Tuesday, April 13, 2010

The Midknight Review: Round Two

After yesterday's warantless attack by John Smithson of similar sounding blog The Midknight Review, and my subsequent response, I figured Smithson would not show his face again, but instead, he resurfaced to offer a challenge, after more insults of course.

After seeing his initial comment that I had deleted, I had wrote a scathing article in retaliation.  Was my initial article too harsh?  I don't believe so.  Smithson had a preconceived notion that I was a Marxist obstructionist plagairizing the name of his website to advance some sort of subversive agenda.  He attacked my intelligence and made blatant lies and misrepresentations about myself and my blog, and so I felt I was justified in my response.  In addition to my article, I had also left the following mordant response on his article that he had written about me:

As I had written above, Smithson resurfaced and ponied up a few responses of his own on both my site and his. Here are the responses from his site (which is also directed towards my wife who had also posted on his site:


Here is the response left on my blog post yesterday:

I had not deleted these comments because I felt I should respond, and no, I don't want to debate Smithson for a couple reasons, which I will address in a second.  I would also like to thank him for letting me know of the spelling error regarding Michele Bachmann's name.

Smithson's comments don't really seem any different from his first.  He still insists that I plagiarized my website's name, but adds to his insults by insisting that I am an immoral "atheist Lefty" aiming to "steal" America from the principles it was founded upon.  I also seem to be a "mindless existentialist" as well, which seems contradicting to the prior claim of my Marxist tendencies.  I also thought it was funny that he claims I recommend books on communism, as if I recommend books on communism, but in reality, he is referring to my sarcastic inclusion of some book links at the end of yesterday's post that I suggested he read - one being "The Complete Idiot's Guide To Communism," which was put up there to suggest that Smithson knows nothing about Marxism, socialism, or communism, and that he should read the book before making baseless accusations against others.  Obviously Smithson is and idiot, or else he would have realized such, and it is safe to say that anybody who takes Smithson's website as hard fact is also an idiot.

To analyze Smithson's comments, one would see that he does not care for honest debate.  He tries to provoke by insulting me and then when I don't, he addresses his audience to show that my inaction is proof of some leftist strategy.  He also indicates in the response left on his site that I am apparently "preaching Marxism," and therefore I am the "enemy," in which there can be "no casual disagreement between enemies," so what exactly would a debate entail?  Drew Westen had made the argument in his book "The Political Brain" that dispassionate debate alone would be futile when confronted with the passionate mind, because while one can offer hard facts, the opponent that allows emotion to take control will never hear the rational argument being made.  They will remain with their preconceived notions and allow only the information to support their opinions to enter.  Smithson has made it clear that emotion dictates his political beliefs.

Smithson has already proved to be absent of reason based on his numerous accusations against myself.  I am not a Marxist or socialist, atheist, or liberal.  I support a mixed economy, I'm a Catholic, and I am a moderate Republican, but Smithson looked at my blog and created a narrative for who I really was.  I suppose I was guilty for doing the same, but I sat through countless articles of The Midknight Review to try and prove myself wrong, but upon reading post after post, it became clear exactly who Smithson was.  His comments left on both my site and his further cemented my conclusion.  It is for this reason why I choose not to debate John Smithson.

I would also like to address Smithson's confrontations with the other commentors on this site, and in particular, fellow Midnight Reviewer, c.  C wrote the following:
Comments that add nothing to the discussion (specific to the post) or are pure inflammatory comments, commonly called "troll" comments, are usually deleted in most forums/discussions/blogs.

Your "deleted" comment is preserved in its entirety in this post. And from the looks of it had nothing to do with the article that you initially posted it on so was appropriately deleted there.
Here was Smithson's response:

Smithson dismisses c's post and claims that the rules of posting are subjective and created by those in charge - in this instance, me, but here is how Wikipedia defines a "troll":
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Smithson does not want to play by the rules.  He wants to yell his narrative as loud as he can and ignore any opposing view, and this is indicative of the Tea Party.  Watch any protest.  Watch any interview with Andrew Breitbart, or really, any program on Fox News.


  1. For someone who has been "blogging" for years, his confusion of trolling (his attacks/opinions) and moderating (leftist censorship of the truth) was pretty humorous.

    According to his own rules, a debate could be a room full of people yelling their views, talking over people, and insulting those who don't agree with them. As long as they don't use curse words (very arbitrary since insults are allowed) and don't use the term Tea-Baggers....a term members of the Tea Party "movement" promoted for themselves since the beginning.

    I did find his list of news sources interesting. Some like Drudge I do check in on at times, though that site mainly links to other news sources.

  2. It is funny because on the list of links that he copied and pasted from me, it shows that I listed The Drudge Report. I thought his comments about Rachel Maddow and Kieth Olberman to be way off base. I've watched their shows and have found them to be a thousand times more informative and factual then Fox News.

    Essentially, he listed conservative news and the "MSM," which echoes conservative news. He listed no source that would balance out the other.

