Slugger O'Toole

This user has not yet written a description

Latest comments from The Spectator (see all)

The Spectator has commented 44 times (0 in the last month).

1. Comment on Reading Blogs; why?
   on 3 January 2010 at 9:35 pm

   Turgon

   You were grossly and fundamentally wrong the first time you said all that. You still are.

   Mick Fealty

   My point was that you can think what you like, but I am the one that gives up Yellow and red cards, not you.

   When did I suggest otherwise? Straw man.

   … these ‘Zombie’ arguments …

   Plain English, maybe?

   in fine

   I don’t know if there is much point in further engagement with you, Mick, or even with the site.

   I attempted to raise with you what I thought was a valid point for the benefit of the site – the rest of this emotional garbage was not of my creation. After a while, it is simply tedious.

   I was not considering “taking my ball and going home” at all … until your last post to me. I read it, laughed for a second, and then that wave of ‘disengagement’ I mentioned just came over me again. The project must be protected. Indeed, maybe it must.

   But not from me. I don’t have the energy, or the interest. You’ve made your choice and feelings clear. They are yours to make.

   As, I suppose, our mine.

   Salve
   TS

   Go to comment

2. Comment on Reading Blogs; why?
   on 3 January 2010 at 5:56 pm

   Eamonn

   I really don’t see your point. I don’t see exactly where I claimed otherwise.

   Perhaps you could illuminate your point a little by some further exposition.

   Go to comment

3. Comment on Reading Blogs; why?
   on 3 January 2010 at 5:43 pm

   Mick

   Out of curioisty, what has Only Asking said about Turgon that is by a degree worse than what Turgon said about him?

   Because I’m getting the distinct impression that your policy has become “protect Turgon at all costs, even at the cost of talking shit”.

   Turgon

   Back to telling lies: I guess I can expect little better.

   I see a night’s sleep has restored the bile. All well and good.

   I have written no lies on this or other posts. If you would like to copy and paste the supposed lying statement, I will quite happily demonstrate that

   The accustation, it appears, has become a rather favourite “tactic” in this thread. Like the rest of the bile, Turgon, it won’t work with me.

   Now we have you saying that all you complain about is that you were forced to debate with me.

   Where have I said that, or anything like that? Copy and paste, please, so we can all have a good look.

   You side tracked a blog on the late Cardinal Daly to have a go at me and Pete.

   Actually, I ‘sidetracked’ the obit thread, which had already descended and been sidetracked to shite, to suggest that commenting quality was going down. I merely mentioned the two of you as background to how I came to my conclusion.

   Stating that I don’t engage with your posts (or anyone else’s for that matter) is not an attack. Get over yourself, if you can.

   That is actually a form of debate.

   No, it isn’t.

   Incidentally I would appreciate a retraction of the lie that you said I have labelled you a cheerleader.

   From this thread -

   The fact that certain supporters of terrorism try to avoid debating with me I regard as a badge of honour.

   …

   I not that it is extremely rare for opponents of violence to complain about my debating style.

   …

   I have never called him a cheerleader. … those who complain are those who seem to actually support terrorism but not want to admit it.

   From the Daly thread

   I might actually observe that what I suspect you dislike is that I am able to attack and chase cheerleaders and usually they eventually give up and go away;

   Now you may wish to entreat with cheerleaders; you may be one for all I know.

   The implications of this are clear as day.

   You could have emailed Mick with your thoughts or put them on another blog.

   I’ll communicate with Mick as I see fit, Turgon. What you think or feel about that is, as I’ve said before, worthless.

   Go to comment

4. Comment on Reading Blogs; why?
   on 3 January 2010 at 7:20 am

   Turgon

   I see a certain calmness has returned. A good thing.

   I do not mind if you do not read my posts and indeed avoid them.

   And I don’t propose you should. Quite the reverse. Hence my surprise at your earlier reaction.

