let them unload, and they always lie about what actually happened, thinking they’re speaking to a manager or superior. That’s when I begin speaking in my normal voice, point out their lies, tell them I’m the guy they just met, and deliver an extremely abusive torrent of profanity into their ear. They’re so surprised and taken aback that they invariably hang up! Oh what fun it is!
I love f**king with assholes. I guess that’s why I respond to the “Professor”.
If using evidence-based comments to counter misinformation, bigotry, racism and hate makes you consider me an asshole, you really should take a long-term look in the mirror to understand something about yourself….maybe….just maybe….your “thick skin” at that enables you to withstand ticking off people by interrupting their day at home uninvited requires YOU to be an asshole at heart.
Cheers
———–
You know mate, I don’t sell much by ticking off people, but I do sell a lot by charming them, making them laugh, and giving them great value for money. And have been doing so for 35 years.
So that’s what you know about the door-to-door sales business… about as much as you know about everything else, “Professor”.
Nothing.
Have a nice day.
Of course you don’t.
But you admitted that many people are rude or even hostile to your interurruption their privacy at home without invitation. I assume you justify ‘irritating’ those people as what?…..”i have to make a living so my ticking you off is worth it?” Or “they are just assholes for geting up set at such a minir inconvience of answering the door?”
End of the day, it requires you to be insensitive to those you annoy in the name of the very few who purchase from you. Given typical close rates in most sales businesses, I suggest it is most likely you irratate far more people than you ‘help’ with what ever it is you are selling…..
……it isn’t that you have thick skin, it’s that being irritating to many people on a daily basis doesn’t bother your conscious…..ergo….an asshole. Nithing personal… that is how i have always thought of door to door salesman.
Cheers
————
Yeah, I know you like to look down on door-to-door salesmen, but you look down on everyone, don’t you?
You insult our intelligence by saying you’ll use crayons to explain things to us, and type more slowly. You call us all ignorant, closed minded and rednecks who swill moonshine at the back of our pick-up trucks. You like to pretend you’re a professor, so as to appear smarter than the rest of us. You love feeling superior.
One of us sure is an…
——————–
PS
When it comes to door-to-door selling, you don’t know what you’re talking about, mate. But you don’t really know anything about anything, except what you glean from ten minutes searching AI – and then you’re an “expert”! Your knowledge is a mile wide and an inch deep.
You’re a pretentious pontificating poser.
Look down at door to door sales men? That is a bit extreme, but I know I don’t appreciate people coming to my door uninvited to push some product I have no interest in….But just so we know I am not alone in this sentiment:
Studies Show:
– 77% disliked door-to-door sales, while only 3% had a generally positive opinion in a 2012 survey of 1,014 Australian consumers.
– 56% said they felt the greatest pressure to purchase when approached at home, compared with other purchasing channels.
– 85% supported a “Do Not Knock” registry in that same Australian research.
– Among people who had actually purchased through door-to-door selling, 63% said the salesperson pressured them to say yes, and 20% said they experienced “great or tremendous” pressure.
– A Canadian survey found 68% agreed that door-to-door salespeople are aggressive, while 60% agreed they don’t listen when told the customer isn’t interested. Half considered door-to-door selling intimidating.
– A U.S. YouGov survey of 5,667 adults found only 27% had ever bought anything from a door-to-door salesperson, while 65% had not.
Cheers
———-
Studies also show that about 10 per cent of US adults are mentally ill. I reckon that’s about right, as I have met thousands of random North Carolinians over the years. About one in ten that I come across display immediate if subtle “tells” of being mentally ill – like you.
And you are one of them, aren’t you? Or are you now going to deny that you suffer from mental health issues? Because you have admitted it in a careless moment. I too can look it up.
You’re a mental case – by your own admission.
Head case.
Given you don’t offer any counter statement or alternative view of those studies, you agree your profession annoys a good percentage of the people you engage on a daily basis and you ignore this and call this your ‘thick skin’? If so, I just call it something different.
Hope that helps. Cheers
————-
You just love putting words in other people’s mouths, don’t you?
You can’t argue with what they actually said, so you misrepresent their position in a pathetic attempt to score a point. But it’s dishonest – like you.
Yes, I am making the point that what you did actually say ignores a fundamental truth about your profession. I therefore assume since you can’t refute that fact (data provided in other comment), you have to make up some distraction as a means of deflection. It is your go to strategy. Not shocked
Hope that helps. Cheers
———-
I don’t even know what you’re talking about, buddy. And neither does anyone else.
