Lifelong Berlinite has charged me with making four libelous statements. Let us examine the statements.
Charge number 1: Lifelong Berlinite said that I lied when I said that Lifelong Berlinite resorted to the lowest level of mudslinging by "expounding" upon a candidate's family tragedy. Lifelong Berlinite's argument rests on Lifelong Berlinite saying that Lifelong Berlinite never "initiated" that discussion. But my statement was that Lifelong Berlinite expounded upon the tragedy. To expound means to give a detailed statement, which Lifelong Berlinite did.
So is Lifelong Berlinite adopting the tactics of a clever sophist by charging that I stated that Lifelong Berlinite initiated the discussion when, in fact, I said that Lifelong Berlinite expounded upon the discussion? And Lifelong Berlinite claims to be an advocate for truth? Lifelong Berlinite, you are no Socrates.
Charges number 2, 3, 4: They all appear to be related. Lifelong Berlinite claims that I insisted that LIfelong Berlinite is connected to the Berlin Democratic Town Committee or Democratic Candidates; that Lifelong Berlinite is a Democratic Spokesperson; that Democrats are throwing mud.
Lifelong Berlinite has admitted to being a registered Democrat. During this election cycle Lifelong Berlinite has attacked the Republican candidates and its Town Committee on the Berlin Patch more than any other Democrat in Town while urging fellow citizens to vote Democratic in the upcoming election, so does that not characterize Lifelong Berlinite as a person speaking for Democratic candidates on the Berlin Patch (i.e., as a Democratic spokesperson, whether self-anointed or officially appointed)?
I never said that Lifelong Berlinite was a member of the Berlin Democratic Town Committee or connected to any individual Democratic candidate. Is this just more sophistry to distort truth?
Wikipedia defines mudslinging as "trying to win an advantage by referring to negative aspects of an opponent or of a policy rather than emphasizing one's own positive attributes or preferred policies. In the broadest sense, the term covers any rhetoric in which one refers to one's opponent in an ad hominem manner." Has not Lifelong Berlinite been referring to negative aspects of a Republican candidate? Is not Lifelong Berlinite a registered Democrat? Is not this Democrat throwing mud then? It appears that Lifelong Berlinite just doesn't appreciate being characterized as a registered Democratic mud thrower.
True, Democratic candidates cannot control members registered in their party, but they certainly can step forward and publicly denounce the personal attacks on Republican candidates, and request that the focus of the political discussion center on one's own positive attributes or preferred policies for the Town of Berlin. I wrote my blogs in response to Lifelong Berlinite's endless mudslinging in an attempt to elevate our discussion on the Berlin Patch to policies from personal attacks.
But this libel charge is ridiculous in and of itself. Since when can a nom de plume, an individual without an identity, claim libel? Too funny.
If anything, Lifelong Berlinite may be making libelous statements by resorting to name calling and personal attacks. Is that not a more plausible reason why Lifelong Berlinite has adopted a nom de plume than the one provided by Lifelong Berlinite?
And for the record, I respect candidates who run for office and are constructive, whether they be Democrat or Republican. Those are the leaders that we need today. We do not need mudslingers. I urge all candidates to step forward and denounce mudslinging and run for office on their policies.
