I’ve got oodles and oodles of respect for Clayton Cramer’s work; I link to it frequently and find that his civilian defense blog is an invaluable resource. Clayton identifies himself as a libertarian who’s getting more conservative as he gets older.
Is it time to get him to swing back to a more socially libertarian viewpoint? Clayton’s a great ally, but so are the Pink Pistols in my book, and frankly I can’t fathom how a RKBA activist can think he’ll do anything but alienate valuable RKBA allies by posting this sort of homophobic, hateful crap on his website.
Am I overreacting? Clayton and I famously disagree on global warming, but that’s only tangentally related to the RKBA at best. But I see little to be gained by suggesting that homosexuals–who, amongst their number, count my sister, a pretty roundly outstanding citizen of our fair country–are evil people by linking to that sort of fetid nonsense.
Clayton responded to my query with a long screed about how homosexuals are more likely to smoke, do drugs, be alcoholics, and be the victims of child abuse.
Nice, eh?
It sucks to lose faith in someone whose work you appreciate.
Comment by Administrator — April 10, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
If you don’t want me to linking to copies of flyers put out by homosexual groups, maybe you should persuade homosexual groups to stop putting out such flyers.
And what’s hateful about it? Homosexual men do lick each others anuses–at least a fair number of them do so–enough that there’s a word for it: “rimming.” I’ve been seeing this sort of homosexual literature about this behavior for decades.
I used to be quite libertarian. But then I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for a number of years, and my eyes were opened.
Comment by Clayton E. Cramer — April 10, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
“Evil people”? Where did you get that? Evil is a pretty strong word, one that I wouldn’t use to describe someone simply for being homosexual. Confused. Lost. Misled. But “evil” I reserve for the people who march in gay pride parades and think that sex with children should be legal–the North American Man-Boy Love Association.
Comment by Clayton E. Cramer — April 10, 2007 @ 11:13 pm
Marching in a gay pride parade makes you evil?
What the fuck is wrong with you? How can you say that and not realize it’s a bigoted statement?
I guess you prudes up in Idaho are missing out on porn…cause guess what–there’s lots of anal oral contact in straight sexuality as well.
No issues with saying that NAMBLA are some pretty sick fucks. But it’s pretty sick of you to even intimate that they represent the gay community as a whole–and don’t even bother suggesting you’re not doing that.
Comment by Administrator — April 10, 2007 @ 11:23 pm
Oh, and BTW, my sister is gay.
She’s not confused. She’s not misled. She’s certainly not lost.
Fuck you for suggesting otherwise.
Comment by Administrator — April 10, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
“Marching in a gay pride parade makes you evil?”
Go back and re-read what I wrote. NAMBLA. Try this again.
I don’t watch porn. My sex life is just fine without it.
Comment by Clayton E. Cramer — April 10, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
Our email exchange:
>Where are the black parades where child molestation advocacy groups
>march?
Where are the gay marches where groups that hate honkeys and crackas march?
Logical fallacy–because NAMBLA shows up where gay people march, gay people have issues.
Weak.
>
>The point is that the analogy that you have bought into of sexual
>orientation to race is incorrect.
>>
See above.
>There might be different causes of homosexuality.
>
There’s significant debate as to whether homosexuality has “causes” in the first place. In any event…so what?
>You are pretty darn sure about your sister’s lack of abuse. One of
>the more interesting aspects of the problem of child sexual abuse is
>how much of it is repressed for years.
She wasn’t abused. Fuck you for even hinting otherwise.
That takes some gall on your part.
>I don’t consider them to be a negative. But I’m not prepared to
>pretend that homosexuals are completely healthy and normal just to
>keep such a group allied.
>
At least you’re honest about it. Would find their reaction to being told they’re not healthy interesting…
Unhealthy suggests that they’ve got an illness or a disorder. That might be your opinion, but there’s not much science to support that. Plenty of hateful people think that though…
>If you want to make some sort of pragmatic political argument for it
>(which I would NOT do), then which is more valuable? the pro-gun
>fraction of the 2-3% of Americans who are gay or bisexual, or the
>pro-gun fraction of the 60% of Americans who are hostile to
>homosexuality?
It’s not merely about pragmatism–it’s about not alienating the portion of the mushy middle that’s on the fence about guns but turned off by bigots like you.
