Sunday, September 23, 2007

Deconstructing Wulfgar

I have been amused by Wulfgar's sense of self importance, in that he has taken a break from playing Doom and taken me to task for my postings. While I really don't care what Wulfgar thinks of me, he did ask that I clarify for him what I consider to be his errors in his tendentious reviews of my postings. And in that regard, I will undertake to show him where he has gone so horribly wrong. He can take it or leave it, but I am sure that he will react in an utterly predictable way. So, this review is probably pointless, but since it is raining out, I can't go play golf and might as well give him a shot.

First, in order to understand someone, you need to gather all of the information you can about them. Wulfgar is a minor character in Beowulf, but he is a major character apparently in some video game, where synthetic violence substitutes for reality. According to Wikipedia the character Wulfgar is
roughly seven feet tall, blond-haired and blue-eyed (common for the barbarian tribes he hails from), and developed his awesomely muscled physique when he was in servitude to the dwarf Bruenor Battlehammer for five years--working alongside dwarves, who are renowned for being tireless. Wulfgar is broad-shouldered and thick-chested with a wiry waist, and his arms have been described as thicker than a fat dwarf's thighs.

I can't find the photo that the Missoula Independent ran of him online, but as I remember it, the real Rob Kailey bears nothing resembling the physical attributes of his alter ego. The article also included this "Though an amiable fellow in person, as Wulfgar! Kailey’s anger gets the best of him online and it comes through in his rants, which are usually directed at conservative bloggers and commentators." Apparently, Wulfgar is Rob's personna allowed to run wild. Too bad, because I am sure that the real Rob Kailey is an interesting person, and I wouldn't mind meeting him.

Examining his front page, we find a snarling wolf with glowing eyes, Ooh, scary. Just under his title is some link that includes the overuse of exclamation points. Psychologists say that all of our choices reveal a part of ourselves. Rob's use (or overuse) of the exclamation point is probably his way of dealing with his own awareness of his inability to be in! your! face! in real life.

It would be easy at this point to fall into the same trap that Wulfgar lives in, and simply use insulting and taunting language in place of any logic or facts. I do not want to do this, and I hope that Rob realizes this is not personal, since Wulfgar is an imaginary creature.

So, let's take Wulfgar's most recent tirade and examine it, shall we?

First, what was it that I said about Congressman Murtha? My point, when viewed in context of the video, is that Congressman Murtha accused the Marines of murder without knowing all of the facts. Then when the facts became clear, he has refused to apologize for the slander, or even to say that he might have been wrong. Admittedly, the subtext is that Murtha is remaining adamant, because it conforms with his political agenda. But still, the reckless accusation of such charges are dangerous for the accused. In the military, commanding generals are the ones who order the convening of a court martial. They are prohibited from entering any opinion of the accused's guilt or innocence in order to prevent "undue command influence" from tainting a fair trial. The purpose being that you don't want the court martial panel to be swayed one way or the other because of perceptions of what their commander wants to have happen. As a senior member of government, and a former Marine, Murtha has to recognize that fact. Because he refuses to retreat on his accusations, says more about Murtha than who he accuses.

So, how does Wulfgar address this point? Mostly by making some nonsensical accusation totally alien from the original post. Here is his opening paragraph:
The foot-stamping defenders of appropriate speech are at it again, demanding that the leftlibdemocomfascists do what the children want, when they want it done. It's always fun to point out that what they are demanding is the same as always, that the lldcfs (read 'Democrats') aren't sacrificing one of our own to appease the god of rightful thinking (which would be the whiny little children's view of themselves.) Here's a tip, kids: if you want Murtha sacrificed to sate your outrage and hate ... do it yourselves, if you have the balls.

Notice the use of scurrilous names. Why is this necessary, and why does he do it so often? One can only assume that Rob is attempting to demean his opponents as a substitute for logic or reason. And it does have a certain level of effect, especially at the junior high playground level. But within the body of the paragraph, is the idea that I have called on anyone to sacrifice Murtha. Apparently, this is a figment of Wulfgar's fervid imagination. My entire post was directed at Murtha. Sure, I did ask why Democrats are given a free pass. But then Wulfgar reinforces my point. As below, there is a significant difference between a political operative who relies on his past military service for attaining a certain level of credibility, and that of a serving military officer who is doing the job that Congress gave him.

