You may be someone who's had the fortune of being part of a spam campaign seemingly run by a single individual posting as "Chino Blanco". While not a true expose (I don't think that warrants the time) this is a piece sharing common knowledge and response to someone doing the internet ring the doorbell and run routine.
[Read on...]
He or she is heavily involved in the California campaign from, if his Blogger account is accurate, Taiwan. I have no record of his involvement previous to that. The churlish in me considers that perhaps the anti campaign is getting efficient with their funds by outsourcing :)
Chino appears to be particularly interested in LDS affairs. Chino claims a "pioneer heritage" and raised by LDS members.
In a sort of narcissistic way, Chino's website tracks where he cross posts the same article across more than a half dozen far left leaning sites that winds up to be vetting to the choir. Unfortunately it is his posting comments on anything that shows up as "Proposition 8" in an internet search that seems to be a hit and run tactic with no intention of discussing any points he raises.
I personally have nothing against his hyper-active marketing campaign. The internet is made for spamming, and in many ways its like any pamphleteer who leaves copies of information everywhere they can.
Recently I got him to take a break from his spamming to discuss various points of the marriage debate with me. Unfortunately, it seemed to be an exercise in frustration for him. As questions were asked he became increasingly testy and uncomfortable. At one point claimed I had casually dismissed another commenter there (though that commenter later denied feeling dismissed) and later just called me a jerk.
It seems spamming is as much a defensive reaction as offensive action for him. That thread is also a great place to see reactions from a number of people he has spammed. You can also look at the responses I've written to his spamming on Opine and one other site The links are below, and will be updated as I continue to dispel his gossip campaign.
Between him and Makedde, we have two people who are better at saying something over and over again then explaining why they believe it. One might conclude that they are social people who would be just as adamant about any position their close group of peers decide is true. But it is unfair of me to single out the words of two of the least articulate of those who wish to neuter marriage. I should note that nothing these two do discredits the movement they subscribe to. It is simply an exercise in separating out the thoughtful articulators and those that are not.
I really have nothing against this prolific spammer. I think some good self-contemplation is in order to help the quality of his writing. If he gets tripped up on such simple questions as, where is the harm in voting yes in California when DP's provide all the state benefits of marriage, then he is going to have a tough row in convincing others to be just as adamantly against marriage equality (one man and one woman) as he is.
- Romney and Huckabee
- Frank Shubert's saving 26 million in microtargeting
- Past racist comments the same as defending marriage?
- Six lies? Well we take on the first one at least.
- What is the LDS position really on Domestic Partnerships? Does that contradict litterature put out by a "LDS grassroots leader" in California?
- Does Newt Gingrich with his past of three marriages have a leg to stand on?
on lawn:
ReplyDeleteThanks for linking to my blog post! I just wanted you to know that I just posted a (rather lengthy) response to his last post (the racism one that you mention in your post here).
You can read it here, if you'd like:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1029505792821562881&postID=1042306218509049071&page=1
Keep up the good work!
What's up with your weird fascination with all things Chino?
ReplyDeleteIt's kinda creepy.
I wouldn't take it that way Chino. You've been a great source of arguments to debunk in this debate. Unique points, very bold.
ReplyDeleteSo, it isn't you. Its the spicy ham that you keep serving :)
It's still a fight to the finish, but your "spicy ham" comment got a chuckle. Hope y'all enjoyed your holidays.
ReplyDeleteI saw some of your comments on the "Serving Bread" blog and would like to say keep up the good work! :-)
ReplyDeletewhatsthebigdealaboutprop8.blogspot.com
Who is Steve Young?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akt908vnUT0
Who is chino blanco?
ReplyDeleteChino Blanco is just another spammer.
ReplyDeleteWho is Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.?
ReplyDeleteCould he be the current governor of Utah who just endorsed civil unions and the entire Common Ground Initiative?
One and the same.
yep it failed...good for da Gov.
ReplyDeleteThey already have a marriage amendment with no civil unions.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHey, look at that, your blog administrators are earning their keep. Well done, lads.
ReplyDeleteI'm just dropping by to mention that I noticed "Chairm" over at the NOMblog, and figured it was your esteemed "Chairman" ... Considering that "Norm" is short for "Norman" ... why not "Chairm", eh? Works for me.
Anyways, just wanted to mention that Chairm's comments over at the NOMblog seem like a good fit.
Looking forward to reading more of 'em.
Cheers.
Hi Emma,
ReplyDelete.My name is Chairm Ohn. Although I do sit in a chair as I blog, I'm not a chairman here or anyplace else. Heh.
I joined Opine after the founding members extended an invite. This is a group blog with members from a fairly broad range of backgrounds.
Thanks for dropping by and for your comment.
Feel free to take a stroll through our archives. We've been blogging about marriage and related issues for years now. If you find something interesting to comment on, please do so. New comments will appear in the current comments list at the top of the homepage, even comments on older blogposts found in the archives. These sorts of issues seem to remain current long past the posted date.
Thanks for the speedy and gracious welcome, CO.
ReplyDeleteEmma, you're a sycophant and a disappointment.
ReplyDeleteWhy I ever married you I'll never know.
Ha!
Chino, if you have nothing of substance to say, please do not bother to comment.
ReplyDeleteWe'd all do well to heed your advice.
ReplyDeletePlease do so, going forward. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteWill do, Cap'n, er, I mean, Chairm.
ReplyDeleteMy name's Jason Echols. What's yours?
ReplyDeleteCrickets.
ReplyDeleteSerious crickets.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn, my challenge to you remains the same.
