April 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

« Still waiting | Main | Big media Brad »

Aug 15, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


You forgot this part:

"But there I was, Ed Cone, claiming that Danny Thompson was saying that the vast majority of those papers he was waving contained incidents of porn viewing at the library. Then the actual tape was produced and it was clear from Thompson's words that he never claimed the "vast majority" of the papers in his hand contained incidents of porn viewing at the library. Despite this, I wrote a later column about what a terrible thing it was for Danny Thompson to misrepresent facts. When I was pressed about my own misrepresentation of facts about what Thompson actually said, I just couldn't apply my own standards to my own conduct and bring myself to utter the words "I was wrong". The pen is mightier than the sword, but my ego is mightier than both."


Cue the dwarfs now...


Although Thompson didn't actually say that ALL those reports were related to pornography, he DID lead the public to believe that they were. I watched the video a second time.

Ed Cone

I cited Danny's words accurately, and described his actions accurately, and provided a link to the video that shows what happened.

In my view, his words and deeds clearly overstated the extent of the problem.

That he failed to conduct proper due diligence on this matter is not in dispute.

Now that more facts are on the table, maybe we can come to a reasonable solution to the issue at hand, which is library filtering. If better conduct of Council business also follows, that's a welcome bonus.

Brandon Burgess@

"In my view, his words and deeds clearly overstated the extent of the problem."

--As well as in my view, John Hammer's view, and everyone else's except for Spag's view.

"Cue the dwarfs".

--Right. Ed, buzzman and I. Three like minded individuals who usually agree with each other...riiigghhht.

Fred Gregory

Debra Burlingame: 9/11 Families Stunned by President’s Support of Mosque at Ground Zero

"We are stunned by the president’s willingness to disregard what Americans should be proud of: our enduring generosity to others on 9/11–a day when human decency triumphed over human depravity. On that day, when 3,000 of our fellow human beings were killed in barbaric act of raw religious intolerance unlike this country had ever seen, Americans did not turn outward with hatred or violence, we turned to each other, armed with nothing more than American flags and countless acts of kindness. In a breathtakingly inappropriate setting, the president has chosen to declare our memories of 9/11 obsolete and the sanctity of Ground Zero finished. No one who has lived this history and felt the sting of our country’s loss that day can truly believe that putting our families through more wrenching heartache can be an act of peace.

We will honor the memory of our loved ones. We will protect our children, whose lives will never be the same. We will not stand silent. "


We will honor the memory of our loved ones. We will protect our children, whose lives will never be the same. We will not stand silent."

Ah, but it's a "religious freedom" issue, as well we know from the Usual Suspects, who always try to claim the moral high ground on issues like these.

I no longer wonder at the ease these folks frame their reference points in support of yet another "victims group" that can be marginalized for political profit, and obsequiousness to their warped view of "The Way Things Ought to Be."


"I cited Danny's words accurately, and described his actions accurately, and provided a link to the video that shows what happened."

Sort of. It's amazing how a few dots.... can change the context. They work kind of like a stack of papers, don't they?

Ed Cone implied that Danny Thompson said that the "great majority" of the documents he had were of incidents of library patrons viewing porn. That was inaccurate and I challenge any of you, dwarf or not, to prove otherwise. Ed also accused Danny of "grandstanding" when it is clear after viewing the video and reading what Danny actually said, he was doing no such thing. He never claimed as Ed implies, that the the stack of papers were all porn viewing incidents. There is a reason Ed will not answer the questions I posed in response to his posts here.

It's called the Fonzie Factor

Ed's blog posts are the equivalent of Danny's stack of papers if that's the definition of grandstanding, because Ed's commentary on what Danny said is no less misleading than what Ed is complaining about.

And guess what? John Hammer got it wrong, too. Hammer wrote "Thompson said he had over 100 incident reports from this year of men looking at pornography at the library." The problem is that Thompson never said that.

So yeah, you can all three be wrong together, dwarf or not.


It's interesting to me how a simple proposal to suppress pornography in the public library has been metastasized into a "fiasco", "disaster" and "catastrophe" in these various threads. The tremendous damage that has been wrought upon our fair community by this proposal must be obvious to all but me.

