Skip to main content

View Diary: Murdoch & Fox News Engaged In Sockpuppet PR Campaign To Counter Bloggers (295 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Could also be that some of us are a bit (0+ / 0-)

    touchy about this. ;)

    I appreciate your comments here. And good diary.  

    •  Why are "some of us" a bit touchy about this? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Free Jazz at High Noon, kharma

      If people disagreed with Greenwald on the merits, or would accept it when their claims are debunked, that would be one thing, but they don't do that.

      Instead, people think their personal opinion of the man, based on whatever misinformed impressions they've developed about him,  constitutes valid "disagreement" for which they are being unfairly categorized as being sockpuppets, or some such nonsense.

      If my reading is incorrect, can you then clarify what exactly the problem is? I'm honestly trying to understand what the sensitivity is all about.

      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

      by DeadHead on Sun Oct 20, 2013 at 09:28:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Was mainly just a friendly concession (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        to the diarist.

        Your reading is correct here: 'we' are annoyed by insinuations of sockpuppetry and the like. Why? I dunno, perhaps bc when we disagree, people tell us we aren't arguing based on merits, or that we're too dense to accept the 'debunking', or that our complaint is with the man not the message, and that we'd see our error if our impressions were better informed.

      •  Also, too (0+ / 0-)

        Less snarky answer

        Why do we get annoyed? Some of us genuinely believe that the anti-govt rhetoric from GG, Assange, maybe a place like DN at times, has potential to inflict harm on liberal progressive causes. Too late to unpack that thesis now, but I trust you know a site that makes the case.


        •  I don't blame you for wanting to hit the sack. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Free Jazz at High Noon, kharma

          Because "unpacking your thesis" might require you to provide examples of some of this "anti-government rhetoric" that's somehow "harmful to liberal progressive causes." It would also require you to demonstrate how, if the same rhetoric was directed at a Republican president, it would have a similarly detrimental effect.

          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

          by DeadHead on Sun Oct 20, 2013 at 11:39:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've awoken from my cowardly sleep (0+ / 0-)

            I didn't trust my better judgment, and replied to your trollish comment. I thought, hell, he sounds sincere, maybe he wants to behave sincerely, for a change. Well, fool me this will likely be the last time I reply to you.

            Your "prove it!" and "cite examples!" schtick is tired, transparently disingenuous, and classic projection, in that you're attacking a comment and belittling its author for a lack of substance. So you bully and deflect to score points. Why? One explanation is because you don't want to address 'on its merits' the not uncommon critique of GG's writing that I reference, and that which I KNOW you're familiar with. Another explanation is that being a dick is in your Kossack nature. Either way, you rarely provide any actual substance, or show the least bit of sincerity in listening to other viewpoints and the examples/evidence for them.

            You show an incredible lack of self-awareness DeadHead. That was the point of my first response, in case you missed it, and it would make sense if you had. I can't say if it's by design. But your lack of awareness coupled with your dickish behavior on this site makes it impossible to engage you with any expectation for an honest debate/exchange. So don't anticipate a response from me the next time you offer one of your trademark downthread substance-less jabs.

            •  In other words: (0+ / 0-)

              You aren't able to respond to my comment without resorting to ad hominem.

              What started out as a discussion about Greenwald magically becomes an attack on me, personally.


              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

              by DeadHead on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 10:57:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Woahhh! Late reply but I can't let this stand (0+ / 0-)

            Let the record show, you misquoted me terribly. Terribly. "Potential to inflict harm" v "[is] harmful". Big difference there, buddy.

            Some bullshit right there.  I chose my words carefully. Make sure you treat them with the same regard.

            Carry on.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site