ReplyDeleteIf you really believe that what you do at KnowThyNeighbor is OK, then not only prove it by posting your own address and telephone number here, but also post the real name, address, and telephone number of someone who supports your position, and do it without getting their permission to do so first.
Oh, and, naturally, we won't know if you really asked them first and just claim you didn't, but you will.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn, I will be glad to call you later and give you my information, if you first promise not to give it to anyone else.
ReplyDeleteI will do the same for anyone else who asks. (Arturo, in fact, once E-mailed me with a request to talk. Although I didn't see the E-mail for a while, I did accept his offer, but I never heard back from him).
But no, the petition signers are giving their names only for the organizers of the petition, and for purposes of verification by the state. They are not giving it so they can be verbally harrassed, or so that others can use the information to drive a wedge between them and their friends, neighbors, employers, and co-workers.
Believe it or not, though we oppose neutered marriage, our identity is not based on that. I think that's the big difference here. Thus, we would like to talk with friends, neighbors, and others about plenty of things other than neutering marriage, and do not want that issue to become a wedge between us and everyone else. I really don't care how all the other people I talk to feel about the issue. I think that's the big difference here. You probably really could care less if all who disagreed with you were out of your sphere of positive acquaintances, and we don't feel that way. So in that regard, you have "leverage" over us, or think you should, anyway.
So if you really want to just talk, fine. But if you want my information so that others can use it to drive wedges between me and others, no. In any case, let me know, and if this is one on one, I will give you my info.
BTW, I'm sure you know someone else who agrees with you who has also given out their name, address, and phone number many times elsewhere, but has never said anything about us having it. If you give us their info without first asking that person whether they specifically want us to have it, that would be more like what KTN is doing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteR.K. just to let you know he did this with another Opiner, and was found to be untrustworthy. Just saying.
ReplyDeleteSo Mr Hosty,
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of dialog do you plan to have that you could not have openly on the discussion board of this site?
I mean, trust is something that cannot be gained by knowing people's information. In fact, I've found that trusting people in general is a no-win proposition. That doesn't mean I don't trust people, just that trusting people does not make something true or not.
For instance, you say Chairm doesn't exist because you couldn't find him on PeopleSearch.com or some other whatever database. The truth of your claim has nothing to do with his existence, or your trustworthiness. It has to do with verifiable information and reasonable conclusions based on those.
Have you considered that your play the role of Richard Nixon and locate and keep tabs on people on your enemy list is 1) Your database is fallible (likely), 2) Your database is too limited in scope, 3) Human error on your part?
You say that you think Chairm is ficticious. We can trust you or we can trust the facts. From what you provided, there are large holes in your process which sheds light in 1) your nefarious attempts to stalk people and 2) seriously reflects poorly on your judgment.
Who you are plays nothing on that.
What can you trust? Facts. You can verify them, you can check their logic for holes (like I just did for you). The person behind them means nothing.
Which is why the founding fathers wrote the Federalist Papers pseudononymously, even though they had no fear of reprisal. Because they wanted people to believe the reasoning in and of itself.
Are you incapable of doing such analysis? Do you need some personal contact to help hold your hand while you are trying to think for yourself?
Or are you leaning on the ability to personally intimidate -- which is honestly the only aspect of political discourse that you cannot accomplish without knowing where someone lives.
Let's agree upon a time that I should call, John. Let me know when works best for you, and I'll let you know if I'm available at that time. If that doesn't work for me, I'll pick a time. I want to make sure I get you, and I'd rather you knew it was me and not someone calling to harrass you. (BTW, lest this be necessary, anyone reading this, do NOT call John and harrass him. I have no idea who all just stops by to look at this page, from either side, but there is nothing to stop the occasional kook in either case).
ReplyDeleteBTW, did you not say a while back that you lived in New Hampshire? I may have misunderstood. Perhaps you have houses in both NH and Mass.
I will hold you to your word. Any sign of you breaking your word will be duly noted here.
On Lawn, do you still have my telephone number? (I think I gave it to you back in October 2007, but I'm not sure). If so, could you give me a call? My E-mail, BTW, is shot, unfortunately, it's been bouncing messages sent to me, though I can still send out.
BTW, I'm CST, John, so you are one hour ahead.
ReplyDeleteI have to go for about 2 and a half hours. So I'll pick first. John, how does 8PM EST tomorrow work for you?
ReplyDeleteEtiam nunc nullam meminit aciem nisi qua fugerit.
ReplyDeleteInquit JHG: "blah-blah-blah."
Id est: "Credo quia absurdum est."
Heh.
Labra lege: Cogito ergo sum.
Id est: Adversus solem ne loquitor.
Ah, me ineptum, Chairm Ohn.
Latin. Chairm's ultima ratio.
ReplyDeleteOn Lawn asked: What kind of dialog do you plan to have that you could not have openly on the discussion board of this site?
ReplyDeleteJohn, I'd like an answer to that as well before tomorrow evening.
I'm debating between trusting you and not trusting you.
From the time we were children haven't we all been warned about the foolishness of letting other people goad us by the "chicken" taunt? Maybe you're playing that with me now.
Believe me, I'd like very much to be open with you.
But I don't really know you either.
As of now I still plan to call you at 8PM EST tomorrow. But I'd like to hear more about your reason for needing to know so much about people first.
Sorry, more important things have come up. My niece was just poked in the eye and cannot see, and she, her two kids, and my sister need my help. I'll get back to John later.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMr Hosty re-directs: > There's nothing to hide but your identity which is the reason for calling instead of posting it publicly like I have.
