Comments Posted By Pat Doherty
Displaying 1 To 3 Of 3 Comments


Why such vitriol? People like me? Does that mean people who disagree with you Rick? This is the second time I've commented on one of your posts, and the first time you've responded. You don't know me. If you're capable of diagnosing my mental process and cognitive flaws by virtue of a single blog post you have a truly enviable intellect. I've been a faithful reader, a fan for over a year (perhaps I should I have expressed that in the post). I didn't attack you personally. I criticized what I find distasteful about something I generally like. Maybe it was overdone, I'm certainly capable of doing that. If it offended you on a personal level I apologize. I'd imagine you've been subject to worse excoriations than my little blog-jeremiad. The exact reason I posted my comment was in the hope of having a meaningful dialogue with you. If I didn't like you I would simply call you a douchebag or a faggot or some other blog colloquialism. For someone who writes affectionately of a sober, empirical, intellectual conservatism, your response is disquieting in its raw, seemingly emotional vituperation.

Comment Posted By Pat Doherty On 4.12.2009 @ 18:42

I don't exactly what I was exaggerating (to be fair, the philosopher/king thread may have been a bit much) since you didn't address anything I said and retreated instantly into the warm confines of the ad hominem. Perhaps you can enlighten me with your acumen.

Why bother? I mean really, what is the point? I have learned that people like you have no desire to engage in any kind of colloquy. You read and interpret what I write through a prism of ideology and don't realize, cannot fathom that your interpretation is so out of whack with the words on the page that it would be worse than useless to waste my time giving a detailed response to anything you think.


Comment Posted By Pat Doherty On 4.12.2009 @ 17:57

This blog is getting very Andrew Sullivan circa 2005 as of late. The constant drumbeat about the great unwashed and their illiberal litmus tests, while simultaneously calling for the excision of anyone who says something slightly disagreeable. The promotion of nebulously-principled, aspirant courtiers like Conor Friedersdorf (a Sullivan toady) as the type of people conservatives should really be listening to. Long posts concerning an utterly ill-defined "intellectual conservatism" that get bogged down in superficial semantics rather than articulating a robust oppositional philosophy to the government overreach we face today. Frequent, tedious articles concerning the importance of criticizing one's side (a very worthy topic, but certainly capable of being overdone), culminating notably in that self-stroking "My Conservative Apostasy" post of yesterday. Mr. Moran seems to be blogging from some Platonic bunny hole where philosopher-kings are the rule and not the exception, and those who make the most modest populist entreaties shouldn't just be harshly refuted, but banned from the decision-making arena all together.

Do you exaggerate everything for effect or are you really an ignoramus?

Just asking the question...


Comment Posted By Pat Doherty On 4.12.2009 @ 17:06



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page