HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
By Tom Pain
Feb. 16, 2007 Do you know any stupid people who admit they are stupid? How about ugly people, how many of those will admit to being ugly? Fat people? Bigots? It is extremely rare to find anyone who will admit faults of which they are not proud. On U-K, I am the only one that does that consistently. I am not proud of any grammar errors I make, but when shown my errors, I admit it. Ditto with other errors I’ve made – go back through the list of articles I have written – by title alone you will see me admit mistakes several times. If you read each one, and my rebuttal posts, you would find many more examples of my humility and honesty when confronted with mistakes I’ve made. I challenge anyone on this site to document even half as many self-confessions. And no, it is not because I am wrong so many more times than others. I challenge Thomas to point out any time he has been wrong, other than a couple of instances where he’s admitted a grammatical error. To listen to Thomas, he’s never been wrong about any facts, ideas, theories, or descriptions of anything he’s written. If your opinions vary from his, to Thomas it is because you are wrong, not because there is any validity to anything you say. He is the epitome of an arrogant In my last article, I questioned his motives for criticizing my grammar. I did not deny my mistakes, and thanked him for showing them to me, but I did question why he criticized. As I would have predicted, and as he has done every time he is questioned, he ignored everything I wrote. Instead, like the arrogant Thomas says: “Tom Pain accuses me once a day, if not more often, of being bigoted towards homosexuals and Jews, and of hating America . These three slanders are nonsensical. I posted five short sketches of the tragic lives of homosexuals I have known as friends, raising the question whether homosexuality is entirely wholesome after all. This was all done in the most objective, impartial, heuristic way.” Why then, Thomas, were your supposedly innocent articles rebutted by probably 5-10 different writers on this site, all of whom accused you of unfairly describing gays? To listen to Thomas, I was his only critic. Where we all delusional in our belief that your articles were bigoted and illogical? The answer is no. His articles illogically blame individual faults in random people he’s known with them being gay. Of course, every fault he describes can be seen in huge numbers of people who are not gay. He’s wrong and won’t admit it. Thomas says: “As for Jews, it is true that I have criticized Israel and its sympathizers in the US repeatedly. This was not done out of hatred for Jews, but out of respect for Muslims, many of whom also I have known as friends and whose co-religionists are being butchered today by US-Israel forces. I presented only the facts…” Admittedly, Thomas has never admitted he hates Jews. (see how I admit that) But in Israel ’s disputes with its Arab/Iranian neighbors, both sides are at fault – to say otherwise is sheer lunacy. Thus, to only criticize one side while ignoring the other side’s faults, and even lauding the other side as they butcher and bomb is, by any definition, bigotry. Thomas claims to state “only the facts.” What he should admit is that he states “only the facts that support his lunacy while avoiding the mountain of facts that deny his bigotry.” Thomas says: “As for America , of course I don’t hate America . I was born there and lived most of my life there. But I believe I do enjoy the right of criticizing American policy in the Middle East . Pain seems to think that if I hate Bush’s lies, I hate America also, but that is ludicrous. “ This is, of course, entirely false. I’ve never stated anything to the effect. I have asked him repeatedly to prove “Bush lied.” He never has because he can’t; no such proof has ever been revealed. I have asked him to explain his distortion or to phrase it properly – i.e. “in my opinion Bush lies.” He refuses, as he demonstrates again today. But, just as he doesn’t admit his hatred of Jews explicitly, he has never stated that he hates America . And just like his repeated biased attacks on Jews indicate the real truth, so does the fact that Thomas has never, that I recall, written anything complimentary of America – except, maybe, that he likes some species of plants that grows here. A mountain of biased criticism of America and nothing acknowledging anything we’ve done right equals hatred of our country to most people. As for his examples of my “bad taste and crass style,” some are intentionally taken out of context, but overall, I have never claimed or believed myself to have good taste or style. However, I would rather be a humble, honest man with bad taste, than a bigoted, arrogant Thus, when cites examples of me insulting “fellow U-K contributors,” he is correct, but he ignores that my insults were in response to those wonderful contributors insulting me first. When he cites me describing someone as “bloodsucking scum,” he omits the context of why I criticize that way. Sure he has the link to the article, but to quote only the insult and not the context is distortive. When he accuses me of “stereotyping illegal Mexican immigrants,” he is just lying. I asked a question, I did not state that all illegal Mexican immigrants did those things. When he implies that I something I wrote expressed bigotry against gays, again he lies. Nothing in that excerpt or the entire article expressed any bigotry against gays