ReplyDeleteI can think of three reasons...
1) Privacy.
2) Keeping focused on the arguments rather then the arguers
3) Protection for the whistleblowers to help them feel safe to speak freely in a world where no good dead goes unpunished.
All three of those things aid in positive dialog. Pseudonymity has been used by not only the founding fathers but many of our greatest philosophers and authors. Lewis Carrol, Jonathan Swift, just a list of people who's ability to pierce the shibboleths and right the wrongs were aided by their pseudonyms.
I was about to note how you once again avoided the question. But you did note one potential value...
A real time conversation has a way of bringing people together that doesn't happen when we blog.
This is real time. As soon as I say it, its open to be read. Just as for you.
In writing you are afforded (even encouraged to take) the time to read and re-read what is written before replying. You would do well to use opportunity more often.
And yes we do need to start talking about what we can do together.
I've forwarded a compromise quite often to you that you have entirely dismissed -- for reasons you haven't really explained.
Here it is again,
You allow the state to recognize the rights and responsibilities of each participant in how we create children (the mother, father and potential child) equally in an institution which promotes them to stay together called "marriage". The ability to equally recognize their rights and responsibilities is marriage equality.
And in turn your relationship gets recognized along with every other adult relationship of mutual trust and support, (be they siblings, platonic friends, elderly benefactors) with Reciprocal Beneficiaries. And no punishment if you call and announce yourself as a marriage, that is your own volition.
That way we both the exact protection and recognition we are looking for. You get the protection and recognition you are looking for. Its a compromise that benefits both rather then robbing diversity and distinct human realities of either.
Game?
(And we didn't need to talk over the phone to reach the compromise, isn't that something!)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJHG you still owe us an explanation for your deleting your own comments from an exchange in which this blog co-operated in providing a platform (lots of comment space and a several blogposts) for you viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteHaving read, heard, and seen you in action, JHG, and judging by your pattern of sleazy behavior on the SSM issue, it is my assessment that you don't merit the trust that you ask of others here and elsewhere.
For the record, nothing in your comments has portended improvement in your behavior. Nothing indicates that you would say or do anything differently than you alrady have in our comment sections.
I'd advise anyone (on any side of the marriage issue) to await (and to encourage) marked improvement from you before bothering to expend further effort in other forms of contact with you.
Interesting....
ReplyDeleteThanks for your input On Lawn but RK can make his own decisions, can't he?
The reason he gave had nothing to do with me, you can quit crying about it.
No matter what decision he makes, your phishing and cyber stalking routine, getting "together [in a way] that doesn't happen when we blog", is more then creepy. I just point it out.
Perhaps he sees what I see; an inherent goodness in all people that's worth the effort.
As apposed to Mr Hosty, who recently posted...
Like usual you try to assert untruths as fact hoping the public is too foolish to question your honesty.
You keep lying, I just keep pointing it out.
re-assert the cooperative effort that is needed for respect to regrow between us.
And that is the difference between us. You want to solve this with personally, outside of view, in the alley so to speak.
We can solve this, my last post even gave you a compromise that you could choose to work with. You dropped the ball, and even missed the opportunity to condemn the violence and vandalism against marriage supporters.
So what progress are you willing to make Mr Hosty. Are you willing to respect people's privacy? Are you willing to condemn the violence and vandalism against people who stand to defend equal gender participation in each marriage? Are you willing to allow to state to recognize equality in how the institution marriage expects love and tolerance from both genders participating in each marriage?
Are you willing to stand and make any progress today at all?
What I find most telling is not that Hosty-G has moved to this thread to engage in a purely ad-hominem attack, but that he has rejected OnLawn's offer to discuss something not an ad hominem, a proposed compromise.
ReplyDeleteIt simply shows what Hosty-G is actually interested in.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn Lawn, please don't try the holier than thou approach with me.
ReplyDeleteI see, so while I'm trying to find the most equitable and reasonable argument, Mr Hosty is simply looking for the most "holy" person.
It seems we are at cross purposes then. I want to find the facts, he wants to play "holier then thou".
I can remember Ed Brayton kicking you off his blog for posting under assumed names
But he won't even win "holier then thou" contests with lies like that.
Truth told Ed kicked me, Chairm, Op-Ed, and all other editors from Opine off his site for challenging his way of thinking. He never accused us of being the same person when he kicked us off, contrary to Mr Hosty's claim.
I believe what he is referencing is sometime after that mass banning, Ed thought someone sounded like me and he banned them. Mr Hosty eagerly jumped on the wild accusation, and upped the ante claiming I was the same person as Christian also. On top of that, he evoked the chilling holocaust imagery of me being a vermin that he was hunting with his rifle.
But that seems as spurious an accusation as Chairm is a fictitious person because he couldn't find his name on PeopleSearch.com (or some such database). As spurious an accusation as I have had something to do with R.K. postponing giving you a call.
Even at the game of "holier then thou" from phishing, to cyber-stalking, to all his accusations, he's shooting himself in the foot.
As a matter of fact I don't recall you ever conceding any point to anyone ever.
Interesting. Above I mentioned a compromise where I conceded that ...
"your relationship gets recognized along with every other adult relationship of mutual trust and support, (be they siblings, platonic friends, elderly benefactors) with Reciprocal Beneficiaries. And no punishment if you call and announce yourself as a marriage, that is your own volition."
Again, for a "holier then thou" contest, he is sure spreading a lot of easily dis-proven accusations.
