Friday, February 13, 2009

The 2009 Portabella Awards

This blog has only been online for a few months but it's already received its first award nomination. The AZU blog has initiated the inaugural 'Portabella Award' and Voice of Reason has been fortunate enough to be nominated. The nomination was put forward by Static and, without wanting to appear ungracious, there are a few points that need clarification and/or expansion.

#4 From a certain "reasonable blog. First post, dated Sept 1, 2008:

"I realise it's quite likely that neither group will be interested in discussing issues with the other on a neutral playing field but I thought it would be nice to at least provide the field in case anyone turns up... you know, Field of Dreams and all that."

From the same post:

"My favourite anti site has been Absolute Zero United but I find the comments section to be a mire of self-congratulatory posts and insults to anyone who disagrees with the accepted ideology. I'm sure the people who run the site must be more intelligent than they come across in their comments but I suppose it's easier to just insult people..." "...than debate issues when you control what your opponents are allowed to say in their posts." (Edit: I've added the end of the sentence that Static cropped in order to restore the original meaning)

Uh-huh. Yeah. Sure, you provide a "neutral playing field." Ok.

Clearly it's his intention to imply that this site isn't a neutral playing field. I find it interesting that he doesn't actually make a case or cite examples. He doesn't even dispute the accuracy of my assessment of the AZU comments section. He must think that a snide comment along with a partial quote is sufficient to make his case. It isn't. I do grant him one concession. This blog has become somewhat contemptuous and critical of AZU. That wasn't my original intention but has been a reaction to the manner in which I've been treated in their comments section. Rather than being prepared to engage in sensible debate, any questions I've asked have been responded to with a torrent of abuse. To be insulted by someone I disrespect doesn't particularly bother me, but I'm hardly going to write posts of praise. It's also difficult to maintain neutrality when one side doesn't contribute.

And a bonus bit of nonsense from the same blog, September 8, 2008:

"Firstly, the term 'pedo enabler'. What is a 'pedo enabler'? I've done a search on various dictionary sites, a Google search and checked Wikipedia and there seems to be no official definition of this term."

Then, in the next sentence, he says:

"From the context in which it is used here, it would appear that it's an invented slur to be used against the friends and family of paedosexuals." "The inference here is that because the parents haven't disowned their son, they are committing some sort of contemptible act. Surely it must be obvious to any reasonable person that to condemn parents for not abandoning their own child is in itself the contemptible act." (Edit: I've added the rest of the paragraph omitted by Static to restore the original context.)

Someone explain to me how he can not understand what a "pedo-enabler" is, even after consulting all those dictionaries, but in the same breath, has no problem with the term "peadosexual." Does that seem a bit strange to anyone?

I don't understand what the term 'paedo-enabler' means? Did he not read the passage he quoted? I made the perfectly valid point that the term is not defined anywhere so I've gone to the context in which it's used to ascertain the meaning. As clearly stated in my post, the term is "... an invented slur to be used against the friends and family of paedosexuals.". The post from which the quote was extracted was critical of a blog that attacked the parents of an alleged paedosexual and labelled them 'paedo-enablers' for not disowning their own child. As for the term 'paedosexual'; it is so obviously a synonym for 'paedophile' that it's rather devious of Static to feign confusion as to its meaning. 

What a "reasonable," intelligent," and "rational" person he is! Sometimes, the truth just shines right through all the bullshit, doesn't it.

It certainly does my friend. And the more bullshit you have dribbling down your goateed chin, the more the truth of your lack of character shows through.

SO, now that I've addressed the distortions and misrepresentations in my nomination, I'll leave the negativity and thank AZU for the nomination. After all, if a group of their stunningly idiotic myopia consider what I say stupid, I can only take that as a great compliment. There is talk that they'll open the nominations to a public vote so if that happens I'll post a link here and make a humble request for people to vote for me.


Anonymous said...

Amazing how they lie so blatantly and so often. They do the same in Wikisposer. I doubt there is even a single accurate entry in the thing. What isn't pure fiction is simply wrong information do to piss poor investigative skills.

oncefallendotcom said...

Yov'e got to love how Static cries that I allegedly stole his comedy material, yet they blatantly rip-off MY Shiitake awards. It shows how unimaginative the AZU trolls truly are. But Its funny how they can't come up with a better mushroom, don't you think? I could nominate Spastic for "Puffball of the year." SC would be the "toadstool," Jackassey would be the "stinkhorn," and AZU as a whole could be Psilocybin Mushrooms because I think they ate psychadelic 'shrooms before they posted their bullcrap.