Adam, you don't expect to call someone out and not see your own post picked apart, do you? Of course not, that would be stupid, and as one of Gevlon's acolytes you cannot possibly be stupid.
"I was a bit upset when Righteous Orbs shut up shop a while back. I mean, who would I be able to make fun of now?"
I'm always available.
"But then I remembered Tobold was still around, so I felt better."
Can't argue with this: those Europeans are just so ridiculous.
"that elicited his legion of delirious followers to dance around clapping their hands with joy and begging him to come back and start writing wall of texts again, which is funny as he is already doing that"
Hey that's cool, there's nothing wrong with blanket attacks on people for enjoying certain bloggers. Ten points if you can spot my hypocrisy here. Also, the sentiment would be better expressed as "continue to write walls of texts", since yes, obviously he just wrote one.
"His post consists of thousands of words of random thoughts and ideas that seem to follow the theme that bullying is bad but bigger bloggers are no different to smaller bloggers because they have no control over the actions of their dedicated frothing at the mouth readership, which then finishes with a nice summing up announcing that if you can’t take the heat then don’t step into the ring."
Randomly following a theme?
"He also slipped a bit in there calling out people who need to learn to write, not necessarily learn to read, which is supremely disingenuous when you consider his and Chastity’s own epic failure of learning to read on this very blog a little while ago."
Or perhaps in following his argument, you failed epically at learning to write. We've got something of an argument clinic scenario going on here, which should be, but is not, anything more than simple contradiction.
"I’ve always found it very strange, this soul searching hand wringing with regards to bullying when taken with some of the measures that Tam and Chastity take to get their own point across. Can you have a lofty moral ground and still think that the ends justify the means? They seem to think so. Particularly as the two of them always had a smug little conceit to hide behind, in that they are supposedly two separate writers who sometimes have wildly different viewpoints and approaches that happen to write on the same blog. Which means that they can play good cop/bad cop and then innocently claim that the others viewpoint is not their own when called out on it."
Yes you can, in fact it's often an excessive sense of moral high ground, or any other sort of superiority, which drives "ends justify the means" behavior.
Supposedly? Oh come on, now you're just making up paranoid shit. Is it so hard to believe that two bloggers might share a space, even if they disagree? To follow this conspiracy all the way, it would mean that TamaChas ran two blogs for a while, then staged a merger as cover for his duel* personalities.
"who really is going to go back and check if this is true or not?"
I suppose if people are too lazy to be informed that is his fault.
But for the record: Publicity, Responsibility and Petitio Principii – Chas’ Take on Frostgate
But it's an easy mistake to make, after all, my response post included the phrase "Tamarind, this was stupid and you know it."
"'It was a frivolous aside – I just thought it was a funny comment.'
Now that’s what I call standing behind what you write."
I agree, people should defend jokes to their deaths.
Let's go out on a low note.
The part that is weird is the subject pronoun he uses for Chastity. Because I was under the distinct impression that Tam had publicly stated that Chastity was a girl. There are only three possible explanations that can work here:
1. Tam is deliberately mixing up the pronouns so we are never sure what we are dealing with. It’s a tactic designed to keep people off balance and afraid of making a mistake.
2. Chastity is in fact a boy and I am mistaken.
3. Tam forgot that Chastity is supposed to be a girl because Chastity is in fact an imaginary person that Tam has made up so he can revert to being a frothing at the mouth maniac in public whenever it suits him.
I wonder which one it is.
It's number 2. But on the plus side, this does add some evidence to your "learn to read" side of the argument. So you win! By losing. Might I suggest shorting yourself?
*not a typo