    It is also funny because he wanted to debate me on religion or politics, but after reading many of his posts, I don't think any of it would have made a difference.

    He constantly writes articles attacking Muslims, complaining about the only Muslim congressman or asking what was more likely - a couple hillbilly Blackwater employees opening up fire on a crowd of people or Obama freeing some "Black Muslims," and he does not seem to understand the ideology he claims I am.

    If I am such a Marxist, then why does The Midnight Review contain advertising, Amazon links, or even a shop to purchase apparel? It seems that I am engaging in the capitalist market.

    And to answer his question of who has more viewers going to their website, it would have to be him, but if you also consider the facts that his last site was shut down for spamming and considering since December, he had posted 554 posts, as compared to my site which has had 286 since July, it appears that he has more time on his hands to spam and get his message across.

    Considering the number of page views he has had and number of articles, statistically, the amount of people who view each article of his is only slightly higher then mine...

    Smithson needs to understand the difference between my blog and his, and that is quality over quantity. He posts crap after crap. Every once and a while he may have a nice article. I prefer to have less crap, and if it means less viewers, then fine.

  3. Also, talking about plagiarizing, it appears Smithson copies and pastes entire articles onto his site without really giving credit. Just today he copied an article from The American Thinker. It was an article that I had read yesterday.

    It is posted in it's entirety with no indication that it was copied, except for the title of his article "From the American Thinker, we have this weirdness from Obama. He goes to a tough part of town without the Secret Service or the press pool."

    You would think that he would offer commentary, right?


    All he does is put this at the bottom of the article:

    "Editor's notes: as a follow up or related story, we have this headline hyperlink:
    Obama's disregard for media reaches new heights at nuclear summit."

    When I cite a source, I try to always list the source and the author... I try not to plagiarize.

    I think I will create a new page for this website called "Blog Watch" or "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly" or something to just compile a list of sites that are just plain wrong...

  4. Re c:

    We are not talking about a debate in a room full of people, are we C ?

    Your claim that "tea bagger" is a term originated by Tea Party Members is sheer fantasy. Big difference between "tea bag" and the gay practice of "tea bagging." Big difference between a political point of view and an obscene insult as intended by Olberman and others.

    Re: Kevin

    He prefers the radicals at MSNBC, voted for Obama (?), supports Marx's concept of the transfer of wealth (tell me I am wrong), and thinks the Huffington Post and Think Progress are main stream preferential reading yet calls himself a Republican and supports abortion in all its stages while claiming to be a {practicing ?} Catholic.

    Kevin attacks me on the basis of my faith and intellect while pretending to be incompliance with the fantacy rules of "the troll."

    Like all good marxist/ socialists, Kevin refuses to debate the issues. He has reasons for this, of course, but apparently pretends these obstacles cannot be mediated in some way

    I am waiting for a little intelligent dialogue. You might begin with a response debunking each of the points made above, or, or, or, tell my why I should not think you are a Marxist/socialist other than the fact that you sell stuff.

    Understand that capitalist enterprise is practiced by all Marxist/socialists. All Marxist communities take advantage of free market principles while pretending to be opposed to same. The fact that Kevin practices capitalism does not mean he is not a socialist/Marxist. But don't let me define Kevin. Perhaps Kevin could write an article debunking the principles of Marxism. I would certainly withdraw my charge if he did so and made it a convincing editorial. Go ahead, Kev --- give it a shot.

    How does Kevin know about the page load activity on my blog? I would suggest that this is both none of his business and a violation of my privacy rights. I find it more than interesting that Kelley would attempt to invade my private affairs when, in fact, that is not something I have even thought of.

    Kevin writes that I constantly attack Muslims when, in point of fact, of the past 3000 articles I have written, he cannot find 5 that MIGHT figure into his description.

    Finally, his use of the word "spam" has nothing to do with reality. Three years ago, Hotshot, when I began blogging, Blogspot did not offer the ability to add pages to a blog. I had no choice but to create "pages" via the creation of additional blogs. Why not admit it, Kevin. When it comes to the actual facts regarding my blog, you do not know what you are talking about. You have had to back off my start date for the blog and your claim that you were here first. Now, you are wrong on the “spam” charge and have no clue as to the facts surrounding my page load activity. Best stick to the emotional issues of your charge against me. Blog facts and substantive debate are obviously not your realm of expertise.

    My blog is received in more than 40 countries (it was 70 with the original Review), is located on more than 30 search engines world wide. My "charts and graphs" is used by a number of educational institutions in this country and others.

    I have a first time visit vs repeat visit ration of 35 / 65 and was recently interviewed by members of the graduate school at UCLA.

    Your traffic versus mine: understand that you are new on the scene. It is expected that your traffic will be less -- much less -- than mine. I score no points by making this comparison. That is why I have not gone there.

    But regarding my traffic, exclusively, my blog with its several pages has had more than 39,000 hits in the three years I have been blogging (beginning with Barth and the Boyz) and 36,000 his since my Midknight Review came onto the scene a year and a half ago. You do the math.

