Sunday, December 04, 2005

The Tories and the Yale Man

The Tories held their last debate of the semester on Wednesday, November 30, in the Saybrook Athenaeum Room.

Most parties have a “joke debate” once a semester. Refusing to tag anyone of our debates with a name like that, we merely understand that our last debate was supposed to be the funniest by a good measure. Hence the debate topic from the previous term had been “Resolved: Cupid’s Arrows are Weapons of Mass Destruction.”

The topic this time would be the humorous (though potentially serious) resolution: “The Yale Man is Dead, and The Yale Woman Killed Him.”

I was not exactly sure how to gear up for this debate, and so planned no speech in advance. I listened to a Winston Churchill recording as I put on my suit, not with a mind to employ him in the debate, but merely as a relaxation. I took care to remove the crease in my necktie knot – the little dimple is so fashionable that I had to conclude that it must be in bad taste.

I headed over with five minutes to debate time, knowing that this way I would spend no more than ten minutes outside before someone showed up with a key. The debate was for 7:30, and we would start, with classic Tory punctuality, at 8:00.

When the Athenaeum Room was opened there were four or five of us. The provost had gone out of his way to provide some holiday beverages – he had tried hard to get the famously revolting “Holiday Spice” Pepsi. As this had fortunately been unavailable, the special drink of the night turned out to be egg nog.

We spent twenty minutes or so chatting with each other, noting with interest a very strong turnout that included two guests from the Independent Party (including the President of the YPU), one sometime chairman of the p.o.r., the current chairman of the Libs, the Floor Leader of the left, and various other guests. They no doubt expected that a room full of traditionalist Tories would make this debate topic a particularly lively one.

There were around twenty-five people in the room when the chairman gaveled the debate to order. Our secretary, though she would shortly have to leave for a class, was present at the debate’s beginning. She read the minutes from our previous debate, noting particularly that “Mr. Gelernter gave a speech in the negative…well, his own negative.” It was true that I had been the only one to take the negative in our last debate “Resolved: This House Prefers Tyranny to Anarchy” explicitly refusing to endorse either one.

The minutes were amended on a minor point and approved, and the secretary stood to read the topic of the night’s debate:

“Resolved: The Yale Man is Dead, and The Yale Woman Killed Him.”

The chairman asked for speeches in the affirmative, but none were forthcoming. After a considerable silence, the former chairman offered his services, beginning in a jovial spirit: “I had in fact planned to speak in the negative, but the wording of the resolution is such that it should be pretty easy to twist things around.” The former chairman argued that the Yale Man had simply died away as a result of losing the traditional marks of a gentleman and because of the seeming dissolution of classic distinctions between men and women (other than purely animal).

I began to formulate my own speech in the negative along the lines that not only is the Yale Man not dead, but the Yale Woman couldn’t have killed him anyway. I did not, however, volunteer to give the opening speech in the negative, waiting instead to see which way the debate would go.

The first speaker in the negative, the Freshman Drama Tory (hereafter FDT, if I should find occasion to reference him) claimed that the Yale Man did still exist, merely in a different form, and also seemed to suggest that his new state was not necessarily worse than his old one.

The debate had still managed to stay away from the essential point of what it is to be a man. Another speaker in the negative, the chief whip, approached this point by discussing chivalry. He pinned chivalry exclusively to combat, however, while it is actually religion that chivalry cannot exist without.

I tried to volunteer for a negative speech several times without success. Mr. Johnston, a freshman who sat next to me, was also eager to speak. I must have projected such a burning desire to take the floor, however, that he graciously decided to step aside and let me have it. This was very fortunate indeed, for I planned to mention Mr. Johnston in my speech.

When I was finally recognized for a speech in the negative we were two hours into the debate. Nevertheless, no one on either side had succeeded in being very provocative or, I thought, tremendously daring in his assertions. I planned to make a light speech, keeping the humorous intent of the debate in mind. As it turned out, however, I could not help but say certain things that led me to be asked about certain other things, and before I knew it the intensity of the debate had risen considerably.

