19 thoughts on “Pax Dickinson Trolls Reporter Amanda Robb”

  1. May John Donne forgive me.

    Therefore, send not to know
    For whom  D, Pax trolls,
    He trolls for thee.

     

    Hans, I don’t know Pax Dickinson but I gather he doesn’t think the unfairness should only be on one side. He knew he was going to be the target of a hit job and so didn’t play along.

    5+
    avataravataravataravataravatar
  2. Well, it’s not cool to strand a nubile young woman out in the middle nowhere.

    On the other hand, he did display the chivalry to gird her in the Armor of Trump.  No harm will come to her.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  3. Haakon Dahl:
    Well, it’s not cool to strand a nubile young woman out in the middle nowhere.

    On the other hand, he did display the chivalry to gird her in the Armor of Trump.  No harm will come to her.

    I agree but it is also not cool to have a magazine hit piece. Who was deceiving whom, Haakon?

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  4. Holy cow.  I did a little poking around at that site, and I will NOT visit again.  Frankly, I wouldn’t host this post on my website with the link intact.  Or the guy’s (PD’s) name.  Or the user.

    Do your own research.

    1+
    avatar
  5. There’s an old saying- or perhaps an old joke- that I think is relevant here: Liberals think conservatives are evil, but conservatives think liberals are stupid.

    The new development is that conservatives have now learned that liberals- or to be modern, leftists- are not only stupid but evil as well.

    If you think leftists are evil- well, you aren’t going to feel too bad about jacking them around, as this Pax person hilariously did to this vile professional liar- excuse me, “journalist.”

    After all, turnabout is fair play- and as Kurt Schlichter has pointed out these folks are going to hate the new rules they have created.

    I bet this Amanda Robb creature already does. Hey, at least no one attempted to bash her head in with a bicycle lock.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  6. Haakon Dahl:
    Holy cow.  I did a little poking around at that site, and I will NOT visit again.  Frankly, I wouldn’t host this post on my website with the link intact.  Or the guy’s (PD’s) name.  Or the user.

    Do your own research.

    [10Ad: Till we straighten this out I will make this post private.]

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  7. Holy cow.  I did a little poking around at that site, and I will NOT visit again.  Frankly, I wouldn’t host this post on my website with the link intact.  Or the guy’s (PD’s) name.  Or the user.

    Do your own research.

    Please articulate your objections rather more thoroughly than exclaiming holy cow.

    I used to argue with leftists online, so I suspect my sensitivity to reading badthink has been completely obliterated. Thus, please tell me specifically what you find so awful that I must be protected from seeing a link to this guy I’ve never heard of before.

    I stumbled around his site for a few minutes, but I didn’t happen to see anything especially awful- or even mildly interesting, to be honest, except for the awesome description of how he made a professional liar dance on command.

     

    2+
    avataravatar
  8. I would not do this. Just don’t agree to the interview and move on.

    A key part of this story is that the wanna-be interviewer is quite uninterested in taking no for an answer.

    Hence, the bizarre willingness of this woman to drive all about the land intent upon securing an interview, despite having been told that the potential target despises interviewers like her.

    She should have accepted that answer, and moved on herself.

    5+
    avataravataravataravatar
  9. If there’s some question about the post being inappropriate, feel free to leave it private or delete it. I didn’t see anything obviously inappropriate, though, and would appreciate clarification about what was objectionable.

    I agree what Pax did was rude. Journalists no longer comport themselves according to the old standards of civility, however. Worse, journalists try to use others’ courtesy against them. The Scott Adams article is a great in-depth example of how journalists manufacture the narrative from dropping context and selective reporting of “facts” that support the story they or their editors want to be told. I see it as a case of turnabout is fair play. He’s deliberating wasting her time – time that would have been spent constructing a false narrative to do him harm.

    I find the “scam-bait” link I included similar in spirit. It’s easy to feel bad for the people depicted there who’ve been persuaded to humiliate themselves or waste copious amounts of time and effort, until you keep in mind that they set out to defraud the public. The scam baiters engage and distract con artists who would otherwise be defrauding the more gullible.

    5+
    avataravataravataravataravatar
  10. Nope.  I’m not going to call names — I’m already guilty of damning by insinuation.  I’m comfortable with that.  It gives me the damned creeps.  The rest is up to whomever it may concern.

    0

  11. Xennady:

    I would not do this. Just don’t agree to the interview and move on.

