Dave Lieber is a columnist for Fort Worth Star-Telegram who has found himself in a bizarre situation where he has been criminally charged for telling his 11-year-old son to walk home a few blocks from McDonalds. It began with an argument in McDonald’s and Lieber leaving his son to walk home. Lieber would return a short time later to find police speaking to his son and thought that the matter was closed by an amicable reunion and mutual apologies of the father and son. It wasn’t.
Lieber wrote about the experience in an August 15th column, describing how he returning after cooling off to find officers speaking with his son. He described his actions as “stupid and quite serious mistake” despite support from his readers who said that they have taken the same approach with disrespectful kids. That is when it got weird. Lieber, 51, was arrested by detectives of Watauga, Texas for child abandonment and endangerment, according to Detective Tiffany Ward.
State law defines abandonment as intentionally leaving a child younger than 15 “in any place under circumstances that expose the child to an unreasonable risk of harm.” Walking home a few blocks from McDonald’s is exposing a child to unreasonable risk of harm? How dangerous are the streets of Watauga? Yet, Lieber (who has been suspended by the newspaper) accepts that his actions “could have exposed my son to grave danger. I do know that. But in the moment of anger, I didn’t think clearly.”
I am probably the most protective, risk-adverse parent on Earth. My wife accuses me of wanting to turn the four kids into bubble babies. I would not use this type of punishment or scared straight technique. However, it is an example in my view of how we have criminalized every aspect of our lives, here.
For the full article, click here.
Maybe the “unreasonable risk of harm” was that he left him in the McDonald’s. Who knows what he would eat without parental supervision?
I agree that the overprotectiveness is baffling. My sister and I were walking a mile through our suburban neighborhood to our elementary school, unescorted, in first grade. (I think I did escort her home for the first few years, but you’re still talking of a third-grader escorting a second-grader.) There were other kids around, but again the oldest would have only been a sixth-grader.
In retrospect it’s hard to defend that, but saying a 5th grader(?) can’t walk two blocks is incomprehensible.
This is from a website called, Free Range Kids:
“Do you ever…
..let your kid ride a bike to the library? Walk alone to school? Take a bus, solo? Or are you thinking about it? If so, you are raising a Free Range Kid! At Free Range, we believe in safe kids. We believe in helmets, car seats and safety belts. We do NOT believe that every time school age children go outside, they need a security detail. Most of us grew up Free Range and lived to tell the tale. Our kids deserve no less. This site dedicated to sane parenting. Share your stories, tell your tips and maybe one day I will try to collect them in a book. Meantime, let’s try to help our kids embrace life! (And maybe even clear the table.)”
I agree with you Chris, that this is incomprehensible. There are several people who have written books on our inacurrate “threat assessment” ability in this society and how it damages us, both as adults and children. “Last Child in the Woods” is one such book. These unexamined fears do not enrich our lives, they are constricting them in very important ways. I will also add that these constant, inaccurate fears keep us blindly obediant to the fear mongering of this govt.
I think having one’s parent arrested would be rather terrifying to a child. I would have hoped police would worry about the effect of their own behavior instead of the father’s.
A few weeks back I met up with some neighbors on a walk. They were quite upset that another neighbor didn’t cut down the trees by her house because, “somebody could break in without being seen”. I have lived here for years. We’ve had exactly one crime (not counting unreported domestic violence), and that appeared to be insurance fraud. Everywhere I go people seem terrified. It creates such a contradiction of mistrust in our everyday interactions with each other and a complete authoritarian trust in distant, often, most untrustworthy officials.
Mr. Lieber was a jerk, because as a parent your job is to supervise your 11yr. old, not throw up your hands and say “I’m out of here.”
However, I don’t know anything about Wautauga, Texas, so it is hard to judge whether there was any danger entailed. Is it a high crime area? What is the nature of the traffic? We have reached a point in the US where as parents we have become over-protective of our children. Much of this is the fear inculcated in us by the media, mainly TV.
We are made to believe that our country is infested by serial killers and sex perverts. While there are such people out there, we are made to believe that the dangers to our children are far greater, than perhaps they are. Yet, when my kids were young my wife and I were very, very protective parents. Perhaps my background in Child Welfare multiplied my fears. However, our daughters, when each was age 11 walked home from school, 3/4 of a mile away, with their friends. We lived in a safe town and we knew the extent of our daughters maturity.
In my opinion, given these facts without any negatives we don’t see in the story, the man should not have been charged with two felonies. Knowing Child Welfare though, his biggest problem arose from writing the story. Although he admirably was willing to publicly confess his mistake, nothing drives Child Welfare cases like publicity. In NYC whenever a bad Child Welfare case would hit the papers, pressure would come down from City Hall to our Commissioner, basically telling her/him to take no chances with other cases. This invariably led to a rise in child removals and police charges, in many cases where drastic action was not called for, or demanded by the facts. My guess is the man’s column caused the reaction of the authorities.
Jill,
I agree with your take entirely. The media and the government has scared us all as citizens. This is both a strategy of social control by the government and to capture ratings (advertising dollars)by the media. Add to that the popularity of horror and disaster films whose typical plot is: Innocent, likable people are introduced in the beginning and then killed off by an unstoppable evil. The message in all forms is: Life is unsafe and ready to kill you at any minute.
People have become frightened and to parents the most frightening thing that can happen is your child being hurt. Yet, with all the killings, wars, plagues, illnesses and genocides that are about in the world, this is ironically the safest time in human history. That’s because, to paraphrase, Life has always been bloody, brutal and short.
We all nostalgically look back to our youth, when things were somehow simpler and more innocent. Yet I was born a Jew, during WWII and might not still be alive if the Nazi’s won. I grew up in the 50′s, when headlines railed at teen gang violence. I had to fight almost every day of my school career until my junior year in high school. Yet those times were safer than what was faced during the Depression Era, or during the time my parents were growing up.
God only knows what my immigrant grandparents faced in Europe and in coming to America.
The difference was that in earlier era’s people weren’t bombarded by frightening news, fueled by politics and profit. The technique existed (Joseph Goebbels for one) but the technology wasn’t as all encompassing. They faced difficult and frightening lives, no doubt, but their fear levels were not as artificially elevated.
Mike:
I did read one article which described this as a low-crime area. McDonalds itself is certainly high-risk for heart disease and obesity, but those are more long term dangers.
Nice grab from the web, Jill.
JT,
Given that then from whatever expertise I’ve gained from Child Welfare, two felonies is ridiculous and arrest/bail is absurd.
What’s funny about this pathetic story?
It takes place in Texas; of course.
Bob,
You know that’s such a good point, considering the Texas mythos of rugged individualism. It’s a State of massive contradiction.
I wonder if this guy is somehow disliked because of his “watchdog” column. Perhaps he is being singled out and charged for a reason other than trying to punish for what sounds like nonfelonious conduct. This is absurd.
