I am not a crook!

When I read "I am not a thug.", I can't help but think of these famous words. Does anyone else remember?

It would be possible to write for many pages dissecting all the different examples which illustrate that, in fact, the author of these words is the quintessential example of the person the letter-to-the-editor is talking about. But I won't. That is his style (the thug's). Not mine. The truths of the letter are obvious and innumerable. Bravo to the letter-writer for being able to elucidate the matter.

And how does the "T" respond? In a manner in which only a thug could. With implied curses and convenient "typos". All accompanied by a disingenuous "apology". Too late, though. His true colors have already been shown.

A main technique used by the "T" in fomenting his consequences upon anyone who dares to form a dissenting opinion is to parse their statements and deconstruct them. He then strings together the definitions of single words to demonstrate how "illogical" the position is. He forgets that communication is not merely about accuracy of individual words. "Context" takes into consideration the meter and cadence of a statement. It takes fine nuances, color and timbre into account. Using a pure definition-driven approach, any piece of great literature could be reduced to gibberish. Analyzing a work by Herman Melville for plot, sub-plot and leit motif is useless when it is all reduced to strung-together definitions. Therefore anything written by any lessor author would stand no chance of being understood. Which is, of course, his intention. Since he cannot debate the facts, he is content to obfuscate the issues.

Of course while criticizing everyone else, his own grammar, spelling, syntax, etc. are so full of errors as to be equivalent to that of a high school student. (Apologies to the good students out there.)

There is no need for parsing and deconstruction when the "T" can merely state fallacies, untruths and misquoted details as if they were fact. It is his blog so no one can argue with him. No dissenting opinions are posted (that is, without being subjected to deconstruction).

All he does his continually bleat the same old protests. And the commenters on his blog continue to fill the space with venom. I used to see your rage-filled faces in Vietnam protest rallies. Protesting so hard against everything, you had no clue about the basic facts over which you were protesting. I guess some things never change.

He doesn't even get it when the publisher of a local paper calls it the "Mark Wells faction". He is so full of himself he automatically assumes it means a faction he founded or controls. So off he goes and we are treated to yet another tear about a hypothetical situation. Seems he enjoys talking about hypothetical situations. Probably because reality does not lend itself to his perception of how things should be. He cannot conceive the concept that it is merely a shorthand label. He, his unswerving allegiance to an illogical goal, his rabid chanting of slogans and his vociferous support for a completely untenable position, make him the perfect label. On this blog he has been referred to as the "lunatic fringe". This is what James Allen was saying. But the "T" does not get it. Of course not. That is part of the definition of being the lunatic fringe. So listen up. It was not a compliment.

Nonetheless, after reading the unending, unadulterated garbage spewing forth in his blog, another quote comes to mind. It was recently made by King Juan Carlos of Spain to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela:

"Por que no te callas?" - or "Why don't you shut up?"