Slander In Congress
Day 1,470, 10:02
•
Published in Netherlands 
•
by
•
by Pierre Delvaux
I cannot forsake my principles
Those who advocate progressive policy in the eNL have learned to expect an intense level of criticism. He who advances the cause of the private citizen in the face of restrictive collectivist Statist power and money grabs knows he will be subject to brickbats and desultory philippics by the barrel load.
This practice has plumbed a new low with the actions today of Antiko, that firebrand of McCarthyite reaction. With his carefully careless words, he has spilled yet more ink on the thoroughly blotted copy book of Congress, and offered the everyday citizen a peek behind the curtains of power. His remarks should must not stand unremarked, much as many would like them to.
He has engaged in childish, demonstrably factually incorrect, philosophically and morally repugnant slander, without facing sanction, official condemnation, or simple personal embarrassment. If anything, he has been applauded by his fellows for attacking me without conscience.
I know I will not be permitted to respond in kind without receiving a written warning, and possibly a forum posting ban. I can however, make my voice heard in this newspaper.
I am 'guilty' of none of the actions or 'motives' he suspects me of. Though he appears to believe he can peer into men's souls, in reality his insight into the lives of others is thimble deep, and not worth the reading.
The informed citizen will treat his diatribes with the disdain they deserve.
Sincerely,
Ambassador Pierre Delvaux
EDIT: A quote of part of the insult for the benefit of Mael Dunbar.
lol, i am sorry but the only reason why some people can get a majority is because of 2 things:
- sheepvoters who vote what the bosses will tell them
- corrupt bosses and parties who want funding for their own (party) benefit.
As said before, 2 people have fought the hardest for this: pierre and daniel
now lets look at personal interrest of those 2 people and then we see that pierre wants it for the CLNMU and daniel wants it for the DEMNLMU.
they both deny it, but we all know it (they are just to much chicken to say it out loud), that these MU where created to get more people into their party.
Aside from the fact that these are fairly unkind accusations, I then pointed out that I'm not a member of CLN or CLNMU, which drew this response:
Ok whatever, u used to be CLN and i know that ur still agree with this communistic shit. besides that u will always take stand against what u would conclude after reasoning. besides that i cant check weather u where part of CLNMU or not, because currently ur part of none (u could have left pretty fast). Anyway its not the point, its about ur motives, i believed ur where in CLNMU due the fact that u always was a communist lover. but even though if u leave that out of the debate, then u will see that if u reason and think logic that then my conclusion is the only right conclusion.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
LOL,
I dont feel like reading all ur text, i only saw my name in it, so i guess it is some sort of flame campaign.
I wont put to much energy into replying here, since i put my energy into thinking about proposals (something ur clearly dont do, i guess that should be the conclusion of this article).
But i request u to also start using ur brains and think logic, i think u will come to some astonishing conclusions then.
Please don't embarass yourself Antiko, this text has only 4 paragraphs.
let's just say Antiko can't face the fact he is a closet-communist with his stateism ideals ;p
Antiko the joke is on you...
lol
ok lets read the text then.
not what i expected, i expected worse, my critisism was way harser.
although that doesnt mean that ur arguments in the debate didnt lack vision and knowledge of game mechanisms.
I hear way to much populism in ur arguments, while knowledge of game mechanisms work.
Its sad to see that after logic reasoning u still decided to keep opposing and believing ur arguments make sense.
sure i was upset to have to repeat the same obvious arguments and logic reasoning, however this was offcourse not an excuse to be nasty to u, however i sometimes get to much involved if other people dont see the obvious.
So you're writing a slander newspaper to accuse slander in congress?
This must be Delvauxism.
Will you please read what I write, Mael?
I wrote the article because I wouldn't be allowed to respond in kind in Congress.
There's also nothing slanderous in my article; back to law school for you!
You claim things that you don't prove. You give your interpretation of things you claim have been said, without links, quotes or examples. In my book, that's slander.
Delvauxism: a pedantic display of dictionary-language, (mis-)interpretations of things rumoured to have been said, frivolously embroidered with exaggerated referrals, quotes by other people and '-ism' added to every other name in the hope of adding a certain weight to the post.
I've added some of Antiko's quotes for your amusement Mael: I'm sure you'll find his words even handed and well thought out, as always.
Where do I get off complaining about being called a corrupt, communist liar! I should just take my beatings with good humour, I guess.
You still haven't pointed out factual errors in my article, acknowledged that I explained my opposition to the budget law in Bell;'s Progress, or substantiated your claims that a reduction in bureaucracy is central to my political philosophy, but I guess your standards are only to applied unfairly to others, but not at all to yourself, right?
I never claimed there were factual errors. I only claimed that your interpretations of antiko's reactions were slander without the quotes and/or links to prove it. Thanks for proving my point with your lates reaction (:
Now who's being pedantic, eh? I'd say accusing someone of "writing a slander newspaper" implies a certain concern about the veracity of the piece.
Still nothing to say about Antiko's conduct, or, indeed any of my other points, as expected.
The article contains (at best) one of the 5 tenets of 'Delvauxism', by the way. If you're going to try and coin a phrase, at least attempt to make it accurate.
I wasn't criticizing that, Pierre. Why would you expect me to? You're entitled to your opinion, even your interpretation. As I stated before, the lack of quotes was what made your paper slander. I hope you interpret it as I meant it this time, I'm getting tired of having to say the same thing over and over again. If reading things as they are aren't against your principles 😁
On your Delvauxisms: right or not, it is more explication than you give with yours. You always leave them open to interpretation. Dunbarism, Antikoism... You throw those words arount without even giving them a proper explication. Wich is, I guess, another Delvauxism :´D
Yet again you accuse me of subterfuge, and yet again you are wrong; I defined Dunbarism on October 9th:
http://www.enetherlands.nl/viewtopic.php?f=134&t=8700&p=105313&hilit=dunbarism#p105313
"making ostentatious, self-righteous assertions of one's probity whilst simultaneously acting with the utmost cynicism".
Good Lord does it apply here! You were present during the debate in which Antiko made his slanderous remarks, so you're fully aware of what happened. You're not some innocent bystander who won't get the full horror if I don't include them in the article, but you go out of your way to pose as one. This is not your first rodeo Mael; you knew what was going on. Hell, it took Antiko a whole night to make it through 4 paragraphs; any longer and I may as well not bother writing the thing.
I was decrying an uncalled for act of slander, and despairing at the double standard of Congressional moderation. If the most you can take from that is:
"a pedantic display of dictionary-language, (mis-)interpretations of things rumoured to have been said, frivolously embroidered with exaggerated referrals, quotes by other people and '-ism' added to every other name in the hope of adding a certain weight to the post."
then you're a true Dunbarist.
well written artikel, like always.
But i have to admit, i also think Antiko is very close to the sovjet-communismn state-model.
You must like that Shakerr, you used to.
Shakerr's a good social democrat!
It shall be noted for history that Dunbar failed to respond after blatant factual errors in his argument were pointed out for all to see.