>
>My experience is that pro-gun homosexuals (and I know a few)
>consider their right to self-defense more important than their
>political identity as homosexuals. Of course, these tend to be
>pretty conservative homosexuals–not the sort who spend Saturday
>night lying facedown getting sodomized by a line of guys that they
>don’t ever see face to face.
Yeah, cause that’s what being gay is all about
> And this isn’t a vicious stereotype;
>this is a common behavior in some parts of the gay community (at
>least in the Bay Area).
Stereotype much?
>
>So far, all you are doing is showing that you don’t much about the
>social pathology of the homosexual community (which is substantially
>more severe among gay men than among lesbians).
I won’t even dignify that unqualified and misinformed bullshit with a response.
Comment by Administrator — April 10, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
Go back and re-read what I wrote. NAMBLA. Try this again.
Perhaps you should have been more clear: you wrote “march in gay parades AND…”
It sounded like you were talking about two different groups of folks.
Comment by Administrator — April 10, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
“Perhaps you should have been more clear: you wrote “march in gay parades AND…â€?
“It sounded like you were talking about two different groups of folks.”
A AND B means “true for both conditions A and B”. Otherwise I would have written “OR.”
Comment by Clayton E. Cramer — April 10, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
>I’m not going to waste anymore time dealing with an issue that is
>emotionally pretty difficult for you:
Yeah, bigotry is emotionally and intellectually something I have a problem with. Don’t expect an apology.
> but it isn’t a coincidence
>that NAMBLA marches where gay people march.
Nor is it a coincidence that Skinheads hang out at punk shows or black hate groups flock to NOI and Sharpton speechs. As per usual, you’re dodging the question: so fuckin what? Your attempts to suggest the fringe groups and outliers represent the whole are transparent bigotry.
> NAMBLA identifies
>itself as part of the gay community,
Something most mainstream gays don’t particulary care for or celebrate.
>and many homosexual activists
>(although probably not many of the non-activists) have historically
>identified NAMBLA as part of their community.
>
>
And many don’t.
If you want an exact analogy: imagine if civil rights groups
>marched, and there was a group calling itself, “Black Men Seeking
>Repeal of Rape of White Women Laws” marched in the same parade
>without the legitimate civil rights groups protesting or telling
>this bunch where to go. There’s your analogy.
I’d have the same objection to them that I have to NAMBLA.
Unlike you, I wouldn’t use the existence of such a fringe group to suggest that minorities have something akin to mental illness or an ethical shortcoming because of something that is an inherent and immutable part of their sexuality and psyche.
Comment by Administrator — April 10, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
Wow. That’s sad.
Mr. Cramer, I see that you’ve been reading this, and I just want to let you know - that post says a hell of a lot about you. None of it good, unfortunately.
Sebastian - good looking out, I’ve checked out his blog a few times, but no more after that. Opinion is one thing, but that’s a bit much for me.
Comment by Jay — April 10, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
By the way - I happen to like girls and guys. I’m not confused, misled, lost, or sick. I don’t think kids are sexy, and I don’t march ANYWHERE, let alone with child molestors and sex offenders.
Comment by Jay — April 10, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
Thanks for checkin in Jay.
My goal isn’t to annoy, alienate, or even really insult Clayton.
My point is to call him out; he asks what’s more important, the 60% of Americans who don’t like gays or the 2-3% of RKBA advocates who happen to be gay or bisexual…and my goal is to show people that THAT is the wrong question. The people in the 60% he’s talking about who are pro-RKBA are NOT going to start advocating or voting against the RKBA just because people like Clayton don’t engage in homophobic rantings. In short…we can win the people who don’t like gays over to the RKBA (we already have most of them to hear some antis tell it) without having to engage in bigoted crap that scares away important allies.
We all know the key to preserving self defense and the RKBA is winning over the mushy middle who suspects that the RKBA is a civil and human right, but doesn’t want to be associated with the bigoted right wing. No one can deny that having the RKBA associated with the far right, evangelical, and bible thumpin crowd is the kiss of death for us.
If we want people to respect our RKBA, we should reciprocate by respecting the rights of others. Part and parcel of respecting the rights of others is NOT suggesting they’ve got a mental disorder if they behave in ways or make choices that you don’t approve of. PERIOD.