You can attempt to discredit me as a person but the importance of my message stands just as it was; we need growth and growth happens through change.
Here I can only encourage Mr Hosty to be the change he wishes to see, I've invited him to the following (of many) areas of potential progress..
"So what progress are you willing to make Mr Hosty. Are you willing to respect people's privacy? Are you willing to condemn the violence and vandalism against people who stand to defend equal gender participation in each marriage? Are you willing to allow to state to recognize equality in how the institution marriage expects love and tolerance from both genders participating in each marriage?
"Are you willing to stand and make any progress today at all?"
You would think he believed in progress when he said, "We don't need to fear change so long as we change for the better by working together." Lets see how much stock he puts in his own words. I've taken many steps in compromise, is Mr Hosty going to take any of those steps towards working together today?
Only Mr Hosty can decide that. Amazingly what Op-Ed noted previous to Mr Hosty's latest remains true! "...he [Mr Hosty] has rejected OnLawn's offer to discuss something not an ad hominem, a proposed compromise. It simply shows what Hosty-G is actually interested in."
Hosty-G: How funny that you would use an ad homimen [sic] attack while complaining of them.
ReplyDeleteNote that is not a denial. Hosty-G knows he is here to spew ad hominem. If he had a rational argument, he'd have made it in the last several years he has been commenting here.
For John's benefit, to point out an argument is fallacial, e.g., ad hominem, is not itself an ad hominem.
JHG sniffed: "Is that irony I smell?"
ReplyDeleteHeh.
Your stinky attitude and foul behavior; your odorous rhetoric; the stale cold sweat from your cowardly fleeing the actual disagreement. Could be all of the above.
Perhaps you have soiled your pants from fear of being anything but indiscriminate, I dunno.
You could go shower and change. Clean-up your act. Scrounge up some courage to reconsider your sleazy tactics and phony poses. Heal yourself.
As it stands, and as the record shows, your comments have often served as accusations against yourself. Maybe a good hard look in the mirror might do you some good.
Improvement and change, JHG, begins with you. Not with those you stalk with the intent of taking zombie-like bites out of.
Along the lines of On Lawn, I've also noted that there are families who exprience vulnerabilities outside of marriage; this is due to the lack of, or the diminishment of, sex integration and responsible procreation in their circumstances. Protective measures is really all that the SSM argumentation highlights -- once the identity politics is removed. The nonmarriage category is far broader than that tiny subset defined by gayness, for example. Equal treatment among such families may be merited (I think it is) but not as a way to discard the core of marriage. Rather as a remedial effort that is needed given the hard knocks that that social institution has suffered these past couple of decades.
Marriage is more than a tolerative or a protective status. It is a preferential status. Its core meaning provides the special reason for special status.
Gayness provides no such justification for special status among the vast nonmarriage category of relationship types and kinds of living arrangements. None that any SSMer has come up with. Certainly none that you have ever voiced.
Protection equality is far more inclusive than even the SSM-merger in Massachusetts ever can be. That's because, unlike the merger, protective measures for vulnerable nonmarital families would not be based on gay identity politics.
I anticipate that, as before, you will run away from this because you will already be at a trot fleeing the actual disagreement regarding marriage. Instead the mud-throwing and the ad homs will resume. But you might surprise.
Sorry to hear about your niece, I hope she recovers well and suffers as little as possible while she mends.
ReplyDeleteThanks. She's seeing OK now and looks like she'll heal without further problems. It made it a little difficult for her to watch her kids at first, but now things are OK.
Is Saturday good for you?
I'm going to visit a friend today but tomorrow afternoon, or perhaps even better, next Saturday, would work.
I have a few questions though.
I think that would be even more productive in showing that we are not so different.
We need to start talking about what we can do together, solutions for our disagreements instead of the same old line in the sand we've had going for so long now.
That's fine, but I'd like to know now that, while you have agreed to not share my info with anyone else, you are not just planning to hold it for future leverage in case I get under your skin in argument again.
I'm sure, on plenty of other issues, John, we may well find ourselves in agreement. But when we cannot, and the issue of same-sex/neutered marriage is apparently one in which we cannot, are you willing to agree to disagree?
Even if I find that we may have many areas of agreement and are willing to talk about them as such, I will still reserve the right here to state when I do disagree, and yes, sometimes my arguments....arguments, I stress, may still "get under your skin", as I'm sure much of what you say will still get under mine. If we get each other mad in the course of argument, I will not give out or even threaten to give out your info to anyone else.
Will you assure me that you will not give out...or threaten to give out....mine, later, if our arguments do become heated? (Now if I were to breach your privacy or commit a crime against you, of course, that would be a different matter). In other words, sticks and stones....you know.
Thanks for your input On Lawn but RK can make his own decisions, can't he?
True but I respect their advice, which I guess is based on past experience which I was not aware of.
As much as you and Chairm try to get under my skin by mocking me and using childish tactics like misspelling KTN as KYN I still see the prospect of good in you that's worth fighting for.
I don't see how misspelling KTN as KYN is such a big deal. "Thy" as opposed to "your"?
Perhaps he sees what I see; an inherent goodness in all people that's worth the effort.
True, but I'd like to know that I did not in agreeing to this merely foolishly fall into a game of "chicken".
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRK, you have a good head on your shoulders and are more than competent to decide what (if anything) to do in response to JHG's request to personalize the exchange between you. I'm going to add a few words here mainly for the sake of our non-commenting readership some of whom have emailed to ask me questions about this.
ReplyDelete* * *
This guy's pose looks awfully phony.