  5. @jds

    I'm not arguing that it is a big difference in meaning just the misguided origin of the usage for the Tea Party Movement. Perhaps Kevin can do more archival searching but if you are curious as to the origin of the "Teabaggger" being used for the Tea Party Movement:


    "It is as useful to remind them anew of how the term originated and with whom. A TV news report aired last March 14 in which a correspondent described the original protest act, ‘take a teabag, put it in an envelope, and mail it to the White House.’ He added, ‘reteaparty.com has a headline Teabag the Fools in D.C. on tax day.’ Thus the verb to teabag was invented by the teabaggers themselves, and the correspondent who put it on TV was a Griff Jenkins of Fox News. Send your complaints to him."

    While I am 100% positive that the Tea party members who decided to use "Tea Bag" as a verb for their actions were not aware of the sexual conotations, but the fact is they did coin it and used it profusely to where you will still find people today (declining though) who call themselves "Tea Baggers".

    Unfortunate for them but it is what it is.

  6. @jds

    A couple other comments to ponder.

    1. Internet usage is anything but private as thre is nothing that should guarantee our privacy rights. You and Kevin may consider your websites "yours" but in reality the only thing that is yours is the content you write on that space. Your ISP connection is provided by a private company (ie. Comcast) and the server your content is on is provided by a private company (ie. Google).

    Host your own server as the only location with your content, and use your own ISP to connect directly to the internet and you can probably have a leg to stand on as far as arguing your online presence as being private.

    2.I really do not think the onus should be on Kevin to prove he is not what you claim he is. If you think it is evident than just link on your site or here the proof. What specific articles has he written which are proof that he is.

    Voting for Obama is not proof. If so than since the majority voted for him (64m vs. 56m for McCain) than that makes the majority of the US population Socialist....and if the majority are all Socialist than shouldn't we do what the majority want? The voting example is a crazy line of thinking and I hope you see where I was going with it

    ie. you can't use that simple action to extrapolate any hard evidence other than the fact that Kevin (or 64m other americans) put hsi name down on a ballot.

    But again, if Kevin is such a perfect example of a Socialist/Marxist than just point to a couple references which Kevin can than debate.

    Your request is as if I go to your site and say "JDS is a neo-nazi racist conservative who wants to abolish the government. Prove me wrong!!!". It would be silly of me to do so unless I found factual evidence (article supporting a movement with specificed agenda stated above) and showed it to you.

  7. Your style of debate is not debate at all. You make accusations then ask me to defend myself on a particular issue. You try and control the debate by accusing me of varying things, such as supporting abortion or invading your privacy. I guess I should start debunking some of your claims now...

    First, in defense of c, here is an article from EDGE.It features Rachel Maddow, one of those radicals, detailing the use of the term "Teabag," but obviously, you won't listen since you pegged her and MSNBC as a radical news source...

    See, never have I supported abortion, and actually maintain pro-life views.

    I never claimed to know about the page load activity on your blog. I stated simple statistics, calculating you're page counter with the number of articles you have.

    I never claimed The Huffington Post and Think Progress are mainstream preferential reading. I listed them on my website, along with other conservative sources. (Imagine that! I enjoy commentary from all portions of the political spectrum)

    I had never supported the transfer of wealth, and am actually against the expansion of welfare. I understand the benefits that can be received from such programs but believe some aspects could be trimmed. I was also critical of both stimulus packages and the automotive bailout...

    As for things like the health care bill, conservatives seem to ignore the fact that it originated with many ideas from the conservative Heritage Foundation, and I assume you are using my support of the health care legislation

    But... it doesn't make a difference what I say because no matter what I say, it will be the wrong answer.

    Also, regarding your site stats. I don't care. I can care less how many people visit your site, who you talk to, or where your graphs are viewed. I just don't care. That is irrelevant.

    As for your use of multiple blog pages to make a website, if Blogger didn't offer pages, and their services did not satisfy your needs, you should have actually created a real website instead of daisy-chaining a bunch of blogs together.

    As for your faith, racism, and hatred for Muslims, I would like you to prove that such hatred does not exist. Prove to me that you can care less if Obama is or is not a Muslim. Prove that you are not a racist.

    Maybe you would like to explain your January 9th article "Obama's Black Muslim and Muslim stance is a contributing factor in the decline of our national security protections." How about your January 5th article "Want to know why we are all afraid of these Muslims? A picture is worth a thousand words."

    How about your March 29th article that explains your site will focus on Obama's "Black Liberation ties and the nature, history and definition of Black Liberation Theology" or your March 26th article where you say hardworking Blacks are upset with Obama's black bias?

    Your mention of Obama's "pro-Muslim stance" in another March 25th article?

    By definition, your site is a "spam" site. Period. You can try to continue posting here but your arguments are empty.


Please share your thoughts and experiences in relation to this post. Remember to be respectful in your posting. Comments that that are deemed inappropriate will be deleted.