Pointing to the problems the gay community has is irrelevant in the context of the RKBA and who deserves it…but it does do a lot to showing who carries around bigoted baggage.
Oh, and if you think only gay men engage in analingus…you really are a sheltered sap. I mean…geezus. Like I said…I can provide links if you like.
Comment by Administrator — April 11, 2007 @ 12:06 am
While we’re on the subject… it’s high time we did something about those damn perverse heteros. The majority of sexual abuse of children is commited by “breeders”. Its high time these people were reigned in… “think of the children.” Not to mention the pervese sexual acts heteros engage in; bondage, s&m, anal sex, acts involving feces and urine, girls gone wild! Obviously heteros are a threat to “right thinking”(tm) America and should be rounded up and gassed.
Clayton is simply an intolerant hick who feels threatened by gay people. He is an enemy to those of use who want to fight the stereotype that gun owners are just bigoted fat old white guys.
Comment by Sprocket — April 11, 2007 @ 1:18 am
“The majority of sexual abuse of children is commited by “breedersâ€?.”
That’s strictly demographics. A homosexual is much more likely to sexually abuse a child than a heterosexual. That is according to the same statistics that you rest your “round ‘em up” wishes on. (Since you brought up the subject.) Pick a different category to hate by.
When I was a teenager I lost a few “friends” for treating gays like everyone else. The “friends” weren’t worth keeping and the resultant rumors were worth a smirk and laugh and a good riddance.
Today, gays are associated with vicious hatred for others. From outing other gays who choose to keep their sexual orientation private to attacking conservative gays (as gays) for political heresy. The incredible hatred expressed by gay rights groups and their supporters toward Christians and Christian (and only Christian) religions that consider homosexual acts a sin. The VM, where the sexual abuse of a child by an adult homosexual is praised as a liberating experience for the “lucky” young girl. It is just sad that there are not enough gays who disagree with such tactics to intimidate the haters into shamed silence as others do to those who speak with such hatred toward gays.
I guess the image of gays as loving and gentle people just didn’t get it done. Time will tell if “defiant hatred” (my generous description of the whole transformation) will make people more likely to want those who hate as neighbors. Meanwhile, see a doctor regularly, Sprocket. Hatred is unhealthy as anything.
Comment by mikem — April 11, 2007 @ 5:05 am
I am reminded of the scene in the 4th season of the Sopranos where they give Christopher an intervention about his drug use, and Paulie and Syl start beating his head in
.
Now, now, Sprocket, this is an intervention. The point is not to judge or berate Clayton, but to recognize that he’s a good friend of the RKBA and that his work in our favor is invaluable…but that it’s not good when prominent RKBA activists link to stuff like that Americans for Truth website.
Look at it this way: don’t you think Ceasefire Maryland would be tickled absolutely pink to learn that I’d been arrested for dealing heroin in the alley behind my house or that I’d been using my Glock to mug people in Baltimore? Of course they would.
As RKBA activists, our behavior–including behavior in non-related subjects–can and is used against us by those who would deny us our freedoms.
Comment by Administrator — April 11, 2007 @ 6:37 am
Why did you remove my comment?
Comment by mikem — April 11, 2007 @ 6:58 am
I didn’t, sometimes the spam filter catches real actual human beings and every few hours I have to check on it.
That’s strictly demographics. A homosexual is much more likely to sexually abuse a child than a heterosexual.
Men are far, far more likely to abuse children than women. White people are more likely to abuse children than Native Americans. So what? The logical fallacy you’re promulgating here is pretty obvious–all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Just because many pedophiles tend to have homosexual tendencies in no way suggests that a person might have pedophilic tendencies just because they’re gay.
I mean…really. How many gay women have you met with pedophilia problems?
Today, gays are associated with vicious hatred for others.
Oh fuck, here we go again with the “us poor, downtrodden abused white Christian males” thing. I don’t delete comments here, but please spare us that bullshit.
The great majority of gay people just want to be respected and left the fuck alone. I don’t cry any crocodile tears for white racists in 1950s Jim Crow land who objected to what MLK and Malcolm X had to say, and I really don’t see why we should either A) expect gay people to always turn the other cheek at Christofacist assholes who make bigoted statements about them, argue that they have mental disorders, and try to deny them basic human freedoms, and B) feel sorry for anti-gay bigots who feel picked on because some gay activists take them to task for being assholes.