Mike,
I wanted to thank you for your post on Obama’s speech and for the thoughts you added above.
RB from Chicago linked in with a salon.com piece about rnc protestors being arrested and mistreated (to be charitable) by swat teams this a.m. It was by Glenn Greenwald, I think. Terrifying.
Jill
Jill,
I read that piece by Greenwald, he’s a daily visit for me. It is terrifying, but has become all too commonplace in today’s America. The MSM and Bush, Inc. foster the fear, law enforcement feels overly empowered and a fearful citizenry are generally ignorant of the Constitution. How do we get the average citizen to understand the importance of Constitutional issues? JT, the ACLU, etc. fight the good fight, but most of the public has been deliberately misinformed. Without an angry public demanding their rights, the notion of freedom fades away. To top it off there a few outlets where the demands of an aroused public will be heard. Marches don’t get covered in today’s America. Uh, Oh. I’m beginning to sound morose. It may be time for my evening cocktail.
When I was 12, I ran away from home. I actually made it from our home in Burtonsville all the way to College Park, where a group of wild, crazy, partying fraternity dudes put me up for the night.
The next morning, like most 12 year old boys, I recanted my new found independence, most likely due to dreaming of fruit loops and whole milk, or some other catalyst, but nonetheless I called home to my mom, and told her “I want to come home now”. Giving her intstructions as to where she could come “pick me up”, I was suddenly awoken to the awful concept of responsibility, when she told me, “you got yourself there, you can get yourself home”.
And that was that.
12 years old, I stuck out my thumb on Route 1, and hitch hiked the 20 some miles back to our home.
Was she “neglectful”? By todays overly moddle coddling standards, of course.
But in our day, it was how we formed character, and self reliance. In our day, “safety” took a back seat to just growing up.
I agree that this should not have been a felony. I also agree that a parent should never give up on a child. Especially one that is 11 years old. Prof. Turley mentioned that one article said it was a safe area so I don’t understand how walking a few blocks is hazardous to an 11 year old. Nice story Cro Magnum! I used to walk with some friends about 3 or 4 miles to a Cook County Forest Preserve in Morton Grove and we spent the entire day there and walked back. I know it was a different time, but in safe areas, kids 11 years old don’t need to be driven everywhere they go.
I live near Watauga Texas and have visited this particular McDonalds many times. It’s boring boring suburbia with soccer fields and christian churches.
The problem here was nosey people in McDonalds with cell phones wanting to be on the 6 o’clock news.
I am surprised that they didn’t add another endangerment charge for allowing an 11 year old to eat at Mickey D’s.
Yankee
1, August 30, 2008 at 10:07 pm
The problem here was nosey people in McDonalds with cell phones wanting to be on the 6 o’clock news
Agreed.
rafflaw
1, August 30, 2008 at 10:47 pm
I am surprised that they didn’t add another endangerment charge for allowing an 11 year old to eat at Mickey D’s.
Now THATS a case that could be made.
We have only criminalized every aspect of the lives of the people. Corporate and governmental life is free as ever and crimes are a-ok. Fraud, bribery, theft, torture, slavery, oppression, war and genocide are fine for them, but hey, it’s not like they’re exposing the people to an unreasonable risk of harm, right?
Jericho,
That is a very important insight.
If things don’t change somehow, we will soon be awash in a strangling chokehold of laws and regulations so cumbersome, that any citizen could be charged and convicted of a crime for merely stepping out his front door in the morning.
This case is a tribute to modern stupidty. The stupidity that has grown out of the involvement of soccer moms in government, and the busy bodies who have elevated the concept of “the children” to almost godlike status in our culture.
The only ones who should be facing criminal prosecution in this case is the people at Mcdonalds who called the police, and the police and DA who were stupid enough to act on that call.
The dad did nothing wrong. He wasn’t even “a jerk” as has been suggested. He was a dad, being a dad, and if we saw the same thing on “Rossanne” or some other family sitcom, we’d laugh it off.
When I was a kid, we walked just under a mile, up and down steep hills, every day, back and forth to school. This is when I was 6, and living just outside of South East DC.
Every day, rain or shine, we’d grab our books, musical intstruments (yes, I played, poorly, for a while) and headed off for a walk that apparently by todays standards, at least those in Watuga Texas, constituted child abuse.
And this is “abuse” went on for 5 years, until we moved out of the District area and into a more rural community.
So for 5 years, from the time I was 6 until I reached 11 years of age, I was apparently “abused” by my parents daily, by incurring on me and my siblings the sick and demented act of making us “walk”.
Imagine.
Being forced to use our legs.
What a horror.
CroMM,
While I agree almost totally with your last two posts, I do believe the father was a jerk. If one is a competent parent of an 11 year old, you should not lose control. In your story about running away at 12, your Mom didn’t lose control. She turned your actions into an object lesson that taught you something.
My 6’2″, 220 lb. father used to slap me in the face as his corporal punishment if I misbehaved. While this was par for the course in the era in which I grew up, I vowed as a child to never forget what it felt like. This experience was part of why I worked in Child Welfare. As a father of two girls I committed myself to never using corporal punishment.
With that commitment comes the problem of how to handle misbehavior. It doesn’t take anger, punishment, or even raising ones voice to control a child’s behavior. It takes the realization that you’re the adult and you’re supervising a child. You’ve got the edge in knowledge/experience and you use that edge, plus a loving firmness and a fair consistency to ensure they behave properly.
Then too you have to know when to pick your battles. A parent does not have to control all aspects of a child’s life. My wife and I might tell our girls that a school outfit was mismatched as a point of information, but ultimately it was their choice without further protests from us. A parent’s job is to keep their children safe and hopefully to help teach them how to live properly in this world. A parent’s job is NOT to turn out clones, or to use children to live through vicariously.
In fact, I still relive the horror almost daily, as traumatic memories of that twisted, sick abuse, compells me to take walks around the block, for of all things, pleasure.
Clearly my judgement is forever warped by the horrific memories of my abuse as a child, actually deluding me into thinking these walks are now pleasurable.
No doubt due to some sort of victim psychosis brought on by repeated abuse as I was compelled to walk to and from school by parents too cruel to care.
Thus, I now live out in eternal ritual the abuse once suffered as a child, as I stroll seemingly content, around my own neighborhood. I even on occasion catch myself whistling, as if seemingly unaware of the trauma I am reliving.
I am haunted by the shame.
Mike Spindell said..
My 6′2″, 220 lb. father used to slap me in the face as his corporal punishment if I misbehaved
My father was also 6’2, and right around 220. He was the “runt” of the litter.
But he never “slapped” me in the face.
He preferred to call it, a “rap in the snout”.
“clubbed upside the head” was another favorite.
Odd, somehow he never had to do it often. After once or twice, I just seemed to get the message.