In the next paragraph (omitting the usual trite attempts at insult) Wulfgar says:
He missed completely the story that CREW (you know, that left wing organization that so viciously slandered Conrad Burns) has placed Murtha on their Most Corrupt Congress-person's list. I guess CREW didn't get the memo from, did they Steve?

Now where did I mention CREW in the original post? Is the real Rob starting to come through in recognizing that Murtha is corrupt, even though I didn't mention that at all? But this is typical of a Wulfgar argument. I am sure that there can be no room to move about in Rob's apartment, what with all of the straw that he has amassed for his strawmen arguments.

In his final paragraph:
Of course Steve didn't notice it. That would have meant he would be honor bound to acknowledge the 18 Republican congressmen on that list of 22. Or perhaps, Steve would have had to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of people who grant mythological power to military service are Republicants, such as himself. Murtha isn't immune to attack from the left because of his military service. He's only immune to cheap shots from lying chicken-hawks because of his military service. And Steve, that's a problem for your side ... not mine. Whine all you want for the cookie. The only kids who will whine with you are those who want one to. It shouldn't be at all surprising that we adults just don't want to give you one anymore.

This is amusing on so many levels. Where do I defend anyone in the original post? No, again, in his own mendacious way, Wulfgar creates arguments that don't exist. And this is not the only example. If you read any of his posts, he almost invariably will fall into the same pattern. But the best line, is the one where he refers to himself as an adult. The adults that I know don't write, think or speak like Wulfgar. Maybe he should get some new adults to hang around with.

In short, Wulfgar is an imaginary creation of Rob's in order to vent his spleen. As Wulfgar has said himself in the past, "Sometimes I just write to piss people off." I suspect that is true of all of his writing. Why on earth anyone needs a cartoon caricature from a video game to piss people off is a mystery to me.

Rob, put the silly costume away and come out as yourself. I am sure that you are far more interesting than Wulfgar.


Unknown said...

Come, now, Steve. I would expect a lawyer to have above average research skills. Imagine my disappointment.

You could have pointed out that I could be calling myself Wulfgar in deference to the breeders of championship Giant Schnauzers. Or maybe I'm just a huge fan of the Swedish Death Metal band, Wulfgar. Perhaps my handle is an homage to the net-ID of the very first Beowulf cluster (if you don't know, look it up, rather than make it up, 'kay?) Or maybe, I call myself Wulfgar after the terrorist in that late '70's Stallone movie. See, you missed a perfectly good opportunity to show how liberals really *are* in league with terrorists. That's what sloppy research gets you. Or, you could have spent a tiny amount of time, and found right on my own website where Randy Heinz asked me where the name came from, and I answered that it probably did indeed come from that minor character in the Anglo-Saxon saga, Beowulf.

What's amusing, however, is that you would fixate on a fantasy character, assume it's from a video game, and leap pell mell into the assumption that it's a game I've played. Uh, no, and no. The character you describe is from a series of novels, based on the RPG D&D. I've never read those books. I quit reading fantasy when it became formulaic and boring ... about 1978. But you know how I know so very much more about it than you? Google. Isn't that humorous?

But, since you've written your own little fantasy, it would be a shame to let it go to waste, wouldn't it?

You might want to get some basic instruction about how the Internet works. You see, that link you finally noticed (when it was actually pointed out to you) with the exclamation points ... it actually goes somewhere. Some of us like to call that 'context', but that might inhibit your talent for making things up, so we'll note it and move on.

You postulate from a link you ignore, that I have an inability to "be in! your! face!" in real life. Interesting assumption, kitten, but completely unfounded. See, you've already based your thesis on a flawed fantasy, and compound the error by assuming that the venue of the fantasy isn't real. I'm in your face right now, Steve, obviously with some impact. The rest, well that's just geography.

Which brings us to the next step in your deepening delusion; you assume that this isn't personal. I've tried to tell many, you very directly, that this is, indeed personal. When you proceed thinking your fantasy thoughts that demeaning and denigrating "anti-war types", or defeatocrats or what ever oh so polite pap you've latched onto, you gayly go about it under the striking confusion that it isn't personal. Wake up, Steve. Yes, it is. Every bit as much as when I call you an idiot. The general difference between our taunts is that I have better evidence of my claims, usually provided by you.