You’re welcome to comment here anytime, mikem, but the idea that gay people’s hatred of Christians (assuming it’s even common enough to warrant discussion, something you haven’t established) is even close to the problem that the Religious Right’s hatred of gay people is is just fuckin stupid. The RR uses sites like Americans For Truth to promulgate the idea that gay people have a mental disorder; right wing Christian groups openly espouse the idea that gay people are morally repugnant and should be treated like second class citizens. I don’t see many gay people arguing the same thing about Christians. Your moral equivocation is no better than the assholes who suggest American troops are no better than terrorists because they both kill people.
Comment by Administrator — April 11, 2007 @ 7:12 am
Whee! Flamefest!
Comment by K-Romulus — April 11, 2007 @ 8:16 am
What’s the “VM”, for those of us ignorant on the sidelines?
Comment by Matt — April 11, 2007 @ 8:41 am
Er, did you look at the flier in question? Was there anything there that wasn’t true? If so, could you point to it? ‘Cause I don’t see anything that’s false, or untrue. In fact, compared to the whitenight fliers, it’s pretty tame.
There’s an ick factor that a lot of people have for stuff like that. You don’t like that, ok, but that doesn’t change the facts. Arguing against facts is pretty much like pissing in the wind.
Comment by nobody — April 11, 2007 @ 9:43 am
Mikem, time to increase your word power. Your new words for the day are Satire, Parody, and Farce.
True though that gays are hateful. I went to a Sisters of Perpetual Indugence event this weekend. Oh my god, it was like the Roman coleseum in drag. Horrible, horrible, it’s taken me days just to be able to speak of it without crying… ahh yeah. I suggest you go troll someplace where people may not actually know gays… maybe an dixie flag belt buckle collectors forum or some thing.
Sebastian, I understand your point. But, I don’t agree. Being associated with clowns like Clayton can only hurt us in the long run. The ignorant peckerwood image is one of the most harmful things to our cause. The sooner we throw Clayton et al under the bus the better for our long term success.
Comment by Sprocket — April 11, 2007 @ 10:05 am
Good God, he’s been to San Francisco and he’s still back on the farm. Since Clayton has a penchant for tossing about “data” on the link between gays and various maladies, he should note the advantage a straight guy has in a town full of straight women. Rimming indeed! These guys so full of prejudice against gays should take note: you are around them, eating with them, talking with them, everyday — you just don’t know it. So be nice — they may be packing.
Comment by SteveM — April 11, 2007 @ 10:11 am
Er, did you look at the flier in question? Was there anything there that wasn’t true? If so, could you point to it? ‘Cause I don’t see anything that’s false, or untrue. In fact, compared to the whitenight fliers, it’s pretty tame.
Just to be clear, the reproduction of the flier wasn’t what bothered me, it was the Americans For the Truth (what the fuck truth might that be, anyway?) commentary and their general policy positions that I object to.
The fliers themselves weren’t particularly outlandish; I can see how people that don’t think much of gay sexuality wouldn’t care to read them. There’s plenty of coarse and graphic description of anal sex, oral sex, etc…frankly the same discussions centered around hetero sex tend to piss off a lot of people too.
If you think the fliers are icky…great! Not really something I’d want to read either for the most part. I’m as hetero as they come (probably a little too hetero, with the string of disgruntled ex girlfriends to prove it, believe me) but I really don’t think RKBA advocates should be publicly casting aspersions about the lifestyles of others.
To be blunt, most people here hate the stereotype of gunnies as beer bellied rednecks with confederate flags draped from our rusty pickups. So why shouldn’t RKBA heads try to avoid falling in the same traps?
Comment by Administrator — April 11, 2007 @ 10:41 am
Honestly, I’ve heard more graphic descriptions on the “Sex Talk” show on cable and a lot more innuendo on Fox. While I think the superstar stuff is a bit sitcom-ish, Goddess forbid we tell people they shouldn’t be ashamed for not fitting into the cultural ‘norm’.
Comment by Thirdpower — April 11, 2007 @ 10:59 am
Two things should be pointed out which put this into perspective.
1) Rimming — anyone remember a little thing called the “Starr Report.” Monica Lewinsky did exactly THIS to our last President.
2) The pamphlet actually gave extremely sound advice regarding the behavior. It said DON’T DO IT UNLESS YOU HAVE A BARRIER.
