Not a Tango, nothing to see here

May 20, 2011

Irony, thy name is Dimwit

Filed under: 2A, rights — antitango @ 5:51 am

I see Japete posting to twitter about a new thread, so I went and read it.  Keep your friends close, enemies closer and all that.  This really just makes me laugh.  My friends, we have NOTHING to worry about from this lot.  The post was written because she figured out the person is trying to out her as an NRA member playing ‘mole’ under the guise of an anti-gunner.  Emphasis mine.

This one was from someone playing with my mind as he tried to get me, I guess, or others, to think I was a shill for the NRA. It was a ridiculous exchange. Here goes-
“..I’ve come to a conclusion. You’re a shill for the NRA. I refuse to believe that anyone could really well and truly be so unselfaware as to say the things you continuously say. Everything you write comes across like a tea party member’s parody of what an anti-gun activist would act like. I refuse to believe that our opponents could possibly be so utterly, fruitlessly, and aggressively dim. As such, your number is up, and I’m calling you out. You’re nothing more than a shill in the employ of the NRA. The sooner you admit that this is nothing more than a long-running stunt, the better off we’ll all be.”

BAHAHAHA!  No, I guess not!  It looks like they were calling her a dimwit because of the stuff she says and the logical fallacies of it and to prove their point… she entirely MISSES that point and creates this new blog post to help ridicule herself.

Update: I just realized there *IS* already a term for this.  Peterson Syndrome, coined by Joe Huffman.  Notice how disconnected everything is that she writes? I don’t think she realizes the connections between the concepts even exist!

However, we do have a lovely bunch of coconuts… with which to throw. This is a riot!

  • “You don’t get out much, do you, japete?”
  • “The NRA is not the boogieman here, japete. Your side is. Stop trying to take my firearms, and we get along just fine. And don’t try to tell me that’s not your goal; I know better. I wasn’t born yesterday. If you cannot be honest (and you’re not; 18echo is correct again, your position is a willful misstatement of law) about what the castle doctrine is, you cannot be trusted to be honest about the agenda you seek. What is the “true agenda” of the NRA, japete? To make gun rights as normal as other rights protected by the Bill of Rights and internalized in the public’s mind? If so, damn right, and let’s get to it. “
  • ” Except, japete, you haven’t the guts to publish that which destroys your position. I’ve done so, repeatedly. You know it. I know it. Your response is to refuse to publish. Not particularly surprising. Coward.”
  • “Japete, do you even know what Due Process is? “
  • ” “I don’t believe that is true.”
    “That, of course, is a lie.”
    “I remain unconvinced.”
    “I have to publish your comments for their ludicrous nature.”
    “That is total nonsense…Everyone knows that “
    I wonder what kind of reaction you would give had these statements been directed at you? Thought you were the one wanting “reasoned discourse.” “
  • ” What are you planning to do to me and mine that you don’t want me to have a gun available while you’re doing it? And any doctor that presumed to lecture my children about gun safety, gets sued for malpractice. “
  • ” We are going to keep beating you over the head with our points just as often as you keep trying to do the same to us you retarded bell ringing monkey!!!!!
  • ” Did you Google IP address all by yourself, or do you have to call your undoubtedly exasperated nephew into the room every time you want to see what part of the country the big ol’ meanies might or might not live in? “

To prove the foolish nature of her posts…  that which is emboldened in the previous quote (a quote of quotes…  heh) are things that *SHE* says to her posters.  Not only that, but she repeats them any time she engages in Reasoned Discourse ™.

Note: Image courtesy of Robb Allen! (I hear he’s going to be outed next.)

I was going to make this another post, but instead I’m just going to keep it together with this.

Recently a gun control organization posted some of the real names of the gun rights activists hiding using screen names and anonymous postings. This was done because of many of the ugly verbal attacks made recently against victims and gun control advocates. Some of those names were actually already public knowledge.  It caused a fire storm of accusations and even shutting down of a Twitter account of one gun violence prevention group.