   To be clear, Turgon. I don’t avoid reading them per se – I do avoid Pete’s, for reasons stated – but I avoid engaging in your posts, either with yourself, or with other commenters. I would think you will admit there is a difference.

   However, if that is the case I am bemused as to why you seem so interested in my contributions and so interested in criticising my style of blogging and commenting.

   But am I so interested? I think I’ve attmpted engagment maybe twice in your entire time, before forced to following the ‘incident’ this evening. I’ve certainly devoted far more time to challenging Pete’s style, or some of Mick’s choices.

   As to why the criticism? Honestly, it is simply as I have always stated. But again, in short -

   Polemic is not debate. Nor is preaching. They have their place, but they are not debate. You have said I don’t like your ‘style’ of debate – but it’s nothing to do with ‘style’, it’s to do with whether what you do is debate at all. As polemic, some of it is rather good – but as debate, a fair amount of it doesn’t fit the description. And there are certain goods or benefits that can sometimes derive from debate that can never derive from polemic.

   Let me us a silly analogy if i may –

   the Aberdeen Angus Quarter Pounder as was served in the Gresham Hotel in Dublin in the early 1990′s (I’ve no idea if it still is…) is, or was, a magnificent burger. Genuinely wonderful. Up with the Eiffel tower and the Hanging Gardens. Death row last meal good.

   The 99p cheeseburger at McDonalds is an awful burger. I actually like their Big Mac, the 1/4lb is not bad on the go – but the old 99p cheeseburger is not fit for animals IMHO.

   Now, one is a Good Burger, and one is a Bad burger, and we can argue till the cows come home which is which.

   But a Strawberry Pop Tart, good or bad, is simply not a burger at all.

   There are such things as good debates, and such things as bad debates (in terms of how useful or fair they are for example) – but there are also things that are not debates at all. And an absolute refusal, possibly on principle, to engage a certain political cadre in any discussion beyond preaching at them is not a debate at all – it’s the opposite.

   And that is where the Echo chamber came in.

   I NEVER said you were an echo chamber – I said that in refusing, quite deliberately, to engage in genuine discussion or debate, as opposed to polemic, you risked creating an Echo Chamber FOR YOUR POSTS.

   By that I mean that in the end, as others with any critical views realise that engagement is impossible, they leave for more fertile pastures, leaving you only with yourself AND THOSE WHO ALREADY AGREE WITH YOU. Which you had before you wrote a word.

   You may see that as a victory; you seem to. But what does it advance; what is the prize, and the price, of sucha victory? For me, the real risks are that, confronted with this temprement, the “talk to the hand” style, your ‘enemies’ adopt it themselves, and we have no engagment of anyone by anyone, just self re-inforcing cocoons, or echo chambers.

   Like, for example, dissident republicans appear to be right now. And that’s not a happy thing.

   Or worse, because some of them, even for selfish reasons, DO engage, they start winning arguments by default. Like some say SF did in the 1990s, because the DUP retreated into their own echo chamber.

   Style

   If I was attacking you on a personal level, I wouldn’t have used an Echo chamber as the analogy in any case, because frankly, it doesn’t make sense. I would have called you an Empty Barrell, or a noise machine or some such. But I didn’t, and I don’t.

   So why have I mentioned it at all?

   I can only repeat what I wrote before, none of which was in any sense a ‘personal attack’ -

   The problem with actively seeking to shut down discussion, and even defending whataboutery is that the conversations don’t cease, and your enemies don’t go away; they just move one door down the street – but with an added verse of “Turgon’s a bitter nutter”.

   Thus your writing risks becoming an echo chamber, increasing its own irrelevance. I find it hard to believe that’s the aim?

   Go to comment

5. Comment on Reading Blogs; why?
   on 3 January 2010 at 5:08 am

   JoeCanuck

   Thanks JoeCanuck, I get it now. Thought that exchange (Tur/OnAs) was kind of inevitable, but there you go. Should have included that in the list of possibles – Bit like Carlsberg – there’s always “c)”

   Go to comment

6. Comment on Reading Blogs; why?
   on 3 January 2010 at 4:59 am

   Sorry, Joe

   I meant to add – “or do you mean Turgon/Republicanstones”?