Comment by Jon Rowe — April 11, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Quit confusing us with the facts, Jon.
Comment by Administrator — April 11, 2007 @ 11:43 am
To be blunt, most people here hate the stereotype of gunnies as beer bellied rednecks with confederate flags draped from our rusty pickups. So why shouldn’t RKBA heads try to avoid falling in the same traps?
But I don’t see Cramer engaging in stereotypes. Neither do you, because you already agreed there’s nothing false in the flier in question. So what’s your real gripe with him? Isn’t it that he doesn’t agree with you on an issue that isn’t relevent to RKBA?
Interesting way to celebrate diversity you got, there; “agree with me or you’re a bigot”.
Comment by nobody — April 11, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
1) Rimming — anyone remember a little thing called the “Starr Report.� Monica Lewinsky did exactly THIS to our last President.
No shit? Er…I mean, no kidding? I must have missed that part, but I didn’t really get too far into it..uh..damn the double entendres, full speed ahead and all that.
What the hell is VM, Mikem? I’m not trying to flame you, I don’t particularly agree with you but I’m trying to understand what you’re saying to even know if I agree or disagree.
Comment by Matt — April 11, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
You’ve never heard me take a position on people who are gay or black or white or are hetrosexual or are left handed or are Baptists or . . .
I’m a single issue person. I’m for RKBA and anybody who is for RKBA and can keep their involvement with me related to RKBA is ok by me.
Other people are more complex. Some despise gay people, some even despise Democrats. I think such feelings openly expressed can detract from their effectiveness. That is part of the reason I never talk about other issues — you never can tell, but the moment you decide to support prohibition of alcohol, there might be a pro-RKBA scotch drinker that would be offended at your stance and would stop being your ally.
So, I’m not happy to see this thread.
Sebastian, you should have more sense than to stir the pot. Clayton, you should have more sense than to respond to pot stiring.
Comment by Phil Lee — April 11, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
But I don’t see Cramer engaging in stereotypes.
My gripe isn’t that he’s stereotyping, it’s that he’s reinforcing a bad stereotype about us. Thought that was made pretty clear…
So what’s your real gripe with him? Isn’t it that he doesn’t agree with you on an issue that isn’t relevent to RKBA?
Oh, gimme a break, and quit being so facile. My gripe is that he linked to an anti gay hate site. And it IS relevant to the RKBA. Clayton and I disagree on and debate other issues in private emails and you don’t read about it here because I agree with Phil that most of it is better left alone.
But when I see a prominent RKBA advocate engaging in bigotry that’s going to make us look bad, I’m going to point it out.
Interesting way to celebrate diversity you got, there; “agree with me or you’re a bigot�.
Man that bullshit is getting really tired. You don’t have to agree with me to not be a bigot, but you do have to not link to hate sites. If you can’t see the difference, you’re probably doing as much harm to the RKBA as Clayton might. We need to have a bit more moral clarity and be able to distinguish between the two.
Phil: I largely do avoid stirring the pot on this sort of thing, but when I see a prominent RKBA advocate doing something that’s going to hurt the cause, I feel compelled to speak up. I would expect you to hold me to the same standard.
Comment by Administrator — April 11, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
Nobody: before you post again, you need to read this:
http://progunprogressive.com/?p=409
I think I made it pretty clear that I’m not advocating intellectual conformity or suggesting you have to agree with me on every issue. So knock it off, eh?
Comment by Administrator — April 11, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
Let’s review the story. You picked a fight with Clayton Cramer because you don’t like his criticism of homosexuality, and don’t like him posting a flier from a homosexual group on his website. You were unable to find anything false in the flier, yet you called him mentally ill (”Phobia” is a medical term) and falsely accused him of calling homosexuals “evil”. When he corrected you and observed that he did not find them evil, you did not have the guts to apologize or retract your false accusation. It’s still there, and you know it is false. You then piously claimed that “people shouldn’t alienate others by calling them mentally ill”, in a magnificent display of progressive doublethink worthy of Winston Smith. (You can find out who he was via Google)
Next, you’ve had a hissy fit over my mild observations, responding to any criticism of your witch hunt against Cramer by ordering me to read some things, and to not say other things. I can see that you are indeed a progressive, not only by what you say, but by what you do not say.
