Thursday, July 31, 2008

The world according to Jake

So what do you do when your credibility is in question because you make wild charges on your blog to the point where you have to complain because you finally got yourself hold of a big story and the state media is reticent about reporting it because they don't trust you?

You ... make more wild charges!!!

That, in any case, is how it works in Jake's World. First Jake at Page One Kentucky tries to smear a conservative commentator by saying he's "probably homosexual" because the commentator has the temerity to point out in the state's largest newspaper that U of L is spending Bucks for Brain's money on Dragqeenology by saying he's "probably homosexual". Then, when someone calls him on the carpet about it, instead of fessing up that it was completely unfound and hateful, you do it again. And you do it in the most hateful way you can, all the while charging the person toward whom you are directing your hate with being hateful.

In his response to my response to his newest unfounded charge that I'm a "gay-hater," he digs his little hole even deeper by calling me a "closet queen".

It goes without saying for that if you disagree with Jake (or anyone else with whom he agrees) you must necessarily hate them. What a tiny little place Jake's World must be. One day, he will grow up and figure out that big people can actually disagree with each other and do it respectfully. Until then--and until he apologizes for reckless public charges against people he knows little about, it appears we're going to have to keep treating him like a juvenile you don't trust with the car keys.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

What's this continued fascination with homosexuals at the expense of other topics such as the Latin origin of Mr Kirk's phrase and other replies he said he would get to?

jah

Martin Cothran said...

Jah,

What's this continued fascination with my blog (you know, the one that only talks about homosexuality)? I hesititate to think what Jake would make of it.

In regard to your question about the Latin origin of the Kirk quote, I would suggest that if you have a question about it that you actually ask one. There is no question in your comment on my post.

I suggest reading your post again.

Is it my imagination, or is the problem of simple reading comprehension becoming a sort of theme in our conversations?

BimBeau said...

Originally I sought to rebutt your hatred and intemperate screed attacking homosexuals. Then it Then it came me
Like an Epiphany
Your hatred is emotional and emotions don't mature with age, only with vision. So you won't benefit from any perspective that differs from yours.
Martin ... you'll only grow old never up.

Anonymous said...

1) MC: What's this continued fascination with my blog (you know, the one that only talks about homosexuality)?

a) Perseverance - I have been trying to get you to answer at least one question.
b) I have pointed out that you often
write on homosexuality (my response rate to those is lower than for other topics). Where did your "only" come from? Nothing I wrote, for sure.


2) MC: is the problem of simple reading comprehension becoming a sort of theme in our conversations?

My answer would have to be yes. See, e.g., MC's introduction of "only" above.

jah

Martin Cothran said...

Okay, I'll confess, I'm having a hard time trying to be serious responding to someone who calls himself "Bimbeau."

Maybe, Mr. Bimbeau Sir, you could tell me what comment you thought was hateful and intemperate. It seems to me rather intemperate to make such a charge if it isn't true--and a little overemotional too.

Martin Cothran said...

I have been trying to get you to answer at least one question.

You mean the one about what Chuck Norris says about the Louisiana Science Education Act which is totally irrelevant to the issue or the question you said you asked but didn't about the Latin origin of the Kirk quote?

Anonymous said...

MC: You mean the one about what Chuck Norris says about the Louisiana Science Education Act which is totally irrelevant to the issue or the question you said you asked but didn't about the Latin origin of the Kirk quote?

Why is Norris' comment that the LA act can be used to get religion into the classroom "irrelevant" to the discussion of whether the LA law will be used to get religion into the classroom?

I never claimed to have asked Mr Cothran about origin of a quote of Mr Kirk. I was surprised that he was apparently unaware that the statement was unoriginal (most people attribute it to Newton and don't realize it was critical) and assumed he would have been intrigued enough about the past history to make some comment.

[Since only recent articles and not comments are mentioned in top left and since the article had scrolled off the top screen, I was curious to know if anyone had even read it.]

jah

Martin Cothran said...

Jah,

Why would you assume that I meant Kirk was the first one to use that particular metaphor? I never said that. People quote Jesus saying "do unto others" all the time even though he wasn't the first one to say it.

And why is what Chuck Norris said any more determinative of the implications of the Louisiana Science Education Act than what Brittany Spears might think?

Anonymous said...

Why would you assume that I meant Kirk was the first one to use that particular metaphor? I never said that.