for their sexual orientation. I criticized their political activity to force Americans to acknowledge their sexuality. As I’ve stated many times, I have gay family members and friends who will all testify that I’ve never said anything against their sexuality. I only argue that I and other Americans should be free to say nothing about their sexuality. Thomas accuses me of “whining about the crimes of Clinton and Kennedy, but never mentions those of Bush.” I know of no “crimes” by Bush, or I would complain. I know only of differences of opinion on policy issues that his opponents describe as “crimes.” I know of vague innuendo unsupported by irrefutable facts that his opponents describe as “crimes.” But I know of no crimes by Bush. On the other hand, I hear sworn testimony and DNA evidence proving Clinton lied under oath. I hear sworn testimony from women he has assaulted. I see a dead girl in Kennedy’s car, and hear his implausible excuses for letting her die, and know that he was guilty of some crime whether it be involuntary manslaughter, DUI, speeding, etc. Is there anyone in this country that does not believe Clinton had sex with Lewinsky, or that Kennedy was criminally at fault in that death? It seems Thomas is the only one. On the other hand, I expect that a great majority of Americans recognize Bush’s critics are exaggerating when they call his policy decisions “crimes.” Thomas claims my use of illustrative analogies equals exaggeration. He is wrong; it’s called “effective writing.” Importantly, the analogy is true, compared to his distortions of me. And he claims I “pat myself on the back” for simply stating that I no longer believe in “boogeymen.” That is hardly a compliment, no more so than claiming my testicles dropped at age 12. It is simply and accurately the truth. Thomas claims I hate Europeans and despise the millions of them who died in their wars. Obviously, I said no such thing about the millions who died, and it would be more accurate to say that I criticized those Europeans who hate us and despise the thousands of Americans who died kicking the enemies out of their countries. But Thomas has no use for accuracy. Thomas says I “invent” quotations. Again, Thomas confuses effective writing for something else. If anyone anywhere seriously believed that my illustrative dialogue was intended to signify an actual quote, they are an idiot – but I feel certain no one did. That he says I use that technique “constantly” proves that it is he who actually attempts to distort with exaggeration. Thomas claims that I think I am a historical analyst. I don’t and have never implied such. On the other hand, Thomas has written many articles claiming to document history. Those that discuss Israel are distorted with cherry-picked facts to produce the bigotry he intends. Thomas again (how many times now is this, Thomas) cites a quote I made about Russian oil reserves. What he doesn’t link to that is the article I wrote in response to the first time he cited this mistake of mine. As can be relied on from me, I admitted my error. More importantly, I corrected that error by explaining what I truly meant, and by citing very credible, but as of yet unconfirmed (due to Russian secrecy), evidence that what I said was in fact correct. Thomas accuses me of writing “wild gibberish.” Yet, the passage he cites is completely legible, and not gibberish at all. Whether it is “wild” or not is a subjective opinion. I believe it is not, but that he believes otherwise means nothing. Thomas claims I “make wild exaggerations,” and cites this phrase: “In fact, my rebuttals of Thomas' hysterical rages against Jews have all been thoroughly documented and founded on facts” and its description “hysterical rages.” His rages were “hysterical” to me, in the sense that I roared with laughter at their stupidity. That they were rages does not mean that I think he was emotionally raging. I would expect that a master of languages like Thomas would understand these nuances. Thomas says that I contradict myself by extolling America as a place where a Bill Gates can become rich, while claiming disgust at the CEOs of public companies who make outrageous salaries. First, the two comments do not contradict. I can like America and despise thieves. However, to my knowledge, Bill Gates’ wealth comes from his ownership of the stock of Microsoft, not from any salary he receives – at least not salary on the scale that I criticized. Thomas suggests I leave because I complain about the insults on this site that many writers claim as debates. First, I would note that Thomas has done exactly that with today’s article – he addressed none of my response to his first article. This is not a debate, it is me questioning him as to the intent of these continued attacks on me, and him ignoring my questions and attacking again. Second, I won’t leave because I like exposing arrogant Finally, I admit to the lack of tact and finesse he describes in my description, long ago, of Michelle Malsbury. I can only suggest that you visit her web site and take a gander at that lovely woman in her swim suit and then tell me, as a heterosexual man, that you couldn’t imagine her “wringing out her pants” as well. I thought about it for weeks afterwards. OK, Thomas, your turn to ignore my criticism and insult me some more. You’re incapable of anything else. ------------ About the author Tom Pain: Just an American boy with so much common sense, it hurts. Email: thomas.pain@hughes.net Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