Arrogance is thinking you speak for everyone. But i get it, you aren’t a strong reader of context up and down a comment string. I have come to expect your confusion after the second or third comment in a string.
Want me to summarize for you again so you can catch back up? Happy to help.
Cheers
————–
All salespeople have to secure the voluntary consent of their customers before they earn a dime. This is in contrast to the entire Parasitic Sector which forces people to give up their own money, whether they like it or not (which is called robbery).
This is why sales, and the Productive Sector, is a moral and ethical system called Capitalism, or the free market system, and why socialism or liberalism is morally bankrupt and inherently a form of wrongdoing.
*************************************************
Door-to-door sales is just cold calling in person and is so annoying that they passed laws to protect people from it with the ‘do not call list’ law. We need the same for door-to-door salesmen. Imagine having a job so annoying that they have to write laws to protect people against it. But you be you.
But to the point on taxes. Libertarians love to claim that taxes are theft….it’s not.
Calling taxation “robbery” assumes what you’re trying to prove. A salesperson needs your voluntary consent because they’re selling you a private product. Government provides collective goods…..courts, police, infrastructure, national defense, and protection of property rights…..that aren’t individually purchased.
Taxes are certainly coercive, but coercion isn’t automatically robbery. The real question is whether the obligation is legitimate and democratically established.
And your claim to “your own money” isn’t completely independent of government. Property rights, contracts, courts, currency, and their enforcement are what allow you to legally earn and keep that money in the first place.
You can argue that taxes are too high or government spends them badly. But “I didn’t voluntarily agree to pay” does not by itself make taxation robbery.
Hope that helps.
Cheers
————-
You just plain wrong, mate. Taking somebody else’s money from them against their will is the very definition of robbery.
Ans as for salespeople being annoying… Aww you poor precious darling. Political and commercial intrusions are ubiquitous – because we live in a free country.
Ain’t freedom a bitch?
PS 80+ per cent of my customers re-purchase my service.
So, if no one pays any taxes….then you lose the courts that protect your property rights (they are funded by the taxes you claim are stolen). Then you own only what others let you keep. THAT is what you get if you don’t have a tax system to fund a government. So, what do you say…”I don’t mind some taxes for things I ‘need'”? Or is that the process you want, no government, no protections, no rights, no ownership?
You can’t accept some taxes but deny other taxes. That isn’t how democracy works.
So what do you want in place of taxes?
By the way “saying Na Uh and just repeating your position with no additional clarification or support isn’t much of a defence…..just another way to deflect from actual engagement in counter points made”. I
As for sales…..if you have to ‘push’ your product door to door versus people coming to you to request the product….how good is the product actually?
Cheers
————
Hey don’t have a thrombo, buddy. You sound completely deranged.
And I have already addressed your fabrications.
Take a deep breath… and have a beer. It’s Friday.
But you know what? I suspect you don’t drink beer.
You’re too anal.
Have a nice weekend !
He dodges again. Yawn
————-
Well my first work in door-to-door sales was raising funds for volunteer fire departments and rural Rescue Squads who desperately needed the funding, so you tell me how good my “product” was.
Or do you despise volunteer organizations because they needed people like me – despicable door-to door salespeople ! Clutch your pearls and eff off, you pathetic loser.
Fundraising door to door people annoy me the most as is it impossible to tell if they are running a scam or being honest. Same with the folks who cold call you by phone for the Sheriff’s department. If you had to be paid to go door to door to raise funds, you were likely a part of a High-Overhead Third-Party that kept 60% to 90% of funds raised….so while legal, still shady as hell.
But you be you
———————
Tell that to the dedicated volunteers that I helped, and respected.
And they respected me, also.
Only assholes like you resented our efforts.
Austin,
I respect your position.
And I only “turn the other cheek” because I’m right eye dominant.
As you say, Cheers
———–
Cheers Patrick! I’ve discovered Sapporo Japanese beer (brewed in Richmond, VA!). I’ll raise one for you tonight.
Iechyd Da!
Professor I’m just curious as why you chose Australia to cite your numbers from
Just the limited number of studies on the subject. Do you not think it valid to people thoughts on the subject in the US? I suggest it shows that door-to-door sales is universally found to be annoying to further my point.