I'm glad Mr Cothran brought this matter to my attention (answer to your question below). On first pass I had missed how inappropriate this quote is. The intent of the standing on shoulders quote is to explain that the current generation is able to discover new things not because we are smarter than our predecessors but because they built for us a solid foundation on which we can stand and advance. Yet Mr Cothran urges not advancement but retreat to studying just the past. Instead of standing on shoulders he is more interested in putting on the same boots of earlier times.



If someone quotes another person, the quote should be attributed unless:

a) it is a phrase in common or standard usage and indicates no original expression
b) it is so strongly associated with someone that no attribution is required
c) it was independently thought of and the speaker was unaware of earlier usage.

Unfortunately some judgment is involved, which Mr Cothran's 2nd grade class, or whomever he has turned this blog over to, doesn't seem to possess.



MC: And why is what Chuck Norris said any more determinative of the implications of the Louisiana Science Education Act than what Brittany Spears might think?

Because Mr Norris is involved in religion and has read and written on the topic. I doubt Brittany Spears has even heard of the bill. I could explain further but it would take awhile and given the reading comprehension problems amply demonstrated, I doubt it is worth my effort.

Anonymous said...

jah

Martin Cothran said...

Jah,

Where did you get these criteria for attribution?

And on the matter of Norris, are you saying that if Brittney Spears gets religion and reads the bill she's suddenly an authority on what the bill would do? You're really not making any sense here.

Anonymous said...

MC: And on the matter of Norris, are you saying that if Brittney Spears gets religion and reads the bill she's suddenly an authority on what the bill would do?

Not at all. I am saying that if she has religion, reads the bill, and the context and concludes that the bill will allow religion in, then this is more evidence that the bill will likely let religion in - it certainly indicates that people hope it will. As you are no doubt aware, she already is familiar with Louisiana.

There is no absolute knowledge here about what will happen under this law. No one can say for sure what will happen.

Perhaps you could ask Prof Forrest for help?

MC: You're really not making any sense here.

Regrettably your blogging software does not permit me to draw pictures.



MC: Where did you get these criteria for attribution?

Would that information affect your opinion of their merit?

jah

Martin Cothran said...

MC: Where did you get these criteria for attribution?

Would that information affect your opinion of their merit?


No. But you placed so much emphasis on properly attributing things--and lecturing me on the matter--that it left me wondering why, if you got them somewhere, you didn't attribute them. It seems to me that someone who is so concerned with attribution would want to follow the rules they lay down for everyone else.

Martin Cothran said...

Jah,

MC: And on the matter of Norris, are you saying that if Brittney Spears gets religion and reads the bill she's suddenly an authority on what the bill would do?

Not at all. I am saying that if she has religion, reads the bill, and the context and concludes that the bill will allow religion in, then this is more evidence that the bill will likely let religion in - it certainly indicates that people hope it will. As you are no doubt aware, she already is familiar with Louisiana.


How about Paris Hilton?

Anonymous said...

MC: How about Paris Hilton?

The same argument applies to her and all other nubile bimbos on your mind.


MC: Where did you get these criteria for attribution?

The important fact to note is that I did not attribute it to anyone not responsible for originating it. In fact, it is a paraphrase of what we were taught in (probably) 6th or 7th grade English. As an author and someone involved in publishing, Mr Cothran is no doubt aware of how to deal with quotes.

Again, anyone, why would Mr Cothran include a quote about looking forward when the point of his post is that we should look to the past?

jah

Martin Cothran said...

Jah,

Did you mention in your original post that these criteria were from your "7th or 8th grade English" class?

Anonymous said...

MC: Did you mention in your original post that these criteria were from your "7th or 8th grade English" class?

No, I didn't - don't worry, it's not another case of "no specific mention of Nazis" or other reading miscomprehensions.

jah

Martin Cothran said...

Jah,

You got on my blog and accused me of not attributing my sources simply because I quoted someone who said something (and, yes, he actually said it) but didn't give the entire history of similar quotes throughout all of time, and then, in the very act making the criticism you give a list of attribution rules--but don't attribute them!

Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y?

Anonymous said...

MC: You got on my blog and accused me of not attributing my sources simply because I quoted someone who said something (and, yes, he actually said it)

Many actors quote Shakespeare, but most of us don't attribute the lines to the actors.

MC: in the very act making the criticism you give a list of attribution rules--but don't attribute them!

As I have already tried to explain, I didn't misattribute them. And if Mr Cothran had read and applied them, he would have realized that they are/should be fairly common knowledge. If Mr Cothran had stated that baseball has 3 outs in an inning, I wouldn't have faulted him for lack of attribution. If you go to http://www.quotationspage.com/qotd.html for example, you will note that attributions are used.


MC: Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y?

Yes. But I also know what it means.

jah