My opening speech ran as follows:

“The first point to be made is that the Yale Woman could not have killed the Yale Man – she never had the power to do so. If it were not, in fact, for the Yale Man, there would be no such thing as a Yale Woman in the first place – like it or not, women could have beat their fists on Yale’s gates for a thousand years and they would still not be here, if it were not for the Yale Man’s knuckling under, so to speak.*

“Fortunately for us, the Yale Man still lives. This is not to say that he is very well, though. He did his level best to commit suicide in the 70s. The Yale Woman couldn’t kill him – he had to do it himself. He stood at the edge of chivalry with the noose of feminism about his neck and prepared to jump. [You should imagine my pacing the floor at this point, making some rather expansive gestures.] He began to forget love of country, honor, and chivalry – and all the things that make a man.

“But now he is beginning to remember these things again. At a debate three or four weeks ago, the word chivalry was spoken on the Tory Floor and someone applauded it. It was Mr. Johnston. And as long as there are men who will clap for chivalry the Yale Man is not dead.

“I believe even that the Yale Man shall grow stronger, as feminism, a blight on civilization is being beaten back. Feminism is truly the most repulsive disaster ever to have befallen our society. But with the coming death of feminism the Yale Man shall return once again to the glory of his former days. And with that I yield the floor to questions.”

I then went on to field what I believe was the largest number of questions any speaker had been asked at any of the debates that year. Over a dozen questions focused on my view of feminism. In the course of questions I gradually made the following argument:

A woman has a responsibility to raise and take care of children. She has a remarkable natural aptitude for this, and inherently cares about children in a manner which men do not: I have often been at some social function or family gathering where a little kid trips and hurts himself, and I always hear someone say “awwww”, expressing sympathy with the little kid who is crying his head off. In my experience, that person has without exception been a female; women are likely to feel a natural impulse to take care of and comfort a kid, whereas the male reaction is normally to wish that the kid would just shut up and stop making so much noise.

Man’s interests and talents lie in other directions. I do not believe that the feminist suggestion that women have simply been suppressed can explain why it is that the greatest scientists, the greatest chess champions, all the winning drivers of the Indy 500, the greatest fighters and military strategists and so on have been men. Men are naturally aggressive and competitive, and therefore well suited to their duty, which is to provide for and protect their families.

Indeed, no self-respecting gentleman can stoop the level of sending his wife to work – of extracting money from her so he can live a more comfortable life, knowing that no matter how little time she may spend at work, there is no job so small that it cannot detract from the attention the child will receive.

Even if the wife is able to get a better job than the husband, it is still the husband’s job to work. On principle, and for the sake of the children whom the mother is uniquely suited to care for, the family will enjoy a lower standard of living in order that both the wife and husband may accept their responsibilities.

For a woman who is capable of making a good living or who enjoys her work, her sacrifice is doubly great and must be noted. It is not easy to be a good mother. It is likely the hardest job of all, and the most important.

I was asked what I would say to a daughter of mine who would tell that she wanted to grow up to have a career as a doctor, and to find new cures for disease. I would tell her that such an ambition is laudable for her concern for others, but that she has even a higher duty, which is to make sure that her children receive from her all they can, and are properly brought up.

I am truly surprised how cheaply these supposedly noble feminists are bought off. In exchange for money and positions of power in business they turn their backs on their children, and force other women to do the same. Ostensibly fighting for humanity, they sell out for cash.


That is the sum of what I said during question time. As you can see, we were little concerned with the actual topic – the Yale Man status is not discussed. At the same time this session was certainly as closely watched, and as much clapped for and hissed at as any other in the debate. It did take guts to say what did, and while I was at the time exhilarated it was a sad point of reflection later on – today it takes guts to say what everybody knew 30 years ago.

Following my speech there was no volunteer for a speech in the affirmative, and so Mr. Johnston took the floor for another speech in the negative. He argued from a copy of William F. Buckley’s God and Man at Yale, that, while there was hope for the Yale Man, he had died as an institution. He died not because of anything the Yale Woman had done to him, but because he had become an atheist, and could not survive as such. I enjoyed listening to his speech very much, especially because I often noted in his speeches the same sort of religious strain that was in mine.

Following Mr. Johnston’s speech we were ready for a division on the motion. Our chairman looked around the room for a suitable acting sergeant-at-arms, and selected me.

After a brief comment on the general puniness and non-sharpness of the Replacement Temporary Tory Sword, I divided the body simply, with affirmatives to my right, negatives to my left, and abstentions in the middle. Things were rather lopsided in favor of the negatives – it seemed there weren’t many who could agree with both parts of the resolution, namely that the Yale Man had indeed died and the Yale Woman had been responsible. The final vote: three in the affirmative, twelve in the negative, and one abstention. The resolution clearly failed.