Specifically, I point to comments that suggest Cramer is mentally ill, that he should be thrown under a bus, that consist of “fuck you if you don’t agree with me”…you have no objection to those comments. Do you agree with them? So far as I can tell, you do. Certainly you have not come out in the open to chastise those that physically threaten Cramer, but you have taken the time to respond to me, and pretty much only me.
Who is Clayton Cramer?
Clayton Cramer was the only author who had the guts to take on Bellesiles. Regardless of what your progressive pals in academia may say, he and only he is the reason “Arming America” is on the remainder shelf. Then he went on to write the book that should have been written. He writes regularly for Shotgun News, and some other publications.
Who are you?
I tried to search your site for the books you’ve written, but can’t seem to find them. Could you please list off your publications on RKBA, including any columns that you’ve written for Shotgun News or other magazines or newspapers? Thanks, in advance.
From what I can see, Cramer has done a great deal for RKBA. I haven’t ever heard of you before, and frankly what I’ve read on this weblog so far is not impressive. You don’t seem to take criticism or even disagreement very well at all, just for a start. You seem to have arrogated to yourself the power to decide who is worthy of defending the RKBA, and who is not…a power that Neal Knox never had, that Wayne LaPierre doesn’t have, that Joe Foss never had.
Where do you get off deciding who is to be thrown under a bus, please?
PS: It seems to take a very long time for my comments to be posted. Much longer than comments by your clique of yes-boys. Wonder why that is?
Comment by nobody — April 11, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
When you say “Phil: I largely do avoid stirring the pot on this sort of thing, but when I see a prominent RKBA advocate doing something that’s going to hurt the cause, I feel compelled to speak up” you’ve appointed yourself maiden aunt for our family. You might never have had your own maiden aunt, but the primary role for such a person is to provide instruction for how we are to sit (up straight), dress (neat with polished shoes and dresses below the knee for females), and act (”say yes sir and no sir”), etc.
Maiden aunts are self-appointed regulators of family conduct. Never liked a maiden aunt and always thought they were a bit silly.
You need to control your compulsions lest you become a maiden aunt yourself. If you can’t, nobody will take you seriously. I forgive you because I know you grew up in the “progressive” (Democratic) community which approves of maiden aunts and tries to make as many of them as they can. But, to be taken seriously with us, you need to be a man (even if you are a woman) and be in control of compulsions. It also helps if you can be a bit more calculating.
Phil
PS Clayton — Sebastian is young and learning. By and large he is a good sort. You need to consider him as you would any young person who is a bit wet behind the ears.
Comment by Phil Lee — April 11, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
First of all, nobody you’re posting from an anonymous name and you’re new here. Your comments are being caught in the spam filter. Get over it and grow the fuck up.
If I wanted to delete them I would.
“Let’s review the story. You picked a fight with Clayton Cramer because you don’t like his criticism of homosexuality, and don’t like him posting a flier from a homosexual group on his website.”
Wrong. You’re welcome to disagree, but you are NOT welcome to misrepresent my arguments, especially in light of how clear I’m being. Everyone else seems to get it but you. This is my site, I work a lot on it, it’s my money and my effort that keeps it going, and the only person who shits on it is you. I’m looking for a reason why I should let you continue to participate here. I don’t shit on your house…lots of people disagree with me vehemently here, and I don’t censor them. Ask countertop. Ask Phil. Ask Bill. I’ve got no problem with competing viewpoints…but if you willfully and repeatedly make outright slanders and fabrications about me on MY site, why should I put up with it?
I never said I objected to him posting the flier. I objected to the content of the AFT site. I’ve clarified that several times now.
Either get the story straight or don’t come to this site any more, asshole.
“You were unable to find anything false in the flier,”
Never said I would find anything “false”. That’s not the point dipshit.
“yet you called him mentally ill ”
Phobia doesn’t indicate mental illness, you armchair psychiatrist wannabe. It indicates an irrational fear, which clearly he has.
“When he corrected you and observed that he did not find them evil, you did not have the guts to apologize or retract your false accusation.”
Clayton does believe that gays are morally misguided and repugnant, and has stated as much in emails to me. I have nothing to apologize for.
