Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Fun with Fitz

I recently ventured, as I sometimes do, over to the Opine Editorials to post a comment or two on some particularily distasteful topics they pretend to know about. As per usual, the mass assault and misdirection towards me started the minute I entered the room, as they practically foam at the mouth for anyone besides themselves to enter the homophobic (yet strangely homoerotic) confines of their little echo chamber.

It began like it always begins when a pro marriage equality commenter ventures to their chamber.

Someone posts a comment defending gay people and marriage equality against their baseless accusations and illogic, and the gang bang of malaprops, new definitions, propaganda, and cut-and-paste answers from other homophobic websites starts. All whilst screeching and complaining that no one has yet addressed their brand of "logic."

Chairm and R.K. were the first to appear this time, blathering their typical "wise-old-yoda-master" spiels, "teaching" John Hosty-Grinnell and myself their lies and "lessons" of logic, reason, and analogy. Renee soon joined in with her "scientific" obsession with coitus and "biology." As if maybe for once we will change our minds about the entire issue if she preaches about oxytocin and orgasm just a little bit more.

And then, in jumps Fitz. The "hero" to his fellow circle-jerkers, now that The Condescending Authoritarian (Professor Alexander T. Riley) Culturologist has left the building.

I'm sure it is only a matter of time, really, until Senora Solano stops writing her next Concerned Woman for America speech and teaching her little thespians long enough to go on a new tirade about the religious evils and anal perversions of which is the epicenter of her life. 3-2-1...

But I digress. This article is about Fitz, the 38 year-old lawyer from Detroit, who is "discerning a call to the priesthood (& considering the Jesuit order).." Goddess help us all. He is obviously a very religious man. His public profile states, "I believe in the primacy of culture, (When I’m not espousing the primacy of Christ & his Church)." Yet like most self-ascribed "religious" folks, the ones who feel the need to shout it from their rooftops (or their cyber rooftops) are usally among the most judgmental, condemning, least tolerant, and most arrogant.

Not only does this fellow usually display deeply paranoid anti-communist and anti-feminist rantings, his articles go beyond any semblance of being able to be understsood. In short, while we all make the occasional typo, he has a remarkable tendency to, in nearly every piece of writing, mix up his homonyms and mis-use apostrophes as though he completely missed a few key classes in grammar school as a kid. Like so many things the Opiners touch on the internet, an article or comment thread quickly turns into a hot mess whenever Fitz is involved.

In fact, if I were him, I wouldn't be so quick to continuously start sentences with "as an attorney..." Because every time he writes a comment or article, I become a little more convinced that he got his law degree from the inside of a crackerjack box.

Who else would title an article "You'll know them by their Tactic's," and go on to say, "It called deviousness or subterfuge." Um... a-wha? I have no idea a.) what his paranoid mind is referring to, and b.) what he is talking about, since per usual, his article is completely incomprehensible. Perhaps, "as an attorney," he should venture to this website before publishing poorly written and hardly proof-read articles. It is obvious he relies a little too much on his, perhaps self-thought, special status as an attorney, to make up for his lack of command of the English language and writing ability. Something that, one would think, would be greatly valued "as an attorney."

The purpose of this critique serves a greater purpose than poking fun at Fitz, however. It also demonstrates how completely out of touch with reality the Opiners are if they believe that Fitz's writings demonstrate anything close to intelligible, reasoned, or comprehensible arguments.

Hold on to your hats and glasses folks, for here is a compilation of my favorite Fitzisms:

Responding to one pro-gay commenter about something that isn't really important as Fitz's comment is utterly indecipherable, he states with no further explanation: "Chiefly individual adult want over the common good and the good of children." Erm. Okay. Since I don't know any intelligent person who could counter such an "argument" I suppose you win, Fitz.

And for homonym fun with Fitz, embedded within the very same comment as above, here are a couple of his usual mix ups (I have faith in my readership to know that the [sic]'s are unnecessary): "Of coarse I have found no better concise statement for this view than the following..." and "You can lead a hoarse to water but you can’t make him drink." So true. However, I must admit that that last statement gave me the surely unintended image of a feverish man stubbornly refusing a glass of water in a nurse's outstretched hand, which now that I think about it, sort of works. I guess some concepts aren't lost in translation.

Observe this latest comment, as well. I WAS going to give it a good 'ol college try. Yet, try as I might, I could not decipher the point(s)? he was trying to make. He says:

"The needs of society's [sic] change all the time. It is exatly [sic] those amendments that prove my point. There [sic] existance [sic] is the mechanism a free people exercise when they deem it neccesary to exert a fundemntal [sic] right into the constitution.

If African Americans [sic] fought a civil war and have three amendments, or consider the 19th Amendment [sic] . (That comes after the 14th) It took a generation of women to convince men to give them the right to vote.

Why should your cause supersede democracy?"

Um. After sifting through all that garbage, I am not really sure what he said, or even intended to say. So honestly, Fitz, I can not answer your question. I guess that means you win, again. Also note his proud display of his knowledge of the fact that 19 comes after 14, numerically. Given the amount of mistakes he has already made, even I was rooting for him to get that one right.

Sometimes, because of their deceptive, misleading, or irrelevant articles and comments, I am not quite sure if the Opiners are computers or humans. Like those Magic 8-Ball toys, you can ask them an endless number of questions and present them with numerous different arguments, but they will always reply with the same 6 carbon-copied answers.

Opine Editorials, will your website ever be credible, honest, or respectful of human dignity?

"Outlook not so good."

So that is why, after a handful of comments, I usually retreat back to the confines of my own blog. Or to other, more respectful blogs. Not because I'm being beaten by their "superb logic or reasoning skills." Rather, it is no great feat to "win" an argument with them.

Or, to borrow from the Adam Sandler movie, "Billy Madison," I fear each time a person enters their website, they all become a bit stupider for having read any of what they have to say.


John said...

Excellent post, Jane,

I've been laughing for hours.

However, maybe reading the Opine Idiotorials has knocked a point or two off my IQ, but I actually understand what Fitz was getting at when he said:

"If African Americans [sic] fought a civil war and have three amendments, or consider the 19th Amendment [sic] . (That comes after the 14th) It took a generation of women to convince men to give them the right to vote.

Why should your cause supersede democracy?"

I think he is paraphrasing Antonin Scalia's view that 14th amendment could not have been construed to grant women or blacks the right to vote, given the distinction (at the time) between civil and political rights.

For a lawyer to misunderstand Justice Scalia kinda makes your point that he got his degree from a Cracker Jack box.

Fannie said...


I saw that the "On Lawn" character called your post "hateful." Surprise, surprise. Anything that this guy doesn't agree with is by definition "hateful."

It's quite funny how seriously he takes his blog and the internet. He perceives any critique to be a serious affront to his human dignity.

Jane Know said...

They can think whatever they want about my articles...all, of course, while conveniently forgetting that they are the ones calling gay people perverse, vile, "pretending to play house," and various other anti-gay propaganda. So the saying goes, "if you can't take it, don't dish it out." They constantly set themselves up for critiques like this, and someone needs to call them out on it publicly.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Thanks for posting this Jane, I was going to post something on my site but this spells it out better than I would have.

Look up the word "superstition" and it describes their ideas on why equality is wrong.