11 pm EST here.
There's a call-in number: (347)-539-5436
Some just won't let go of Mike Vanderboegh. It's funny, really, because he's not going to stop, and this just gives more people exposure to his work.
Representing "the other side" will be Sebastian. Except also representing the other side will be the host. Who's made his views on this more than clear:
OH NO AD HOMINEM BETTER IGNORE EVERYTHING I SAY.There's balance for you.
Smells like a gang-up to me. I'd say I wonder what excuse will be given for not inviting Vanderboegh to discuss his own work instead of bringing in a third party, but I think we all know why it's being put together this way.
S'Okay, Kurt can hold his own.
21 comments:
I suppose I could probably take a moment to defend my credibility, but it would fall on deaf ears, wouldn't it?
Just because I have opinions of my own doesn't mean I'm going to let my bias interfere with the discussion - I'm a moderator and a host for this one, nothing more.
And you, it's kind of funny - while Mikey V. is indirectly responsible for this, the focal point of the discussion isn't him or his writings, but rather the concept of extreme pro-gun activism, both the pros and cons.
You're more than welcome to listen in and join the discussion once we open the lines up for calls!
Is there a problem with your keyboard, Ahab(y)? You seem to have difficulty typing the name Mike without adding an extra letter.
Nope. Everything seems to check out in 100% working order. Perhaps you're reading too deeply into a little letter.
i think as long as you moderate the words used in the discussion, and not the constituents directly, you will survive this without damage to credibility.
That's all I'm there to do anyway, and then only to a limited extent. Which means I don't mind a little salty language from time to time.
No one's reading too deeply into anything. You intentionally publicly call him "Mikey" as a sign of overt disrespect and then whine because your credbility as a fair moderator is questioned.
I don't need to say a word--you do all the heavy lifting yourself.
I have nothing but respect for Kurt, which is why I invited him to be on tonight's show. He kept himself above the fray of insults and personal attacks, and demonstrated that he is of solid character.
In fact, I'm more than happy to publish the email that I sent to both Sebastian and Kurt when I invited them to be on the show - it was understood from the onset that any personal feelings I held would be set by the wayside.
Nice try, Ahaby. If insults and personal attacks are disqualifiers, why feature Sebastian, who basically ignited the spark when he wrote:
"Could we please not do stupid shit like this to fuck it up?"
No "above the fray" double standard there, in addition to your documented hostility?
And incidentally--I don't think you should disqualify Sebastian. I don't think debaters should be above the fray. I just object to you holding that standard for the side you're against, and then acting like you're fair and balanced. What a transparent crock.
And who made you the arbiter of "solid character"? Is that why you're saying you didn't invite Mike? More impartiality?
You advertise on your site this show will focus on "Mikey V" type "extreme" (!!!) gun activism, this whole topic came up as a direct result of Mike's letter and the gun blogosphere's response to it, and you expect anyone to swallow the reason you didn't invite him on to defend his own ideas from your established below-the-fray insults is because Kurt is more polite?
Keep posting comments, Ahaby--this is comedy gold.
David,
Like I've said, you're more than welcome to listen in to tonight's show - all your concerns about my alleged impartiality will be answered on the air.
If it really matters, I'll be more than happy to email you my reasoning on not inviting Mike to be on the show.
Also, I think Ahabby should have two "b's", it looks more natural that way. If you'd like to append a "y" to my Christian name, it's "Caleb" - the name I post under at Call me Ahab.
State your reasons for not inviting him here.
Fair enough.
Unlike some people, I actually read every single one of his comments on Sebastian's blog, including when he first showed up there before the current kerfluffle. Not only did he insult two good friends of mine and me, but he also talks about shooting cops and federal agents, which I tend to take pretty personally.
But even with all of that, even I can see some merit in his and your opinions on the right to keep and bear arms, and I believe that there can be a place for that kind of activism. I wanted to give those opinions and views some air time, but I needed to do it in such a way that it wouldn't get out of hand like the Uberthread at Sebastian's.
Unfortunately, I came to the conclusion that if I had him on my show with another guest, it would have rapidly gotten out of hand. That was why I ultimately went with Kurt, because in the thread he was able to express himself succinctly and coherently, which in a time radio format is a Good Thing.
Now if you want me to be even more honest, I don't particularly like Mike(y). But that's my opinion. I never claimed to be objective on the subject of Mike Vanderboegh, but I'm certainly objection on the subject of activism in the right to keep and bear arms.
But like I've said - you really want answers, just listen tonight at www.blogtalkradio.com/gunnuts and if Mike himself wants to call in, I'll give him the exact same time frame and consideration that I'd give any other caller to my show.
