And so it goes, into even stranger waters with Dr. Beaman:
Roderick T. Beaman said: “I’m holding your beliefs up to the same serious scrutiny.”
Uhh, no. You very clearly challenged me to a fight in a parking lot like some little kid and are now backpedaling. There was no scrutinizing in that childish taunt of yours. Apparently, I surprised you with my response.
Roderick T. Beaman said: “I did not threaten you nor do I threaten you. I did use your own words.”
Uh no, you used the title of a website, that is a metaphor commonly used in commentary and journalistic writing. I didn’t say you threatened me. I said I don’t do stupid schoolyard fights (which you very clearly advocated by challenging me to prove how “tough” I was in the parking lot near your office). I then pointed out to you why and what would happen if you did progress to use of force. That was plain and simple. Even a hyper-emotional nutball like you should have been able to grok it.
Roderick T. Beaman said: “What’s the matter, Mr. Landrith? You can give it but you can’t take it?”
Give what? Take what? Mindless rambling here.
Roderick T. Beaman said: “I grew up on the rough streets of Manhattan and there was a pecking order.”
Good for you. You are a self-appointed tough guy. And this has what do with me? Oh wait – nope. I got nothing. Just more tough talk…
Roderick T. Beaman said: “Guys like you were called soreheads. They were near the very bottom. Even the punks, the future wiseguys, had little use for soreheads.”
Yeah, okay. You sound more and more like a taunting child on the schoolyard as this goes on.
Roderick T. Beaman said: “What you fail to see, is that your very ‘take off the gloves’ has violence implicit in it.”
That depends entirely on its use. In today’s world (where I live) it is also a well-used commentary metaphor for dealing with a problem aggressively. So wow, I used a commentary metaphor on a website that is largely about – (act surprised) – COMMENTARY! My use of a metaphor on a commentary website and your use of the phrase for an actual IN PERSON altercation are entirely different animals. And even you should be able to understand that.
On the other hand, I quoted your very direct comment that those who don’t believe in a Creator should leave the country. You used the title of a website, and not a direct quote.
Roderick T. Beaman said: “In fact, I wish you and yours nothing but health, wealth and happiness.”
As I do you. But why would a doctor call someone out for a fight in the parking lot near the place where he heals for a profession? Something about that is mighty disturbing.
Roderick T. Beaman said: “kept on hounding me about some postings I made a while back yet rail when I use your own words.”
Uhh, no my logic challenged friend, I said I wouldn’t fight you and explained why in plain language. The rest of that is your own personal fantasy.
Roderick T. Beaman said: “I never said I wanted to inflict physical violence on you.”
So, you called me out, commented on someone acting tough and challenged me to come down to Florida for an IN PERSON altercation (not a commentary metaphor – you actually provided an address) and you’ve rambled on in your current posting like some kid on the playground looking for a rumble. But there’s no violence in that. Newspeak can be fun.
Let’s see, you said, “Just drive on down and meet me on the parking area, where we can take the gloves off, you dirty arrogant bastard.”
Fight talk – as it was intentionally implying a physical altercation, and not the current use of the phrase as a commentary metaphor (or as part of a website title). Then, you make it plain that you know “taking the gloves off” has a violent implication (but only when used as an in person, meatspace confrontation), while simultaneously taunting me like a child on a schoolyard about punks and soreheads. So, you pick a fight, then deny it. Then, using the same language you used to pick the fight, babble on about it being my own imagination. Doc, you need a shrink.
Roderick T. Beaman said: “As would I. But once again, any threat I made was no more than what are within your own words.”
Again, I did not say you threatened me. I warned you about what I would do if you initiated force. Remember, YOU challenged me to an in-person confrontation in the parking lot by your practice. You specifically made reference to “tough” and now you act like I was the one obsessed with violence. Your parking lot challenge IS a call to violence, whether you have the integrity to acknowledge it or not.
Roderick T. Beaman said: “I have had my own exchanges with members of National Vanguard with their implicit threats. But none truly did threaten me. If they threatened you, Mr. Landrith, maybe you ought to examine your own rhetoric.”
Wrong. As a very visible leader in the so-called “multiracial movement” and one-half of an “interracial” relationship I am often on the receiving end of hate mail and other nonsense from such individuals. I too have had many exchanges with such types who DIDN’T threaten violence – the suit and tie types who never use epithets or even hint at anything physical. I never said, nor implied, that all exchanges with such individuals resulted in threats.
Roderick T. Beaman said: “Any violence implicit was no more than what you have presented.”
I presented no violence. YOU called me out for a fight in the parking lot. Do you just make it up as you go along?
Roderick T. Beaman said: “I am a peaceful man and, if you subjected my posting to the even same scrutiny that you subjected some others of mine, you would see I was not inciting any violence, whatsoever.”
I am a peaceful man as well – as my record of anti-war activism and my unwillingness to drive to Florida for your little parking lot fight club demonstrates quite clearly. Your meaning was plain as day, and now you are backing off. I guess I responded in a manner that took you by surprise.
Roderick T. Beaman said: “Mr. Landrith, your problem is that can read into things what you want and when you want and not read into them what you don’t want and when you don’t want to do it.”
No, you plain as day called me out for a fight with you. Now you are playing games like child on the schoolyard.
Remember, you said: “You marines like to talk about how tough you are. My office is at 7334 Lem Turner Road in Jacksonville, Florida. It’s right off I-95, one light from the exit. There’s a parking area in front. Just drive on down and meet me on the parking area, where we can take the gloves off, you dirty arrogant bastard.”
That was no commentary metaphor. It was a direct call for an IN PERSON confrontation (complete with address), ripe with a challenge for to prove how “tough” I am. Again, I do believe my response surprised you and now you are backpedaling.
Roderick T. Beaman said: “Did you go to school with Ted Kennedy?”
More of your childish schoolyard behaviour…
Roderick T. Beaman said: “In the Bible, there are numerous examples of God’s anger, and even the destruction of cities.”
I know. I may be agnostic, but have studied the Book in my youth as a Mennonite. So are you saying that by calling me out to the parking lot for a fight (as you very clearly did), you are walking in the footsteps of your Creator?
Roderick T. Beaman said: “You have little respect for me and you evidently don’t like me. It should end there.”
I have little respect for anyone who tells others to leave the country if they disagree on certain points.