   Go to comment

7. Comment on Reading Blogs; why?
   on 3 January 2010 at 4:58 am

   joeCanuck

   Just in case I’m misreading the post – am I one of said protaganists?

   Go to comment

8. Comment on Reading Blogs; why?
   on 3 January 2010 at 4:06 am

   As an annex, for the record, to avoid offending only Turgon I should also admit the following :-

   – I read Brian Walker religiously, and constantly want to strangle him, metaphorically.
   – I like Eamonn as a communicator, always have. I think his last post was poppycock.
   – Mick’s output is, IMHO, variable, but I like a lot of it.
   – I wish I had the gaeilge to read some of GGN’s, but I don’t. I read a fair few of his english one’s.
   – I have read Chris’s, and tend to find them a little ‘propagandistic’ for my tastes. I tend to ignore now.
   – I like Kensei’s intellectual honesty; his anger reminds me of Turgon, however.
   - I could happily read a lot more of both Dewi and Chekov – always engaging.
   - Rusty Nail makes incredible points, but I’m often ‘worn out’ by the intensity of the style.
   – I don’t tend to read Mark McGregor’s, (see my chris entry) although I have not got to the conscious decison stage yet.
   – I haven’t made my mind up yet on Jason; I find him readible, even likeable, but not yet convincing.
   – Belfast Gonzo is my second favourite after Mick, and just ahead of Brian Walker.
   – Conall, too early to tell. More meat, maybe.

   Good, I think that’s everyone. Feel free to have a kiniption, or not, as the muse directs you.

   Go to comment

9. Comment on Reading Blogs; why?
   on 3 January 2010 at 4:06 am

   GNN

   Returned from Ravenill to find this thread. Dear me!!

   I’m rather at a loss at how to respond constructively to it.

   I was rather surprised, at least at first, by the, in my view, rather extraordinarily emotional response to my short aside that I don’t tend to engage in Turgon’s posts.

   I note, for example, that Pete Baker has shown what I would have thought was the entirely sensible response to my admitting to ignoring most of his posts – complete and utter indifference.

   From the posts, it appears choosing not engage in Turgon’s posts, or the debates that can stem from them, and admitting such, amounts to an ‘ad hominem’ attack on him – one that almost certainly makes me, or cetainly leaves me at suspicion of being, a ‘cheerleader for terrorists’.

   Well, I can only apologise and admit that further such ad hominem attacks of, well, deliberate ignoring, are entirely likely to reoccur. I am clearly an incorrigable repeat offender.

   Now, for the record, why did I make the comment on the ‘Obit’ thread – simply because I thought some of the stuff on the thread was as good an example of any of the point I was making – a reduction in comment quality that seemed rather the opposite of what registration was intended to produce.

   I did, if I recall, admit to Mick up front that the point was a little off topic, but perhaps I was mistaken.

   Mick was of course entitled to remove the post at his discretion.

   I don’t remember making any comment, positive, negative or neutral on the late Cardinal, but apparently I disrespected his shade.

   In passing, and intending to give a little background to my point, I admitted that as a rule I did not engage entirely fully with the site, and gave, as examples, two posters whom I have on previous occasions quite publically admitted I do not tend to read or engage. I have been quite open about why I have chosen not to do so in both cases – (mainly for stylistic reasons).

   I then went on to state that I had chosen to read those two posters in the last few days – in order to ensure that I was not missing some great debate in their threads missing in the others – I felt it was only fair to Mick if I was going to make the point (which I have considered making since the Adams paedophile threads, and earlier) that I had a ‘full appreciation’ of the site. I was content that the quality of content of the comments on those threads by the two posters was not such as to change my basic point.

   And then all hell appeared to break loose.