Following the decision, the traditional motion to adjourn to Yorkside was made, seconded, and passed. We nevertheless remained in the room chatting for about half-an-hour before moving out.

There were seven of us left at Yorkside. The subject of the debate was still worth discussion; we continued to kick around various points over milkshakes. There were two ladies with us, one a Tory and the other a sometime chairman of the party of the right. I believe it was the latter who pointed out, as it seemed half jokingly, that if we were indeed gentlemen we would be taking the check. For some reason the idea had never popped up before in this circumstance – usually at Yorkside everyone simply pays for what he himself has. Nevertheless I was eager to rectify this careless oversight, and suggested that we start taking the ladies’ tabs, not only at Yorkside but at our Mory’s lunches as well. There seemed to be a majority in favor of this, and while we didn’t formalize the agreement, we made sure both that night and at our Friday lunch that there was no financial burden on the ladies who honored us with their company. I hope that this will become a continuing tradition so that we can truly be a party of ladies and gentlemen.

* I planted the last phrase knowing that someone would later ask me if I were opposed to women being at Yale, or college in general (which of course I am not). It is in this manner that I expect many Tories try to limit questions to those for which they already have answers.


At 11:23 AM, Blogger Janelle said...

Your hypothetical future daughter hypothetically struggles with the same thing I think many traditionally minded young women struggle with in this anti-tradition world. We are geared to work now. I myself have planned on being a lawyer since I was the tender age of 11. Only recently have I seen the advantages of being a mother. My own mother worked until I was 14 years own, and we are both very sorry to say that it hurt our relationship as mother and daughter badly. I harbored so much bitterness for what I didn't get to experience, and what all my friends did. And my mother felt so guilty and horrible for not having those experiences. Anyways, back to the plight of a young women.

I think what feminism is especially guilty of doing is making today's young women feel like they have to prove something. That we owe it to Gloria Steinman to go out into the workforce and be better. It is a very self-centered and self-depriving way to carry out life.

You also left out something, that I as a young woman, is very dear to me. That we just don't hold this capacity to raise children and be amazing mothers. That this important job is only the natural extension to an even more important job. To be encouragers and beacons of hope and joy, especially to the more aggressive and dare I say pessimistic sex.

Hopefully, your hypothetical daughter will have an amazing mother her shows her that.

At 4:35 PM, Blogger Alex said...

“Women are supposed to be very calm generally: but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts, as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, too absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer; and it is narrow-minded in their more privileged fellow-creatures to say that they ought to confine themselves to making puddings and knitting stockings, to playing on the piano and embroidering bags. It is thoughtless to condemn them, or laugh at them, if they seek to do more or learn more than custom has pronounced necessary for their sex.”

I'm interested to know, Dan, whether you can identify that quotation. Consider it, if you will, an extension of your "culture quiz."

And don't cheat, Mr. Chivalry.

At 12:01 PM, Blogger Alex said...

Also, Janelle, the important woman to whom you referred is actually named Gloria Steinem, not Steinman.

So much for literacy. . . .

At 11:36 AM, Blogger Sircnay said...

Funny how the best you can do is a simple spelling mistake. Going on the defensive is usually a sign of weakness, but in your case, I bid it a sign of retardedness. I can not roll my eyes any harder at the sheer pathetic attempts you're making. Really, what difference does it make? And then you go and revel in your amazing knowledge of Jane Eyre! WOW! Can you teach me how to drive a manual afterwards? I too, love Google. It makes myself looking smart, easier. You fail at life, I suggest finding an alternative.

At 12:18 PM, Blogger Alex said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 12:25 PM, Blogger Alex said...

As was obvious from my post, I wanted to see whether Dan could identify the quotation. But I suppose that's of no cosequence, now. Thanks for that. Also, I didn't need to use google to write out or identify the exerpt--even if you did.

To address you other comment, no, calling her "Steinman" is not a mere spelling or typographical error. It would be akin to calling Bill Clinton, Bill "Clintman". In both cases, the error is significant because it indicates a lack of familiarity with the subject. It might be productive to recall, also, that Conservatives lambasted Kerry simply for failing to remember the name of thet Green Bay Packers' stadium.

