Keith Devens .com

No, left wing lies and deception bother me too. But there's so much less of it these days that it doesn't grate on me quite so badly.

What grates on me is being called a liar, a propagandist, deceptive, slanderous, of "questionable ethics", a troll, and hate-filled/hateful by someone who doesn't know me, and without any argument.

I'd like to point out that for all you accuse me of, all of the invective seems to be coming from you. I think your comments reflect badly on you. Who's slandering who here?

Also, to correct a misconception. I'm not using del.icio.us to spam people with my ideology. Things I post on del.icio.us are things I'd like to keep track of that I don't want to take the time to post on my weblog, or things that I don't have enough to say about that they warrant a whole weblog post. You'll also notice that the vast majority of my bookmarks on del.icio.us are not about politics (my 'programming' tag is by far the most used).

Note: For people that aren't me or Felix, some of what I've quoted comes from the del.icio.us mailing list, which is down at the moment so I can't get an exact URL.

Keith, when I speak of slanderous, hate-filled monsters of questionable ethics, I mostly speak of man_bellefontaine, whom I don't suspect even someone who links to little green footballs in his blogroll would defend.

Your links outside of the politics area are indeed fine. And, I don't dispute in the slightest that you are normally using delicious in the way in which the author intended.

However, your links in politics occasionally do veer into obvious propaganda. "I agree. I've thought for a while that the 'the country is split evenly, this election is going to be close' doesn't reflect reality. I think Bush is going to win comfortably." That is a neither a note for you to help understand the link later, nor is it a summary of the link content; it is your opinion, in addition to the link content;
and I have a real bad case of Republican Machine Opinion Fatigue.

Yes, man_bellefontaine is far worse. He is the real catalyst here. But, while I'm at it, I'd really rather not read your opinions either. They're neither informative, educated, nor fresh. They merely repeat the same boring point that liberals are all fork tailed devils who hate the country and blah blah blah that Fox, Clear Channel and so forth spout out daily.
We can't refute Krugman's math, so we call him a barking moonbat. Clarke served under Reagan, but now he goes off the ranch, and even though there are corroborating witnesses, he must be a gay unchristian perjuring liar. And so on blah blah.

You have a right to say what you want; and I will defend it to the death; but I don't have to listen to illogical nonsense copied straight from Limbaugh and Instapundit as if it were gospel. So I won't.

I'll try to keep the ability to keep your non-politics links, though -- thanks for putting the idea in my head.

F.

All I have to say is... who are you to say what Joshua intended? Who are you to say what's valid in a description field or not? And now you call my opinions "uneducated" and "illogical" and "obvious propaganda". I don't know if you intend to be, but you're very insulting.

Looks like you have a pretty serious misunderstanding of what I said.

I didn't say what Joshua intended; I said I don't dispute that you're using it the way he intended.

I made no statements about what is valid in a description field. I only said that it was obviously your opinion, rather than an actual description.

I'm glad you feel insulted by my words. Maybe you are now starting to feel how insulted and put-upon I've felt while reading the simplistic all-liberals-are-idiots bile you and your team have been pumping into my eyeballs for the past several years. Kinda annoying, isn't it? Wish it could be replaced by reasoned discourse? OK, you start.