“You then piously claimed that “people shouldn’t alienate others by calling them mentally illâ€?, in a magnificent display of progressive doublethink worthy of Winston Smith. (You can find out who he was via Google)”
No, I said we shouldn’t alienate the gay community. I never said anyone was mentally ill. Clayton was the only person here to have said that. And I have a degree in philosophy and American History from William and Mary, you can spare me the condescension. It’s awful hard to get out of 10th grade without having read Orwell.
Keep insulting your host…very mature.
“Next, you’ve had a hissy fit over my mild observations, responding to any criticism of your witch hunt against Cramer by ordering me to read some things, and to not say other things”
No, I object to the fact that unlike every other person who posts on this site, you can’t behave like an adult. Part of being an adult is not continually misrepresenting someone else’s position, especially from behind an anonymous screenname.
As for your insults about my site, GO FUCK YOURSELF. Nobody’s making you read it. If you think my contributions to the RKBA aren’t helpful…then don’t read my site. But I hardly think I need justify my site to you. Where’s YOUR blog? Today when the Brady bunch went looking for an RKBA blog to pick on, they chose MINE, not yours.
Frankly in terms of RKBA content, I’ve found that my site gets consistent props and is linked to by dozens of other bloggers on a regular basis. My peers think the work I do has merit, and their opinions are what counts. If you think you can do better, let’s see your efforts. I lobby and testify on behalf of the RKBA on a regular basis, I’m on a first name basis with legislators fighting for our cause, I consult for legislators fighting for our cause, I’m recognized and offered a healthy dose of respect by Paul Helmke and Peter Hamm and Casey Anderson (some of our biggest enemies).
By way of comparison…you’re hiding behind an anonymous screen name. I hardly think your criticism of my pro-RKBA work carries much if any weight. I’ve got little to apologize for to an anonymous troll like yourself.
I really think your reading comp sucks. You’ll notice I gave Clayton tons of due respect and praise for the work he’s done. I’ve never even remotely suggested he’s not a valuable ally. I’d love to get to write books on the RKBA or any other subject. Maybe someday when I don’t have two jobs, one in telecom sales and the other running a startup biofuel operation, run a community development organization, volunteer at an animal shelter, work out, participate in the Guardian Angels (where I was while you were busy writing cowardly insults about my blog behind an anonymous screen name), and practice shooting once in a while after all of that…I’ll get to write a book. You can insult that all ya want as well behind an anonymous screen name.
I’m simply criticising Clayton for doing something that hurts our cause.
As for Phil’s comments…Phil, buddy, I love ya and all, but with all due respect, don’t you dare condescend to me in that fashion. I’m a 32 year old tax paying adult with an education and a professional background, not some punk kid. I don’t condescend and talk down to you on your site, don’t come do it here on my site. I dunno, I’m sure you were trying to be lighthearted and give me a jocular, funny elbow in the ribs…but man that just rubbed me the wrong way. It’s been a long day and I’m grumpy and that sort of humor seems inappropriate in this context.
I can really do with out it. Your support of my work has always been important to me so I don’t want to alienate you…but I think you touched a nerve without meaning to. Knowwhatuhmean?
I mean…consider what you’re saying–just because I’m criticising someone I’m appointing myself “mother hen”? BULLSHIT. We should not criticize others when the fuck up just so you don’t think we’re being mother hens? That’s ridiculous, and it has nothing to do with being a progressive–it has to do with rational people realizing that we have to be free to criticism members of our own team when they screw up or do things that don’t reflect well on us. Please do save that Rush Limbaugh “you liberals think you know what’s best” shit for somebody with an IQ that isn’t in triple digits. Rational people of all political stripes can criticize each other without being “maiden aunts” or “mother hens”.
We here in the RKBA have to be free to point out to each other in a constructive fashion when we fuck up. Clayton fucked up.
I think I made it pretty goddamn clear that I respect his work and value his contributions (which of course that nobody idiot chooses to ignore). I’ve got nothing but respect for the guy and took one of the posters here to task for suggesting we toss the guy overboard.
But I seriously disagree with your point and frankly find it noxious–we have to be free to disagree with each other and criticise each other or we’ll never get better. Just because someone is an RKBA friend, a brother in arms, doesn’t mean he should be insulated from reproach from others.
Comment by Administrator — April 11, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
I really think your reading comp sucks.
I don’t see any evidence that you think at all, although you emote very well and extensively.