He's not "any other caller"--he's the catalyst for your show's topic.
You're projecting how he would behave. You don't know. if you predicate it on his blog comments, you're comparing apples and oranges. Transparently.
His comments at Sebastian's were in response to numerous attacks from numerous quarters that had gone on for quite some time before he joined in. Of necessity, he was warranted in responding to those posts in detail.
Points brought up on your program would not be as numerous, and would be coming one at a time, so he wouldn't need to craft such time-consuming responses.
As the show's moderator, it's your job to keep things on track regardless of who your guests are--to keep things from getting "out of hand." You're telling us you couldn't do it with Mike on, and what's worse, you're blaming him for that.
None of this is meant to sideline Kurt, by the way. I have no doubt he'll acquit himself well.
If you had left Mike's name out of your promo I would have no beef. But there's no way I'd tell readers here I was conducting an interview with a blogger about Ahab-style activism, and then not have that blogger be you.
The Shreik of Ahaby sez: "Not only did he insult two good friends of mine and me, but he also talks about shooting cops and federal agents, which I tend to take pretty personally."
If you are alleging that I said anything more than defending myself against rogue "cops and federal agents" you're a bloody liar. And your good friends were defending the federal victimization of David Olofson, which is why they earned my derision and scorn.
BTW, thanks again for publicizing my stuff. It may be your only alibi to avoid a charge of constitutional oxygen thievery. Well done.
Somehow, I doubt that someone who thinks I'm an oxygen thief would have accepted an invitation to be on my show in the first place.
You know, you probably wouldn't believe me anyway, but what the hell - I only mentioned Mike in the promo because thanks to the Snowflakes thread, people associate his name with the kind of activism we're discussing. It's a marketing ploy, and it apparently worked. I could have just easily said "Billy Beck" or "David Codrea", but it wouldn't have the impact I wanted.
Because see now, this thread now has the 2nd most comments of any thread on your front page - if my goal was to generate interest, I can say "mission accomplished" pretty happily.
My bottom line is that I want a good show, and a show that is going to have a large listening and download audience. Everyone here is more than welcome to call in and ask questions to me, Squeaky, Sebastian or Kurt - I'll hold by promise of impartiality, because I am if nothing else a man of my word.
You know, you probably wouldn't believe me anyway, but what the hell - I only mentioned Mike in the promo because thanks to the Snowflakes thread, people associate his name with the kind of activism we're discussing. It's a marketing ploy, and it apparently worked. I could have just easily said "Billy Beck" or "David Codrea", but it wouldn't have the impact I wanted.
I'll have to admit that I was caught a bit off-guard by that statement, Ahab, since the email that invited me to participate was titled "The Mike [hey--no gratuitously disrespectful letter 'y'this time] V. thing."
I was led to believe, in other words, that this discussion is explicitly about Mr. Vanderboegh's letter.
Apparently I misunderstood, but my misapprehension is perhaps not surprising.
I'm surprised that Sebastian hasn't accused Ahab of threatening him by inviting him to talk. He does that you know?
Wonder if Ahab has been banned from SIH then lied about behind his back yet. He does that too!
I'm thinking stacked deck, here. We'll see.
Funny. I've read most of Mike's work... I've never seen him threaten anyone. Not even a "civilian," once.
Now, if you take it as a threat that if someone does him harm he will fight back... then you are lost beyond words.
Who knows though... Maybe I'll listen.
I'll try to call in tonight.
OMG, you were so right, SA! They ganged him and then held him down and noogied his hair!
Oh the humanity!
Seriously though, I don't think the format was conducive to covering much ground.
It's hard to cover a lot of ground with 45 minutes - we're planning a follow up show about this later with different guests just to mix things.
There is also a lot of talk about extending the show, making it an hour long instead of 45 minutes.
I enjoyed it, but I wish it had gone longer. 90 minutes sounds about right.
What I got out of the show is that all agree that the 2nd Amendment is the defense against our own government lapsing into tyranny. The differences arise when trying to define where to draw the line. Some want to downplay the reason behind the 2nd Amendment, in order to avoid upsetting elements of society. Others think the reason for the 2nd Amendment should be laid on the table, to educate and warn off enemies of the Constitution. Both factions are advocating the restoration of our lost rights.
That sounds like a more focused topic for a future show. Should we go stealth, in your face, or a combination? No one was ambushed, that I could tell, and the discussion was professional and well moderated. I look forward to the next session!
We don't all have to be on-line and in step to make this work. Both factions have their merits and detractors. Working separately, but in a combined arms approach, may be our best solution to reach our common goal.
Post a Comment