Even though she did not intend on it I’m sure, she does acknowledge that posting the IRL information of people is harassment in the eyes of the twitter TOS.  I do want to repeat what I said.  Linoge did NOT ask that the account be suspended.  He asked that they take care of 3 posts that included real life information of his.  We tried to post this to the anti side to let them know we did not ask for it, but they turned and relied on their Reasoned Discourse ™ skills yet again.  As japete indicates in her very own thread…  she moderates stuff.  She doesn’t lie and say because it’s harassment, she says “for obvious reasons.”  Reasoned Discourse ™.

Nowhere in her post does she condemn the releasing of personal information until it came to her own personal information.  The post in question is only going to be quoted.  I do not want to ping back any more than I have to…

Dear readers,

A few of you have threatened to publish my home address somewhere. I consider this to be a personal threat to me and my family. I do check IP addresses and the town and state coming from the comment at a certain time so in case you think you are being clever, think again. I will report any such activity to law enforcement. What are you planning to do with that information? Will someone come around and try to shoot me or my family? Will I be under your survelance now? Will you be outside of my house monitoring my activities? Are you this paranoid? What are your intentions with such information? Mere intimidation or do you mean some sort of dangerous action?

I’m no expert…  BUT THAT IS FEAR right there.  I think she’s genuinely afraid!  Yet when someone shows her exactly what CSGV did to our side by posting things such as places of work, she goes ballistic.  She refuses to acknowledge that there was any wrongdoing on their side!  To me, this was played PERFECTLY by the pro-gun side.  Whoever did it, congrats!  You made them play the only hand of the game and they still lost.  We didn’t post any IRL information.  It was posted to her moderated comments so it was obvious it was going to be moderated.  She posted the PERFECT response and without a doubt it was better than anything you’d hoped for.

Then again…  maybe she *IS* an NRA shill.  This looks exactly like it was written by us about them.

There are different opinions out there. But when one has an opinion different from another’s does that give them license to intimidate, demean, threaten and accuse? I think not. The blogoshpere has allowed for this to happen very publicly. It’s a dangerous trend and sometimes people act on their words. Bullying, intimidating, threatening and name calling don’t appeal to the majority. I suggest that those who want to continue along this line do so amongst themselves where this kind of language is apparently acceptable. Common sense tells us that these kind of comments turn most people away in disgust.

Yes, Joan Peterson.  It does turn most people away in disgust.  Keep in mind who it was that truly did that… Here’s a hint.  He’s not on twitter!  Now that you have a taste of the medicine your ally is dishing out, maybe you won’t be so quick to defend his actions like that.

Joan, the one thing I do have to say is you’re the one person that didn’t go and post our information, even if it is easy to get.  I could be wrong on this one, but it looks like you’ve kept to yourself with regards to what you’ve posted.  For that I do appreciate it.



  1. You linked to my post

    We’ve been setting rhetorical traps for her since forever. She is so dumb that she falls right in. Every time. I stopped commenting on her and mostly don’t bother reading anything she says because she said I was harrassing her about her Brother in Law, and heavily hinted that she would go to the police.

    Comment by sdsorrentino — May 20, 2011 @ 10:48 am

  2. Yup, that single, solitary post right there just sealed the entire question of whether or not Joan is mentally stable for me.

    She is not.

    That woman is, quite literally, four-sheets-to-the-wind bonkers. She is phsyically incapable of formulating, tracking, or even identifying a logical train of thought, and reacts tremendously violently to anyone who would dare point out that reality.

    Her hypocrisy, induced victimhood, and everything else, I would argue, simply stems from her apparent mental deficiencies…

    Damn, I almost feel sorry for the woman, and I would, if she were not so dead-set on destroying our individual rights at every available opportunity.

    Comment by Linoge — May 22, 2011 @ 3:00 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at