You’ll notice I gave Clayton tons of due respect and praise for the work he’s done. I’ve never even remotely suggested he’s not a valuable ally.
Nah, you just want to throw him under a bus, because he won’t toe your ideological line. We know this because when your yesboy Sprocket posted this:
The sooner we throw Clayton et al under the bus the better for our long term success.
Comment by Sprocket — April 11, 2007 @ 10:05
you didn’t have a single problem with it. Looks like your “oodles and oodles” of respect doesn’t last very long.
Again, I post here anonymously because I don’t want to put up with the death threats, harassing phone calls and other things that tend to go with speaking truth to progressives. Your pals in the gay rights groups have been doing that to Clayton Cramer off and on for about 15 years now. They didn’t shut him up. What makes you think you’ll be able to silence him?
Comment by nobody — April 11, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
Administrator, I’ll take you at your word that you are active in Maryland RKBA. Since I’m over 1,000 miles away, the names you throw at me are meaningless, but I’ll assume they are real.
I sure do hope that you don’t interact with legislators the way you have with Cramer. Screaming obscenities the second someone disagrees with you is no way to get anything done in the real world. You say you have a degree from a university, but based on what I’ve read on this weblog, I would have guessed you were maybe 22 years old, taking a minimal courseload and spending a lot of quality time with a Playstation.
Maybe that’s not the image you want to give. But that’s the one I’m getting, and I bet I’m not the only one. Your temper tantrums aren’t convincing, and not original enough to be amusing.
Comment by nobody — April 11, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
I don’t see any evidence that you think at all, although you emote very well and extensively.
I’m not the one making basic factual errors by suggesting anyone here is calling all Christians fascists (which you fail to substantiate) and misrepresenting the positions of others.
Nah, you just want to throw him under a bus, because he won’t toe your ideological line. We know this because when your yesboy Sprocket posted this:
More factual errors from you. I do NOT want Clayton tossed overboard. I’ve been ABUNDANTLY clear that I value his work and respect him, and that I don’t think we should abandon him. That’s why this was an “intervention”, not an assassination. I’ve also been excruciatingly clear that I don’t think he has to toe any line at all or like gay people in the least. In other words…you’re misrepresenting what I’m saying while posting anonymously. That isn’t going to last here…sorry.
you didn’t have a single problem with it. Looks like your “oodles and oodles� of respect doesn’t last very long.
Wrong again. I told Sprocket I disagree and that we shouldn’t abandon Clayton. I didn’t blast him for saying that as he’s welcome to disagree with me on that point…so much for me as a progressive demanding intellectual conformity, eh? Sprocket and I can simply agree to disagree on that point.
As for silencing Clayton, pretty sure I don’t want to do that. He’s too valuable for our cause. I just want to take him to task for linking to a homophobe hate site.
As for you last post, I’ll let it stand but it’s the last time you’ll post anything here insulting me or my efforts. It’s pretty clear you haven’t read any of the 400+ posts on this site besides the ones you stumbled upon from Clayton’s site and you’re not in a position to judge the quality of my work.
As I said in the other thread, posting anonymously for the reasons you offered smacks of cowardice. If you feel compelled to remain anonymous, great, but if you want that privilege you have to show the owner of the site just a weeee bit more respect than you’ve done here. You’ve lied and misrepresented my positions, insulted other people who post here, made juvenile comments about the quality of my work, insinuated negative things about my RKBA efforts that you’re admittedly not qualified to make, and generally made a nuisance of yourself.
If you did all that without being anonymous, I wouldn’t mind. But anonymously hurling insults at me on my own site that I spend hours working on and pay hard earned money to support just ain’t gonna happen.
If you wanna be anonymous, you better play nice.
I’d like to say it’s been nice having you here…but it hasn’t.
Comment by Administrator — April 12, 2007 @ 8:49 am
Nobody:
If you don’t know who Paul Helmke and Peter Hamm are, you really don’t know much about RKBA. They are not Maryland specific. In fact they are the President and Communications Director of the Brady Campaign.
Comment by Thirdpower — April 12, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Funny how after Thirdpower torpedo’ed “nobody” amidships by pointing out how uninformed he is…he strangely enough decided to not come back.
I can’t imagine life being so boring that I’d want to be an Internet Troll.
Comment by Administrator — April 12, 2007 @ 4:09 pm