Finally, while am am wholly supportive of your decision to disagree with me--not that, in this thread, I actually posed more than an implicit argument (and it certainly wasn't a defensive one)--it is unacceptable for you to be so, literally, cruel about it. Telling me that I "fail at life" is an entirely inappropriate ad hominem attack.

I respect Dan's intellect and political drive even if I always disagree with him. Perhaps, then, I, too, ought to be more courteous. But peeved as I may sometimes get, I would never intentionally go so far as to launch a personal attack against him. And Dan, if I ever have personally offended you on this blog, I apologize.

Sircnay, I have nothing further to say to you.

At 4:05 PM, Blogger Sircnay said...

Uh... wait... I never heard of this Green Bay Packers deal. So I'm assuming it's selective reading on your part.

In any case, I don't know if this was an apology or a admit of defeat. But I'll take both. I guess that sarcasm is lost on the internetzessesssssseesss (as the cool kids like to call it these days)... even with correct contextual references.

My point was, YOU were just being spiteful and scraping at the bottom of the barrel for whatever quip you were attempting. And that is why I had to interject. You see, spite, above all else, is probably the most annoying human aspect ever. Wars were (probably) started because someone was being spiteful. It's also my biggest pet peeve.

To be very yoda-like, Spite leads to anger, and anger leads to hate and hate leads to big falling outs where spite is rampant everywhere. As an addendum, I never take anybody who is spiteful seriously.

Finally, you have no idea how cruel I can be. You can't even fathom it. Just wait until I start circulating comic strips based on you. Then you'll know what cruel is.


P.S. Nice to meet you Dan. I hear many good things about you. Good day!

At 4:16 PM, Blogger Sircnay said...

Oh also, I'm curious as to what your response was that you deleted. Ooooh! And before I forget, why is it that you post anonymously? The only people who do that are either: 1.) Cowards. or 2.) People who haven't registered or have no email address and can't register.

If you fall into catergory 2, I suggest the following:

If you fall into catergory 1, I suggest the following:

- Grow up.
- Live a little and stop hiding behind the anonymity that is the internet. Only cowards and weaklings do that.

At 12:33 PM, Blogger Alex said...

A. It was accidentally deleted.

B. You didn't actually address any arguments. And if you're "sarcasm" didn't come over, that's your fault, not mine. Be mindful of the language you use. Or, to use your terminology, grow up and start speaking to others respectfully.

C. Why I choose to post anonymously is, frankly, none of your business. And it shouldn't matter to you, anyway, given that you're, nonetheless, launching ad hominem attacks.

D. You might want to look up the definition of "spite" in the dictionary. Asking somebody whether he can identify a literary quotation and telling somebody that she's insulting somebody without knowing her name is, in no way, spiteful.

Pleasure meeting you, Chris.

At 11:32 PM, Blogger Sircnay said...

A. It was accidentally deleted.


B. You didn't actually address any arguments. And if you're "sarcasm" didn't come over, that's your fault, not mine. Be mindful of the language you use. Or, to use your terminology, grow up and start speaking to others respectfully.

You made arguments? I must've not caught them. To use MY terminology? Ooooh, is that some sort of attack? Are you discriminating against me? I have no respect for people who use the internet as an insecurity shield... so I guess that's your loss.

C. Why I choose to post anonymously is, frankly, none of your business. And it shouldn't matter to you, anyway, given that you're, nonetheless, launching ad hominem attacks.

I know it's none of my business, but I am curious as to why you do. Because 1.)Nobody can track you down by a screen name. 2.) It makes you seem like a coward. And this is not apparent to only me. Ask anybody. Ask them without giving them your reason. Just say, "I'm posting anonymously on someone's blog antagonizing them. Does that make me seem like a coward?" 3.) Using latin terms doesn't make you sound any more intelligent than the average person. Then you just sound pretentious.

D. You might want to look up the definition of "spite" in the dictionary. Asking somebody whether he can identify a literary quotation and telling somebody that she's insulting somebody without knowing her name is, in no way, spiteful.

Pleasure meeting you, Chris.

Hmm.... let's see.

Writing in Dan's blog antagonizing him during his finals week. Picking a spelling mistake. All the while doing it anonymously so that nobody can oust you on your own blog. How's about you play with the golden rule here. If you're not willing to allow us to see your thoughts on things and you WILLINGLY are being a troll, then please, just go away. It's not even worth wasting time over. Cowards are one of the most glaring problems in this world. That and morons. Thus far, I'm not sure which catergory I should put you in.