Andrew Brod

But Spag has diverticulitis!

sean coon

classic SNL. so friggin' apropos. haha.


I knew it wouldn't take long for Dopey and Grumpy to arrive! Did Ed answer my questions yet?


"Did Ed answer my questions yet?"

He's taking his lead from Roch. We have long known what Standard Operating Procedure is around here.

Where ARE the rest of the Dwarfs? Don't they know there's pushback to be accomplished?

Jim Langer

Hi-ho,hi-ho, it's off to quirk we go!


Roch kind of disappeared after it was all laid out so clearly here.
Funny thing is that after all the name calling, chastising, attempts at obfuscation, attempts to discredit, and generalized sentiments of what an awful person I am, my prediction that neither Ed nor Roch would answer my questions has come true.

The next step will be the predictable calls to ban me again from this blog for the sin of pointing out hypocrisy and that Ed is pathologically incapable of admitting he is wrong. Anyone who continually does such things should be banned. I mean really, how dare I?


"Hi-ho,hi-ho, it's off to quirk we go!"

Are you auditioning for a continuing role?


Danny Thompson, in his own words, while waving a stack of nearly 200 pages:

"More than a hundred incidences that go in the public library... Many of them, a great majority of them, and I have, this right here are the incident reports, of anything from indecent behavior to looking at inappropriate websites."

There were 18 to 20 incidents related to bad behavior at a computer -- hardly a majority.

Jim Langer

I have always found Dopey and Grumpy opposites on the same coin.

it is true, though, that Mr. Thompson may have inadvertently given himself cover by saying "anything from..." That might ostensibly cover nose-picking and feet on the tables while sleeping.

Jim Langer

But Ed, you might apologize for saying Thompson was grandly standing. I get the sense from his awkward phraseology, not to mention grammar, he wasn't necessarily conscious and misleading. Exaggerating? Sure, that seems more probable. He probably ought to have said "a lot" rather than "a majority". Majorities these days are often pluralities, anyway. But that's my Dopey math inadequacy. I bow to Dr. Brod in all things mathematical.

Brandon Burgess

Spag, not only was Hammer wrong but he printed an outright lie regarding what Thompson actually said. I imagine more people read Hammer than Cone.

Since Hammer is a conservative, I guess you won't be blogging or flooding his website with comments about how much he sucks. Hypocrite.


Just back from a much-wanted and sorely-needed short vacation where my friends asked about bloggers in GSO. I told them the "porn" story of the library, the city council person with the paper waving and the 18-ish actual incidents. Their comment, "Interesting town." But I do have a new pair of crocs.


Does anyone here with reasonable intelligence really equate "anything FROM indecent behavior TO looking at inappropriate websites" with "bad behavior at a computer"?

This is some increasingly sad, pathetic stuff. Michelle clarified this "fiasco", about a week ago as far as I'm concerned simply by publishing the full context of some deliberately cheripicked passages posted just prior. But some people must for some reason continue to disregard face value in favor of desperately crafting and spinning a narrative around the nitpickiest details of this relatively minor story into some "catastrophe", "disaster" or what have you, ad nauseum. Do they think others can't see it? Are there not better remedies for having WAY too much free time?


"Does anyone here with reasonable intelligence really equate 'anything FROM indecent behavior TO looking at inappropriate websites' with 'bad behavior at a computer'?" -- CP

If someone assumed that Thompson might be talking about blocking "porn" on library computers to combat the other things in the incident reports such as sleeping, eating or shaving in the bathroom, I'd like to hear that person say so.

Brandon Burgess

Well said cheri. I hope Spag is paying attention.


"....I'd like to hear that person say so."

I'd like to hear you answer Spag's question.


Brandon, CP is actually siding with me on this one. Read more carefully. And he is right, it is sad and pathetic the lengths that Ed will go to avoid admitting he is wrong and the lengths Roch will go to in order to try and discredit opposition. CP's comment is about Roch, not me Brandon.

Ask yourself why neither Ed nor Roch will answer the simple questions I posed to them. Perhaps your time would be better spent figuring that out than bitching about me continuing to ask them.

How bad do you really want that Ed Cone merit badge?