Mike Spindell said…
With that commitment comes the problem of how to handle misbehavior. It doesn’t take anger, punishment, or even raising ones voice to control a child’s behavior.
This new mentality, is why we have kids blowing away other kids in schools all across the country.
Its why the kids working at the retail and food places we frequent, stand around ignoring us, and yakking on cell phones.
Its why, our kids today, are awash in a sea of apathy and self entitlement.
Its why we can no longer control them.
Because namsy pansy doctrines like “not getting angry” are sold cheaply, as common sense.
It does little junior no harm, to know that doing bad things, will incur pops anger, because in life, doing bad things to others, just might incur their anger as well.
And its best little junior know that, prior to leaving the comfort of his modern day E-nest.
And by the way Mike, raising little girls, is a far cry from raising little boys.
The two experiences are poles apart, and when your boys nuts start to drop, you’ll know something about why little boys are different than little girls.
Mike Spindell said…
A parent’s job is to keep their children safe and hopefully to help teach them how to live properly in this world. A parent’s job is NOT to turn out clones, or to use children to live through vicariously
And how exactly, does telling your kid to walk a block or two, constitute all this?
How is it “turning out clones”? How is it “living vicariously” through them?
The guy told his kid to WALK A FEW BLOCKS.
Not eat paint thinner.
One of the most well publicized dangers facing our youth today, that any parent should be painfully aware of, is OBESITY.
So one could easily argue, that NOT making your kids walk, and driving them everywhere in your Dodge Caravan while they watch silly cartoons in the back seat on the built in TV\DVD player while shoveling snacks into their mouths, is abuse.
Telling your kid to walk a block or two, is the farthest thing from abuse that could possibly exist.
In fact, its the opposite.
It teaches character.
It teaches self reliance.
It teaches responsibility.
And, it is good for them, physically.
It is mind numbingly apparent, that this society has become so utterly fat and lazy, and so utterly spoiled, that that which is clearly beneficial to a child is now labeled as abuse.
The guy told his kid to walk a block or two.
Something he should have told the lazy little runt.
There is absolutely nothing in doing so that makes him a jerk, or worse, abusive.
He was doing what fathers do every single day.
The only problem here is a bunch of busy bodies namsy pansy lazy schmucks with cell phones decided to tear his family apart, and ruin their lives.
CroMM,
“This new mentality, is why we have kids blowing away other kids in schools all across the country.”
Kids today in a few instances have blown away other kids mainly because they were abused outsiders (see Columbine, etc.) who tired of being bullied, in a system that encourages bullying because of the “tough” attitudes you espouse.
“Its why, our kids today, are awash in a sea of apathy and self entitlement.”
Our kids today are not really much different than kids have ever been, except we live in a country that encourages apathy and self entitlement for most of us citizens, just like the Romans provided Bread and Circuses. i.e. crowd control
“Because namsy pansy doctrines like “not getting angry” are sold cheaply, as common sense.”
I don’t know if you are, or have been a parent, but if you allow a child to get you angry you’ve already lost the discipline battle. Why would I get angry at my kids as a means of control when it shows that I’m out of control? Because they behave like children sometimes? If you need anger to ensure a child’s proper behavior then you are failing as a parent. Disappointment and guilt work much better and reinforce good behavior in children. Anger just teaches them what buttons to push to control your behavior, or instills unreasoning fear in them, preventing them from fully taking control of their own lives.
“It does little junior no harm, to know that doing bad things, will incur pops anger, because in life, doing bad things to others, just might incur their anger as well.”
The usual response to such anger is to learn to find others that you can take that same type of anger out on. At the same time it teaches a child to be deferential to authority, as we see so often in the followers of George Bush. In fact speaking of becoming a bully in response to a father’s anger, you do know George W. was considered a Black Sheep by his father and was a recipient of his anger frequently. It’s little surprise that our George W. is a bully of historic proportions
It is your doctrines of child behavior and dealing with it, that have been sold cheaply for most of human history and I don’t think that the results you cite about learning not to do bad things to others has quite worked out. Perhaps a different approach might be needed.
It’s interesting that all the people who knew my children were amazed by their behavior and their niceness. My wife and I were constantly being asked how we did it. They are now adults, living very responsibly and achieving some nice success. What I find most satisfying though is that they think for themselves and have inquiring minds.
A few decades back, spurned on by horrific news stories of murders and rapes of children by their own parents, child abuse became a national outcry, and rightly so.
But today we have bastardized the word, and expanded it to mean anything a jealous neigbor or busy body stranger, wants it to mean.
Child abuse is a horrific crime and we need to be vigilant when it rears its head. But we are doing the children no kind service by extrapolating meanings into the word that it was never intended to include.
And that is why we have stories like this one, where ignorant people, police, courts, etc, accuse parents of “child abuse” for the silliest and most trival matters, often, like we see in this story, things that are actually GOOD for the kid.
It is a travesty to the children, that we tolerate this. It is a travesty that goes unnoticed and usually unpunished.
Its not YOUR business, or mine, how Mr and Mrs Muckenfuss down the street, raise little Buford and his sister.
Its THEIR business.
Not yours. Not the courts. Not anyones.
The ONLY time it becomes are business, is when they are hurting them beyond what is considered normal in life, such as rape, physical injury beyond a smack in the chops, or other forms of actual abuse.
If I were the judge in this affair, I would order the DA to prosecute the fat, burger eating schmucks in the Mickey Dees first.
Then I’d instruct him to prosecute the “Detective”, for false arrest.
Then, I’d instruct him, to prosecute himself, for ever bringing such a ridiculous and ignorant case before my bench.
Mike Spindell
1, August 31, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Kids today in a few instances have blown away other kids mainly because they were abused outsiders (see Columbine, etc.) who tired of being bullied, in a system that encourages bullying because of the “tough” attitudes you espouse
And because the parents allowed them to do what the hell they wanted, and didn’t institute proper discipline in the home, which was also brought out in the case.
Mike said…
The usual response to such anger is to learn to find others that you can take that same type of anger out on
A supposition in no way found in reality.
When I got clubbed in the head, as did my siblings, we simply stopped doing whatever it was that got us clobbered.
Just like Wally and the Beav.
Mike said…
It’s interesting that all the people who knew my children were amazed by their behavior and their niceness
Well isn’t that sweet.
But since you didn’t raise two little boys, but two little girls by your own admission, you haven’t a clue apparently about difference, a few micrograms of testosterone make.
Raising girls is a completely different thing, than raising BOYS.
Mike Spindell said…
At the same time it teaches a child to be deferential to authority, as we see so often in the followers of George Bush. In fact speaking of becoming a bully in response to a father’s anger, you do know George W. was considered a Black Sheep by his father and was a recipient of his anger frequently. It’s little surprise that our George W. is a bully of historic proportions
Bush’s pathology was Bush’s pathology and not the fault of his parents in disciplining him.
