Monday, June 06, 2016
The Miserable Mound of Bigotry Comes After Me Again
The other day I wrote a post criticizing Stephen Harper for negotiating a deal to sell armoured cars to Saudi Arabia, that includes a multi-billion dollar cancellation penalty.
And I thought it was clear enough.
Only to have the miserable Mound of Sound, who hates me almost as much as he hates Justin Trudeau, come after me again.
This time accusing me of siding with the foul Saudi regime.
A popular Liberal Party apologist suggests that the Trudeau government's decision to finalize the paperwork necessary to conclude the contract to deliver Canadian-made armoured fighting vehicles to Saudi Arabia is essential to help our Saudi allies fend off the evil designs of ISIS.
When I did no such thing, and if you read my post you can see I was just quoting John Baird.
“This is good for the economy of Canada, but it is also good for the security of Canada because we don’t want ISIS moving into Saudi Arabia,” Baird said.
A man who as you know, I have as much respect for, as I do for the miserable Mound.
And even though I have written many posts attacking the brutish Saudi regime, including many calling on its barbaric rulers to release the blogger Raif Badawi.
Something which, by the way, the Mound has never done.
And if that isn't bad enough, then there's this:
What perplexes me most about this Liberal apologist's concerns for the security of Saudi Arabia arises out of his sexual orientation. He's gay and proudly so. That's terrific - in Canada. In Saudi Arabia, as in most of the Gulf States, homosexuality is punishable by stoning. Gays get their heads pulped by rocks. Gays get stoned. Sorcerers are beheaded. Six of one, half dozen.
Which couldn't be more disgusting considering that the miserable Mound is a well known misogynist and homophobe, who has bombarded me in the past with some of the most vile anti-gay comments I have ever read.
As I pointed out in this recent post.
So who's he to pretend he's a great defender of human rights? Why would he twist my words? When he's the one who is siding with the Saudis by suggesting that we should pay them billions so they can buy armoured cars from another country.
So we could lose $20 billion dollars, and throw thousands of Canadian workers into the street, for nothing.
And the Mound can use the issue to attack Justin Trudeau for a deal that Harper made.
Now I have no intention of refuting his grotesque post further, because just dealing with him in any manner makes me feel like taking a shower.
And I would rather ignore him.
But I do want to say that I am grateful to somebody called Mark who came to my defence in the comments.
Simon has made it abundantly clear that he opposes this deal, and that he does not support the Saudi government; the point of his post is that he blames the Conservatives for the deal.
I realize that you have a hatred on for the Liberals. The fact that they are only half as bad as the Conservatives makes them so much worse, in your addled old man's mind.
Whatever. Here's the thing, though, about your puerile little spat with Simon: when Simon accused you of something, and you denied it, Simon came back with a screenshot. When you accuse Simon of stuff, everybody can see that you're pulling shit out of your ass.
The thing you need to be pulling out of your ass is your head, not the stuff you've been flinging at Simon. Grow up, Mound. Seriously.
Which I must admit I couldn't have said better myself. Thank you Mark.
And I also encourage you to read the other comment from someone calling himself Justin Harper:
Mound, the link you provided proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the blogger in question is an extreme partisan hack. In fact it is one of countless posts you could have found in which he demonstrates himself spectactularly unwilling to acknowledge that the current PM is capable of doing any wrong.
And there are plenty of others wherein he wallows in ugly, regressive identity politics. He's basically a bottomless well of hysterical wrong-headedness. Which makes your decision to divine an ISIS angle in there a real head-scratcher. You had such a clear, easy shot, but aimed for your foot instead. What was that all about?
So you know what kind of people support him.
And all I will add is this:
If that crazy bully thinks he can intimidate me, or get me to stop blogging, he can forget about that.
Many have tried and all have failed.
Unless that miserable Trudeau hater and bigot turns Progressive Bloggers into another version of the Blogging Tories.
And then I'll be gone tomorrow...
Please click here to recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers
Labels: barbarism, bullying, Misogyny, Mound of Bigotry, Saudi Arms Deal
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
The Mound of Sound should change his moniker to one that is more accurate:
The Mound of Shit.
Amazes me that in a country where bloggers are not tortured, Mound of Sound would waste his time and blog space on petty name calling with you Simon. I understand that you are reacting, as you should. Bullies need to be called out on their actions.
