Tuesday, December 4, 2007

A Guest Blog by Fannie in Response to Opine Editorials

In light of some craziness in my personal life, Fannie has graciously offered to post a guest blog in response to an article by Opine Editorials "Does Jane know what she says she knows?"

I may return shortly with articles of my own, but right now I have neither the time nor the inclination. Thank you Fannie!

Her article follows:

In response to Jane Know's previous article about Renee, the On Lawn
moniker wrote a largely unsubstantiated piece about Jane Know. Most
hypocritically, he claimed that Jane wrote an article about Renee that
lacked evidence (or, rather that is was full of "hate-filled lies").

I'm somewhat embarassed to admit this, but I spent more time than I wanted to, attempting to get On Lawn to substantiate his article. Even for
the sake of his own credibility, he refused to do so. He sort of tried here, but avoided most of my questions and provided evidence that did not support his claims on others. The Opiners claim to be open to dialogue out of "mutual respect and understanding" and they admonish us (being Jane, John, John Hosty, and
I) to ask for clarification if need be. Yet, when we do ask, our
requests are ignored, reprimanded, or assigned sinister motives.


In the paragraphs that follow, I will present evidence as to how On Lawn
wrote an article without using any evidence to back it up.Disregarding
his article's accuracy or inaccuracy, an article without evidence is
nothing but a rant.

Let's take it from the top, On Lawn said:

1. "Fallacy Findings is out to attack Opine again. You will
remember their last attempt, where they tried to take our discussion of
an explicitely non-violent statement and claim it meant we were in
cahoots with a violent hate group."



"Again," he says. When was the last "attack"? (Alas, let me do On
Lawn's substantiating for him. Is he referring to this article? If so, why would he refer to it, claim that Jane was "out to attack" Opine in this article, provide his own characterization of the article, yet NOT provide a link to the article? Omission #2, (Omission #1 being not providing a link to Jane's article about Renee.)

Who does On Lawn mean by "their" and "they"? Doesn't Fallacy Findings
have but one author, that person being Jane? (This current article is
the first guest post on Jane's blog). Yes. Jane is the sole author.
Inaccuracy #1. But wait, On Lawn changes his story here when he says that by "they" he really meant Jane, "and the commenters that signed off wholesale on her fallacies." Then perhaps he should correct his mischaracterization. In his article he specifically referred to Fallacy Findings and followed with a sentence saying that "they" did something. Mischaracterization #1.

What exactly does he mean by "in cahoots with"? (On Lawn did, actually,
answer this one by saying that in cahoots means "allegiance," "common
cause," or "collaboration." Is he denying that some Opine Editorials
bloggers claimed to have a common cause with Watchmen? For some
background, it was On Lawn who originally posted the Watchmen article on
Opine Editorials and, after providing a link to the Watchmen mission
statement, said this:

"This might be a good place to discuss how much Opine has in common,
and not in common, with their statement.

Your comments are welcome. Are homosexuals the chief enemy of the
natural family? Are they thinly veiled hate-mongers? I will save my
commentary for the comment section also."

The purpose of his post, perhaps written while not knowing the Watchmen
are a hate group, was for the Opiners to discuss whether they indeed
had a common cause with the Watchmen (ie- "in cahoots with"?). A few
ultimately decided that they did. At least partly. Therefore, it was not a lie for Jane to at least imply that the Opiners and the Watchmen share a common cause. (Mischaracterization #2).



2. "Of course, the value of controversial mis-truths is not lost
on her and her unquestioning readership -- she repeatedly refused to
correct her mistakes claiming she had none in that article."


What "mistakes"? How is her "readership" unquestioning? How does On
Lawn know that all of her readership is unquestioning? How does On Lawn
know, for that matter, who constitutes all of her readership?
(Claims For Which No Evidence is Provided #1, #2, and #3).

What "controversial mis-truths" is On Lawn referring to?
(#4)


3. "In reading this I am left to wonder how people with
hate-sensors that can go off with someone blowing their noses, why they don't detect
the hate filled lies on their own site."


What hate-filled lies, exactly, is he talking about talking about?
(Claim For Which No Evidence is Provided #5)

How does he know these alleged lies are "hate-filled"? (Psychic
Venture into Another's State of Mind #1)


How are these statements lies? (Claim For Which No Evidence is
Provided #6)




4. "It is embarrassing to read when she gets so filled with rage
and punch drunk...


How does he know that Jane is "filled with rage" and is "punch drunk"?
(Psychic Ventures into Another's State of Mind #2 and
#3).


