Posted by Scott Cavanagh
It's been nine months and over 200 posts since BarkBackNews was started, and until this point I have never felt compelled to respond directly to a posted comment, but the following words are just too much to ignore. It was posted yesterday. The response follows.
Posted by Shadowdancer:
"Scott, I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, you have completely lost my respect when you started (sic) insulting, what seems like a random people each post, that only shows that you ran out of intelligent FACTS and are now running on BASELESS and arbitrary views. There is also another choice, perhaps you are just stubborn and cannot admit when you are WRONG. There is only one last thing I can think of it being and that is that you are using your subscribers just to make the sponsors happy and stir up controversy. Whatever the reason, this site seems less like the thought provoking debates you had started with, and seems more like the insane ramblings of deranged psychopaths."
I can only imagine that Shadowdancer is referring to the two contentious main topics that have dominated the conversation over the past month or so--the primary battles between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and the possible naming of Colin Powell as John McCain's running mate. During this time there have been 13 BarkBack posts concerning these topics. In those posts, the ONLY personal attacks and name-calling that have taken place on this site have been posted by YOU Shadowdancer. It was YOU who referred to a contributor who attacked no one in his post as a "self-righteous pompous ass" that should "examine the meaningfulness of his life." That contributor rebutted you without a single insult or nasty comment. Now you respond to my post concerning the potential of re-votes in Michigan and Florida (an article in which the only negative words in the entire piece questioned a double-standard on behalf of the Obama campaign) with baseless accusations of constant insults and arbitrary views.
I have NEVER insulted a SINGLE contributor or edited the views of anyone who takes their time to post on BarkBackNews. What exactly are the "arbitrary" views that you speak of--ones that don't happen to agree with your own? Exactly what "Intelligent Facts" have you provided to the conversation-- that you can recount how many medals Colin Powell has won, or call someone else a "pompous ass"--or better yet--a "rambling psychopath?"
Another note concerning the coverage of the two aforementioned topics: The 13 posts/articles in question contain five pieces on General Colin Powell (three positive/two negative) and eight concerning the nomination battle between Senators Obama and Clinton--four pro-Clinton/four pro-Obama.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Posted by Scott Cavanagh