The First Amendment guarantees our right to free speech, but it does not explicitly protect us from government dishonesty or civil rights violations.
A police state may be defined as being characterized by bureaucratic control, continual surveillance, and a lack of constitutional protections for citizens, and it really doesn’t matter which party is in power.
The architects of a police state want submissive, compliant, cooperative, obedient citizens who don’t talk back, don’t challenge government authority, don’t speak out against government misconduct, and don’t step out of line.
We have been policed, surveilled, taxed, indebted, manipulated, censored, tracked, searched, silenced, and sold out.
We’ve been subjected to fear campaigns, propaganda blitzes, mass messaging, and behavioral manipulation designed to keep us anxious, compliant, divided, and distrustful of one another.
Ordinary Americans are told there is not enough money to honor the government’s promises to them. Social Security’s retirement trust fund is now projected to run short in late 2032, at which point retirees could face an automatic 22 percent cut.
Yet, there is always money for surveillance. There is always money for police-state crackdowns, foreign aid, and slush funds for political allies.
Aren’t you describing the current administration that has repeatedly attempted to silence media critics, calls any criticism of his administration ‘fake news’ even when the facts are clear and the criticism justified?
Side note, you know why social security retirement fund didn’t go bankrupt last time the projected that it would?
Hint: Increase in IMMIGRANT Working Class…..they pay in but they don’t get payouts. Not saying it solves the long-term problem but it has eased the severity for a number of years….but not anymore…..
Source: CBO analysis f the 2021-2026 immigration surge estimated 443 billion in additional payroll taxes with $348 being SS payroll tax revenue. Guess that is going to the wind with the current administration……
Salt Life,
Very astute. Thank you.
There is NO money in the SS “trust fund.” The money SS recipients get doesn’t come from a “lock box” or a fund. It comes from TAXPAYERS, like ALL government expenditures.
The “government” is not just financially broke, but is 39 TRILLION DOLLARS in the hole, and still digging. For ANYONE to get even a dollar from Washington, it has to first be confiscated by force and coercion from someone who has it. It’s all a giant Ponzi scheme, and it’s unsustainable.
Sorry for the bad news.
Like everything else involving the government (at any level) the SS system started out with good intentions but then turn into male bovine meadow muffins.
How does this happen? (broken record time) People, apathetic people (D & R), vote them into office then go back watching game show television and ignore what they’re doing. Thus are born and raised Professional Politicians and their system of sustainment, Big Government.
Since you seem to be such a strong critic of one of the most loved and valued social programs in the United States, what is your solution? Do you understand why it is facing headwinds?
It is easy to be the critic but much harder to be the one that has to fix the problem. I am all ears.
———
Wayne is right. I’m disappointed that the Trump Administration is not containing public spending.
Margaret Thatcher managed to do so, but it was very difficult and the howls and tantrums coming from the public sector – aka The Parasitic Sector – were deafening. But then, she was The Iron Lady.
How I miss her, and Ronnie.
You always seem to leave out the negative impacts of her policies that are still impacting the people in the UK today:
– Spike in wage gaps (as we have her in the US as well due to Reaganomics)
– Enormous loss of manufacturing jobs since the 80s that lead to: Spikes in unemployment, declining wages, population loss in areas like Whales, Scotland and Northern England,
– Massive regional inequality between southern England and the other parts of the UK
– Increase wage inequality
– While the British economy had short-term growth due to deregulation and privatization, over the long-term it did not prove sustainable for the reasons noted above.
Yes, her policies had solid benefits such as reduced inflation and sustained growth in financial services industries but long-term, most of those benefits excluded the working class just as Reaganomics did in the US.
Most conservative economic policies seem to benefit the few for short-term gains while leaving a legacy that has negative impacts on the working class. This is a story both the UK and US both share.
————–
I also leave out that the Sun is 93 million miles away.
The Letter is about the issue of anonymity in public speech. Not one of your rambling, verbose, comments has addressed the issue. You have instead attacked me personally in the most vile ways – while you go on to complain about ad hominem criticisms of yourself.
You’re a hypocrite, and an unusually toxic personality. You have previously admitted that you have mental health issues, and your ADHD fixation with me is unhealthy.
You even want to rehash arguments from years ago – literally – as you dig up doubtful out of context quotes from the early 2020’s.
Get over yourself.
Get over me.
And get a life.
You brought up Thatcher. Weird.