At 12:38 AM, Blogger Alex said...

Chris, I have no blog. So, you couldn't "oust" me on it, in any event. My name is Alex, if that's what you want to know, and I attend Williams College in Massachusetts. Also, to prove that I have no desire to sabatoge Dan's GPA, I, too, in the middle of exams. I just happen to be a chronic procrastinator--nasty habit, I know.

Please don't call me a "coward," a "moron," or a "troll." You don't know me; you know don't know anything about me; and you have no grounds to insult anything but my ideas. Cowards, you say, are the biggest problem in this world. I'd argue that people who are insensitive to needs of others consitute a far more significant issue.

Speaking of ideas, you've argued that I am harping on minor details. I contended that not knowing Gloria Steinem's name was not a minor detail--especially when criticizing her. In my mind, you have, since, failed to do anything but reiterate your original argument--without supporting it. You're welcome to disagree with me, of course; that's why I post here. But I'd rather you not personally attack me. I think you, long ago, left the realm of sarcasm.

I hope, Dan, that you don't think that I'm posting on your blog exclusively, as Chris puts it, to antagonize you. I intend to disagree with you, of course. But I would hope that you don't mind a healthy argument every now and then. If your only desire were to stand up on a soap box, then I'd assume that you wouldn't be such an ardent fan of debate.

It's very late at night, and I should be finishing an English essay. So, I hope you'll excuse my incoherence. Dan, good luck on your finals. Chris, please, once again, try to be more respectful.

At 4:02 AM, Blogger Sircnay said...

Are you kidding me? What's hurting the nation is that nobody is no longer standing up for what they believe in. At least Dan is doing that and standing up for what he believes.

You are just now making excuses and running away since someone's OMGWTFBBQ standing up to you.

And you are such a liar. The ONLY reason you picked on the spelling error is to SPITE her. Saying, "so much for literacy" was an attack of her.

I'm not going to play your little games of politics. I don't care too much for them. Lets too much room for games and lying. So I'll just give you my brutal honesty.

It's obvious that you give up. I think you really should. It wasn't nice of you to come here with the express intent of picking a fight. I did the same thing, but I have no shame in it, so don't even try to pick this up as a flaw in me. Just go away, please. Or at the very least apologize for your real intentions, not the ones that you so "innocently" made, because you were so unaware... because it is very immoral to do so.

And yes I am catching all of your little quips in your responses. You can not be a bigger coward having to throw those in, in hopes that I wouldn't catch them. If you don't like what I'm saying, come out and say, "You are an idiot, I hate you blah blah blah bush sucks." Or whatever. Not, "blah blah blah big words blah blah blah, as chris puts is, blah blah blah."

I don't need to know you by the way to make a quick judgement of you. If you didn't want me to think of you this way, you shouldn't have come off that way in the first place. If you really want to hash this out then you can email me or something. I think it's listed somewhere in my empty blogspace. Otherwise, just stop with your quips, spiteful comments and your attempts and ninja-stealth-literary attacks. Because it's been proven time and time again that I am invincible to Ninjas of all kinds.

At 11:27 AM, Blogger Alex said...


I don't think you have any idea how insulting you are. Or maybe you do, which would be worse.

You want me to be honest? (And I have been, by the way. I just hadn't stooped to the level of egregious insult.) I will be honest. I think that you have no arguments to make and that you're coverinng that up by personally insulting me, instead of actually refuting my ideas. I think that you're politically unaware--anybody, ANYBODY who was actually following the last election cycle would have heard about the Green Bay Packers incident. And I think that you're unitelligent--the phrase "ad hominem" is standard debate lingo, even if it is in Latin. Finally, and most importantly, I think that you're mean, just plain mean. I have no patience for meanness.

Chris, if you had actually posed an argument, had actually said anything based in any intellect, and I had been unwilling or unable to respond, then I would have given up. Until that happens, however, I going to stay right where I am.


P.S. Janelle, I saw your last post on the Thanksgiving thread and think that you've posed a lot of good questions. When I have finished my finals, and have time to sit down and respond with the intelligent answers that your post deserves, I'll do that. Sorry for the delay, but my Spanish essay beckons. . . .

At 1:26 AM, Blogger Sircnay said...

