Donald Douglas Wins a Point, Still Not Making a Lot of Sense, Though
American Power fellow Donald Douglas is correct to note that I misread his recent post; my questions to him were answered by somebody else and posted on his blog, and though this was noted in the post, I didn’t catch it and assumed I was reading the responses of Douglas himself. An associate of Douglas claimed not to have known that McCain wrote an article for the white supremacist publication American Renaissance, rather than Douglas himself having said that, so Douglas’ actual assertion that he’d clicked on all of my Stacy-McCain-is-a-racist links obviously doesn’t contradict another assertion by someone else that the person had never heard of American Renaissance since, you know, they are two different people. So fie on me.
Having said that, the fellow whom Douglas has had answer his questions for him admits to having actually subscribed to American Renaissance, a very obviously white nationalist publication. That’s kind of unusual right there. Not a whole lot of people subscribe to white supremacist publications. It takes a certain sort of person to pick up the phone and say, “Send me twelve issues of your white supremacist magazine. I’ll give you some money for them.” I don’t even know what else to say about this.
But the questions were intended for Douglas. He doesn’t seem interested in answering them. And this talk of his to the effect that I haven’t addressed something is nonsense. What haven’t I addressed? Ask me anything you’d like and I will address it. In the meantime, why not take this opportunity to address my questions and thereby show that you can explain anything I choose to throw out regarding the issue of McCain’s racist activities?
This seems to be Douglas’ objection:
Barrett Brown has never addressed the main point of contention, which is that he’s an unprincipled smear merchant who has nothing on Robert Stacy McCain which hasn’t been addressed elsewhere.
How the fuck am I supposed to “address” that? “Dude, I’m not.”
It’s just an assertion. It doesn’t come after an examination of the evidence that might show me to be an unprincipled smear merchant; it is merely written down. Douglas claims that all of the evidence has been addressed elsewhere. I’d like Douglas to show that this is actually the case. Where is the explanation for why McCain wrote an article for American Spectator, for instance? Is this explanation actually satisfying?
Meanwhile, this is nuts:
That is, he quotes me as saying, that “I’ve looked through everything he’s linked,” and then wrongly infers that I’ve read everything HE’S EVER LINKED WITH RESPECT TO ROBERT STACY MCCAIN. And thus, that allegedly makes me a liar. Actually, as anyone even vaguely familiar with blogging would know, when I say that “I’ve looked through everything he’s linked,” that’s an ovbvious reference to “everything” at the very post in which he attacked Robert as racist, which would be, “A Reply to Donald Douglas and a Restatement of My Offer to R.S. McCain.”
There is no “very post” in which I attack McCain as a racist; there are nearly a dozen of them. I said that “the totality of the evidence” showed him to be a racist and McCain now says that he was countering that assertion by reference to something considerably less than the totality of the evidence – which is to say that I was saying that all of the evidence says something, while Douglas disagreed with me in claiming that some smaller portion of the evidence does not.
Again, it would be swell if Douglas could answer the questions I have asked of him on his own.