That's not a mystery. When you're constructing a fantasy, logic and facts have little control on where the fantasy will go, and so you posit that they do not co-exist with insult in my "tirades". I don't know whether this is a general belief of yours that they can't co-exist, or whether your fantasy simply blinds you to the existence of logic and facts in concert with insult. It's a small matter, really. It's your fantasy, not mine.

In the tendentious post in question, you assert that Murtha falsely accused some Marines of murder. All well and good, except apparently the United States Marine Corps is also "besmirching" some of them with the same accusation, accompanied by a court martial. You write blithely of facts that aren't. Clif would have cleared all of that up for you, had you bothered to follow the links I posted, but we've already discovered time and again that you have some difficulties in that regard.

The truth is, had you posted your reservations about Murtha's behavior in that post as you did here, I wouldn't have written one word about it. But no, you had to feed the fantasy, and that's where you and I have an issue. You claim I missed responding to your main point (you know, the one you didn't bother to make?) and pretend that my response was off the mark because of it. No, no, no kitten. Let's allow a few facts to get in the way for once. It was patently obvious to every other person who commented publicly and privately on my post that I was taking issue with your fantasy-based question, and the implications of it.

You asked, and I quote:

Why is it that if you served in the military and are a Democrat, you are immune from criticism (Murtha, Kerry to name but two)?

Beg the Question much? of course you do. According to your fantasy I wasn't using logic in attempting to point that out. It is also a loaded question, Plurium Interrogationum, assuming many things as truths, none having been established, and loading them all into one handy slice of crap. One of those questions is exactly what I took to task: why don't the Democrats join our outrage at Murtha? Perhaps you don't see that question inherent in what you wrote, though everyone else did. What's certain is that you don't find it insulting.

I however do. It's an affront to reason, based as it is on faulty facts, just as I point out in my response to you. You (rather directly) muse as to why Murtha is above reproach (from Democrats) because of his military service? I show, rather clearly that he isn't, with an obvious counter example. There's that logic you say is lacking in my writing. The only response possible, Steve, is that just because you're missing it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Perhaps you miss it because you're too distracted by the fantasy about me that you've made. Perhaps you really are too obtuse to see clear logic. General Claim A. Obvious example of ~A. Therefore, A is false. That should be so clear, but no, I used scurrilous names, and that changes everything, just like 9/11 ... or something. Regardless, I don't care. What you exhibit is child thought: things are as I want them to be, not as they are. Though you fantasize otherwise, I prefer to hang with adults, those who think like adults, and see logic as something other than something to be ignored when convenient. Since you don't seem to know any of those, you know, people who think, I guess the lack of adult supervision is much more your difficulty than mine.

"Oh, but Mommy, he called me a poopyhead". Yes, Steve, I happily and willfully insult and denigrate what I see as willful stupidity. I've explained that several times. You can pretend, until the very cows come home, that I do this all the time, and to everybody. No, Steve, I do it to you, yes you, in a very direct and personal fashion. We could, for the hundredth time, go over exactly why I think that the willfully stupid are damaging me and my country, but it's pointless as long as you wish to feed your child's fantasy about who I am. I'll simply leave you with an admonishment you seem incapable of considering: Don't write stupid sh*t, and I won't make fun of the stupid sh*t you write.

Steve said...

Wulfgar. or should I say Rob, this is the most intelligent piece that I have read from you in quite some time.

I won't bother to go point by point in each of your misdirections, but could you please do a search on my site and find where I have ever said "anti-war types, or defeatocrats."
I'm not sure that you aren't reading into me what you think I am, rather than what I actually say.
I recognize that the majority of people have been swayed to oppose the war, but that doesn't mean that they are right. Remember, the majority was in favor of going to war. Opinion is fickle, and while you and I may disagree about the significance of facts, that doesn't mean that I take what you say personally, nor should you take what I say personally.
As to Murtha, you are fooling yourself if you think that he is correct, no matter what Cliff says
CNN reported or as that right wing outlet Reuters shows, there is a difference of opinion about the facts.
Now you can argue that this was a cover up, but there is the presumption of innocence, and I would hope that you respect that.
I will be the first to admit that I make mistakes, sometimes in haste, sometimes in error. If you are right, I will admit it.
But if you are simply writing to piss me off, why should I bother?
Honey vs. vinegar I guess.
In any event, I will be in Livingston in the middle of October. I would love to meet up with you and have a beer.
We can discuss Schnauzers, or Swedish bands, or whatever you like.
Drop me an email.