House of Eratosthenes

Blogsister Daphne called out my attention to Eternity Road, where all kinds of derision was being dumped upon us. At first, she simply mentioned it…I assumed there would be a trackback I could follow, somewhere, or at least that I could Google it. But it was not to be. Not enough traffic from those parts. So I had to ask her for a link, to get a better idea of where I was going wrong. And she pointed me to a homepage that eventually led me here. The place is run by one Frances W. Porretto.

I actually agree with Frances’ overall point which is “There’s no substitute for knowing how to argue your case.” Trouble is, he himself doesn’t seem to believe in it. What would I be arguing, exactly? And against what? He doesn’t like that I can recognize these small-l libertarians…not the Large L variety, who believe in limited government, individual freedom, live-and-let-live…but rather the “legalize drugs is all I care about” variety. He doesn’t like me pointing that out. Why exactly? He disagrees with the point about drugs being bad? He thinks they’re good? Or he doesn’t want me to have contempt for things, for which he doesn’t think I should have contempt? If it’s the former, then he is, indeed, a dimwit; and if it’s the latter, then he has renounced his credibility as a “libertarian.” At any rate, we know he likes to jump to conclusions about who can & can’t argue a point, without testing them on it.

It seems he’d prefer to enter is comments into a blog that could lay real claim to being a Blog That Nobody Reads.

Daphne tried to set him straight, pointing out to her, my intended meaning was crystal clear (as the author of the original comments, I can vouch that she hit a bulls-eye). Porretto was having none of it. Faced with truth, versus his interpretation of it, he ricocheted a terse command to our defender that she stop wasting his time. Being a lady of intelligence, class and dignity, she complied.

Comment #3 really impressed me, but probably not in the way he hoped to. What am I saying? He took special care to make sure I’d never see what he had to say:

Mr. Freeberg, in his purple haze blog that he says nobody reads, just likes to make lists. List makers, of course, like loooong lists, and sometimes take poetic license with the elements of their fancy. Freeberg, in fact, often numbers his lists with Roman numerals to add a certain mystique and gravitas to the list itself and the items listed.

Formatting your opinions as lists may not be the best way to promote your position, but it helps you to keep your place in the discussion and creates the impression that you know what you’re talking about. “Here’s my list; what about that, a**h***?”

Santa’s list, enemies lists, shopping lists, potential terrorist lists, things to do lists, no fly lists, sex offender lists, guest lists, gun registration lists, list of crimes on your rap sheet lists, etc. Think about it, Mr. Freeberg will run out of purple long before he runs out of lists.

Run out of purple? Someone please drop something in the comments below, clueing me in on what exactly that is supposed to mean. It’s { red=64 green=32 blue=128} foreground, { red=198 green=198 blue=246 } background; six bytes of the same data, over and over again. How does one “run out”? And there’s something egotistical or sanctimonious about list-making? Just damn.

I’m flabbergasted. Who the hell ever gets anything of any complexity accomplished somewhere, without making a list first?

I think that guy needs to make a few lists himself. Something gives me the general impression he’d really, really like to, and has more than a few ideas about what should go on them.

I hadn’t given it a great deal of thought before, certainly not as much as this fellow seems to think I have. But I guess making lists is just one of those vital yet simple things that some people never learn how to do — which speaks volumes about how little they have attempted to achieve in everyday life. And, as usual, when people cruise through life avoiding doing the simplest and most vital things, whenever they see someone else doing ’em, sometimes they get a little pissed.

Thing I Know #246. He who does, is a bigger man than he who does not. He who does not, but thinks out what is done, is better than those who think not. He who does not and thinks not, but respects those who do, is a bigger man than he who respects not.

Morgan, the thing I found so ironic about the Mr. Porretto’s post (which I politely refrained from mentioning in my comment) was the disconnect between the first half, in which he took Charles Johnson to the woodshed for publicly castigating fellow bloggers without reason, jumping to erroneous conclusions about other’s views and an inability to accept anyone disagreeing with his opinions, and the second half, focusing on one small item in your large post, where he proceeded to behave exactly like the man he had just finished berating for the very same behavour.

He was also quite contemptuous of Charles’ need to have his commenters conform and agree with his every word. Seems he and Charles have much in common.

I thought I was politely pointing out my view of your opinion in his thread, as I had no animosity towards the man. Hell, I hadn’t even formed an opinion about him or his site. I actually agreed with him about Charles run off the deep end, but I guess Mr. Porretto has a deep fondness for lemmings, a strange predilection for a capital L libertarian.

I still haven’t read his reply to me, the glimpse another of my commenters gave me was enough to realize I was dealing with a thin skinned man who has no interest in my honest, good willed take on his posts. I am sorry that I even mentioned it to you in an offhand manner in your thread, Morgan. I should never have bothered you with this small matter.
- Daphne | 05/24/2009 @ 21:41
Ah, think nothing of it. I’m the one who dragged it out of you anyway. Plus, so long as you evaluate this kind of information scientifically, it’s always worthwhile. It expands your horizons and you learn something…or, in this case, it doesn’t expand your horizons but you can still use it to validate that your previous notes (TIK #246) were right on-track.

Also, I think you worded my own ideas better than I did. Well done.
- mkfreeberg | 05/24/2009 @ 21:58
I wish now that I hadn’t commented on his site, but seeing as he had left a few good ones on mine, I thought to return the courtesy and I truly did find that particular top of the que post interesting. I thought we could maybe have a nice discussion.

Silly me.

I’m not too interested in being on anyone’s blogroll who doesn’t abide by the gentlemen’s rules we operate under. Strikes me as underhanded and skanky to neglect a trackback on a post, or blogger, you’re fisking with a vengeance.

Bet he didn’t trackback Charles, either. The wrath of the lizard nation would have crashed his site into rubble.
- Daphne | 05/24/2009 @ 22:19

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Someone Needs to Make a ListSunday, May 24th, 2009

Someone Needs to Make a List
Sunday, May 24th, 2009