Monday, January 01, 2007

Another debate with Chris Fluharty. This guy is such a nutcase. He's not only annoying, backward, and ridiculously ignorant, but with his "sodomy" garbage and his belief that the abolition of slavery & women's suffrage violated state's rights, the civil war had nothing to do with slavery — he's an intolerant windbag who really needs to be cut down to size. I'm really enjoying making a mockery of this clown. Beliefs like his need to be brought out into the light and exposed for what they are, especially in this conservative area where people tend to think like this anyway.

This whole thing started with checks & balances in government... and turned into this fiasco

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have read the blogs you are referring to you. It look more like he is the one making a mockery out of you. He is not obsessed with you on his blog. You give gays a bad name.

James said...

There are several things that need to be pointed out here —
One) you’re completely anonymous. That puts pretty much anything you have to say and your motivations for doing so seriously in question.
Two) you are judging my dialog with Chris Fluharty based only on what you might have read from a few posts here and there. So, unless you are the man himself or you’ve spent the last few weeks reading all of the discussions I have had with him, you would not be sufficiently informed to base an objective opinion about how justified my attitude toward him is as you would not be aware of the derogatory tone and language that he has used in relations to me and homosexuals in general.
Three) you did not provide anything substantive in the least about the validity of his arguments or mine. Something more specific would be much more useful.
Four) my "obsession" as you call it in writing posts in my political blog about discussions I’ve had about controversial subjects on a newspaper forum is hardly grounds to conclude that the other person has made a "mockery" of me. Again, perhaps you could point out something more specific?
Five) In considering the arguments that he has made and my responses to him, which made many valid points certainly worthy of serious consideration, and since you offer nothing better than "he is the one making a mockery out of you" it leads one to conclude that you say this not based on any objective reflection of the arguments presented but rather because you agree with his ideology and conversely disagree with mine.
Six) before you go making judgments on what sort of reputation I give homosexuals you might a) get to know ME better, b) establish just what your true attitudes about homosexuals are. Ex. It would very disingenuous for some anti-gay bigot to label a homosexual as being bad for his peers. Anti-gay bigots, by their very negative attitude toward the subject aren’t qualified to make such assessments.
Seven) you are not quite as anonymous as you may think you are. My sources indicate that you sent your reply from Dialup-147.MissouriState.edu IP address (146.7.16.147) which is registered from Southwest Missouri State University. You spent a total of 6 mins and 25 secs on this blog which you found after searching for the name "Chris Fluharty" via Google.

Taking all things here into account {even your bad grammar is a dead giveaway}, it leads me to be all but certain just exactly who this is — Chris Fluharty himself. I suppose I could be wrong. It could be a series of absolutely bizarre and uncanny coincidences but I quite seriously doubt it. Still, there are some things which can better confirm this for me, though this will take a little more time.

James said...

Proof that the above comment HAD to be Chris Fluharty.

1. I know for a FACT that at the same time the anonymous comment was favorable to Chris Fluharty was left here – March 14 at 1:37am – that someone was looking at my blog on a computer registered to MSU in Springfield.
2. I know for a FACT that the person who left the comment had found my website by doing a Google search for the name “Chris Fluharty”.
3. I know for a FACT that Chris has had access to computers at MSU, he’s admitted it — "I have not been on a MSU computer since November".
4. I know for a FACT that Chris visited my blog, he admits it — "I know for a Fact I visited your blog because I was told that you were talking about me." .
5. I know that the person who left the comment has bad grammar, and Chris Fluharty is infamous for his terrible grammar.
6. I know for a FACT that if Chris were not the person at MSU which left that comment then there would be an IP address registered to somewhere here in the state from when HE visited my blog. There isn’t one… Period.
7. I know for a FACT that only ONE person with an IP address from here in Missouri had visited my blog up until three days ago at – April 20 at 8:58pm – which was nearly 24 hours AFTER Chris’ Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:25 pm post in which he admitted having seen my blog, so he cannot truthfully claim that the recent visit was when he saw it.

Chris proves that he was the one who left the above comment.