Oh, and sometimes the sun is 94.5 million miles away from earth and other times as close as 91.4 million miles.
Cheers
————-
LOL !
Now he wants to argue about the distance to the Sun – when I’m right!
What a wanker. But I mean… what a wanker.
No argument. Just facts. Plus illustrating how facts upset you so easily.
Cheer ‘Ol Chap
— Oh, I’m not upset at all. I’m laughing at the biggest pettifogging nitpicking little nerd I have ever come across.
I say the Sun’s 93 Million miles away, just to make a point that follows. And you are such an argumentative petty little prick that you even want to argue about that, saying it varies between 91 & 95 million miles – which proves I’m right.
If I said 2 + 2 = 4, you would want to argue.
You are a perfect wanker. Wanker, wanker, wanker. It’s the perfect British epithet for losers like you.
LOL, yeah sure. Whatever you say. LOL
Cheers. Thanks for the chuckle.
“There is NO money in the SS trust fund.”
There absolutely are assets in the Social Security trust funds. They aren’t a pile of cash sitting in a vault, but they are real U.S. Treasury securities, essentially obligations of the federal government. The Social Security trust funds currently hold special-issue Treasury securities. By law, surplus Social Security revenue is invested in those securities, which earn interest.
“The money SS recipients get comes from TAXPAYERS.” (Partly true, but incomplete)
Social Security is largely pay-as-you-go. Payroll taxes collected from today’s workers provide most of the money used to pay today’s beneficiaries. In 2024, about 91% of Social Security revenue came from payroll taxes and related reimbursements, while another 4.9% came from interest earned on the trust fund’s Treasury securities (see first point above)
“The trust fund isn’t a lock box.” — Technically true, but often used misleadingly.
It is true that “It” isn’t a literal lock box.
The money isn’t sitting in a separate bank account somewhere. When Social Security receives more money than it needs immediately, the Treasury exchanges that surplus for special Treasury securities. The cash then becomes available to the federal government for other purposes. But the corresponding Treasury securities remain an asset of the Social Security trust fund. The government therefore has an obligation to repay that money, with interest. This is actually a legitimate criticism of the system: the federal government has borrowed the accumulated Social Security surpluses.
But saying “there’s nothing there” is not accurate.
“The government is $39 trillion in the hole.”
This is basically a statement about federal debt, not Social Security. Social Security is PROJECTED to have significant shortfalls in the future but currently has sufficient cash flow of funds to meet the current payouts plus some excess cash as noted above.
“It’s all a giant Ponzi scheme.”
No. No it isn’t. Social Security has a feature that resembles a Ponzi scheme superficially: current workers’ taxes largely finance benefits for current retirees. But that doesn’t make it a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme requires deception and promises of investment returns financed by recruiting new participants. Social Security is a government social insurance program established by law, with legislatively determined taxes and benefits.
You can legitimately argue that Social Security is financially unsustainable under current law. In fact, the 2026 Trustees Report says the combined OASI/DI trust funds are projected to be depleted in 2034, after which continuing revenues would cover about 81% of scheduled benefits under the report’s projections.
That’s a serious problem.
But “financially challenged” ≠ “Ponzi scheme.”
Hope that helps.
Agreed. That was my point. Thank you.
I was agreeing with Salt life on the emerging surveillance state.
Bravo…
– Grazie !
No money for SS or Medicare…..We do, however, have money for wars, the military industrial complex, surveillance of honest citizens, foreign aid, subsidies for companies like energy and agriculture, large budgets for federal agencies, improper payments and fraud across many federal programs, foolish grants, and slush funds.
Well said Salt Life.
Strongly agree we can spend less on military by avoiding unnecessary wars and NOT spying on US citizens (flock cameras included)….but the fraud claim has always been overstated as being about improper payments to undiserving individuals (which does happen for sure ~100 billion) when the real problem is organized criminal fraud which is over $500 billion per year. And even for the ~100 billion of improper payments most are administrative errors, missing paperwork, or overpayments…..not deliberate criminal fraud.
I suggest we can also increase revenue by eliminating loopholes in tax law that allow the wealtiest individuals and corporations from hiding income. We keep hearing that the wealthy pay their fair share and get quoted their % of income tax rates (which is still often lower than your and my rates) when the real trick isn’t percent of income but how much income they hide from being taxed at all.
Real change is going to take both spending AND revenue changes to stop growing our debt any more…..and that is just to slow the growth of debt, not paying it off.