   I set out a short note, following Turgon’s interjection, trying to point out why I couldn’t agree with Turgon’s views as set out in that post. I was quiclly promoted for my troubles to the cheerleaders’ caravan. Don’t worry, folks, you get canapes so I’m well sorted.

   A number of posters seem to have annoyed Turgon in this continuing debacle, and the word ‘bullying’ has raised its head.

   Let me be absolutely clear, in simple language, about one thing. If Turgon honestly believes, for so much a a moment, that he has any power, influence, or ability to drive me from this site by attacking me, he is sadly and sorely mistaken.

   It may work with young girls in a student union, or where-ever. It sure as fuck will not work with me.

   I don’t ask your moral sanction, Turgon. I don’t need it, care about it, or rate it. You may feel you have some form of moral superiority. Feel away, because I will treat that feeling with exactly the respect, authority, relevance and interest it deserves.

   None.

   If you have actual intelligent arguments to make, make them. Because I honestly and truly don’t give a fuck about anything you think, want, feel or believe otherwise. I mean this in the broadest sense – i don’t give a shit about your feelings or your moral views, one way or the other. I have no desire to hurt them, but I couldn’t give a shit if I do.

   If you have actual arguments to make, make them. all else is vanity.

   Go to comment

10. Comment on Cardinal Cahal Daly dies…
    on 2 January 2010 at 8:24 pm

    Mick

    As you command.

    Turgon

    I see you avoid engagement in my threads. Presumably you have some pseudo-intellectual explanation for this.

    You presume too much, in both the general and the specific.

    You have tried that explanation previously including with infantile insults about me being a lone voice in an echo chamber (it is pretty full in my echo chamber) with support from no one

    Firstly, Turgon, at NO stage did I suggest you were a ‘lone’ voice. Not even close. Either that is a lie, or you entirely misconstrued that thread. Your choice.

    Secondly, I’m not sure what you believe is gained by introducing a petty insult such as infantile. It is patently inaccurate, but perhaps more to the point, it’s pathetic, in the true sense of the word.

    I might actually observe that what I suspect you dislike is that I am able to attack and chase cheerleaders and usually they eventually give up and go away

    1. Either observe it or don’t observe it – the circumlocution isn’t impressive.
    2. Your suspicions are both inaccurate, and more importantly largely irrelevant.
    3. With all gentleness intended, I think you overestimate yourself here.

    You may feel intellectually superior to me and not need to debate

    Indeed I might feel that way, and indeed I might well be correct to, but what concern of it is yours?

    I don’t remember ever flaunting my education or academic achievements in your threads, am I wrong?

    Now, you might want to stick to the content. Trying to shoot the messanger is not going to work with me, Turgon.

    Debate is the key word, Turgon. What you are doing, by your own words, is in no meaningful sense debate. Debate requires mutual engagement. You seem to consider that itself anathema. Indeed, it is that very opposition to actual debate, rather than anything else, that means I tend to overlook your posts. That, and the constant reversion for authority to your own feelings. I meantioned that many moons ago, and my views haven’t changed.

    Alternatively you may fear losing and instead make snide remarks on threads which I am not using.

    Wrong again, Sherlock.

    And you see, THAT was snide.

    Simply noting I don’t tend to read certain posters is not snide. Look it up.

    As to you feeling disengaged: despite your comment that Mick should not care; you quite clearly think he should.

    There’s that presumption again. I post very little here. My absence would basrely be noted. Quite rightly.

    I think the site is suffering a bit. No more. No less. Keep the pseudo-psychology for someone who believes in it.

    I cannot speak for Mick

    Correct.

    but it sounds very much like you are taking your ball home because you do not get your own way.

    Get your ears checked.

    Well go ahead: No major loss as it happens. I for one will not be worrying.

    And apparently I/m the ‘infantile’ one.

    Turgon, I’m sure you’ve heard the one about beams and motes. Learn it, love it, live it.

    Mick

    Out of curiosity, was that ‘ad hominem’?

    Just so I know.

    Go to comment