In fact, it is the likely result of their NOT disciplining him, and permitting him to do such things as putting fire crackers in the mouths of frogs during the rainy season, for fun.
Which they let him do, as Babs just shook her head and said “boys will be boys”.
And before I let you sidetrack this any further from the reality of the story, THIS case, is about a dad who you are calling a “jerk”, and who was arrested on charges of CHILD ABANDONMENT, simply for telling his kid to take a walk.
If you honestly think telling you SON to take a walk, is a bad thing, that deserves punishment or EVEN YOUR TWO CENTS WORTH, then you are part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
He is not a jerk, and he is certainly no criminal for merely asking his son to walk a few blocks.
Walking is not evil.
Not “abandonment”.
Not “child neglect”.
Not “child abuse”.
Walking is a good thing. Not a bad one.
But please, defend your position some more.
Tell me how exactly, the child was “abused” by having to walk a few blocks.
Tell me how this constitutes anything that you, the fat lazy busy bodies at Mickey Dees, or the police have any role in.
Tell me how it is any of yours, or anyones business if I tell my boy to go take a walk around the block.
Tell me.
I’m all ears.
“And because the parents allowed them to do what the hell they wanted, and didn’t institute proper discipline in the home, which was also brought out in the case.”
CroMM,
Where did I say anything about not having discipline? I believe very strongly in discipline and my remarks certainly indicated it. My comments were all about maintaining discipline, it was the methodology of discipline about which I spoke. You apparently see discipline in terms of your own experiences and beliefs. I think you are wrong and I think that what you see as discipline is merely the same old mistakes that humans have made for ages. It is why humans are still so damn violent.
Your comments seem to be premised on the nostalgia for a time past where things were better and children knew their place. That time never existed, save for places where a citizenry made docile by violent treatment of themselves as children, was willing to follow the dictates of those in charge.
“Child abuse is a horrific crime and we need to be vigilant when it rears its head. But we are doing the children no kind service by extrapolating meanings into the word that it was never intended to include.”
My first post clearly stated that I disagreed with the police, court and child welfare authorities. I went further to explain how travesty’s like this come about. Back in my Child Welfare days and even today corporal punishment is not seen as child abuse, except in the event of serious injury or severe psychological harm. However, had you seen the direct result of angry parents, utilizing corporal punishment to kill or maim their children, as I did in far too many cases, you might see the issue in a different light. Many of those parents were not really bad people, but had let their anger get too far out of control. By the way lest you think that because of that last statement I was in any way “namsy pansy” in dealing with these real abusers (whether intentional or not), I was actually somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. However, I’m a card-carrying ACLU member and I made sure that no ones right were abridged and that each investigation was done thoroughly and impartially.
Mike Spindell
1, August 31, 2008 at 4:16 pm
You apparently see discipline in terms of your own experiences and beliefs
No Mike, I see discipline, as long as it doesn’t physically injure the child, in terms of whatever the hell the parent wants it to be.
You however apparently see the disciplining of other peoples children as whatever the hell YOU want it to be.
Mike said…
My first post clearly stated that I disagreed with the police, court and child welfare authorities.
Yea, then you called him a jerk.
How is he a jerk, for making the kid walk home?
If the kid was out of line, making him walk home might teach him to get back in line.
Who are you, or anyone, to decide how he instills respect in his son for his authority and finality on a matter?
“If you honestly think telling you SON to take a walk, is a bad thing, that deserves punishment or EVEN YOUR TWO CENTS WORTH, then you are part of the problem, and not part of the solution.”
“Tell me how exactly, the child was “abused” by having to walk a few blocks”
CroMM,
I quit. You are once again frozen in your competitive loop, which means not bothering to actually read what is being said because as I said in my first post:
“We have reached a point in the US where as parents we have become over-protective of our children. Much of this is the fear inculcated in us by the media, mainly TV.”
Seems to agree with your sentiments.
“In my opinion, given these facts without any negatives we don’t see in the story, the man should not have been charged with two felonies.”
I never said the child was abused in any way. I said the father was a jerk for getting angry at his kid and driving away. his own story expressed his regret at this action.
You, however, choose to interpret what is in your head, rather than what is written. So okay Mr. Debating Star, I quit. you win. The nature of your victory, however, is ephemeral. You bore me and waste my time trying to get me to defend positions I never took. I thought there was a possibility that you had learned something, but all you want to do is nitpick a fight.
If everyone had left it alone, the kid would have walked home, and had some new found respect for what it means to pay the bills, put food on the table and buy the cars.
The kid would always remember the day he smarted off at dad in the Mickey Dees, and found himself walking home.
Now, the kid will always remember it as the day the police made daddy submit to the HIS will, and then, came after daddy with the full weight of the criminal justice system.
Mike Spindell said..
You, however, choose to interpret what is in your head, rather than what is written. So okay Mr. Debating Star, I quit. you win. The nature of your victory, however, is ephemeral. You bore me and waste my time trying to get me to defend positions I never took. I thought there was a possibility that you had learned something, but all you want to do is nitpick a fight.
No, I quoted you warmly and accurately. You stated discipline should not include even getting angry, and implied that corporal punishment was a bad thing, just because you don’t practice it on your girls.
Well, corporal punishment should be up to the parent, but in todays world its become a matter for everyone but the parent.
I understand you don’t think the case has merit. I also understand you called him a jerk, and I am contesting that it is not yours nor my role in calling him such for merely responding to misbehavior out of his son.
When a son is “arguing” with his father in a public place, he is misbehaving, and taking advantage of a situation where dad has to worry about busy bodies calling the cops.
So, dad let him walk home, so he could think about his misbehaving.
That the dad apologized for his actions after being surrounded by a resturaunt full of angry “concerned citizens” and police, is well… DUH!
Of course he did. What else was the poor bastard going to do?
Anyway, if you’re going to start blubbering again, then I suggest you stop engaging with me in debate.
Last Reply,
“Anyway, if you’re going to start blubbering again, then I suggest you stop engaging with me in debate.”
“My father was also 6′2, and right around 220. He was the “runt” of the litter.”
“But since you didn’t raise two little boys, but two little girls by your own admission, you haven’t a clue apparently about difference, a few micrograms of testosterone make.”
crommy,
Is that the best you’ve got. You know very well what I said, but as usual you interpret what you want. You then resort to “macho” insults like “blubbering” to try to impress upon me what a tough man you are. Runt of the litter to imply your Dad was tougher than my Dad. You use testosterone alot in your material and it leads me to believe you’ve got some manhood problems. By that I’m not referring to sexual preferences, but the need to prove somehow that you’re tough.
As to the difference between boys and girls, I know a lot about that. I have a Masters from an Ivy League School (full scholarship),
five years postgraduate training as a psychotherapist, and the full training from the New York State Child Abuse Protection Academy and an accredited course in human sexuality. Besides that you twit, at the age of 55 I created and ran a successful housing program in the community, for people with serious mental illnesses and severe. addiction problems. When it comes to this subject, son, you’re not even in the ballpark.