BTW, Hammer doesn't have a blog site and I have had my disagreements with him that he is fully aware of. My guess is that if confronted about his misstatement, Hammer would admit to it. I also wasn't complaining about how bad "Ed Cone sucks", I asked him some questions that called on him to defend something HE wrote and he won't answer them. It's that simple. If that is tantamount to "Ed Cone sucks", whatever. You really are earning that merit badge.

Brandon Burgess

Sam you can flood Hammer's website with comments but you won't because he is a conservative. Hypocrite.

You haven't even blogged about how a conservative newspaper printed lies about a conservative council-member. Hypocrite.

I don't know or care what Ed thinks of me. I do know that you are a hypocrite.


Sam, I answered your question on your blog. I know you saw it because you replied to it. Saying I have not is patently false.

This is the last time I am going to address this, you are free to continue lying without further comment from me. Here is the exchange, from your blog.

Sam: "Is Barack Obama a bigot for arguing that the Defense of Marriage Act does not violate the Constitution?"

Roch: "To answer your question then, Barack Obama has not said that DOMA is not unconstitutional. He has said the opposite."

Andrew Brod

1. I hope Spag is never banned from this blog. He and Bubs are the best advertising liberals could want.

2. Among dwarfs, I'm actually Doc. In contrast, Spag is Dick (the putz 8th dwarf).


Roch, you never answered the question I posed to you on Guarino's blog and again on this blog. In case you forgot, you can click on the link above in my earlier post at 5:21pm. But you won't because you already know the answer and because you think that if you say that you answered it enough times maybe people will start to believe that you have and forget that you didn't.

I'm sure all of the above are true, Andrew. None of which changes the fact that Ed and Roch never answered my questions. So have at it. Call me a few more names; assign even more negative attributes to me. Maybe, just maybe, people will forget that the questions were never answered.

Being Ed's twink seems like a lot of hard work to me, but whatever floats your boat.

Brandon, there is a difference between getting a fact wrong and then continuing to editorialize on the false premise based upon the incorrect fact. I don't recall Hammer editorializing that Thompson was grandstanding or otherwise out of line which makes his error less remarkable.

In contrast, we know that Ed got it wrong not only in what Danny said but also in how Ed characterized it editorially based on that falsehood. Yet, he refuses to answer my simple few questions in order to come clean. Rather than question why that is, you seem to be more interested in earning your merit badge and coming after me for asking it. Have at it. Being popular at this blog isn't something I strive for nor care about. I graduated from high school over 20 years ago. I didn't care for cliques then and I don't know.



John Tasker

I think everyone above has missed the most important part of Ed's newspaper article.

He's almost 50 years old. ("1962 was a really long time ago")

Yes it was. Gad!

Michele Forrest

Filters, mosques, booooorrred...


"Filters, mosques, booooorrred..."

Add Nathan Tabor and prayer at council meetings, lather, rinse, repeat...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Brandon Burgess


--That's soooo last week isn't it? ;)

But Hammer still printed a lie even though he was right about Thompson's grandstanding behavior.


The world is a big place. There are plenty of things other than civic issues to talk about, important and trivial. But engaging with mind and time in talking and thinking about how we live with each other strikes me as a pretty decent thing, rather wholesome and patriotic, I think.


Who's Nathan Tabor?


And still we wait for Roch to actually answer Spag's question.

I'm sure he spent long hours thinking up the non-answer he's provided, however.

Michele Forrest

I have thoroughly enjoyed discussing filters, Nathan Tabor, prayer at council, etc. But I'm secretly (now publicly) hoping that tomorrow night's Council meeting will provide us with a fresh controversy to debate. Failing that, I'm sure that someone somewhere across the US will somehow (intentionally or not) infringe upon somebody's else Constitutional rights. That always makes for good debate. Happy Monday, everyone. I hope it's a good week for each of you.

Michele Forrest

And in response, Ed posted about filters and mosques today. ;)


"And in response, Ed posted about filters and mosques today. ;)"

He never like to be on the wrong side of an issue, a condition that occurs in the great majority of cases. He apparently feels that quantity makes up for the lack of quality.

sean coon

haha. bubba, why do you frequent the blog of someone you hate so much? are you a glutton?

