So some Royal Alexander flunky (janeinno) wants me to post her diatribes on this site, as she thinks I'm afraid to. Well, I will post her rants as examples of what not to post on this site, as it will get you banned.
This is an ad hominem attack:
A malicious partisan publication unconcerned with basic fairness, the "Daily Lie" makes no mention of the fact that Royal Alexander is receiving significant misplaced rage due to his association with Cong. Alexander. The Nancy Pelosi Attack Machine has been targeting Cong. Alexander ever since he switched to the Republican Party and loathes him in a very special way. The Democrats had two years to pick a candidate to oppose Cong. Alexander, and Royal Alexander fended off the Pelosi Attack Machine and guided his boss to a landslide victory.
This person forgets her history. Congressman Alexander switched parties in the most cowardly way possible - at the last minute of the filing period, denying the Democrats an opportunity to run a credible candidate against him. No wonder the Democratic Party up in Washington doesn't like him. But he shows a lack of understanding of how the DCCC works - if they REALLY wanted Congressman Alexander gone ... they would have recruited someone to run against him. They didn't, prefering to let the grassroots nominate someone. Unfortunately, those candidates could not defeat Congressman Alexander.
Anyway, calling this site the "Daily Lie" is not exactly going to endear anybody to the bloggers of this site. Stick the substance of the post, and refrain from attacking the site or the poster.
Here are some more examples of ad hominem attacks:
As for Foley, you remind me of a neophyte law student still struggling to understand the crucial difference betwenn the HOLDING of the case and mere DICTA. You refuse to put my response on the site because it focuses on what the Report held, not the blabbering both parties inserted to appear outraged and to provide political cover. It is patently unfair for you to heap all of it on Alexander's shoulders when tremendous blame is deserved by both parties. I love how you pretend that the actual determination of the committee has no significance at all.
I especially love this ... this person mistakes pointecoupeedemocrat for me, as I am the law student at LSU, not pointecoupeedemocrat. But I digress. This would have been perfectly fine ... but for the neophyte law student line. Keep it to the substance of the post, and refrain from commenting on the poster.
When I sent the following email to this person about banning her:
You lost the right to post on my blog by engaging in ad hominem attacks. The Daily Liar? Why not address the content of the piece rather than engaging in attacks? Apparently you can't do that.
Good day.
P.S. If you'd read the report, you'd know that the holding was a reprimand for all parties involved - especially Royal Alexander and Rodney Alexander. You're struggling with the mere dicta, trying to help the two Alexanders.
This is the response I received, from a email address registered to Ted Tuner Machem, presumably a male:
yeah pal lecture me on addressing the arguments when you are too much of a p---- to post mine! your attempt to defecate on free speech will fail as i will make sure everyone knows what an intellectual poser and fascist your are. it is not an ad hominem attack to try and defame and convict someone based on party membership?
No question, this person has a way with words. Had he/she stuck to attacking the points of the post, he/she would still be a member of DailyKingfish. Since he/she could not do that, and resorted to ad hominem attacks on the poster, as well as the site, I had no choice but to ban him/her, if I were to remain true to the Rules of Daily Kingfish.
