Oh, Clever Kathy, so obtuse as usual.
Of course Steyn and his work is on trial in the general sense. I was clearly referring to the specific fact that he is actually no tthe “accused” here, he is not the named respondent and the HRC has no ability to punish him directly (other than their silly name calling a la Barbara Hall), despite all your and his self-flagellation and desire to be a martyr.
But I’m very curious about something. Your brain, actually, and how it processes information. How does your brain “work”? How does it read what I write and convert it into the exact opposite?
How do you read me calling these complainants “idiots” bringing “trumped up claims” with “little chance of succeeding” before these HRCs “which are a joke” and that we should be “outraged if the tribunals find against” Maclean’s as being “sticking up for “sticking up for the ‘underdog’ and the “Other’ like a good little white liberal”???
Maybe you thought I was sticking up for them when I said that Maclean’s position was a “laudable assertion and defence of rights”???
Or maybe you thought I was sticking up for these sock puppet whiners when I wrote “the Human “Rights” Commissions are wrong to entertain these charges and the “complainants” are very wrong to have brought the complaints. In fact, I’ve seen them interviewed and they are idiots.”???
Or maybe it was when I wrote “Look, folks, just because people like Shaidle and Steyn and Levant are self-serving, blowhard, hypocrites and bigots, does not mean we shouldn’t support their right to be self-serving, blowhard, hypocrites and bigots and to publish their self-serving, blowhard, hypocrisy and bigotry”???
Help me out here, Clever Kathy. How does your brain process information in that way?
I mean, without an alternative explanation, I’m kinda left with thinking that maybe you just aren’t so good at reading. Strange that, for someone who whines that she is a professional writer.
