Patterico Backpedals Like A Motherfucker

Hey everybody, it looks like all the fun of the blog wars will continue for, at least, one more goofy day. Patterico tries to respond my post yesterday, fails miserably and then makes two more idiotic claims about me.

Let's start with my challenge to him yesterday. First I challenged to show me where I "admitted" reading Carlito's statement about the tragic death of his sister. Here's his response as to this issue (as I'm not afraid of his words, as he is of mine, I've included his full comment, as the first comment to this thread:

You admitted reading the comment thread, saying:

I don’t what’s funnier - the rewritten post, Pat’s preening and posturing about caning (or was it caneing) all the guest bloggers or the Tort-Reform righties claiming a lawsuit should be brought over this.

The argument that a lawsuit should be brought was made further up that comment thread — the same comment thread where carlitos said his sister had died. You admitted reading the comment thread — yet you claimed that the comments about carlitos’s sister were funny.

So I didn't "admit" it. He simply "assumed" I read the whole comment thread because I saw a comment threatening a lawsuit. To make it sound more nefarious, he states the lawsuit comment and Carlito's comment were both further upstream from mine.

Let's not be so general, Pat. There were 48 upstream comments covering 19 screenshots. This was a lengthy comments thread. Carlitos comment is more than 6 screen shots above my comment.

And the comment about lawsuits is this one:

Carlitos, I hope you have the opportunity to raise your hand at a civil trial when you sue the pants off this sick group.

And where is that comment located? Pat isn't going to tell you. But I will. It is comment No. 47 - just two above mine, and it would've been right on my screenshot as I typed in my comment (on Pat's site, comments are typed in at the bottom of the comment thread). Pat doesn't tell his readers that the comment I remarked about was staring me in the fucking face as I prepared my own comment. As one of my pet peeves is how quick "tort reform" righties are to threaten a lawsuit, I sure as hell mocked that comment. I couldn't avoid but seeing the damn thing.

But what you can see is that it takes a very twisted mind to take that fact - the fact that I did read Comment 47 - and then "assume" that means I read the whole lengthy comment thread and then take it even a step further and state as unequivocal fact that I "admitted" to reading the whole comment thread.

One must wonder how often this guy must get laughed at by judges and juries? The judges must say to each other: "Hey, Who's got crazy Pat today? I wonder what wild accusations he'll be throwin' out now? What a laugh riot!"

Second, I challenged the fact that he has not cited a single of the "vicious lies" he claims I made and which justify a banning. He still has not been able to cite one --- not one. The reality is he banned me because I kept proving him wrong and exposing his faulty logic and false posturing. My comments caused this thin-skinned man embarassment and he couldn't stand it.

He claims he did not delete the quick, short comment I shot out in my defense; that the comment would've appeared on my screen like it posted but would've been caught in a moderator he had, at sometime in the past, placed on my comments. He admits knowledge of its content which leaves the inescapable conclusion that he knew I was defending myself but purposefully withheld that defense from his readers.

Whether he deleted it or refused to post it, the result is the same - he knew I was challenging the accuracy of his charge against me but prevented his readers from knowing that fact. That's some pretty low shit by just about any standard.