Cheers
When did Flock cameras become part of the military
Didn’t say they were. I was just agreeing with two of the points made by Salt life. I disagreed with his third point however. I understand maintaining context up and down a comment string can get confusing. Hope this helps.
Cheers
Agreed.
————-
Is it just me, or is there something wrong with the “Professor” ?
* * * *
And in a similar vein, I just read an article in the London Daily Telegraph that described how the city’s Muslim Mayor is positioning Police vans all over the city whose sole purpose is surveillance. The vans boldly proclaim “Live Facial Recognition in Progress”. Orwell was more prescient than we thought.
My God, this is not the country I grew up in. As Ronald Reagan used to say, freedom is only ever one generation from extinction.
Fight the Flock cameras. Fight the effort to eliminate cash. Fight for privacy and freedom.
Fight Big Brother.
Why point out the religion of the mayor? Weird. By the way, the surveillance program was started by a Christian: Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, not by the mayor.
Cheers
Austin,
You are very right. ‘1984’ is no longer right around the corner, IT’S HERE. And to beat the drum as I have consistently, the majority of American people have been mesmerized by things that are less confrontational and choose to ignore what they know are true. It’s almost as if they are afraid to face the truth…”I might lose my comforts”.
News flash, you already have, along with your and your family’s.
Now we can agree on that Austin.
————
I’m glad we can agree, Joe.
Cheers!
* * * * *
I’d like to apologise for the devolving of this comment column into a mud throwing slugfest. It takes two to tango, and although the unhinged “Professor” initiated the personal attacks (Comment : Aug 18th, 11.15am) without making any effort to discuss the Letter, I fell into the trap of defending myself.
It’s a natural enough reaction, but as others have learned, it simply encourages this quarrelsome, captious and argumentative individual. He gets off on this.
His toxic personality has been polluting these columns for years, and he is universally disliked. He has previously admitted to having mental health issues.
This comment column could have been a stimulating and instructive discussion about the place of anonymity in public speech.
I regret that this did not transpire.
– Austin
Just sharing your own words as an illustrative example of how anonymous speech has a dark side as well as being important for a free society. Why apologize, you and I do this in many column or letters. If it embarrasses you, don’t reply to my comments. Problem solved. You have claimed you were going to do that in the past.
But you be you.
Cheers Chappy
———–
No, I said I was going to TRY to ignore you.
You always misrepresent what other people say, don’t you? It’s one of your sly deceptions.
I’ve had enough of you.
Try harder.
🙂
Austin,
Always standing by with safety line if you find yourself getting sucked into Chris’ fecal depository (aka sh*thole world), and I’m sure Alan feels the same. I will admit I enjoy watching it though when you so effectively counter his oh so weak ripostes (that’s a fencing term Chris).
What is your favorite example of an effective counter from Austin? Is it the childish name calling? The personal insults? He certainly never addresses any of the studies, data, or research I share that show is point of view to be incorrect. Just curious.
Cheers
———–
“Studies show…. ” Only intellectual midgets ever utter this inanity.
Studies show anything you want them to show (especially if you funded them).
———-
Strange how my points receive such approval and yours such disapproval, isn’t it?
It must be an interesting little world you live in. But I guess that’s how it is when you’re mentally ill.
————-
Thanks, Patrick.
And to you, the readers, and Scott, I beg you all to study the timeline of the back and forth closely. The responsibility for a war rests with the party that initiates hostilities. Those who retaliate are less culpable, surely?
Returning fire is self-defence. Bringing personal attacks into a comment thread, out of the clear blue sky, is unwarranted and unnecessary. And it drags down the debate.
Look for yourself. You’ll see who started all this.
My first comment was factual and aligned with the letter as a counter point. Boo Hoo if you can’t handle criticism. You sure dish it out a lot for a guy who can’t handle it….
Is kinda cute that your defense is…..”but mom!!! He started it!!!”
Cheers
————-
Oh, I can handle it alright. I’m not the one who whines and cries about ad hominem attacks – you are. Right?
And it’s just a fact that you dragged down the debate with completely unrelated personal attacks. You started slinging the sh*t buddy – as always.
You drag down the debate in every comment column you pollute.
My pointing out of ad hominem isn’t the insults or personal attacks….those reflect far more about you then me….fyi. It is that you use it to avoid real debate on the topic by avoiding the counters points I provide that clearly show the flaws in your point of view. Hence the 5 Ds of Dodgeball accusation I toss at you often….Dodge, Duck, Dive, Dip, Dodge.