“Tell me how exactly, the child was “abused” by having to walk a few blocks.”
“I understand you don’t think the case has merit.”
So tell me how you reconcile those two statements of yours. In one you strongly imply that I think the child was abused. In the other
you acknowledge that I didn’t think the child was abused. The kids own father admitted he behaved badly, that was the purpose of his column, which started this whole ruckus. These statements were in your peculiar thinking, similar to the “lie” you accused me of. The saddest thing of all for you is that as I write this you’ve probably posted four more times trying to defend the nonsense you spout. I could really go for the jugular and offer a full assessment of your obsession as exhibited by these “loops” you go into, but I really do feel sorry for the fact that you are so afflicted and would take no pleasure in further attacking you. Finis.
But to be fair, I’ll address these specifics.
CroMM,
I quit. You are once again frozen in your competitive loop, which means not bothering to actually read what is being said because as I said in my first post
Well I did read your posts, and I understand you offered support for not prosecuting, however you then “qualified” that support, by calling him a “jerk” and suggesting it was the dad who was out of line.
Newsflash. When your children are out in public with you, it is NEVER the parent who is out of line during disputes.
In public, an 11 year old needs to do what he is told to do, and if part of that telling is telling him to shut the hell up, he needs to do that likewise.
Mike said…
“We have reached a point in the US where as parents we have become over-protective of our children. Much of this is the fear inculcated in us by the media, mainly TV.”
Agree, 100 percent. If only you hadn’t qualified that statement by calling him a jerk.
Parents today walk a tightrope when in public, where kids, painfully aware of the public “Witchhunt” for what now constitutes “child abuse”, leverage that knowledge against their parents in ways never conceived of in my day.
When I was a young man, smarting off to my parents in a public place would have earned me a scolding right there, and if I still wanted some more, a smack upside my head.
And NO ONE would have said a thing. No one.
Because we knew back then, that the parents were the authoritarian role in the family, not the children.
But today, thats changed, and kids can and regularly manipulate the meddlings of others in “controlling” their parents in public.
This man, obviously painfully aware of the fact that a smack to the kid would or even “grabbing” him and giving him a little shake, would immediately bring the Social Circuses running with charges of abuse, so, like most parents, he was left to figure other options besides sitting there and “reasoning” with the misbehaving brat, so as to appease the masses. He chose to dismiss the child, and let him learn what it means to be in control, by letting him walk home and consider his tantrum tossing.
Calling the man a “jerk” for that is certainly your right, but it is also my right to denounce that slur.
He is a parent. Another frustrated parent.
Frustrated not at his inability to cope with his misbehaving kid, who unlike your little angelic princesses, is growing into a young man and entering the period of open rebellion that if dad doesnt’ get a grip on early, can turn into a life of crime or worse for the boy, but frustrated at the smothering society in which we live, where observers tell the parent how to raise his own kids.
Whether his choice to make the kid walk home was a good one or not, is a matter left for him to decide, not us. He had a kid who was misbehaving in a public place, and he had to find a way of disciplining that kid right then and there that he thought would not incur the wrath of the crowd, and he made the call.
You also quoted yourself saying this, which apparently you would like addressed, so I will address this statement too.
“In my opinion, given these facts without any negatives we don’t see in the story, the man should not have been charged with two felonies.”
…to which all I can say is, gee… ya THINK?
Is that the best you’ve got.
No, I’ve got more.
You know very well what I said, but as usual you interpret what you want. You then resort to “macho” insults like “blubbering” to try to impress upon me what a tough man you are
No, it was meant to be humorous.
Runt of the litter to imply your Dad was tougher than my Dad
No, you were the one who FIRST boasted of the size of your father. I merely pointed out that my dad was of similar proportions, however in my family, that is considered small. His brothers were all over 6’4. Just a fact, since you shared with me your fact about your dad.
By that I’m not referring to sexual preferences, but the need to prove somehow that you’re tough
How pray tell, does one do that using Pixels and Datagrams?
“Tell me how exactly, the child was “abused” by having to walk a few blocks.”
“I understand you don’t think the case has merit.”
—
So tell me how you reconcile those two statements of yours. In one you strongly imply that I think the child was abused. In the other
you acknowledge that I didn’t think the child was abused
Well, if you look at your first comment, you started OUT by saying you agree with me, but then ended UP, saying this;
Mike Spindell
1, August 31, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I do believe the father was a jerk. If one is a competent parent of an 11 year old, you should not lose control. .
On the one hand you say you agree with me, on the other however, you accuse the father of being a “jerk” and losing “control”.
Losing control can be an actionable item, in family court.
Thus, your “agreement” with me was mired in your condemnation of the fathers actions, which is how child abuse cases start.
I didn’t accuse you of saying he should be prosecuted. I merely reiterated my case that it was not abuse. If that came off to you as my pushing you into a corner on accepting his abuse, then please, by all means, accept my apologies now, as I am aware of your statements that he should not be prosecuted and I never meant to imply otherwise. I did mean to imply that your positions on his actions, are the “SOURCE” of the Witchhunt we now live under, because it’s the constant judging of other parents methods that create the mentality that leads to such ridiculous overreaching cases as this one. But, that being said, I am aware you are at least reasonable enough to not wish prosecution on the fella.So, if you thought I was backing you into a position, or if I came across that way, then please accept my humble apologies.
But first, you might take a stroll over to the gay jesus thread, and apologize for ACTUALLY MISQUOTING me, and then repeatedly LYING about doing so.
Because you’ve yet in all your lectures to me since, found the “testosterone” to do so.
Mike Spindell said…
The saddest thing of all for you is that as I write this you’ve probably posted four more times trying to defend the nonsense you spout
Really? Thats the “saddest” thing?
One would think the “saddest” thing is that you fine scholars and learned folk with your fancy degrees from the best colleges and universites in the land, cannot seem keep pace with the posts of one lone non degreed blogger sporting his measly partial public school education.
Hint: Mike.
Lighten up. Its all in good fun.
Micheal Spindell said…
I have a Masters from an Ivy League School (full scholarship),
five years postgraduate training as a psychotherapist, and the full training from the New York State Child Abuse Protection Academy and an accredited course in human sexuality. Besides that you twit, at the age of 55 I created and ran a successful housing program in the community, for people with serious mental illnesses and severe. addiction problems. When it comes to this subject, son, you’re not even in the ballpark.
Really?
I’m proud of ya. I really am.
But perhaps one more “saddest thing of all” for your list of saddest things, is how all that fine education and professional training hasn’t helped you debate one comparatively undeducated blogger, without being reduced to lying, blubbering and calling them names.
