I found this little gem today:
Mark Tokarski posted this on Douglas Ernst’s blog:
“It’s tough being an American. We have to form opinions without knowing anything. We do our best. Mr. Ernst, you’re making the best of it.”
So Mark comes in and makes a snide remark.
Douglass then responds:
“Your problem is that you’re the type of guy who mistakes sarcasm for intelligence. Your problem is that you’re the type of guy who uses self-congratulation as the basis for public policy. Your problem is that you leave snarky comments on blogs and then smirk at how witty and wise you imagine yourself to be.”
This does seem like a well deserved response.
Mark then replies:
“Oh, I followed Lizard’s link here, though I am not allowed to comment on his blog, I do like his writing. I am writing about you as we speak, and imagined as I finished that you would not approve my comment, so I came back to grab it before it disappeared. Voila! it made the cut!
I write a lot about opinion management and thought control in pretend democracies, which require that we imagine our voices to matter. The post you clipped was about how, in my view, the Tea Party was suggested upon us to allow “Obama” political cover to carry forward with the right wing agenda. I’m pretty well read on this stuff, having read Bernays, Ellul, Lippmann, Quigley and Neibuhr, to drop a few names. In essence we are allowed to have huge election extravaganzas as bread and circus while the real business of running the country is done in private. It has to be that way, they say, as the public is uneducated and highly emotional, and yet dangerous if it really does take the reins. Letting us have elections is a palliative. Controlling our choices is essential.
I am also clever and annoying. You might want to consider banning me.”
Now one might ask why are you not allowed to comment on his blog?
Mark also says Douglas should consider banning him?
Douglas Ernst responded with:
“My guess is that you’re too clever by half. If by “annoying” you’re saying “I’m a troll,” then I’ll have no problem banning you. In your little blog post about me you said you were “just being proactive,” so … again, if you’re admitting you’re a troll just say so and I’ll add you to the banned list ASAP.”
Now if you look at what Mark posted on his blog:
“He let it stand! We’ll see how long I last there. He answered me, I answered him, and then suggested he ban me. Just being proactive.”
So to be fair you said he should consider banning you, he responded and you want to act as if he was mean and censoring your post? It would be fair to say that you failed.
Then when I confronted Mark in his blog he responded:
“Please, I don’t want to truck on his road. First, he’s Lizard’s toy, and I don’t have permission to play.”
Mark did not want to go down this road? I think he went down the road and got stuck.
“Second, if he banned Lizard, the nicest of people, he did so for content, meaning he’s intolerant. Third, just reading that one thread, I am picking up on aggressive stupidity.”
Lizard has not always been nice in his post, that is a fact. Lizard was never banned for content that was proper.
Really…. you are the tolerant one? “I am picking up on aggressive stupidity” People who live in glass houses….
I don’t mind stupidity. I might be stupid, as by definition it is something we don’t know about ourselves. Aggressive stupidity is a different animal. It is to take what little you know and weaponize it”
Then maybe you should be less aggressive.
To be fair Mark did respond with this to me:
“Fair enough. I probably qualify. My thoughts about messing with Lizard’s turf came after I went there. The aggressive stupidity is on display over there. I’ll keep my own here. You know what would happen, right? He’d get mad an ban me. It’s undignified to be banned, gives people too much power over you, and we walk into those situations eyes wide open.
Tell him to come here. I won’t ban him. I almost never do that, and then only for true trolling, or non-stop posting.”
Mark this is a step in the right direction.
I then thought I would try to have a resalable conversation with mark but it seems that all he wants to do is try to prove that he is intellectual superior (and he fails at it).
He the continued down the same path he would try to act interested then after you reply he responded with snark replies.
I called him out on a snide post that he made:
‘“I have a similar experience at Barnes and Noble, Current events section, where diversity of viewpoints is unlimited on the right wing, and any nut job can have a book ghostwritten for him, where on the left, the furthest one can go is Chomsky. He’s should call his last book before he passes “This far, no further!”””
He then responded with:
“That comment has to do with gatekeepers of the left. It’s a phenomenon I’ve written about quite a bit, where there seems no limits on what a right winger can or write, but people on the left are required to stay in bounds. I call it the Ellen Goodman syndrome, after the mild-mannered Boston op-ed writer who took up space in newspapers and allowed right wing editors to claim they were balanced because they printed her (when real lefties were available and shut-out). She’s a gatekeeper. In the same manner, Chomsky represents the left in print, and yet in his writings avoids the major issues of our time. He too is a gatekeeper.
That’s all that comment was about. You jumped in a discussion midway without knowing what came before.”
I responded with the following:
So to be clear, Mark will act like he wants a conversation only to reply with a condescending remark to try to make himself look witty. You catch him just like I did with his “contrived” comment which is clearly bias because he did not even have any information on how a study was conducted proving that he will not think past his personal bias. Then he must try to make it look like you left the conversation without having a coherent thought to make himself seem superior. But rest assured that is okay because the only reason you really stopped talking to him is because he does not have the time that you demand for the conversation……really……
Sorry Mark your “tactic” might work on some but not on people that can look past your games I guess you were not as witty as you thought you were. You proved my suspicions from the start, you are trying to act as if you are a great thinker yet you have a shallow view and you cannot even see past your own hypocrisy.
You will now see that Mark decided to go on a rant with his blog. Please notice he judges the survey and yet he had not details on how it was conducted.
You can see his post here:
Notice how he leaves out this key point “This study had much more depth but I will need more time to provide that type of information.”
Mark nice attemp to hide the truth.
Yet he automatically jumped to a conclusion that it was contrived and bashes the study (once again he did not have any read information just a quick summary).
Now think about this, we work and pay a portion of what we earn in taxes. The study used grades instead of money. When students were asked if they would give some of their points to help others earn a passing grade the majority was against it. How is this not comparable to taking some of your hard-earned money and distributing it to others?
Obviously Mark has tunnel vision and cannot have rational thought. He also proved my point about his conversation style of acting like he has something to offer followed by rude comments with a major lack of facts and thought.
Here is an example from Mark:
“normally they try to be clever and disguise their objectives. They did so in this study, and here is what they discovered: The people doing the study do not understand money, social structure, caring and compassion, or the health care system. They are stupid. “
Normally they who?
I Never even explained how the study was conducted…Yet he knew how?
The people who conduced this study do not understand…? Really, a study that he has very little information on tells him all of this?
Preconceived judgment…Hypocrisy proven.
I was never angry I told him why I left as you see in my post.
Sorry Mark the truth is easy to see and it is clear that you lie.
Mark tried to come off a sensible nice guy and look how he responded when he was caught.
Mark tried to hid his lies by removing my responses in his blog. As you can see here he misquoted me in his blog post as well in order to hide the truth. I can see why Mark is banned from blogs. I find it fascinating that he tends to not understand the real reason why, when you lie, call people rude names are incapable of seeing past personal bias and act intolerant you tend to lack value in conversation. Mark still kept his blog because as Mark said he likes to have the last word.
Notice Mark will say anything to condemn something he does not agree with even if he has yet to have any facts, but all it takes is “my brother said….” from a person and that is an acceptable study because it produces the results he wants.
Sorry Mark my blog deals with the truth.
Feel free to read his blog but I would only recommend it if you like irrational fiction.