Haha! That is great.

I did pose an argument... well more like an accusation. But I guess technically that'll eventually turn into an argument. The accusation being, "Why are you trolling and asking questions that more or less have nothing to do with what dan has posted?"

I'm attacking you because you came off as a pathetic keyboard warrior who was hiding behind an anonymous name and asking very sly and spiteful questions. That is usually the only way those types of people respond. Now that I know you're just a nancy-boy, I apologize for hurting your feelings.

I'm sorry if I offended your news channel fatansy life. I wish you the best of luck with the ending report at the end of the night.

At 7:07 AM, Blogger Alex said...

I am not a "nancy boy." I am, in fact, a girl. My name is "Alex" short for "Alexis." Thanks for your wonderfully homophobic and, once again, argument-free attack, though. I really appreciated it, as always.


At 1:36 PM, Blogger Reuven said...

Chris, you're really an unintelligent jerk. Props to you, Alex. You're clearly the better, and smarter, player in this debate. I'll be interested to read your response to Janelle's questions when you get around to answering them.

On a different note, especially given that she made the same mistake in her profile, I think that it's safe to say that Janelle's error in calling her "Gloria Steinman" was just that--an error. It was not a spelling mistake, no matter what Chris might like to believe. Janelle, I'd suggest that you do some reading and some research before insulting people of Ms. Steinem's caliber.


P.S. Chris, if you needed to use Google to identify the quotation from "Jane Eyre," I pity the extent of your literacy.

At 2:45 PM, Blogger Janelle said...

Ok. So I am not an expert on Gloria Steinem, but thanks for the correction. Contrary to what you may think, I have read serval pieces by her and several pieces on her, all have which lead me to conclude that I don't agree with her. What I know Chris was trying to express is that it was blatant that you were trying to argue what I had said, but you had chosen a horrible way to do so. The error only shows my own laziness when it comes to looking up the last names of people I don't care for. I actually can never remember how it goes. Just the same as I have a hard time remembering how to spell Dan's last name. As well several pundits on both sides. Anyways, my point is. Error or not, it was a pathetic attempt for an arguement. Now, if Chris and I were wrong about you using it as an arguement-- then it was simply an attack. Not because you corrected me. In fact, in any intellectual environment, the ability to correct silly mistakes is welcome. however, it was the "so much for literacy" that made it an attack.

Now on to Chris. I am afraid I migth be biased in this, considering that he happens to be a very good friend of mine. But, Reuven, you are in no place to jusge the extent of Chris's intelligence. Chris didn't use google, I told him. I had to use google because I wasn't sure, and I've read Jane Eyre nearly three times. Jane Eyre is good literature, and I am pleased to see that people sill see the validity of her writing, but since when did it become a standard for literacy? I suppose, once upon a time it was, and like you I mourn for that period of time. However, it is extraordinarily snobby to judge someones literacy (and therefore their intellectual worth, by what they have read). I can't call my friends stupid because they don't have the same knowledge and love for Shakespeare I have. Nor can I condemm them for not studying as much british poetry. Just because they can't condemm me for not reading Stephen Hawking or all those other brilliant people my mathmatically inclined friends adore.

It seemed like an attack because of what I had done earlier in the thanksgiving post. Dan had said that I had what soem may call the unfair advantage of literacy. Then when I misspell the last name of a women whom I have a predilection to disagree with and apt to loathe reading, I am suddenly illiterate. I love good debate. However, I cannot stand for trvialalities to come into play in healthy intellectual conversation. Once again, I apologize for the error, and I am appreciative of your corrections.

Chris is one of the smartest people I know, and I know some very bright people. He is usually a very understanding and reasonable fellow, however, for most of this he was messing with you. I am not quite certain if that will make you feel better or just make you feel stupid.

I also look forward to your response.

At 9:40 PM, Blogger Sircnay said...

It is said, "A picture is worth a thousand words." But in this case, a picture is worth like 30 minutes of my life picking apart your absolutely ridiculous claims. So I have instead decided to send you this picture. It's a title for a book you should look into:

Here you go.

In fact, I've decided that I'm going to pursue you for libel. I am not a homophobe, in fact one of my best friends is gay and I am on occassions fairly (read: very) effeminate.

