Praetorian Style Guide, Copyright, Submitting Content

  • Summary:
    • You are welcome to comment here, and even to say all manner of  things you want to about what we and others say. However, you may not engage in any of what I have called: “CoMIRSUS(LiMiR)MOMOPE” Pronounced: “ko-MER-sus-lie-mur-mo-mope,” it’s an acronym for: “Contains Mindless Insult(s), Racial Slur(s), Unknowable Speculation (Like Mind Reading), Misstatement OMeaning, or Other Pointless Element.” Please note: the phrase above: “You are welcome … to say all manner of things you want about what we and others say…” does not represent carte blanche simply to do drive-by snark-fests on what is said here either. If you are going to come here and say something like “What you said is stupid and wrong,” and leave it at that, we will edit that out. You will need to add a substantive reason that does not represent any CoMIRSUS(LiMiR)MOMOPE. Please Note: Under the heading of “Other Pointless Element,” you can read:
      • Dirty words. (the usual ones)
      • Actual swearing.
      • Offensive words.
      • Unsupported assertions and the like.
      • Others as we discover them.
  • When you compose content for our blog, please try to do it with the idea that a 12-year old boy (my son) might read it. Please choose your language, photographs, and any other items accordingly. I will delete inappropriate content, leaving in a marker indicating why the offending content was removed. I will not censor your thoughts, or your ideas, or your perorations, appropriately expressed, in any way.
  • General Grammar Statement: We try to use correct grammar here. Our editors will approach you with suggested changes to your proposed content if needed. These changes will correct only grammar errors, and will not change the meaning of your text.
    • With this said, if you wish to write ungrammatically to achieve some effect or other, we encourage this as well.
  • Pronouns:  We avoid, as much as possible, the hideous “he or she” and we try never to use the atrocious “they” when speaking of a single unidentified, generic person. To a man ( 🙂 ) we find the gymnastics writers use to coddle the various grievance groups “out there” are execrable, and we strive to stay far away from them. If the subject being referred to is an unidentified person who could be of either sex, use “he.”
  • Cheap shots directed at prominent public officials: We tolerate, even encourage, direct, strong, attacks against the character, honesty or integrity of well-known public officials. If merited. If you want to call Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or some such, a blithering idiot, have at it. Presumably your essay will back up your assertion. Shouldn’t be too difficult.
  • Cheap shots directed at interlocutors in on-line debates: However, if you are engaged in something like an on-line debate with a leftist, you must adhere to certain rules of decorum.

Important Notes: Yes, as Conservatives, we are painfully aware of all the lies, slander, libel and fabricated, inflammatory accusations, insults and labels constantly directed at us in order to deflect the discussion away from weak leftist arguments. Furthermore, we Conservatives are painfully aware that the cheap shot is the stock-in-trade of the leftist argument. Therefore, we have decided that to remove the cheap shot from our arsenal, while our leftist interlocutors continue to employ — indeed to depend on — it, would be foolish. With that said, we insist that you adhere to strict guidelines in the use of the cheap shot in the context of an on-line debate with a leftist:

    • If you are going to use cheap shots, it must be in response to a cheap shot directed at you. You may not be the first to use a cheap shot.
    • You must call the perpetrator on the offense, then warn him that you will use it too if he doesn’t apologize and desist. Something on the order of this: “You started with the baseless cheap shots; I will allow you to apologize for your moronic comment, but if you keep up the garbage accusations, I will respond in kind. Please stay on topic, and refrain from infantile insults.” The point: (1) call them on it, (2) deride it, (3) warn that you might use the tactic as well.
    • When you need to use it — after proper warning — make it devastating.  If they accuse you of “x,” then mock them and accuse them of “x times 10.” Then mock them for their accusation. Something on the order of: “You called me a racist? Well, since you feel it’s permissible to do baseless, inflammatory name-calling, have you stopped molesting small children yet? See how slack-jawed, droolingly stupid you sounded with your moronic name-calling? Now cut it out and grow up.”
    • Please note: Since one can be fairly confident that any given leftist will resort quickly to the cheap shot — they run out of substance very quickly —  we encourage you to warn them away from the tactic before they use it.
    • However, if your interlocutor does not engage in cheap shots, you may not. If you do, your content will be rejected outright. We will give you the opportunity to revise or remove the offensive passages.
  • Resolving Disagreements: 
    • We reserve the right to reject any content for any reason whatsoever. Furthermore, we reserve the right not to explain why we are rejecting said content. However, we will always make a good faith effort to resolve content disagreements in an open and transparent way.
    • In the event that you and we cannot arrive at an agreement regarding your content, we will “return your content to you,” by deleting it from our computers.
  • Submitting Content To The Praetorian Writers’ Group:
    • Anonymity is very important to us. We protect ourselves with layers of very high-tech, as well as low-tech, protection. If you wish to submit material, and you wish to remain anonymous, you may contact us via e-mail at ag.player@yahoo.com. Note: the person who monitors this e-mail address is not a member of our writers’ stable. He serves only as a go-between.
    • When you compose content for our blog, please try to do it with the idea that a 12-year old boy might read it. Please choose your language, photographs, and other items with that in mind. I will delete inappropriate content, leaving in a marker indicating why the offending content was removed. I will not censor your thoughts, or your ideas, or your perorations, appropriately expressed, in any way.

Important Note: This guide is a work-in-progress. Check back often for updates and revisions.

— The Praetorian Writers’ Group

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Praetorian Style Guide, Copyright, Submitting Content

  1. I want to apologize for assuming you lived in the U.K. I checked and it shows that your IP address is located in the U.S.

    So, if you still intent on arguing with me, do it by email (brothawolfemail@gmail.com) on a few conditions:

    1. Only by email is it accepted, not at my blog.
    2. None of your “friends” can join in. If they come, then I will block “them” and you.
    3. No name-calling.
    4. If I ask for short, straight-to-the-point answers, then that’s why I should expect. No long-winded essays unless it calls for it. But if it’s a question that requires a simple answer, than that’s why I expect.
    5. Consider the rules for my blog as part of my email. You should respect and follow them as I do your blog.

    How does that sound?

    Respond my email with the subject you have the most problem with.

    1. No apology necessary, BW… I always wondered why you insisted on trying to find out who I am, rather than simply addressing what I was saying. It’s interesting that you suggest that we argue only through e-mail.

      I have several sincere questions about that. First: why? What’s wrong with the open forum of the blog? Next: Why the kinda-sorta change of heart? I figured you never wanted to hear from me ever again.

      Next: Why did you put “friends” in quotes? I’m acquainted with some of the people who argued on my side during our exchanges, and even a friend of some of them. “Friend” is kind of a big word, with big meaning, for me, and I tend not to toss it around lightly.

      Those other people are, indeed, other people, though. They are not me. I even outed someone who was using two ID’s to write on your blog.

      I have to admit that my feelings were just a teeny-weeny bit hurt when you simply refused to believe what I knew: I’ve always used only one ID when interacting with you. Especially after I sent you a very heartfelt, sincere condolences message upon the loss of loved one.

      Back to the ID’s thing; I operate behind the protection of high- and low-tech devices and techniques, whose protections I extend to others if they request it. Many people have requested such protections from me, and some of them have written to support my positions on your blog. At that point you accused me of using several ID’s and would not budge from that position, even when I explained essentially what I’ve just explained again.

      One of those devices works so that people will appear to be coming from the same IP address — it’s called IP-spoofing, and it allows one to be anonymous on the internet. It’s kind of a simple device, and it’s very well-known. That’s why I was mystified when you simply would not believe me.

      Now, just to complicate things just a bit, I have been “another person,” and when I was, I admitted it straight up.

      My colleague, with whom you first interacted is a sweet, gentle, beautiful black lady. Both she and I used the same ID, and we were both open and honest about it. You, though, were accusing us of using several IDs and of being several people. Well, we were two people, but we used only the one ID. I know it’s confusing, but it most definitely is not an instance of “sock puppets.”

      But, I told you all of this, many times, up-front, long ago. I made no secret of any of it. And despite my candor, you started accusing me of all manner of stuff that simply was not true. That, I admit, was curious, and I finally concluded that you were searching for dodges to use in order not to debate straight up with me.