JHG vaguely refers to "some advantages" and does not answer RK's question about the supposed desire for personalization. He backs away from substance by claiming mere "curiousity". And yet he shows no curiousity about what is right under his nose in this very comment section. Solutions? Differences? Peaceful neighbors? Once again he elides when it comes to this superficial pose of his own. His request has been addressed here and in other discussions.
Pointing out this obvious stuff to JHG is, in his peculair view, mere 'fear-mongering'. That colors his notion of "some advantages" and "curiosity".
As does his enthusiastic endorsement of the tactics and policies and behavior of those associated with the KTN website.
* * *
JHG, the differences and the way forward? If you are truly curious about more than hyper-personalization, then, the process has been front and center here at Opine:
1. Use the same standards when assessing the meaning of marriage as when assessing the claim for SSM.
2. Attempt to accurately restate the viewpoint with which you disagree. Seek confirmation, clarification, or correction.
3. Do not delete your half of the exchange.
4. Distinguish marriage from nonmarriage. State the essential feature(s) without which marriage would not be marriage.
5. Distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category. State the essential feature(s) without which SSM would not be SSM.
6. Plainly state the special reason for special status. If not special status, then, state the reason for protective status. If not protective status, then, state the reason for tolerative status.
I don't care what you think marriage is NOT. That's old news. Try stating what marriage actually is. That is the starting place. If you can't do that, fine, start with what SSM (the type of relationship or arrangement that you have in mind) and state what it actually is from your viewpoint.
Once again, your failure on these points belongs to you, JHG. If you cannot accurately state the actual disagreement, then, it is impossible for YOU to agree to disagree. And it is impossible for you to recognize the legitimacy of solutions that arise from that disagreement.
Do some of the hardwork before posing as someone keen to move past differences (i.e. the actual disagreement) and onto solutions (i.e. answers to how best to agree to disagree). Your past behavior (deleting your own comments wholesale, for example) has destroyed the basis for trust even in terms of exchanges in the blogosphere. You created a great waste of time and effort then and your remarks promise no more now.
Yours is a phony pose. You haven't begun at the starting place. You are end-gaming. The real lack of substance and competence is very apparent in all that you have said here at Opine and elswhere. I doubt this is due to your being very, very, very clever. Rather it is just another example of the SSM vogue that is far too common among SSM supports -- in the blogosphere, in courtrooms, in legislatures and election campaigns, and in other public forums including face-to-face encounters.
It is NOT that you are feared, JHG, but that you offer nothing with which to be curious and you offer zilch in the way of advantages. That's your problem and I don't think it wise for others to make your problem their problem to solve. You solve it by doing the hardwork first.
That is how trust is built (or rebuilt) and how differences are hashed-out and potential solutions discovered and implemented. You don't end-game and whine about your need to hyper-personalize. That's just juvenile.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMr Hosty,
ReplyDeleteChildren should not pretend to be parents of their siblings and friends.
Participants in the discussions on Opine should not pretend to be administrators to other participants.
You are discussing openly, even publicly, with RK on this forum. One is always in control of who they respond to, but its unnerving that you try to control who responds to you. As you remember this is something we've had to warn you about on an on-going basis.
Mr Hosty,
ReplyDeleteOne more thing. RK has asked that you make assurances to him of how you use his private information. I have not seen you reply yet with those assurances, instead you seem to counter-accuse that people are not trustworthy if they don't trust you to begin with.
Scepticism on everyone's part is healthy, in my estimation of dealing with unknown people on the internet.
In the mean time, on a related note, would you please explain to everyone the significance of your repeated use of "logic black belt" for the past two months on this forum? What significance does that specific term have to you?
Thanks. Specific references are provided below.
* Very witty, too bad no one is visiting here to see such stellar intelect like the "logic black belt", lol! -- August 1, 2009
* Look at that logic black belt go! LOL... August 14, 2009
* Entertain us with your wit you logic black belt you! ;) -- September 16, 2009
Hosty-G: It would strengthen your position if you could resist petty [sic] personal attacks...
ReplyDelete*blink* That's like a bank robber lecturing his victims on respecting others' property.
Hosty-G is only here engaging in petty, personal attacks. He was given an opportunity to discuss something constructive and instead continues only to attack.
JHG, I would thank you for understanding but your remarks demonstrate that you have not understood.
ReplyDeleteYou are wasting pixels here. Go do your basic homework and return with something more substantial to offer in discussion.
John:
ReplyDeleteYou challenged me to post my information, so I did. I in turn challenged you to reveal yourself just to me and you have been reluctant. The reason I asked is more curiousity than any need, so if you are infected by the fear monger's pitch that I'm up to no good then don't bother.
I saw an opportunity for us to have a real time conversation and saw some advantages to this, but again if you don't see a value then don't bother.
I really would be interested in talking with you, John, but do you understand the nature of my concern, which I believe I spelled out above?
This would be funny if you weren't such frauds. You actually agree with John H-G that we should not ban - we shouldn't even talk about - same-sex procreation (aka human manufacture). You aren't even trying to preserve the core of marriage, you are unconcerned if it stops protecting the right to conceive offspring together. On the major issues, you agree with JHG. Remind me again where you disagree, and how it even matters?
ReplyDeleteLet me get this straight. We are frauds because (or in how) we agree with Mr Hosty?
ReplyDeleteOther Opine editors, don't react yet to Mr Howard's goading. Lets let him outline why he wishes to bring up his usual twisting in the wind, here in this thread -- of all places.