Nor has it helped you to admit lying, something one would think such a vastly experienced and titled “therapist” such as yourself would have no problem doing.
Perhaps some of your learned peers might lend you their couch?
Funny how you and your friend Patty there, whenever you are unable to win in a debate, always refer to your fancy colleges and careers as if they somehow make you look smarter while losing the debate.
It would seem to me, with your batting average thus far, I’d want to keep my educational and professional acheivments as far from inspection as possible.
I noticed something interesting and perhaps others could shed a little light. There was a poster named ‘Zakimar’–highly argumentative to the point of simply being obnoxious, his arguments (I’m assuming a ‘he’) often lacked logic and would more often wind up betraying a juvenile intellect at best (or a severe and constant dependency on alcohol) but this never stopped him claiming victory in whatever debate he was engaged in. He was also highly anti-semetic and was obsessed with ‘zionists’. His last post seemed to appear back on the “Pelosi: Obama Blessed By God” thread.
Nothing since.
Cro Magnum Man, any idea what ever happened to Zakimar?
You know, if you think I am Zakimar, then you are not as bright as I give you credit for.
Also Mojo, like your “learned” friends it seems you have a discomfort with the truth, as you claim this;
He was also highly anti-semetic and was obsessed with ‘zionists’.
Notice the use of the word, “also”, when referencing Zakimar and myself.
Thus you are claiming that I am anti-semetic, which and am obsessed with zionists.
You sir, ARE a liar. That is a bold faced lie, and you’re a liar for saying it.
Either demonstrate one single post of mine that was “anti-semetic” or even the MENTION of the word “zionists” in ANY of my posts, or admit to being a dirty liar.
You know, its one thing when you “learned scholars” (Patty, Mike, Mojo) want to debate, can’t, and then turn to bragging about your fancy educations.
Its another thing altogether, to randomly post lies about someone out of the blue, for not other reason than the ability to defeat me in a topic of debate.
And lies of such a filthy and foul nature as that.
To label someone “anti-semetic” who has never even spoken anything that could be remotely construed as anti semetic, then furthering it by declaring him “obsessed with zionism”, is beneath contempt.
When you guys have a point to make, that isn’t a silly baseless personal attack on me, or more lectures from liars who claim to be psychologists but can’t admit they lied and got caught in a simple debate, or other boasts about your skills, professions and anything else that apparently isn’t evident from your postings herein, and can instead refute some position I’ve taken, let me know.
In the meantime, better give your fancy colleges and universities a call to their admissions office.
Not to enroll in further courses mind you, but to check on their refund policies.
Holy cow, CroMM! I just asked you specifically because you were the only person posting to this thread in the past several hours. I figured you were still here. Geez Louise! And as far as my use of the word “also” I simply meant that as “in addition” to the other traits I’d already listed about ZAKIMAR… argumentative, obnoxious, and such. If you would take the time to re-read the posting you’ll see that I never said anything about you being an anti-semite.
Do you even remember Zakimar? Nothing I said about him is untrue.
Mojo
1, August 31, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Holy cow, CroMM! I just asked you specifically because you were the only person posting to this thread in the past several hours
So now you add to that lie, by lying about your intent? Do you think you’re fooling anyone?
Here, let me help you out here.
–
Hey Mojo, … I’ve heard it said that someone is like Mike Spindell, in that they lie about others and when caught lying, further lie to try and deny their lies to begin with.
They are essentially liars, too proud to admit their lies.
You wouldn’t.. know anyone like that… would you?
Do you even remember Zakimar?
Yes.
And more importantly, I will remember you.
You’ve got such a good memory, CroMM. When did you first start posting to this blog? C’mon, CroMM. Everyone remembers their first post.
First of all, I don’t know what that has to do with anything.
Second, I do not respond to demands about random personal questions from clearly hostile petitioners.
Third, when you admit trying to suggest I was Zakimar, and thus an anti-semite, then maybe I’ll consider responding to your queries. In the meantime, I suggest you go help Mike hunt for his missing respect for the truth.
Maybe you lost yours in the same place.
I grew up in that garden spot of the deep south known as the South Bronx. A walk to anyplace from where we lived was never less than an adventure and, despite the images from Paul Newman’s movie “Fort Apache The Bronx,” almost never very dangerous – at least as far as we were concerned.
While daddy in Watauga outside Forth Worth may have behaved less than admirably, in the scheme of things, I’d have to agree with folks above that there sure are a lot of busy bodies trying to second guess what might happen to the little guy.
Perhaps we need to use Drake’s Reality Scale. It’s a kind of ruler that can extend as far in either direction as you want. Toward one end is Conceivable and Fantasy and far on the other end is current reality (what is demonstrably happening). In between you may find imaginable, possible, probable, likely, etc.
A lot of people (often those in positions of authority) confuse one end with the other end of the scale and create legal requirements to fix something that may ‘not even be possible’ (the negative side of conceivable).
For their own benefit, some people deliberately use the confusion they create with such assertions about what might conceivable happen to create an outcome that can be very wrong.
Remember the bloody glove etc., from the OJ murder trial? The defense laywers buffaloed everyone, including the judge, by getting the jury to confuse ‘conceivable’ with probable, possible, or even reasonable.
Sometimes defining context is important to get things in perspective. As well as I can make it out from the above presentation, Daddy did nothing wrong. Many kids successfully navigate their world over much greater and more dangerous terrain without ill consequences.
In the context it appears there was next to no risk to junior related to daddy’s actions. The youngster should have walked home. Now the ‘authorities’ have massively undermined the authority of a (by all accounts) caring father to direct and guide his son into manhood. Perhpas in Watauga people would have been happier if pop just picked up the boy and carried him home?
Now is it conceivable that the consequences of the “authorities’” intervention may be much worse for the child and his relation with his father than might have happened under ‘benign neglect’ by those busy bodies??
What webs we weave!
FROM THE PELOSI: OBAMA BLESSED BY GOD THREAD
zakimar 1, August 18, 2008 at 8:34 pm
There are a handful of people on this site I was watching to see if we ever agreed on a single thing and russ was on the top of that list. We FINALLY agreed on something, on how “sick” Pelosi is, although I would have used the word twisted.
Thank you russ for making my mission complete so that I can now concentrate on the things that are much more important to me.
To take a phrase from MASH, GOODBYE.
AND THE VERY NEXT DAY THIS FELLOW CRO MAGNUM MAN SHOWS UP ON THE FAKE BIGFOOT STORY (did you take the photo as a cue for your moniker?):
Cro Magnum Man 1, August 19, 2008 at 10:06 pm
I’m sorry, when exactly did this story go from a couple of yokels that NO ONE BELIEVED, to these two making “clowns out of a couple of yankee liberal idiots”?
No one believed them, so who are these “yankee liberal idiots” you’re referring to?
Last I checked, the only ones who bought these two inbreds stories, were other inbreds…. hence, other neocons.