I'll just kindly ask Mr. Dan for your IP address. Use my neat little IP sniffer program and find you. Then get the appropriate authorities to send you one of those sexy blue envelopes. That is unless of course you go ahead and retract your statement and apologize. It's up to you. And yes I've done this before. And yes, it is VERY possible. It's my profession to track people's computers.

At 10:16 PM, Blogger Alex said...


I think that we're really arguing over nothing here, and if it's okay with you, I'd like to drop the whole thing. You're now threatening me with legal action--and that's no laughing matter. I never called you homophobic (and never meant to imply that you were a homophobe); I was just responding to your decision to call me a "nancy boy."

And so, because of the name-calling course that this discussion has taken, I intend to stop conversing with you. I apologize if I ever offended you and I retract any statement which you think was written to that end.

Janelle and Dan, please let me know whether my presence on this blog is simply antagonizing. If it is, I'd be happy to stop posting on this site. But I think that I represent an important perspective here. Anybody's ideas--whether conservative or liberal--are only of value if they can withstand those posed by the opposing side. I'd like to think that I represent that differing perspective. I think that we both stand to learn from these discussions.

Regards to all and happy holidays.


At 11:54 PM, Blogger Sircnay said...

You know, you make a good point. Too bad your original intentions were spiteful.

Opposing views are perfectly acceptable and very valueable. It forces one to challenge and defend their own views. But you, dear person, came here with the express purpose of being spiteful. So that theory is out.

Oh and by the way, I wasn't serious about the whole lawsuit thing. But you should really lighten up and just admit that you were here with intent on being a prick to someone. It's not a big deal you know, admitting you were in the wrong. I do it all the time.

Also, you did everything I expected you would.

At 9:44 AM, Blogger Reuven said...


Don't tell Alex to "lighten up." You have, thus far, called her a "hypocrite," a "liar," a "nancy boy," a "retard," a "coward," a "weakling," a "moron," and a "troll." It should be obvious, then, that Alex is not the one who needs to relax here; you are. No one could possibly take those insults lightly. I know that you don't believe it's important to be sensitive to the needs of others, but any objective source could tell you that you've been nothing but offensive here--regardless of what your intentions may have been.

Now, to turn to the only place, over the course of this entire correspondence, where Alex might have been "spiteful." Dan, on the Thanksgiving blog, questioned the extent of Alex's literacy after Janelle proposed her suggested reading list. Only a few posts later, Janelle tried to insult Gloria Steinem--but misremembered her last name. The irony there is simply glaring. Dan had just suggested that Janelle was literate where Alex was not. And then, Janelle could not recall Gloria Steinem's name. I don't think that Alex was being cruel so much as she was noting the irony of those events as they unfolded. It was a brilliant tactical comeback.

Finally, and most importantly, your comment about the way that Alex chooses to spell "G-d," was completely unacceptable. Many Jews, and I count myself among that number, choose not to write the entirey of the name out of deference to G-d and out of a desire to fulfull the prohibition against desecrating His name. For you to insult Alex for adhering to her religious beliefs was lower than low. You say that no qualms about admitting that you were in the wrong. So, admit it. You owe Alex a huge apology.

I don't know what you mean when you say that Alex "did everything you expected she would." But in my mind, it means that she acted as respectfully in the face of extreme insult as she always does. You could learn a lot from her if you would only be quiet and listen.

Chag Sameach, Dan.


At 8:29 PM, Blogger Sircnay said...

Nothing I did is relevant. She started it. I said she was being spiteful and trying to stir some bad things up. She denied it, then acknowledged it.

So I was mean? Oh well. Did I hurt your feelings? Oh no. Here's a product I suggest for the both of you.

Give it a try. Please don't try to make her seem like a victim. I was simply trolling her as much as she was Janelle and Dan. If she can't take what she gives out to other people then she should probably go and... I don't know... grow up I guess?

Wait... why am I explaining myself? You don't deserve that.

At 8:31 AM, Blogger Reuven said...

She wasn't being spiteful. Point out where, exactly she was being spiteful. The only instance that has been noted was her comment about Janelle's literacy; I think that I adequately explained her rationale in my last post.

Also, she never acknowledged that she was being spiteful (presumably because she wasn't). She apologized if she hurt your feelings, which, I'll point out, is more than you ever did.

You insulted her religious beliefs, and mine, and those of thousands of other Jews. And so far, you have failed to apologize. Until you do, get off this blog. Nobody needs prejudice here.