ReplyDeleteBecause you allow Hosty to continue the standard back and forth that's been going on for years, instead of forcing him to confront the real major issue he is hiding, which is that he thinks same-sex conception should be legal. Or, maybe that's not it anymore, maybe now he thinks that marriages should not protect the right of the couple to conceive children together. That's your position, too, right? You oppose same-sex procreation, but think the issue is "separate" from marriage. Not that you put any effort into opposing same-sex conception, mind you, but when pressed, some people here reluctantly agree it would not be good.
ReplyDeleteYou're both frauds because you collude to distract the public from the real threat, or maybe to you its a promise, of eugenics and genetic engineering. You collude to embarrass the public about the whole argument, to the point where I can't even bring up the important issues without people getting fidgety and wanting no part in the discussion, because of the embarrassing arguments you overwhelm everyone with.
Thanks for clarifying John.
ReplyDeleteTake care.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteR.K.
ReplyDeleteJust my take. He's certainly not been honest in his summary of the conversation so far, in my mind.
I figure anyone with a heartfelt trust in reason and facts would have dealt honestly with the questions asked. In fact, I believe that is how you, myself, Op-Ed and with only the most emotional exceptions Chairm act as well. In fact it is usual for Chairm (as you know) to be the cooler head prevailing.
The largest impression left on me is how Mr Hosty has certainly not accepted our good-faith attempts at compromise and progress. He hasn't even responded with any assurances with what he would do with your private information.
As you know, he can ascertain to some degree of your personal information if you go comment on his website. He's admitted to cyber-stalking people with whatever information he can get about them (e.g. "logic black belt" and calling Chairm a lie (no wonder he was upset by the way, that was pretty cheap of Mr Hosty to do)). There are also reports of people trying to attack computers of those who comment on their sites.
Another issue that impresses me is how Mr Hosty first accused us of deleting comments as over-controlling the conversation. Now complains that we haven't controlled the conversation enough (hence his attempts to do so by playing admin and complaining that certain comments weren't deleted already). This in light of his own tirade and deleting weeks worth of his own comments, speaks of an unstable personality -- let alone dishonest.
That is my take,
There is always safety in much counsel. Thanks for listening.
Also, I should add that if either you or Mr Hosty wants to do a guest post on Opine and limit the responses to just you two (or any other subset of readers), I would be happy to neutrally enforce that. I've done that for others in the past, and its worked out well.
I for one would think that would be interesting to watch ... from a distance.
Feel free to speak openly, what is your take so far?
On Lawn,
ReplyDeleteThanks. My take is that, even though John has said he would not give out my info to others, I'd like to know that there is not an "at this time" qualifier in there. Normally, I have no problem discussing things one to one and in person over the phone. And yes, I agreed to do it only to demonstrate that, but that doesn't make my decision automatically a wise one. Gutsy doesn't always equal smart. I come to this board, and others, to argue my points, which I know may be unpopular in many quarters, but which I feel have to be made nevertheless. Now, if I was threatening someone, I could see why they would want to know who I was. But just what is the purpose of knowing exactly who is making arguments you don't like?
Is it to further engage them? Or is it in the hope that they will cool down the arguments merely out of the fear that someone might give their information out to someone else, and thus use it to cause a rift between them and an acquaintance, relative, or co-worker? Or use it to put pressure on their employer? I'd like to hear more from John about this. I can't say I'm convinced that that is not his motivation here. Or at least that I will somehow chill my arguments.
But I'd be very willing to do a one-on-one post with John (or anyone else) on this board. Sometimes I can't get back immediately, but I've done things like that elsewhere ("Alas A Blog", Dust In The Light, and Gruntled's blog, for instance) and usually at the end of those, while I still don't agree with the person I'm arguing with we usually have at least developed a respect for each other in the process.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy should someone else explain your curiousity, JHG?
ReplyDeleteMr Hosty,
ReplyDeleteWhat follow up were you intending? I'm expecting either you or RK to submit something to me so I can post it as a guest post.
If you wish you can submit it here in the comment thread...
What you, JHG, might consider to be 'abuse' is irrelevant to the actual disagreement on marriage. As the protagonists, SSMers are not entitled to run away from that disagreement. SSMers demand attention for a complaint and for a proposed change that their own standards of argumentation would destroy. Again, you are not entitled to flee from that. Indeed, SSMers run toward, and utterly depend upon, the abuse of judicial review. And you are not entitled to ignore that either.
ReplyDeleteOf course, you are free to elide and to whine some more. But that adds zilch to clarifying the problem, discovering possible solutions, and living in peace with neighbors. Indeed, quite the contary, it detracts.
If you would abuse On Lawn's generous offer to provide you a platform here, yet again, then it would be incumbent upon you stick to substance.
In doing so, you might actually learn more from RK than our readership could have learned from your prejudices (your pre-judgements) which have been embedded into your pro-SSM rhetoric and your confused thinking on marriage and related issues.
However, based on your record, I anticipate you will abuse the opportunity just as did in the recent past. I anticipate that you will demonstrate, again, that your sense of entitlement supersedes your competence and your professed 'good intentions'.
But you might surprise. I would welcome such a change in your attitude, behavior, and rhetoric. Other SSMers have moved in the right direction, on that score, so there is some possibility you'd lift your game to a higher level.