SO, GOODBYE ZAKIMAR, AND HELLO CRO MAGNUM MAN. MAYBE JUST A COINCIDENCE, BUT THE ‘VOICE’ IS SO SIMILAR. IF YOU WOULD POINT OUT AN EARLIER POST THAN AUG. 18 FROM CRO MAG, I’LL EAT MY WORDS, APOLOGIZE PROFUSELY, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GREAT DEBATER.
AND YES, OF COURSE I WAS BAITING YOU, YOU BIG APE.
So, now not only are you stupid enough to think I am Zakimar, which I can assure you I am not, but you had the stupidity to lie earlier, by trying to pretend that was not what you were implying.
What you call “baiting”, everyone else calls lying.
But thank you, for demonstrating that when I catch someone lying, I am not “full of it”, as some like to muddy the waters by claiming.
I know a liar when I see one, and you are a liar.
And you’re also none too bright, because I am not Zakimir, never have been, nor do I even sound remotely close to him.
“So, now not only are you stupid enough to think I am Zakimar, which I can assure you I am not …”
So assure me. Show me one of your posts prior to Aug. 18, when Zakimar left and you suddenly appeared. I’m sure with your excellent debating skill you must have engaged Zakimar (whom you already claim to know of.)
Show us when you debated with Zakimar. Oh show us the way, great debater. Someone with as big a mouth as you must have taken on the great Zakimar …
Just show me one post before Aug. 18.
I’m waiting.
Because you find the coincidence that Zakimir decided to leave when I came in proof that I am Zakimir does not place the onus of any burden of proof on my shoulders.
You can make all the false accusations you want but in lieu of any demonstrable evidence, other than his leaving around the I started posting, the onus of proof is on you, not me.
Prove your ridiculous accusation.
From your last post:
“But thank you, for demonstrating that when I catch someone lying …”
And from Zakimar’s last post:
“Thank you russ for making my mission complete …”
************
Even the self-congratulatory tendencies are right on the money.
Still waiting for any evidence of your existence prior to Zakimar’s dramatic exit.
Hmmmmm?
Once more, I have no need to prove anything to you. I am not Zakimir. I do not know Zakimir.
And you were caught lying, and now are trying personal attacks, accusing me of being someone I am confident Professor Turley’s IP logs will demonstrate, that I am not, to try and cover up your deception.
JT can tell you that I am not Zakimir if you are so self deluded that you still think you are right, or that I, like you, would lie openly to win a debate.
I am not Zakimir. I do not know Zakimir.
And you are doing nothing but launching personal attacks, in lieu of debating the topics.
When did you start to deliberately misspell Zakimar as Zakimir? You had it right the first time, when you first started to protest too much.
Cro Zakimar …
You’re right about the onus. I own you, son.
Perhaps you are Zakimir, trying to conceal your actual identity by trying to push suspicion off on someone else.
Mojo
1, September 1, 2008 at 1:54 am
When did you start to deliberately misspell Zakimar as Zakimir?
You’re right about the onus. I own you, son
No daughter, you don’t owe me. You owe everyone in here for wasting their time with this bs accusation, after Mystic River just left such a nice closing comment, that was I might add, on topic.
You are wrong about me being ZakAmir, and nothing you say will change that fact.
Examine your own prior posts as Zakimar, son. It’s you alright. Examine your debates with Spindell. It’s you all over. Now in you’re in ‘accuse the other guy’ mode.
Hey Spindell. That’s how we do that.
Peace out. Good night. No hard feelings. CroMM/Zak, but you just got owned.
Mojo
1, September 1, 2008 at 1:54 am
When did you start to deliberately misspell Zakimar as Zakimir? You had it right the first time, when you first started to protest too much
Oh now I am protesting too much?
Some two bit hack with a big mouth and a handle named after Austin Powers balls waltzes in and starts attacking me out of the blue, suggesting I am Zakamir.
When I point out that you lie like a little girl, acting like you didn’t mean that, then when you see its obvious to anyone else thats what you were implying, you admit your deception and then claim to “own” me.
Well my cackling little hen, the only thing you own is the egg on your face.
Mojo
1, September 1, 2008 at 2:00 am
Examine your own prior posts as Zakimar, son. It’s you alright. Examine your debates with Spindell. It’s you all over. Now in you’re in ‘accuse the other guy’ mode.
Hey Spindell. That’s how we do that.
Peace out. Good night. No hard feelings
I don’t need to examine my own posts you dimwit, I know I am not ZakAmir and I don’t need your help discerning that fact.
What you need to do boy, is get your pompous head out of your fat ass, and figure out that you made a mistake, and a fool out of yourself doing it.
“Peace out. Good night. No hard feelings. CroMM/Zak, but you just got owned.”
Mojo,
I think so.
In order to get owned he would have to have been correct.
Since I am not Zakamir, that makes him wrong and both of you look like fools for boasting of something that is not true.
But I don’t have to defend myself from two liars on a fabricated accusation because togther their brains aren’t capable of refuting a single position I’ve taken.
And Mike spindell, you could be the most titled person in the world, but at the end of the day, you’re essentially just a liar. You were proven a liar and you still haven’t owned up to it.
Apparently you are too much the coward to admit it still, so you’re taking refuge in someone elses ridiculous lie about me, trying to paint me with a dangerous and distorted character as Zakaimir, which is the refuge a coward and a scoundrel.
If Professor Turley ever wants my identity all he has to do is ask or confirm my IP address. I am not anyone who would ever call myself Zakamir or say any of the racist comments he has made in here and you are a slimey belly crawling worm for suggesting it. I don’t know if you’re lying about your educations or not but if you really are in the positions of authority you claim, then God help us all.
Because you are pathetic, simple minded witless debaters, who when cornered turn to lying like little children. You are pathetic, and I, unfortunately for your boasts, am not, nor ever was the character Zakamir, and your daring to try and link me with this fellow shows your utter lack of any moral character.
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk
Yea, tsk tsk tsk for the New York Bar, if they let the likes of you in.
When you two kids have something to refute any of the positions I’ve defended let me know.
But if you all you have is random personal attacks and false accusations, trying to turn your impotence at being able to debate me on a topic into nothing but mere personal attacks and accusatuions against me, then don’t bother.
“Yea, tsk tsk tsk for the New York Bar, if they let the likes of you in.”
Pathetically, you again prove one of the points I’ve made about you. In your haste to find a debating point you only read comments looking for lines of attack. I’ve made clear to you in many of my comments directly to you and in general on this site, that I am not and have never been a lawyer. So this is the same manner of “lie” that you accuse me of. You’re logic is silly, to be charitable.
