Prague Twin

Monday, April 30, 2007

Insane Conservatives (Part 2)

Nearly two weeks ago, I posted about some Insane Conservatives. Essentially, the claim was made that lynchings in the 19th and 20th century were largely politically motivated, and it was the Democratically controlled legal apparatus of the southern states that precluded the perpetrators from facing trial for their crimes.

I thought the claim was rather dubious, so I posted a comment requesting some substantiation to the claim. Then I went out and tried to substantiate or refute it myself (original post).

I couldn't find anything in the source documents, and I didn't get a response to my question on the forum. So, I wrote to the editor ( I didn't really expect to hear back from them, but I did, several times. Of course, I never did get any evidence to back up their claim, but I did get a litany of name calling directed at me that I haven't received since grade school.

For your enjoyment, here is the exchange I've enjoyed over the past couple of weeks. Keep in mind logic 101: If A, then B. I never got A, but the editor expects B.

Dear Nathan,

Thanks for the account. I have posted a question regarding your claim that most lynchings were politically motivated and against Republicans.

If you could please cite your source for this dubious claim, I would be most appreciative.

You can see the work I have done in an effert to substaiate or debunk the claim you have made here on my blog....

If you can substantiate your claim, I will post a retraction of this post along with an apology.

If you can not, I expect that you will do the same on your blog.

Thanks and best regards,

(Prague Twin)


Michael, words like dubious and insane conservatives don’t lend to an open minded discussion. Best of luck!

Nathan Tabor



I am doubting the claim, thus it is dubious to me by definition. As to the insane conservative part, if you back up the claim, which is in doubt, I will be glad to post an apology as I mentioned.




Michael – since you obviously aren’t the brightest I will enlighten you – I didn’t write the piece – please talk with Paul

Please post an apology to me – thanks!



I guess we are even. Personal attacks don't lead to open discussion, I think you would agree. You are the editor, are you not? Does not that make you responsible for the content? Usually when one questions the content of a publication, they address their concerns to the editor.

I'll post an apology as soon as I get a response to my question.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to pass on my concern to the writer, Paul, who's writing you have published on a site of which you claim to be the editor.



Michael, perhaps you would like to read the disclosure at the bottom of the page.

You are a typical liberal. You say something then when given the truth you don’t keep your word. I would assume this is a character flaw with you.

If you have a problem with Paul post it in the forum.

Sorry you aren’t a man of your word.




I've been checking the forum nearly everyday since I posted my question on the 17th of April. When I last wrote you, on the 22nd there was still no response.

Usually, I am able to respond on my blog within 24 hours, so after 5 days of no responses, I was waiting to hear back from you via email.

Your personal attacks and stonewalling have been less than helpful. Currently, your blog is not loading, so if there is a response there, I'm unable to read it.

Perhaps you will let me know when your server is functioning again.

I am most certainly a man of my word, and as soon as I have the information I need from you or Paul, or anyone else from your establishment, I'll keep my promise.



Your a liar Michael. The site is loading fine.

You made a promise that you didn’t keep. Once I provided you with my information you then changed your word – typical liberal.

Personally, I don’t care if you ever visit my site again.

Even your email now is a lie – I wrote you last and you didn’t respond.

Take care and try to become a man of character.


Interjection: At this point I really started to wonder. Had I missed something? Did he provide the information? I checked the forum again and looked at all of the emails from Nathan. Nothing. This guy is truly insane. I mean, I think he really thinks he provided me with some information, but clearly he hasn't. The conversation continues.....



I went back a couple of hours later and it was loading fine. Still, though, no response from Paul. I check this email once every 24 hours maximum so dont expect a response immediately.

I am not a liar, but you are certainly paranoid.

I made it clear that if you, Paul, or anyone else could substantiate the claim with which I took issue, I would post an apology. To date neither on the forum, nor via email have you, or Paul taken the time to do so. Instead I get a littany of abuse and undeserved titles.