In this string….you have yet to engage on the topic that anonymous chat has a dark side as well as being important to freedom of speech and that your own use of the anonymous nature of online chat is an example of that dark side.
Hope that helps.
————
Anonymity in public speech can indeed embolden unpleasant individuals, and lead them to belittle, smear and slander other commenters with vile ad hominem personal attacks.
You are the poster child for this phenomenon.
Even your pseudonym is a pretentious and untrue shield through which you hide yourself, as you attack others.
You’re no professor.
.
See. I made the same point using your own posts a perfect example. So through all this noise of you ducking, dodging, dipping, diving, and dodging….we actually agree on the fundamental point I was making. Was that so hard.
Cheers
————–
Nobody even knows what you’re talking about any more, “Professor”.
Or cares.
But why don’t you tell us how many miles to the Sun ?
LOL !!
I already helped you with the distance to the sun. Did you forget already? Was it too much to understand that easy answers while truthful aren’t always fully accurate? But sure, the distance to the sun, isn’t a single number as it fluctuates due to the elliptical nature of earth’s orbit. So the distance to the sun ranges from 91.4 million miles to 94.5 million miles.
It is also accurate to say the Average distance to the sun is 93 million miles.
Happy to help. Can I help you with any other questions?
——————–
Oh… My…. God.
Missing the point completely. And doubling down !
This guy’s as thick as a brick.
————
Thanks Patrick!
His comments are a whirlpool of circular excrement that will drag you down into a cess pit of vituperation and futility.
As my dear Mother taught her kids ” I may not agree with what you say
but I will fight for your right to say it!
Cheers
Hey Scott – I am all for free speech and the free exchange of ideas. And the ability to post thoughts about an article on here is a great example. I DO look forward to the Rhino, its content AND the responses. However…….this is a great example of how it sometimes goes off the rails when two adults (I assume) carry on lengthy, back and forth spats, trading allegations and personal insults. I don’t need to name the two as they generated what seems like 95% of the space for this edition. Is there some way we can restrict comments to the story and eliminate all the personal stuff??? To be clear, these two “posters” both generate good, thoughtful material. And I read both. I don’t know either person but I would like to appeal to each to just tone it down and stay on topic. Please.
I agree and I am currently thinking about the best way to address the situation. Thanks for the input!
The best is just updating comments once a day.
————-
PS
If you want an approximate assessment of who the readers favour, and who they reject, just read all the contributions.
It’s pretty clear.
Scott, the real irony is that this makes my point about the negative side of anonymous and unmoderated (or limited moderation in your case). It gets ugly at times. Makes my point very well.
Cheers
————–
It only gets ugly when you wade in.
The comment columns that you ignore are civil, respectful, and reasoned. Look for yourself.
YOU
ARE
THE
PROBLEM.
I have had many civil exchanges with others without all the back-and-forth mudslinging that we do…..takes two to tango.
Cha Cha Cha.
Cheers.
Yes Ken, I would have much preferred the comments to have addressed the issue of anonymous speech,, which was the subject I had hoped to discuss.
————
I just want to point out one more thing. In this thread, the “Professor” has argued with or taken issue with :
– Charles
– Salt Life
– Me
– Patrick Henry
– Al Hare
– Alan Marshall
– Rebel
– Wayne
– Joe Bucket.
I have taken issue with him and JoeBucket, and only in response to personal character assassination.
I know I am guilty of getting down in the mud, but I think it’s pretty clear who the problem child is.
I am one of the few liberal voices in a conservative echo chamber. Notice no others had to go down deep rabbit holes when I disagreed with them. If you want a ‘safe space’ for spreading conservative propaganda without criticism go post on foxnews website.
If Scott wants a conservative echo chamber with no differing points of view, he can edit the site that way. For now, he doesn’t. For those that don’t like all of your and my mudslinging comment strings, (they really are on only a handful of news articles or letters) they can scroll past or dive in. Not complicated.
Cheers.
———————
No, telling others to just move on is avoiding the issue.
The issue is that you have made these columns so toxic and tiresome that people are tuning out.
Wait, you think you have no role in the toxic nature of our exchanges? Takes two to tango.
Cha Cha Cha
Cheers
—————
Like blaming Ukraine for the carnage in Donbas….