Many of those comments, such as my last one at the “Gay Jesus” thread were attempts to reach out to you to see if we could develop common understanding. Those attempts failed miserably because all you want to do is attack something….anything. You have stated on the “Gay Jesus” thread that you like to debate and have done it at other sites. I don’t do debate sites for just the reason that you exasperate and bore me simultaneously, they’re all about ego and less about actual issues. Discussion is much more educational and fun. Yes discussion sometimes leads to debate, but even debate must be tempered by civility and logic. Your debating technique lacks both. When you are in the “heat” of your debating loop, you do set up “straw men,” fail to read peoples comments in context and deliberately misconstrue what the other person is saying.
As you have alluded to elsewhere this is how you get your “fun.”
Your getting your “fun” is an annoyance, distraction and finally intellectual masturbation on your part. Finally, I have no idea if you are Zakimar, but as Mojo points out there is grounds for suspicion. This is because, as he more aptly put it, the two of you share the same style. Zakimar indeed may have morphed into you without the anti-Jewish rant. Whether you are or not though is immaterial, the salient point being you’re both annoying and like john McCain don’t get it.
Mojo,
I’ve got to disagree with you on this one. I don’t think that CroMM is Zakimar. There’s just some big differences. If he is he’s a VERY good writer and deserves are respect for pulling it off. Other than the style and content issues I’ll address, CroMM’s already tacitly admitted to being BartleBee, who I seem to remember being here at the same time as Zak (that doesn’t prove anything, but does address one of your points).
Most importantly, there’s the difference in Z’s obsession. Z was fixated on race and Zionism, we don’t see any of that mentioned with CroMM. CroMM on the other hand doesn’t have a single thematic fixation, but seems to jump from whatever debate happens to strike his attention to the next. I think Z was genuinely obsessed to the point of possible mental problems, there’s really no indication of that with CroMM.
As far as style goes, there are some similarities, but they’re far outweighed by the differences. Z tended to respond with a 1:1 ratio to others’ posts, CroMM is about 3:1. While Z very wrote in a more structured form, CroMMs posts tend to be a little more creative in their formatting. CroMM is generally a pretty witty guy with some really interesting comments on most subjects, as long as you don’t get him in debate mode. Z started out in debate mode and very rarely offered any true insights into the situation.
Mike Spindell said..
So this is the same manner of “lie” that you accuse me of.
No Mike, this is not in the same manner of the LIE you told.
The lie you told invented a POSITION for me in a debate we were having that I never took, which is called a “Straw man” argument.
Then, you lied again, denying you ever said those words.
This was an off the cuff remark that has nothing to do with any debate we are having, merely a comment that IF you are a member of the bar, then shame on them for allowing such a dishonest person as yourself in.
So since I said IF, you cannot accuse me of saying you were a member of the bar.
And even if I had thought you were a member of the bar, it would merely constitute a mistake, as it is not a derogatory thing to elevate you to the bar, nor is it designed to produce any misleading positions.
It was simply a mistake. I assumed when you started bragging about your experience like your friend patty does, (my eyes glaze over when you guys start boasting of your acheievements) that you were saying you were a lawyer.
So trying to compare your out and out strawman, then your outright lying denying you ever said those words, to my simply mistaking you for an attorney, is further evidence of why its a good thing, you are not a member of the bar.
In any state.
Mike Spindell said..
I don’t do debate sites for just the reason that you exasperate and bore me simultaneously, they’re all about ego and less about actual issues.
Well I can certainly understand why they exasperate and bore you.
After all, being unable to coherent state your position and instead turning to strawmen, lies and boasting of your external achievements to shore up crumbling positions must be tiresome.
As far as about them being about the “issues”, thats exactly what real debate is about, and the kind I engage in.
Real debate, involves “drilling down”, and focus on key specific pillars and points in a persons argument, so as to either dismantle it, or be dismantled by it.
Your argument on A-THEISM I dismantled quite readily. So, you in turn turned to strawmen, and when you got exposed doing that, you turned to lying about ever saying the words you just said a moment earlier, trying to wiggle out of your strawman.
So, given my experience debating with you, it is easy for me to see why you’d find it “exasperating”.
I however find it exhilarating.
I am working on developing a website, designed specifically for those wishing to engage in specific debates on specific social, religious and political issues.
The site will be called “The Debating Room”, on the same domain name, and will be a place where two parties who have a debate from other blogs, can come to and have it settled, using a point system and judges.
I came to Professor Turley’s blog, hoping to find seasoned, experienced debaters who can deliver a position in a specific and detailed manner, hopefully asking some of them to act as judges for debates hosted in the new site.
So far however, other than a few bloggers who seem to engage in specifics, I’ve found bloggers like you and patty, who are more concerned with hosting a nice friendly “chatroom”, than actually debating over issues. And when they find anyone not falling into line with their ideas of what blogging should be, they harrass and hound any bloggers who like debate, until they either drive them away or push them into responding to their attacks.
I still see some people who might be good for “thedebatingroom.com” (coming soon) and there are some smart folks in here, to be sure.
But folks who like you, turn to lies, denial of those lies, then more lies trying to paint your opponent as an Anti-Semite merely because you cannot beat them in a debate, are the kind of people we hope will bring their debates to the debating room to be decided, for all too see, so they too can learn what it means to be specific with a point, and not turn to vain insults, name calling and lies when they find themselves bested in a simple debate.
Anyway, Gyges said it right. I am not Zakamir, never have been.
When the debating room is up, you will all be welcome to schedule a live debate with your opponent, and have it hosted by our moderators and judges (once we have more than the three we have so far, lol).
And if Mike, you want to “reach out to me” as you keep suggesting, then I suggest you can start by admitting to the straw position you created a week ago, and never recanted, and then apologize for lying about ever saying those words.
Once you’ve done that, you can apologize for trying gleefully last night to help your friend mojo paint me as the possibly psychotic , definately racist, “Zakamir”.
Those would be a good start for your “reaching out” efforts, and I will at that point, gladly accept your apologies and move forward.
“I still see some people who might be good for “thedebatingroom.com” (coming soon) and there are some smart folks in here, to be sure.”
Have fun and Godspeed! You’re correct it wouldn’t interest me. Choose whatever inference you want that will make you feel good about my lack of interest. I would cite boredom, but then I’m such a poor debater, what would I know. You’re The Man!
Mike Spindell said..
Choose whatever inference you want that will make you feel good about my lack of interest.
I don’t need to “choose” Mike. The truth is evident.
Or did you think no one notices your “lack of interest” has kept you addressing me since the day you first engaged me in debate?
When someone continuously addresses someone over a period of a week, all the while claiming “boredom” and “lack of interest”, its clear to anyone who speaks English that he is neither of the two.
The word you are looking for, is “frustrated”.
Frustrated at losing the debate and frustrated by your own inability to admit when you’re wrong.
Has anyone considered that the entire issue of endangerment may lie in the fact that he was feed his son at a McDonalds??
Sorry – I thought it was fitting with the food fight that occurred surrounding this article.