Monday, May 16, 2005
We wanted to call your attention to the comments that were posted so we created a special page where you can see them in their entirety in the order we received them.
We just have to say something.
We like Pat Buchanan (though InstaPunk himself does not). Some of us voted for him many years ago. Many of us didn't vote for Bob Dole because of the way he treated Pat and his supporters in 1992.
But, man, let's make something really clear -- Pat Buchanan doesn't need help like the help he is getting from this comment section. First of all -- the picture is funny. Why? Because it isn't a real picture. If it were a real picture, then it would just be disturbing or worth even more money than we get paid to look at the current culture and publish our thoughts - if that were possible. As it is, it's just funny.
Secondly, neo-Nazis have to know that their support is not going to help whatever it is they are in favor of -- didn't they recently air a South Park episode that had the Ku-Klux-Klan members realizing that if they wanted to keep the South Park flag the way it was, the most logical thing to do was support its revision? That way, the people of South Park would vote to keep the flag the way it was, in opposition to the KKK. Neo-Nazis might think about a similar approach. Support Earth Day or something.
And, finally, if you're going to call InstaPunk 'stoopid,' or 'unsofisticated,' why not grab that old dusty dictionary and look up one or two of the really hard words in your post. Then, if you're not horribly busy, you could grab a little grammar primer -- just for review.
For Mr. Buchanan -- Aakash does his level best to demonstrate that you are not completely out of your mind, but why force people to do it? WWII is over. We, in fact, won. Stalin and Hitler have both been defeated. If there were people helping the USSR inside the U.S. Government, they didn't help enough. So, what's the point? Let people in 2205 perform the analysis -- we haven't quite buried all the veterans of WWII yet, so you'll just have to look elsewhere for a case study . . . in? We're not sure.
UPDATE: Instalanche blasting away -- many thanks to Prof. Reynolds -- welcome to InstaPundit visitors. Feel free to take a look around. And if you would like to see what started all this -- look here.
Tom Ames has taken the time to post his comments, which we appreciate and do not take lightly. Others have written similar email to our feedback email address -- Punk@InstaPunk.com. So our remarks are meant to be instructive to a wider audience than Tom Ames, but he has made his remarks public, so must we.
First off, Tom confuses a debate tactic with a debate result. So, his mocking of the fact that InstaPunk would crush him in a debate as a sophisticated tactic is a definite disadvantage to him. We would caution Tom that when it comes to debating -- InstaPunk is the champ. He will take apart your argument bit by bit until you're either laughing or crying -- your choice. The other item in this regard is that it is incredibly interesting to watch, so by all means let it begin. We would suggest the Forum. You'll need a login, but it is FREE and everyone can join right in.
Secondly, and InstaPunk makes the point in his responses, we aren't annoyed by disagreement. We've been looking for it on the internet for over one-year. What does annoy us is being lumped in with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or any other easy categories that jump into the head of one of our readers. Our archives are available here and any reasonable person could quickly realize that categorizing our viewpoints is a difficult task for anyone. We've known InstaPunk for years and we walk very carefully when trying to get him into one of our preconceived notions. Although it may help readers to place a particular post in one of their over-sized pre-fab bins, it really isn't honest or fair. Take a look around here and refine your criticism a bit. What, specifically, is bugging you? That might be an interesting conversation.
Thirdly, interact with the text. Simply making a generalized statement that is directly addressed in the post wastes a tremendous amount of time. For example, InstaPunk made a very specific reference to vicious comments made by liberals -- HERE. He further qualified the citation with the words "the most consistently vicious, ad-hominem bile on the Internet," and then directed readers to the websites where this kind of stuff is found in abundance. Now, Tom cites townhall.com and freerepublic in rebuttal, but what is he talking about? No examples? No links? It is hard to know. We've been to townhall.com and freerepublic and don't remember reading anything about trailer hitches or brothel's catering to Islamic terrorists. InstaPunk's posts are structured to deal with the typical objections directly, so if you're going to object, at least make sure that your objection isn't addressed within the body of the post.
And, finally, about the spelling. It isn't that we are expert spellers -- we've been called on our share of spelling errors -- but, when an error is pointed out, it is just good form to make a correction. Our use of common spellings demonstrates that we are all part of a community and although we may differ on the way the words are arranged, at least we agree on the form of the words themselves. It is all that most people who read your stuff will ever know about your education and thoughtfulness put into your comments.
Thanks for all the responses. We don't cut out posts because they are not complimentary. We debate whether to edit out particularly nasty words, but so far we've resisted. Keep the comments coming, but don't expect it to go unnoticed when you're not making sense.