Are you really playing the innocent little angle in our exchanges? LMAO. Or are you playing the “But Mommy, HE started it!!!!” card to justify your own role in our exchanges?
What every helps you sleep at night.
Cheers
—————-
Careful “Professor”, your infantile Weltanschauung is on display.
Go play with your crayons, sonny. And stop repeating yourself…. over and over again.
For kicks and giggles I asked ChatGPT to critique or debate/comment styles by looking at our comments over the last few months. It gave us the following scores:
Measure Professor, including Austin Professor, excluding Austin Austin
Substantive engagement 6.5 7.5–8 4–5
Evidence/reasoning 7 8 4–5
Direct response to arguments 7 8 4
Civility 4 6 2–3
Avoidance of personal attacks 4 6 2
Willingness to engage 9 8 7
Overall quality 6.5 7.5 3.5–4
We are both clearly willing to engage! LOL and both need to work on our civility when engaging with each other. We clearly bring the worst out of each other.
The prompt gave me a number of ways to improve and avoid the mudslinging I will give a try….but….no promises.
Cheers
I know I don’t need to say this Austin, but don’t hold your breath.
————-
????
I’m referring to Chris and his comments about supposedly calling a limited truce.
And for the record, I won the bet.
We need to have a beer again sometime Austin.
A truce requires both sides to agree. Never happened.
————
YOU DIDN’T OFFER A TRUCE.
You just said you’d try to stop your mudslinging – which you failed to do in your very next comment.
I give as I receive. You should learn to take as you give. Why so sensitive?
Cheers Laddy Boy
———
Yes, that would be fun!
You’re right of course. The Fake Professor claimed he “will give a try” to ceasing his mudslinging, and in his very next comment says “I didn’t think you could figure it out”, after posting some kind of unintelligible gibberish.
So he goes right back to insulting our intelligence.
But you can’t expect a mentally ill person to cure himself, even if he tries.
I give as I receive.
Cheers Chappy Dap
Didn’t think you could figure it out…that spacing the table didn’t hold when submitted.
Quick summary per ChatGPT: Overall Quality of Comments: Professor when Commenting with Aston = 6.5 Professor when commenting with others = 7.5 Austin when comment with Professor – 3.5 to 4
1= Low Quality
10- High Quality
Cheers
————-
You never stop insulting us, do you?
Even when you post indecipherable obscure [deleted]… which is relevant to nothing.
Nothing at all.
I understand your commitment to your deflection strategy by use of Ad Hominems and the Ds of Dodgeball. It really is your only defense to ignore my very valid comments, claim victory and use childish insults over and over and over again. Yawn.
Won’t stop me from calling out your misinformation, bigotry, and hate every chance I get.
Cheers Lad
———–
Hey buddy, if that’s your apology for insulting our intelligence (yet again), it’s not a very good one.
So just rehash the insults you throw at me, over and over again – which I have repeatedly debunked.
You’re just a vile, odious, bitter little man.
More insults and personal attacks from Austin.
Yawn
————–
Oh, the irony…
—————-
The Fake Professor (he’s not a professor) is incapable of disagreeing without being disgreeable.
That’s because he perceives any counterpoint that’s posted as a personal challenge to his imagined intellectual superiority.
This is why he always must have the last word. Little children believe that the person who has the last word has won the argument. And as you may have noticed, we’re dealing with someone who possesses the mentality and maturity of a small child. “Cha Cha Cha!”… “Cheers old Chappie!”… “I’ll use my crayons”…. and so on, and so on, ad nauseam.
It’s all rather pathetic, really.
Awwwwww Austin can’t take what he dishes out. Do you need a hug?
I might suggest if you don’t want to play in the mud…..don’t go there. Not complicated.
Cheers Little Lad
—————
Q.E.D.
Hey Austin, check out the Letters to the Editor Archive on January 24th 2025.
Anonymous,
Are you referring to Chris’ letter?
Scott as much fun as stupid can be, it’s really past time for another letter to the editor. Please
Will, I agree with you but for some reason I am not sure of, people offer a lot of comments but very few letters to the editor. I wish more people would write them.
——————
C’mon “Professor”, step up to the plate and write a Letter.
Your turn.
LOL !!!
—————–
No Other Scribes Have Insomniac Tendencies !
————-
Acrostic, anyone ?
Not that anyone’s still reading at this point.
Onwards!