Wednesday, August 12, 2015

The Canardo That Quacked

File this under the category of "interesting". An observation I made some time ago that was (at the time) referred to as "quacking". by "quacking" this person meant I was lying about the subject I posted on, which was an extremely hostile reaction I got after I submited a comment (as a joke) to the blog of the Libertarian Willis Hart.

Dervish Sanders on 9/29/2013: In an anti-creationist post (a position I actually agree with him on, as I believe in science over creationism, as all intelligent people do) Willis Hart wrote that there are "NO reputable scientists who still DON'T believe the earth is less than billions of years old". This, you may note, is a double negative, which means that Mr. Hart was actually saying that reputable scientists believe the earth is less than a billion years old.

Another Blogger (Jerry Critter) pointed out to him that "general consensus (I know you don't like those words) puts the age of the earth at over 4 billion years".

Given the double negative, Jerry thought Willis was saying the earth is less than 4 billion. But Willis said no, he had made an error (with the double negative) and he corrected it.

Then I, as a joke - and as a test to see if Mr. Hart was reading comments from me... something he previously said he was not doing (he banned me from his blog and said he was deleting my comments without reading them) - submited a comment in which I said "Will tried to slip a lie by and Jerry called him on it... again!".

In response to my accusation of a lie, an ANGRY Willis posted the following two comments...

Willis Hart: What are you fucking talking about, you fucking piece of shit (yeah, my eyes wandered on this one)? I made a grammatical error (and even so BB knew what I was talking about) and I fixed it. What's the mother-fucking lie, you mother-fucker? (9/28/2013 AT 8:54pm)

Willis Hart: See, this is the difference between you and Jerry (and why we all seem to like him and detest you). He accepts it when a person makes a mistake and doesn't go looking for some ulterior motive (probably because he isn't mildly retarded and/or paranoid) like you constantly do. You really do need to get some attention, fella'. (9/28/2013 AT 9:02pm).

Willis posted my joke comment, but went back to ignoring me after that. So I decided to respond on my own blog with the following observation.

Dervish Sanders on 9/29/2013: Wow, this Will Hart fella certainly has a temper, doesn't he? Maybe Mr. Hart should get some attention... before he hurts someone and gets in trouble with the law (I can easily see him escalating a verbal altercation into violence).

In any case... the comment surely got his attention (so, the joke worked). Also (for the record) this joke is not one I'd have made normally (that is, if I were not banned from Mr. Hart's blog). So, when Mr. Hart says "this is the difference between you and Jerry", he is wrong. Back when Mr. Hart actually permitted me to comment on his blog... this isn't a comment I would have made. The comments I submit now (for the most part) are the same as when I wasn't banned, but some aren't. Hart couldn't have made this distinction (why "they" like Jerry but detest me) before because I wouldn't have made this comment before.

In reaction to my joke comment getting posted (because Willis' eyes wandered onto it), the commenter I previously mentioned (after Willis' tirade of profanity), submitted (to the blog of Willis) the following (which was published).

Rational Nation USA: Now Will, we've discussed this before. It does no good to allow Mr. Canardo Sanders to drag you down to his level. Simply accept him for what he is, make your point respectfully, and then ignore him. He is demonstrably and certifiably off his rocker. (9/29/2013 AT 6:33pm).

And on my blog (in response to me commenting on this incident) he submitted this...

Rational Nation USA: Keep quacking Mr. Sanders, keep quacking. (9/29/2013 AT 9:38pm).

I did not know what he meant by "quacking", so I said "quacking in the context above means? I'm going to guess telling the truth". In response to my guess as to what he meant by quacking, the following remark was forthcoming...

Rational Nation USA: No Canardo, more like in telling lies. But really Canardo, who gives a f**k? (10/06/2013 AT 11:16pm).

Note that "Canardo" is a liar (as decoded here). He was saying I lied about something. What, exactly, I am not sure. Did I lie about my comment being a joke? Did I lie about Willis losing his temper and launching into a heavy-on-the-profanity response? Who knows? The individual in question never explained what I was quacking/lying about. Only that I was quacking.

If the quacking was in regard to Willis losing his temper, perhaps now there is some agreement in regards to that?

The following comment from this same person (approximately 21 months later) on this blog in response to a post in which I asked why Willis called out Randal Paul for his "temper" in regards to the "dust up" between Randal and Chris Christie during the Fox Nooz Repub "debate".

Rational Nation USA: It is curious that my once friend Will jumped on Paul for temper, It is quite possible that Will himself has a temper when questioned. (8/11/2015 AT 7:58pm).

Huh. Remember that I said (21 months ago) that "this Will Hart fella certainly has a temper". At the time Mr. Nation said (about me) "He is demonstrably and certifiably off his rocker"... on Willis' blog. On my blog he accused me of "quacking".

Now he makes the same observation himself (re Willis' temper). Does this mean that Mr. Nation is "quacking"? I do not know, as I was never sure what I was quacking about. It does seem, however, that my comments about Willis' temper are now being met with some agreement. Perhaps I was not so "off my rocker" after all?

OST #65


  1. What you miss Dervish is that once I made the observation and statement I let it rest. Closed case. You and the othet hand are the proverbial dog who refuses to let his bone go.

    It is what it is.

  2. I reopened and reexamined the "closed" case. New evidence shows that I likely wasn't "quacking" after all. "It is what it is" = rAtional quacking.


Comment moderation is not currently in effect.