Soy Boy

Who's Nathan Tabor?* Spag

Don't worry Spag! Nathan is not important in the political world nor for that fact in North Carolina. However, the good news is that Nathan will start working at a real job at Taco Bell as a server.

Fred Gregory

From Bernard Goldberg.I think anyone who disagrees with his logic might, indeed, be a "mosque-i-vite."

"President Obama, for the first time, has jumped into the long-simmering controversy over whether Muslims should build a mosque near Ground Zero. Well, jumping in may not be the right choice of words. Pussy-footing in is more like it.

At a White House dinner marking the start of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, the president said, “As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”

Pretty gutsy, huh, given that most Americans are against the mosque being built just two blocks from where the World Trade Center Towers once stood. Except the very next day, the president “clarified” his position. “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there.”

This raises a question: Why not? Why do nothing more than acknowledge the obvious: that everyone in this country has the right to practice his religion. Every kid in middle school knows that.

A man who doesn’t have the moral clarity to take a stand – one way or the other — on the mosque controversy could never have told Mr. Gorbachev to “Tear down this wall.” Or for that matter, won’t be able to stand up to the Iranians — either before or after they develop a nuclear weapon.

Why couldn’t the president have said something along the lines of what an old-fashioned guy like Congressman Peter King said: “While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque, they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much. The right and moral thing for President Obama to have done was to urge Muslim leaders to respect the families of those who died and move their mosque away from Ground Zero. Unfortunately, the president caved into political correctness.”

But expecting the president to say something like that may be asking too much of a man who orders arugula salad in Iowa. After all, here we have a president who apologizes with ease for America’s supposed misdeeds, on foreign soil no less. But to speak with moral certainty to Muslims is another matter.

But imagine if the president had said, “Imam, you say you want to build a mosque near Ground Zero in order to foster better relations with non-Muslims – and I congratulate you for that. Now, may I suggest you speak to your fellow Muslims and tell them to foster better relations with the United States. Tell your fellow Muslims in places like Saudi Arabia to allow Christians to build churches in that country. Tell Muslims in that part of the world to stop teaching their children that Jews are dirty animals. Acknowledge, for the first time, that Hamas is a terrorist organization whose mission is to destroy Israel. When you do that, Imam, then – and only then – can we start a conversation about your mosque near Ground Zero.”

That kind of conversation is another thing I have a hard time imagining."

Ed Cone

"...When you do that, Imam, then – and only then – can we start a conversation about your mosque near Ground Zero."

No, this is precisely wrong.

We don't put conditions like that on religious institutions in this country.

The imam doesn't have to say or think what someone else wants him to say or think before building his mosque.

At least the guy from the American Family Association came out and said "no more mosques in America." He was wrong, too, but he spared us the pussyfooting and double-talking that we're getting here.


"haha. bubba, why do you frequent the blog of someone you hate so much? are you a glutton?"

I don't hate him. I feel sorry for him.......the same as I do for you.

Ed Cone

I hate myself more often than I feel sorry for myself, fwiw.


Meanwhile, the opposition to this mosque by people like those polled here seems to be having some effect.


(The Hill): "The CNN/Opinion Research survey showed that 68 percent oppose the plan to build the mosque, compared to 29 percent who favor it.

.....A majority of all political groups polled oppose the mosque. Forty-three percent of Democrats support it and 54 percent say they are opposed. Eighty-two percent of Republicans are against the mosque, as opposed to just 17 percent who support it.

A whopping 70 percent of independents are against the mosque, compared to 24 percent who support it."

(Haaretz):"They also hope the move will be seen as a show of sensitivity to families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks, and to the American public generally.

Another factor in the apparent climbdown is a lack of funds to pay for construction of the center, estimated to cost a hundred million dollars. Backers hope moving it will lead to a wave of support, accompanied by cash donations.

It is also possible that the decision was also influenced by comments made by U.S. President Barack Obama on Sunday, in which he appeared to reverse an earlier show of support."


"I hate myself more often than I feel sorry for myself, fwiw."

Probably more revealing than intended. Most narcissists hate themselves.

The comments to this entry are closed.