I don't always agree with you when it comes to Trudeau. But so what? I have a deep respect for your work against the HarperCons (and your work in general) and any disagreements we have had have been rational and respectful. However, like you, I know that when Mound disagrees with people, no such rationality or respect is forthcoming. When I fell victim to Mound's vitriol, he simply ignored my arguments, even though they weren't in any way irrational and were put forward fairly simply. Then he rained forth a 'mound' of abuse with no rational discourse whatsoever. Unfortunately, Mound likes to put forward lots of facts and arguments, but when it comes to fairly simple disagreements, he loses interest in facts or arguments and favours rhetoric and abuse. Solidarity Simon.
I am genuinely puzzled as to what is so special about my remark that you would choose to reproduce it here.
I believe my criticisms of your blog are valid, as indeed is my criticism of Mound's post.
Other than my admittedly strident tone and the one typo (neither of which are sins on your end of the political spectrum, I believe), what precisely in that comment do you find so egregious?
I would certainly not expect you to like it, but you are using it to illustrate an example of something. And I really don't know what that something is. Nor, I imagine, would a great many other people.
I am sincerely curious.
Or is this something on which I am required to "educate myself"?
.. it seems so unfortunate .. perhaps even pointless ..
For my own particular reasons.. I have extremely high regard for Simon as well as the Mound.. and of course many other Indy blogging exemplars, some of whom often appear as commenters, on each others blogs. Kirby a great example. I don't always agree with his views on specific articles or topics, nevertheless I read his opinions & analysis carefully.. most times i will revisit & reread - plus catch the reverberating comments.. Scotia for example, often presents extremely detailed & extensive related discourse via comments..
I am currently trying to get paid for some simplistic work I did. The non-payer is being combative, insulting & using the blame game in highly inventive & hysterical ways. I will not 'buy in' .. Its very simple, I just wish to be paid.. I truly hope the current Simon/Mound 'thing' can be let go.. I'm not privy to the entire history between you, private or public.. You both carry glowing hearts on your sleeve.. Should I give it a break & not read either's outstanding contribution for a month.. and also take a pass on related comments.. hmm .. Fight the battles you can win .. Who said that? My older sister for sure.. and an ancient Chinese warrior.. Sun Tsu.. The Art of War.. but why hold a war ?
Horseshoe theory explains why those near the extreme attack others on the same side but are more moderate. To explain imagine a straight ruler with the extreme right and left at opposite ends with the majority of the population distributed from the center outward,now bend the ruler in the form of a horseshoe where the extremes are close together but not touching.Both extremes now essentially occupy the same space and take on the same attributes but because of the chasm /discontinuity they cant get at each other unless they travel all the way around the loop which is impractical due to the congestion near the center.Being so close yet so far drives them insane so they attempt to clear a path by luring people into their camp or pushing them into the other.It doesn't matter which as long as the path is cleared for the epic battle. Its all about the battle; body count,winning or loosing is of little consequence, martyrdom is an acceptable outcome.Jumping into the chasm alone is not.
Stand your ground Simon, its all about winning through a progressive strategic journey and not some epic battle on the extreme frontier with winner take all or nothing as the case may be.
Right On! WELL PUT! Great Canadian PEACEMAKING effort! Take the Diplomat exam Young Man.
Jaw jaw not war war as Winnie said!!
the Mound of Sound is going to say what he/she wants and there is nothing you can say/write, which is going to change his position. when you write about his positions, you simply give him more "advertising".
I don't read the other blog, so of course I don't really care what he/she writes. I read this blog because I like the posts, but the "issues" between you and the Mound of Sound is of no interest to me. Its better to just let it roll like water off a ducks back. You have your positions.
hi anon...well I wouldn't use those words because unlike him I don't have a potty mouth. But I would say he's a cowardly bully and that's even worse...
hi TS...I have no idea why he is the way he is, only his shrink knows for sure. But what I will say if if I am attacked and have my words distorted I will fight back...
hi Kirby...yes I remember how he treated you during the Ghomeishi affair, for standing up to his crude misogyny. And yes, when he sticks to facts to facts he can be a good blogger. But when he goes off the rails he's an absolute beast. And in fact when I saw how he treated you, who has never abused anyone in your life, was when I decided that enough was enough. And thank you for your solidarity, I really appreciate it...