Grow up. Stop being an asshole. And stop pretending that you've said anything of any value.


P.S. Dan, I don't know whether you've read this strand of comments (if you haven't, I wouldn't blame you), but if you have, I hope you'll intervene to get this prejudicial, insulting, jerk off of your admirable site.

At 10:45 AM, Blogger Alex said...

Thank you, Reuven.

At 1:46 PM, Blogger Sircnay said...


She wasn't being spiteful. Point out where, exactly she was being spiteful. The only instance that has been noted was her comment about Janelle's literacy; I think that I adequately explained her rationale in my last post.

This basically translate out to, "She wasn't being spiteful except for when she was!"

This is like saying, "Hitler wasn't a bad guy until he started killing Jews."

Failure. And no, I will not apologize, I didn't do anything wrong except call you out on your hypocrisy and be somewhat mean to you. But oh well, I guess you're just going to have to get angry and use more naughty words.

And because I am openly admitting that I am being spiteful. I think you should take a look at this Oh self-righteous one.

"LET NO CORRUPT COMMUNICATION PROCEED OUT OF YOUR MOUTH, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." - Ephesians 4:29

Thank you and goodnight.

At 1:53 PM, Blogger Alex said...

Goodwin's law.

At 4:19 PM, Blogger Sircnay said...

Watch as I become Reuven and, take note of this please, BEING SPITEFUL, I'll point out that it's spelled "Godwin" not "Goodwin". Insert Reuven's convuluded and grasping at nothing logic as to why it's important that people's names are spelled correctly otherwise the whole meaning is lost and everything goes straight to hell and the universe collapses on itself.

Point for me.

At 9:19 PM, Blogger Alex said...

I'm sorry. Were you saying something? Unlike Janelle's mistake, my error was typographical in nature. But of course, it doesn't matter given that your mention of Hitler means that you lose automatically--regardless of how the law is spelled.

Let's just drop it. Okay, Chris? This is becoming increasingly more idiotic with each post.


At 1:09 AM, Blogger Sircnay said...

HOLY CRAP! Did you just cover your ears and start chanting, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"

I swear to all that I hold true and dear my 6 year old baby sister was just doing that, I kid you not.

The point was not to differeniate the difference between a typo or not. The point was that I was POINTING OUT THAT REUVEN WAS BEING SPITEFUL LIKE I'VE BEEN SAYING SINCE THE BEGINNING!

Holy crap, why can you just not admit that?! Is it so hard? All I claimed that Reuven was being SPITEFUL and she was. THE FREAKING END. There is nothing else involved. No extravagant laws or rules or anything. I said, and I quote:

"My point was, YOU were just being spiteful and scraping at the bottom of the barrel for whatever quip you were attempting. And that is why I had to interject. You see, spite, above all else, is probably the most annoying human aspect ever. Wars were (probably) started because someone was being spiteful. It's also my biggest pet peeve."

See. That was my whole point since the beginning. My historical precedence owns you and your claims. So... yeah, I was here first and made my claims first. So I win. You lose. Just admit that Reuven was wrong in her being spiteful and I'll stop. Because if there's one thing I hate more than spiteful, morally superior retards, it's people who won't own up to their shortcomings.

I could go on and on, but I assure you, the people that I have shown this little spat (and no they are not my friends so it's not going to be bias in my favor) are very much in agreement that I am correct, despite my attacking your character.

Oh and by the way, I never really was going to sue you, I just did that for giggles. You people are so fickle, not standing up for what you believe in. I would've gone through a civil suit for something I believed in. Ha.

At 8:41 AM, Blogger Reuven said...

Until YOU apologize for insulting my religious beliefs and Alex's (Alex is the girl, by the way), you are not worthy of our attention. And if your sister, at age six, has already realized that it is impossible to reason with somebody like you, then she is displaying an exceptional degree of intelligence.

Neither of us is responding to you anymore. So, rant all you want. Nobody is listening.

At 10:00 PM, Blogger Sircnay said...

You stayed in conversation up to this point. I never really cared about you or your ideals or anything that you've said really because you started off with a silly childish attack. I'm simply being a mirror of your actions. Taking the proverbial ball and going home is not the most tactical thing to do, but I'll take your surrender as another notch on my wall. Thanks.

Me: 1
You: 0


Post a Comment

<< Home