John,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry for not getting back to you earlier. Actually, I had written a response and it got "lost" when I hit the post button, so I'll have to rewrite it. But I've also been overworked the last couple of days. Anyway, yes, there is a subject I'd like to talk one-on-one with you. It was about something you said on the "What's The Harm In Neutering Marriage" post, and I'd like to discuss it there or on a new post and put Chino and his cricket chirping behind. I'll get back to you in a few hours. Sorry for the delay.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteI have to run out for now, but I'll write out the subject I'd like to discuss in a few hours. If it could possibly be made into a guest post that would be nice. Thanks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm willing to do a one on one with you on Opine so that you have no troubling images of how I could somehow betray your trust, I just want you to notice and admit I already gave you mine.
ReplyDeleteYou did, John, and I duly notice and commend you for that, but I feel I dared you into it, and even though you say you've posted your personal info before and are willing to do it again, as an act of good faith I'm going to ask the Opine editors to delete the post in which you gave it, because even if you're willing to take the risk, I don't want any more uninvited lurkers who might come across this site giving you any trouble. You may have received many positive calls, but I'd rather not see anyone subjected to the negative effects of posting personal info, including you, John. Since you are not willing to post the personal info of any other individuals on your side who, even if they have made their names, phone numbers, and addresses public elsewhere, have not given you permission to post them here, I think you understand my point.
I still would like to give you a call (in case the post with your info is deleted, I have written down your phone number but not your address), but I would also like to develop more confidence that you understand what my concerns are, which I outlined above.
But now, a one-on-one here on Opine sounds like a very good idea.
This statement on the "What's The Harm Of Neutering Marriage" thread is what I'd like to discuss, reasonably:
R.K.: "If you're not willing to accept anything less than total nondistinction between same-sex and opposite-sex couples in marriage we are at an impasse on that issue."
John: This is a great example of the irresponsible comments here that aim to imply things that aren't true.
What I'd like to ask is why or how it is not true that what is intended in same-sex/neutered marriage is that there be nothing less than absolute legal and cultural nondistinction between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Not saying that every individual couple won't be distinct just as all individuals are distinct, that's not what I mean. I'm talking about the new cultural perception of marriage, is it not going to be "person and person", "spouse and spouse"?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRK, what is the point of a one-on-one with JHG in particular? Based on his behavior and the lack of substance in his comments here, there is nothing that merits special attention.
ReplyDeleteWhy does JHG merit this extra effort. His record includes nothing of substance that adds to discussion of marriage nor of SSM. His attitude toward Opine is appalling.
RK, your comments and blogposts have been the model of civility and you do not need to go extra distance to demonstrate that with this particular SSMers who has proven himself untrustworthy in each and every discussion he has participated in here at Opine?
He is free to continue to comment under our regular blogposts and my question has to do with the special attention given to someone who repeatedly tries to make all discussion about himself and his need to hyper-personalize encounters in the blogosphere.
Thanks.
"(Arturo, in fact, once E-mailed me with a request to talk. Although I didn't see the E-mail for a while, I did accept his offer, but I never heard back from him)."
ReplyDeleteR.K., not so. I may have asked if you wanted to continue the conversation by way of emails, but no more than that.
Over the few years I've been reading blogs and commenting sometimes I have never, ever, seen anyone change their mind on anything. Never. On anything. Not with anyone I converse with, not when I just observe. In real life, people actually sometimes change their minds on some things. But not in the internet. RK and John wanting to take this elsewhere is probably good for them both.
I appreciate and respect that people have their differences, all I want to see is for us to be equal in the eyes of the law. We should be able to understand our distinct differences and disagree with each other without the government taking sides in matters of belief, but that has been the precedent until recently.
ReplyDeleteIt would be too much to expect our culture to change to the point of non-distinction. I'm learning we can live together even though we disagree on key issues so long as we are committed to fairness and civility.
Does this answer satisfy your question? It not let me know how you'd like me to clarify my position.
Whether we all like it or not, marriage is not something that is just defined by each individual. It inevitably will have a public meaning and a cultural perception of what it means. Changes to marriage affect the cultural perception of what it means. To say that you merely want your idea of marriage to be respected but don't want to change the public cultural perception is really not a viable option.
To clarify, John, what is the cultural perception of marriage that you want under SSM? Even if you think it's asking too much to expect that we'll actually achieve it, do you want us to move toward a cultural perception that marriage is just "between any two persons?" Or will you accept a cultural perception that "marriage is between a man and woman unless...."?
Chairm, I'd just like to bring out his feelings on this a little more, whether one-on-one or in just regular post. This is something I've asked of people in the past, and never have really received a clear answer on. Most SSMers have indicated that the latter perception just isn't enough for them, but they also hedge on actually calling for the former, or on whether they expect SSM to produce it. "Don't worry, we'll never quite get there" is a common response, and not a satisfying one, really. But I'd like to hear what John has to say about this.
Arturo, sorry, I didn't mean to convey the impression that you had asked to talk with my via phone or mail. By "talk", I meant just that you had E-mailed me and asked to further discuss things via that route.
ReplyDeleteOver the few years I've been reading blogs and commenting sometimes I have never, ever, seen anyone change their mind on anything. Never. On anything. Not with anyone I converse with, not when I just observe. In real life, people actually sometimes change their minds on some things. But not in the internet.
Well, what do you know! That's another thing we fully agree about, Arturo. In discussions, I never expect to convert anyone. I've never seen it happen in mere discussion unless it's over an issue which one party just has never given much thought to. And no, never over the internet. Still, engaging arguments with those you disagree with can be interesting in and of itself, until one or the other stops really making arguments, or is unable to answer questions.
RK, given your stated purpose, JHG is not a good candidate.
ReplyDeleteBut if you are going to proceed, please consider doing so under a dedicated blogpost (or through email) rather than continuing here under a blogpost that is about something else.