Does his site not advocate for attacking an argument as opposed to the
person making the argument? (Personal attack #1)


5. ...that can't keep her story straight from one moment to the
next. These one sentence paragraphs have only two paragraphs between
them, that is if you count the witty repartee "ha ha ha *snort*" a
paragraph."


The sentences of Jane's that he quotes do not support the argument he
is attempting to make: namely, that Jane can't keep her story straight.
His purpose is more to support his ridicule of her "witty repartee" and use
of succint paragraphs. (Non Sequitor #1). Anyway, if
On Lawn wants to read an article with no sense of humor, he's gotten
it.



5. "Jane is complaining that she is being called a feminist, and
complaining that her feminist credentials are being questioned. But
worse than that, I'm afraid her conjecture is unfounded."

Jane's quotes do not support the argument that On Lawn has made:
namely, that "Jane is complaining that she is being called a feminist."
(Non Sequitor #2)

He follows this thought with a contradictory statement that Jane is now
"complaining that her feminist credentials are being questioned."
Which is it On Lawn, is she complaining about being called a feminist, or
complaining about not being called a feminist? (Internal
contradiction #1).



And, how is Jane's "conjecture unfounded"? On Lawn has come to a
conclusion without making the necessary arguments for his conclusion.
Not everyone takes his word for it that another's conjecture is
unfounded. (Claim For Which No Evidence is Provided
#7).



6. "She complains about comments being deleted about as often as
she paraphrases them incorrectly."


Since she allegedly complains about comments being deleted so often, On
Lawn shouldn't have had trouble producing a direct quote from Jane.
Not that this sentence is relevant to Jane's original article about Renee.
(Claim For Which No Evidence is Provided #8, Personal Attack
#2)



7. "Too much of what Jane says is straight from her own imagination."

On Lawn is again delving into the inner-workings of Jane's mind.
(Psychic Venture into Another's State of Mind #4, Personal
Attack #3)
.


To sum up this article, I'd like to end on the words of On Lawn
himself, with a key name inserted.

"In the efforts of good will and mutual respect, [On Lawn] is
offered to make corrections. In efforts of accuracy and truth, [On
Lawn] is expected to support [his] claims better. [He] has a wider audience
than the echo-chamber he runs."



I made a simple request that he verify his claims about Jane since he
is accusing her of evil characteristics. Is he unable to verify his
claims, or does he irresponsibly rant about others without feeling the need to
back up his words with, you know, evidence? Does he even believe what
he is saying about Jane? And, one is left to conclude that when
certain members of Opine Editorials write articles about others, these articles
are more unsubstantiated rants than substance.


Chairm, too, wrote his an article of Jane that, rather than including
reasons and evidence, included his conclusions. And questions. It is
up to Jane to answer Chairm if she wishes. But given the
mischaracterization and unsubstantiated claims that have already been
made, and left uncorrected, at Opine Editorials, I wouldn't blame her
for not wanting to go back there.


[Jane's note: I may eventually get around to answering these articles. Honestly, I am flattered that they wrote two articles about me. And I will give them the time they deserve. However, time will tell if I think they deserve any time at all. ;-)]

22 comments:

Fannie said...

I found it frustrating that On Lawn went to the trouble of writing this article, but would not go further and provide evidence for his claims.

When I pointed this out to him, as I cite in my guest post, he and "Op-Ed" accused me of bad faith and dishonesty.

Curious. It's sort of my job to substantiate claims, and I suppose I shouldn't hold bloggers to the same standards I am use to in my professional life. I'll remember to put my kid gloves on the next time I'm at Opine.

And since when is it bad faith to suggest for someone to offer evidence backing up claims against a person? Especially if the claims about the person are disparaging.

Only in the Opine World of (Il)logic.

Fannie said...

Also, I don't know why some of the links are not going through in the article, Jane....??

I ask On Lawn to clarify and provide evidence for his article here:

http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/12/bringing-in-heap.html#c1778883019846854811

Read on from there to see how that transpires.

Also note the large number of non-Opine comments that were deleted in this thread.

Rachel M. said...

Well done Fannie. I initially felt compelled to defend Jane, or rather CORRECT On Lawn, but as soon as I read that he had stated that Jane had complained about being a feminist I automatically tuned out. He made that up. From what I notice, she takes pride in her feminism. Am I to understand that challenging Renee about her determining who is and who is not a feminist means that Jane is determining who is and who is not a feminist? Nonsense...I mean, unless you consider "I know you are but what am I?" a good argument.