You will kindly note that Paul's email does not appear on his profile, so your orginal suggestion that I take it up with Paul is misguided at best. I did take it up with him on the forum and, as I mentioned, to date have not received a response. Thus I took it up with you, and you've done nothing but abuse me, label me, and utterly fail to fulfill my most simple of requests: to source a claim made on your publication.

You are not only a poor editor, Nathan, you are childish and mean.

Best of luck,



Michael, you can apologize now for lying – your latest email said you “I made it clear that if you, Paul, or anyone else could substantiate the claim with which I took issue, I would post an apology.”

However, you first email (below) says time and time again that you are challenging my claim and if I can substantiate my claim you would post an apology to me.

You call me paranoid (not sure why) - however, it is obvious you are ignorant and not a man of your word.

Your last part of your email is a typical whining liberal. You attack but then when confronted with the facts you try to act like a victim. Grow up and be a man.




O.K. Help me out. Maybe I'm not so bright. Where can I find substantiation of the claim?



Waiting for your apology.


As soon as you substantiate the claim, you'll get it.


I’m sorry. I don’t deal with liars and those who don’t keep their word. You made a promise and then broke it. Take care.


So here is the question. Do I put the basic logic question to Nathan once again? IF A, then B. Not B, irrespective of A.

Here is another one. Is he insane, or just a total idiot?

I'll let you all be the judges.


  • Michael,
    In my experience, I have found that it is impossible to get a reasonable dialog going with the fanatical right or the fanatical left. They are so inured of their own self proclaimed truths, they are unable to view any alternative views no matter the logic. The idea that politics had anything to do with the illegal and monsterous practice of lynching would be laughable if it weren't so heinous. Lynching was rountinely used to demoralize and terrify the black community in order to quell the civil rights movement which had actually been going on since the abolishment of slavery and even before that. It gained recognition in the 1960s, but there were brave men and women years before fighting for their rightful place in American society. The lynching of whites was mostly confined to the western states. No where can I find a political bent to these lynchings and being the moderate liberal I am, I'm including a couple of links that are clearly written and not to lengthy.

    By Anonymous rockync, at 4:58 PM  

  • Damn! "Takes one to know one." "I am rubber you are glue." I appreciate your persistence in trying to get a straight answer from that guy, but with people like that it's a lost cause.

    I've pretty much given up arguing at opposing blogs just because it usually degenerates into what you were quoting. This works both ways; I've seen liberal bloggers who walk all over anyone who disagrees with them.

    I hate to only take part in discussions where everyone agrees with each other and the whole thing is nothing but "yeah, good point" and "you're absolutely right." But the alternative seems to be the exchange you were quoting from.

    Who Hijacked Our Country

    By Blogger Tom Harper, at 8:22 PM  

  • I doubt the looney-ness is politically affected. Just the way people are, which drives them to one side of the spectum. Eh, I guess this is chicken/egg thingy. Moving on.

    Based on emails you provide, there is no indication of any proof regarding lynching claims. Perhaps he needs to see an eye doctor and a shrink, respectively.

    Does anyone disagree?

    By Anonymous romunov, at 9:19 PM  

  • my vote is with he is an idiot.

    By Blogger Graeme, at 8:24 AM  

  • Rocky,

    Thanks for the links. Grizzly reading, but quite informative.


    I know, I try to be open minded and give people a real chance, but some people are just so stubborn. This guy is truly infuriating because all logic seems to be absent.




    I think he is both. (Deluded idiot)

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 3:16 PM  

  • So no support from Paul for the on its face tough to believe claim that lynchings were politically motivated in the main. Color me shocked. Liar, Liar pants on fire...(just thought I'd join in to the tenor of the discussion). I'd believe them if they'd say most victims of lynchings were Republicans, but not that the party affiliation was the reason for the lynching. Absurd.

    By Blogger Roger Fraley, at 3:31 AM  

  • yes, I agree, people shouldn't behave like this

    By Anonymous hotelsinprague, at 5:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home