Pearly Gates is...Quick ReferenceRecent posts
LinksRichard's other blog:Hall Of Fame:
The "Real" Media:
Halosphere:
Minor League Affiliates:
Other Baseball Blogs:
Other Random Crap (in a good way):
Soccer:Archive
Blog*Spot ArchivesContactRichard Ceccarelli Josh Mandir |
Wednesday, July 20, 2005Kossacks attackIn their zeal to discredit John Roberts, or to justify a filibuster, a few Kossacks are looking to do a little opposition research on Jack Roberts - John Roberts' son. See, they have reason to believe that Jack may be a homosexual. Jack Roberts is four years old. Comments:Based on the site you link to, it looks like this notion was put forth in a single post, and in a half-joking manner at that. So, no, not even a "few" Kossacks. If you must insist, let me spell it out for you. Richard suggests that "a few Kossacks" are trying to slime John Roberts by insinuating that his son, a 4-year-old, may be a homosexual. And what's the evidence? Essentially, a single post (out of hundreds submitted since the Roberts nomination was announced). The post stated that Roberts's son "must be gay," then immediately acknowledged that, "Of course, this is how ridiculous rumors get started." So, the writer either was joking or illustrating how unfounded rumors get started. And from what I've seen (including the Confederate Yankee blog to which Richard linked), no one else made any such allegations or insinuations about the son. Clear enough? First of all, anonymous guys - read the disclaimer at the bottom of each page. Please leave names, or else this gets damn confusing. Secondly, why is it people are always so offended by the simple act of attributing a quote? The commenters on Kos made the statements in question on a public forum did they not? What fault can there be in pointing that out? I wasn't attributing the quotes to the left as a whole, or even the Kos community, but a "few" (”being more than one but indefinitely small in number”) commenters – an undeniably accurate statement. So why do you take umbrage? Rich, It is obvoious they were joking. I think that just flew over your head. Besides, all those posters know that little Jack hasn't choosen to be gay, yet. The first two commenters (and likely the third as well) were clearly not joking. Once again, why do people insist on defending the indefensible? Hey first anonymous guy, sorry I wasn't referring to you. Richard: I guess if you like taking innocuous comments on the internet out of context, then go with it. |