Your purpose merits a blogpost anyway, I think, and might have a better shot at substantive content by way of an open invitation to SSMers to participate and, if you like, a request that non-SSMers restrain from commenting. If nothing else, a blogpost would help clarify what you have in mind and could always be referenced from other discussions.
How you proceed is your choice, of course.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe choice I referred to JHG is not your choice.
ReplyDeleteYou showed up in this comment section with a spurious accusation against me. Your pose is phony and I don't expect that to change any time soon.
You still owe an explanation for your previous deletion of your half of a discussion much like the one you now pretend to seek with RK.
The choice remains RK's and not yours.
Your choice is quite different. You know it. He knows. The readers here know it.
Off limits?
ReplyDeleteYou could choose to stop misrepresenting what others say -- that remains your choice -- but the manufacture of false representations seems to be built-into your performances in the blogosphere and elsewhere and that SSM vogue is all you got.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMe thinks Mr Hosty has just gone over the edge with paranoia...
ReplyDeleteMr Hosty,
You've been discredited countless times as a liar, and constant false-accuser here at Opine. Please don't take our continued patience with you as any sort of reflection on your credibility with us.
In fact, you are probably getting just upset with your inability to discredit Opine at all, just like when you got upset enough to start deleting weeks worth of your comments here.
Your frustration with your inability to cyber-stalk Chairm to a location to harass him at is simply disgusting to watch. The KKK wanted to know names and addresses too, just like you.
Now, do try to be civil. Its the least you can do.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things is says in Mein Kampf is that if you repeat a lie often enough you can get the masses to believe anything. Is this your play-book?
ReplyDeleteInteresting enough, the reference in Mein Kampf is of Hitler accusing the Jews of using that tactic. Whereas ever since then (including Goebble's use) its been used to describe Nazi propaganda.
Opine doesn't need me to discredit it [...]
Okay, then stop trying. You are doing a better job of discrediting yourself in the process. If we do a good enough job on our own, then why risk the embarrassment you are putting yourself through?
like the time Ed Brayton caught you posting under assumed names on his blog using your IP address.
Brayton's accusations mean as little as your own. You both are frustrated people who can't reason on facts, so you resort to spreading lies.
I've never harassed anyone,
You do it all the time on this site. Your continued use of "logic black belt" (which reflects an email address which you were entrusted with), and the creepy, "I see you are displaying Californian time.... interesting" is 'I know where you live' style harassment. Even if you get the details entirely wrong, the effort shows your true colors.
Even more true colors...
I'll be as civil as I've been treated, that's what you deserve.
Which is all too much like how you said people who do have suffered violence, work displacement, economic boycott, and vandalism for their support of marriage are getting what they deserve.
why not try letting him follow through with his dialog instead of all the personal attacks? What are you so afraid of that you are trying to hard to rattle my cage and drive me off?
Funny, the reasons he gave for delaying his participation had nothing to do with this discussion. And his participation has little to do with your feelings of discomfort.
I know why; you can't handle the truth or the man in the mirror so you need to displace your own shame on me.
On that personal note, are you feeling okay? You usually don't get this openly frustrated unless something else is going very wrong in your life...
By the way, Mr Hosty, it is my opinion that you are not here for dialog.
ReplyDelete1) Your only interest expressed in dealing with RK is to phish for his personal information.
2) You are goading Chairm with cyber-stalking and accusations about his use of that name.
3) You completely ignored the dialog above which was a proposed compromise, in order to pursue these phishing tactics.
4) You keep making allusions to Christian in an "I know where you live" kind of way when talking to me (that you think I'm Christian is also public knowledge).
You have thrown off the mask and are very openly harassing people.
I unfortunately have to rescind my previous offer and play cyber-nanny.
You are now banned.
John, please do not try to do any divide and conquer stuff to cause rift between myself and others here.
ReplyDeleteI was willing to discuss the issue of what the cultural perception of marriage will be under SSM, and what the cultural perception desired by its advocates is.
I would still like to discuss that with others.
But with statements like these:
I said you go by an assumed name here much like your KKK brethren who hide their faces in a cloak of anonymity while they do their evil.
you've crossed a line.
It's OK if you wish to use your own name, but you should not goad others into doing it. Those on your side of the issue or the other side.
You understand that with regard to those who agree with you as you would not give us their personal info without first getting their permission.
So how is it right for any group to post the personal info of those who disagree with them on their website, without first getting the permission of those whose info is published?
I would perfectly understand and respect it if you did not want to give out your info. I certainly respect the desire of any other pro-SSMer to not give out theirs.
I still want to discuss the issue of the future cultural perception of marriage under a new blogpost. I'm sorry you've now blown that chance for me to discuss it with you, John. But you did just blow it. Chairm and all the other Opiners have been more than generous in letting you post as long as they have.
Will I still take you up on your offer to discuss the issue by phone or mail? Possibly. But I am not convinced I'd not be foolishly acting like I did when I was a kid and a friend dared me to pretend to start to run out into the street so as to scare cars into swerving. "I did it. You do it too. Come on, what's wrong? You chicken". It was a stupid thing to fall for that trap now, and just as much so today.
I'd still like to discuss the issue of the cultural perception of marriage with anyone else on either side who wishes to discuss it, just as long as we don't get off on tangent.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIf my inbox is any indication, the whole DOMA reversal seems to have left Brian fairly frantic. You guys doing okay?
ReplyDeleteWhat's up with your weird fascination with all things Chino?
ReplyDeleteStill hearing Echo's voice, Chino?