Re: Ignore them and they'll go away
> Ignore Dampier and he will go away. He is a Rochester, New
> York political activist who creates websites for
> non-profits. He has nothing to do with radio. He
> contributes nothing here, all he does is attack and detract.
Thank you for illustrating that on all things, your credibility to speak with authority, especially about me, has been, is, and always will be suspect at best. Evidently you managed to use the same tactics the CIA used in attempting to ascertain whether Iraq had WMD (by using Google) and, like them, you struck out.
Since I use my real name here while others hide behind handles, it's not too difficult to play Google, although I'm sure you had to wade through a lot of pirate and basketball references along the way.
1) I'm not sure what a "political activist" is in your mind. Am I employed in any field of politics? No. Do I receive any income from an entity to promote its agenda? No. Do I write a blog? No. Do I vote and speak about the issues I am interested in, here and elsewhere? Yes. That's called being a good citizen in a democracy. Strike one.
2) I have never created a website in my life. I volunteer as president of a non-profit group that provides web space for more than 500 different local community service organizations, churches, clubs, and non-profits. I do it without compensation of any kind and with no restriction on the groups we host, whether I agree or disagree with them. Strike two.
3) I very much have a history in radio. Do I have to justify it to your satisfaction? What do you think. Here's a tip for rational living - don't make assumptions and conclusions based entirely on a Google search. Strike three, and your credibility is out.
> You have already seen his tactics.
Oooh... I'm quaking.
> * He does not compose posts. He interjects shots into the
> posts of others.
Evidently you don't actually read the forums here because you'll find a lot of posts composed by me. I also reply to others. That's called participation. As to this "interjecting shots" reference, pot to kettle.
> * He does not contribute anything new. He attacks those
> that do.
In the world of your talking points, disagreeing or asking for proof is "attacking." Are we playing the politics of message forum destruction or the criminalization of bulletin boards? I want to make sure I have the right talking points from you.
> * He demands proof of others' statements. He offers none
> of his own to contradict what others have said.
Oh no... I asked people to actually back up their statements when they claim authority or access to detailed information! Slap me silly. Before demanding that people who hold a different view provide evidence to refute something, how about we ask for evidence from the person claiming authority and evidence to back up their original position. If there is no evidence, and that's what happened here, then it's simply a matter of personal opinion, and everyone is entitled to one. Case/thread closed.
> * He claims sources cited by those with whom he does not
> agree are biased.
Anyone who takes a moment to look at folks like Brian Maloney and Michelle Malkin who are touted as "industry experts" who are the basis of so many of the reports I challenge will come to the same conclusion. As far as newspaper columnists, they are by their very nature held to a different set of standards. Do I claim the Murdoch press, for example, has a position to take on this story? Sure do, especially when some of the same columnists wrote that AAR would never have any listeners, that the "liberal media" was ignoring the "scandal" story, and many of the "stories" relied on quotations from each other and represented as news gathering, which it wasn't. We've been through this thread over the summer, so no point in going over it again.
> He is not the only one playing this game here (although he
> is one of the more blatant). Nor is this practice limited
> to people on the left. Conservatives (like racoonradio) are
> also guilty. Some of them have found the Off-Air board
> (something to be thankful for today). Maybe they will take
> their petty little political arguements over there.
Oh how bipartisan of you. Those of us who've been here awhile realize this conversion is rather recent on your part. But I suppose it would help to stand even on this ice if you are going to accuse people of playing politics, because the thin ice you were on before would have failed had Biddles the Cat walked across it.
> In the meantime, ignore them. Don't reply to them. Don't
> get sucked in. Just talk about radio and reply to others
> who do the same. I learned all this the hard way.
This is hysterical. If you "learned all this the hard way" why do you continue to respond to "those people." You just spent a lot of time ignoring me by composing this Hannity-style "list." How amusing.
> Life is too short.
But long enough for you to write all this.
Here's my list, because life is long and I don't need to run away:
1) Apart from this message which you wrote, my posts aren't about you or me or any other individual here. It's about the information. Every message rises and falls on its own merit. When you say something coherent, I'll reply that I agree with you. When you waste time with this nutty attempt to... what... embarrass me? Bore others? Play den mother to the wounded? that's when it's not about the information but about personalities.
2) Reply or don't. Agree or not. That's your right and your decision. Does it matter to me what you do? Of course not.
3) If you say it and then claim authority, proof, or sources, be prepared to back it up with evidence of the authority, proof, or information about your sources. If it's your personal opinion, say so - people may agree or disagree, but you have every right to make it.
4) When you can't debate the facts, we get messages like the one I am replying to now, which tapdances off the dance floor of information and into the personalities concession stand, and you just bought the Family Val-U Pack.
This aspect of the thread closed when thebroker wrote that the views he presented were his own opinions. I respect that and considered it closed. Now you're here to present us with this Wounded Doe routine. Take the thorn out of your own paw and have a good holiday.