Jane Know said...

Fannie, sorry about some of the links. Not sure what happened, I've tried to fix them all.

Yeah On Lawn, per his usual, never answers questions. He only asks and diverts. This isn't the Socratic method, as he is very far from Socrates.

I'm way more amused than offended by the articles they wrote about me. As they are so untrue and unsubstantiated, I can't really take them seriously.

John said...

Another fallacy I see frequently from the Opiners in the poison well. They will throw out the Marxist accusation as if it is any way germane to the conversation. As if one's argument is discredited because it sounds like something Marx might has said.

Fannie said...

Ah, the Marxist red herring. Notice how they never explain why Marxism is a bad thing...

For awhile, I tried to give On Lawn the benefit of the doubt... but this article, his failure to provide evidence for it, and his table-turning accusations against me as dishonest for wanting him to provide evidence severely damaged what little credibility he had with me.

Jane Know said...

Yeah, the more I engage them, the more I realize what a regurgitated old-hat joke they really are.

Not even worth my time anymore. There are more important things in life than arguing with those asswads.

Jane Know said...

Also, I believe there are MANY other ways of getting our message out of love, tolerance, and acceptance of ALL people than wasting our time with them.

Fannie said...

Their continuous deletions of the comments of their opposition has severely diminished their credibility.

Not that they had much to begin with.

Rachel M. said...

so what was the point of the opine-ers asking for an explanation and not bothering to read it? boring.

Fannie said...

On Lawn recently claimed to have read this article. But he's extending me the courtesy of letting me "have the last word."

*Thanks.*

He claims to be so reasonable and upstanding. Why won't he correct his errors and substantiate his claims?

I don't understand? This is such very shocking Opine behavior!

Jane Know said...

Yep. That's fine with me if they don't want to come defend themselves. I understand. It's a very difficult job defending their fuckwaddery.

John said...

"It's a very difficult job defending their fuckwaddery."

I think they offended by our language; sensitive beings aren't they?

Fannie said...

They're so very sensitive. Do any other Buffy fans think they're like the evil Sunnydale mayor who is holier-than-thou but who secretly is out to destroy the city?

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Just to add to what the Opiners have been up to, they are now simply deleting anything they choose. This comment was deleted by Opine:

"How do you expect anyone to be able to follow the discussion when you are only deleting your opponents' comments? Is this the only way you can argue on even ground with us? By taking away the other sides' arguments?"

Anyone care to take a stab as to why?

Oh, I love the fact that their deletions are in vain because people get the posts emailed to them. That's where I saved the comment from.

Fannie said...

"Anyone care to take a stab as to why?"


Because spreading their message depends on propaganda-style messaging. I really have never seen so many deletions on any one blog before. Wow.

It's getting ridiculous over there. But I love that they continue to diminish their (un)credibility.

And, I have faith in the ability of most lurkers to see what's going on.

Good work, John.

Jane Know said...

yep. that was my comment they deleted. along with a couple other very benign ones. they really don't seek discussion more than getting their propaganda out.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"And, I have faith in the ability of most lurkers to see what's going on."

That's really what we have to remember when talking to our oposition. I for one have made the mistake of letting myself indulge in rightful indignation. This is a fatal flaw in debate with our opposition. Once it is made it becomes extremely difficult for lurkers to focus on what is said rather than how it is said. Brilliant points are swallowed up in the "Jerry Springer" factor.

I am going to try and keep a cool head here on in, and let the merits of my points stand on their own. I will attempt to retard all distractions.

Rachel M. said...

" Do any other Buffy fans think they're like the evil Sunnydale mayor who is holier-than-thou but who secretly is out to destroy the city?"

if you could see the smile on my face, fannie!

Jane Know said...

speaking of Buffy, does willow have camel-toe?

Luigi said...

I wish I had read this post a month ago ... I just went through the same thing here:
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.ca/2012/05/yes-we-can.html

On Lawn had written I don't support taking away recognition of rights and responsibilities with respect to procreation, and I'm firmly convinced that is exactly what would happen.

He couldn't do it. Wouldn't do it. Claimed he had already done it, if the reader would just scan through all of his *other* posts and assemble his rationale for him.

And of course, accuse the critic of bad faith and dishonesty.

A weasel maneuver, to be certain. But what else can one do when one holds an indefensible position, or lacks the brainpower to articulate their defense.

Luigi said...

Wonder why they don't just disable comments?