    A key part of this story is that the wanna-be interviewer is quite uninterested in taking no for an answer.

    Hence, the bizarre willingness of this woman to drive all about the land intent upon securing an interview, despite having been told that the potential target despises interviewers like her.

    She should have accepted that answer, and moved on herself.

    I’m of the same mindset. It’s one thing to pretend from the outset you’re going along in good faith just to mess with someone; that’s obnoxious and rude. However, when you’ve made your antipathy to the individual clear, repeatedly said no, and they continue to harass you, they reap the consequences of their actions.

    6+
    avataravataravataravataravataravatar
  12. Hans G. Schantz:
    If there’s some question about the post being inappropriate, feel free to leave it private or delete it. I didn’t see anything obviously inappropriate, though, and would appreciate clarification about what was objectionable.

    I agree what Pax did was rude. Journalists no longer comport themselves according to the old standards of civility, however. Worse, journalists try to use others’ courtesy against them. The Scott Adams article is a great in-depth example of how journalists manufacture the narrative from dropping context and selective reporting of “facts” that support the story they or their editors want to be told. I see it as a case of turnabout is fair play. He’s deliberating wasting her time – time that would have been spent constructing a false narrative to do him harm.

    I find the “scam-bait” link I included similar in spirit. It’s easy to feel bad for the people depicted there who’ve been persuaded to humiliate themselves or waste copious amounts of time and effort, until you keep in mind that they set out to defraud the public. The scam baiters engage and distract con artists who would otherwise be defrauding the more gullible.

    Sadly, this isn’t limited to Leftists. I spent the weekend engaged in an argument with a writer at PJMedia who insisted a court case supported his opinion by selectively highlighting parts of sentences from the ruling. When you read the sentences in their entirety, you find the case ruled the opposite way he claimed. Is this what they teach in journalism school now? It’s intellectually dishonest, and they have to do it knowingly.

    5+
    avataravataravataravataravatar
  13. Hans G. Schantz:
    If there’s some question about the post being inappropriate, feel free to leave it private or delete it. I didn’t see anything obviously inappropriate, though, and would appreciate clarification about what was objectionable.

    I agree what Pax did was rude. Journalists no longer comport themselves according to the old standards of civility, however. Worse, journalists try to use others’ courtesy against them. The Scott Adams article is a great in-depth example of how journalists manufacture the narrative from dropping context and selective reporting of “facts” that support the story they or their editors want to be told. I see it as a case of turnabout is fair play. He’s deliberating wasting her time – time that would have been spent constructing a false narrative to do him harm.

    I find the “scam-bait” link I included similar in spirit. It’s easy to feel bad for the people depicted there who’ve been persuaded to humiliate themselves or waste copious amounts of time and effort, until you keep in mind that they set out to defraud the public. The scam baiters engage and distract con artists who would otherwise be defrauding the more gullible.

     

    I am just getting up.

    I thought what the writer did was creative by trolling someone who wouldn’t take no for an answer.

    I took the post Private because I didn’t know who this Pax Dickinson was and the site that the article was on. I thought that balanced the need to read while deciding whether the post needed to be dealt with in other ways.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  14. Haakon Dahl:
    Nope.  I’m not going to call names — I’m already guilty of damning by insinuation.  I’m comfortable with that.  It gives me the damned creeps.  The rest is up to whomever it may concern.

    Haakon,

    I was hoping you would come out with something objective. “Holy cow” and “creeps” is subjective and a matter of taste.

    0

  15. Dime, I am sorry to have put you in this position.  I read through the “welcome” or “Newbies” area of the site, and I found it not to my liking.  However, this is not my site, and I have put you all in an awkward spot.  Thank you for trusting me enough to take action just based on my interpretation, but you are right — without specifics, you have no grounds to go about shushing people.

    I apologize to the OP for causing the site management to react in a not-so-welcoming fashion.  You may know that many people here go back a ways, and have been through some shared frustration, so we tend to trust each other a lot.  For all I know, you’re a great guy, and I have caused the welcome wagon to skip your house.  I hope you will agree that the site management did what they thought was right, on scant information from an unusually trustworthy, regularly correct, incredibly handsome and frankly well-endowed source.  Norwegian Meatballs and everything.

    I stand by what I said above, while I retract my public objection.  My objection to the linked site is my own opinion, and this is not my site.  It’s not my place to go about tanking a user or a site.

    2+
    avataravatar

Leave a Reply