hi Justin Harper...Are you really? Well firstly I should say that I print a lot of stuff that isn't special. But I thought it interesting that a Con like you would be egging on a so-called progressive to get a head shot instead of a body shot. And when you accuse me of wallowing in "ugly, regressive identity politics," it's my turn to be puzzled. For if that's what you call standing up for women's rights or the rights of minorities, like the Mound himself you need to give your head a shake. For that's something I'm quite proud about, and you should be ashamed of yourself.But as I said at the beginning the main reason is because it serves to illustrate that when Cons are his cheerleaders the Mound is no progressive....
hi salamander...well look I can understand your reaction, it's not the kind of stuff I like to write, so I don't blame people for preferring not to read it. But what am I supposed to do? Let him slander me, invent positions I didn't take, and steal words out of the mouth of John Baird and attribute them to me. And not say or do anything? If I compare the abuse I have revived from the Mound compared the abuse I have hurled at him, it's like comparing a mountain to a molehill. I don't go out of my way to attack him, I don't often visit his site let alone troll it, and he should have the decency to do the same thing...
hi RT...thanks for that explanation, I thought it was fascinating. As I explained to the others I don't enjoy engaging in internet flame wars. In all my years of blogging I have studiously avoided doing that because to be honest it makes me feel ill. I exist in my own little space where I'm quite happy. But when a bully and a pompous ass like the Mound attacks me I will fight back. But having said what I said I hope that I will never have to mention his name again...
hi hinofan...yes salamander's comment was a good one. But as I explained to him the Mound started it. In view of what happened in the past I thought that having him bring up anti-gay violence was like a rapist making sympathetic sounds about misogyny. And having had to deal with anti-gay bullies when I was in high school I quickly learned that if you don't stand up to them they will keep on doing what they're doing. So if he wants a fight then he will definitely get one...
hi e.a.f....the Mound can do what he wants, and criticize anybody he wants. And his repugnant behaviour really is his own problem. But he should leave me out of it, because if he doesn't there will be trouble...
First of all, I did not call for getting "a head shot instead of a body shot". I used rhetorical tool that is known in some circles as a metaphor, and a rather common one at that. Or is "shooting oneself in the foot" an offensive analogy now?
More to the point, however, you are perched upon some rather shaky assumptions.
You assume that I am a "Con", or perhaps a Harper supporter. Wrong.
You assume Mound is a reflexive Trudeau-hater. Can't speak for the man, but you have failed to provide any evidence of that.
You assume that anyone whose opinion differs from yours on such things as the Gomeshi trial, for example, is motivated by misogyny or sexism. Again, you are wrong. Indecently wrong.
As ever, you are not arguing here, you are labelling.
hi JH...hmmm...let's see...if you're not a Con, and your obviously not a Liberal, you must be an NDP member. Or as we call them these days the bitter eight percent.
If you don't know that the Mound is a diseased Trudeau hater who oozes hate out of every orifice, then you must be the only one in the progressive blogosphere who doesn't know that? And I'm sorry to say that makes you sound like either a blind person or a complete idiot. Pardon the expression. But maybe because you hate the incredibly popular Trudeau and much as the Mound or your failed leader Tom Mulcair you simply can't recognize the symptoms. And since you rail about identity politics you probably misogyny or sexism either. And you clearly don't know about the Mound's sordid past when he had a very scary and very public breakdown started writing crazy stuff, and sending people like me comments that had they been sent to a minor would have landed him in jail. Finally, you did egg that pervert on to attack me, even if you failed to recognize that his confusion about the ISIS question was no mere mistake but a symptom of his dilapidated mental state. Honestly, how could you be so wrong? But then of course you are a member of the bitter eight percent, Or the Mulcair Party I voted for in the last election. So why should I be surprised? But thank you, for you have only provided even more evidence that the NDP I used to know is deader than a doornail, and slowly rotting away. And you can be sure that like all my other NDP friends, I won't be voting for it ever again...
Clearly if you have to go after someone for their sexual orientation (or whatever trait a person may have been born with) rather than sticking to reasoned, logical arguments, you have love the debate.
I'm an NDP member, am I? That must be it.
Perhaps I might even be Tom Mulcair himself, furiously focusing his primordial hatred of all things Trudeau like a destructive laser beam into the very heart of the progressive blogosphere, whilst stroking a white cat and cackling with sinister glee.
It is, after all, inconceivable that there might be someone reading blogs on the Internet who has no party affiliations whatsoever.
Seems there might be just a few more things in heaven and earth, Simon, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
(Oh, and btw, pointing out to Mound the ineptness of his criticism of you is hardly the same thing as "egging him on".)
Post a Comment