      Or… you were taking advice from someone else, who’s ignorant of how the internet works.

      Next: You said: “If I ask for short, straight-to-the-point answers, then that’s why [presumably you meant: “what”] I should expect. No long-winded essays unless it calls for it. But if it’s a question that requires a simple answer, than that’s why [ <== ditto the above comment] I expect.”

      Fair enough… But… sometimes questions you thought were calling for a short answer did not actually call for a short answer. They did call for an answer with an explanation. You should know that as well as anyone.

      The short answer often allows someone to say, “See? See? I toldja so!” The call for a short answer is often an attempt to trap someone rhetorically. Fro example: Hoping to trap me, you once asked me if I thought I knew more about black people than you. The real, correct answer is: Yes. However, your question was an attempt to trap me, so I gave you the short answer, with an explanation. That didn’t prevent you from crowing that you’d caught me in obvious stupidity. And, yet, I do know more about American black people than the vast majority of black people. I’ve studied race and race matters for decades. It will be the rare person of any color who knows more about American black people than I do. Sorry. That’s just the way it is.

      So, I have a counter-offer: If I believe that the short answer does not answer sufficiently, then I’ll signal that I’m going to give a long answer, and give it. I promise, though, always to consider simply giving a short answer. Reasonable?

      I do not like debating by e-mail. The immediacy of the blog and the responses to posts, allows for a less scripted, less stilted, more off-the-cuff, more honest interaction, complete with outbursts of passion and ire. I don’t mind those things, and I don’t mind being insulted, jeered, sneered at or ridiculed. I can take care of myself, as you’ve probably noticed.

      Also, if you’ll recall, your friends were the ones to call me names… then they insisted that I was the one doing it! And this despite the dozens and dozens and dozens of times that I suggested to them that they address my points, and stop with the personal attacks.

      So, I’m willing to try this, but I have another offer I’d like to toss in, just to sweeten the pot a bit. I’d like to post our interactions on my blog. I can’t imagine you’d have any objections to that. After all, you were the one to point out to me that my blog gets much less traffic than yours. Fair enough?

      Best,

      — x

  2. I knew this was how you’d respond. So, I won’t go any further with this, because I know where this will go.

    I’m going to be candid here.

    I thought about pointing out all the things untrue about your statement. I would even remind you of YOUR own actions. But I realized something. I won’t win this argument for two reasons.

    1. It’s not because you were right all along. It’s because you don’t intend to bother with actual truths and reality and have no interest in an honest debate or conversation.

    2. And it’s not about winning, especially when certain facts are irrefutable. And your obsession with winning arguments is tiresome.

    Of course, you want proof of the first.. But I WON’T work overtime to give them to you for one simple reason. You won’t accept it. You demand evidence. They’re presented. And you STILL refute them. So, there’s no point in arguing with someone with so much intellectual dishonesty and very little sense of online tact based on your responses and articles.

    And yet, you will deflect and project that claim onto me.

    I STILL gave you the benefit of the doubt. I thought you were simply afraid of opposing opinions and are willfully ignorant. But I may have been mistaken.

    I’m starting to think you’re just an internet troll. I think you do this just to provoke responses from other bloggers. You go to anti-racism blogs and purposely say the wrong things to invoke anger towards you, and then complain how you’re the victim. And yes, you will even use sock puppets as another blogger informed me of his dealings with you.

    Before I leave, let me leave you a couple of thoughts. You spoke highly of your children. What do you think they’ll say when they see their father behaving like this online, causing anger and stress to others for sheer amusement, that’s assuming you really have children.

    And while you continue to bash Obama and liberals and support Trump, Republicans and the right, you still continue to avoid the most crucial reality that those elite racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic white men who’re governing this nation are playing you like a fiddle. They’re using your own hatred against you, and sooner or later, you will realize it. But I won’t be the one to get you to see that.

    So, continue to prove me right about you. I no longer care. Continue to respond in the usual way. I’m done. Like I said, I’m dropping out of this futile war. I won’t fight anymore, but that’s because I already won and you don’t even know it or WANT to know it.

    Take care.

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s