Listen Up People

This could be very interesting.. a complete debacle.. or a total bore. I suppose that one cannot know for sure until they give it a go.

Doug has called me on my challenge.. and so we'll have at it.

From: douglas gibbs
To: Tom
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 5:16 PM
Subject: Invitation to Political Pistachio Radio


Tom,

You have made it apparent in the past that you wish to debate me, and that you feel I am somehow ducking the opportunity for us to participate in such an exchange. I declined originally because I do not trust your tactics, and I felt that giving you that kind of air-time would only feed the monster, so to speak. I am sure you have heard that old saying: "Don't feed the troll, or you will never be able to get rid of him." But, to be fair, after much deliberation, I have decided it may make for good radio, and with the phenomenal growth of my show, it is time to take steps to up the ante for my listeners, and give them something with a few more teeth. So, on Saturday, November 17th at 7pm Eastern Time/4pm Pacific Time, you are invited to join Political Pistachio Radio to debate current issues, and those factors in my life you consider hypocritical (such as my faith, health care, gay marriage, the war, or anything else you can muster). For matters regarding the United States Constitution I have also invited someone to be on the show that is an expert regarding the United States Constitution. He is an agnostic, neither Christian, nor atheist, and will be present to objectively correct any misrepresentation of the U.S. Constitution we may utter.

In return to your acceptance on my internet radio show, here is what I ask. First, this will not be a shouting match with charged emotions. I also request that though this will be a conversation we are both participating in, remember that this is my show, and I have the responsibility to my listeners to disallow profanity, or undue name calling, that does not belong in such a discussion. If anything that I deem inappropriate is said, such as what you would call "naughty words", I will give warnings, and end the discussion if the warnings are not heeded. This is out of respect and consideration to my listeners.

Thank you,

Douglas V. Gibbs
www.politicalpistachio.com

And my reponse to him;

Well.. interesting..

Lets make one thing clear. It's odd that you include in your 2nd paragraph, warnings about my behavior. The truth is, I always adjust my presentation to fit the audience I'm addressing. In fact, I've done that on your blog, and your bat-shit crazy fucking loons are the ones who abused me. I really don't care about that.. but it was a one way street where they could say what they wanted, but I had to be careful how I phrased my responses. If you want, I can go through your blog of all the threads I participated in and demonstrate that. In particular, Phil is a fucking cunt.. and that Paul Courtier asshole is just a 1 trick pony, with his "sorry Tommy, you loose" bullshit.

That's something you still haven't figured out Doug. You think you have the high road. You think your zombie loon-brigade has some sort of moral superiority above the "naughty" words I use on my blog. That's just a big pile of bullshit. Unlike those fuckers, I understand context, and I understand adjusting to the environment and adhering to "house rules", so to speak. Actions (not words) are what are important.

I suppose you even followed some of the threads I engaged in on Jennifer's blog. I knew where I was posting.. I knew the audience.. I knew what they expected.. and there were zero problems. You only banned me because you don't care for my making you look like a tool, because you have this bizarre habit of lying constantly.

And you, never once, said one fucking word about the behavior of those assholes. Because, with you, it's all about the propaganda, and "winning" and "losing". The issues don't matter in the slightest. If they did matter to you, I think I could make a persuasive case that might change your mind.. but as you've said.. there's no way that your mind can be changed.. You are very much like Julius Steicher in that sense. (I'll never let you live that one down).

So.. now, here you are inviting me onto your show.. because the sad reality is, in the very small niche that you're trying to carve out for yourself, the Jerry Springer style chair throwing is good ratings. I've never given a shit about hit counts or anything of the like. I write what I want without caring a whit if anybody likes it.

But.. as I find this intriguing, I think it could be fun. You've laid down your ground rules, and I'll give you mine;

I've never called into a political show before. The posting I do on my blog takes me a really long time to do, and numerous edits. In other words, for me to be articulate, I have to really work at it. I also have to do a ton of research. It's a much different environment to be on the phone, using verbal, as opposed to written skills. If it becomes like a Bill O'Reilly debacle.. I'm just going to bail. If it's a friendly discussion about some issues.. I think I can manage that... There is a ton of value to be had between two people who simply make their case about how they view issues and the world. We don't get that nearly enough in the MSM. It's just a constant bullshit chair throwing debate.

My other condition is that you un-ban me from your blog. I may not post much, or not at all.. but sometimes the stuff you write is so egregious that I feel compelled to correct the record. Yes, it's true that I can circumvent the ban any time I feel like it (I am a computer engineer after all), but I thought it was in bad taste for me to do that because I try to respect the intent of things.. rather than the pure reality.

I read something about a month or so ago about your show where your guest hung up. I got the impression it was because you had your other loon-brigade callers berate him. I will not tolerate that. I'll speak to you.. and if you choose to have others join the discussion, that's fine as long as it does not escalate to the point of absurd abuse.

I've never listened to your show, so I'm not sure how you present issues and how they are debated. I'm comfortable debating health care (I think this would be a good one as you are arguing against a thing that doesn't exist). We can debate the war, but my argument is very simple.. I think that no matter what the US military does.. it won't affect what happens in Iraq. Gay rights is also a topic I'm comfortable with.

What I don't want to have happen is have you drop subjects on me that I have not prepared for.. so as long as we're in agreement with what we'll talk about.. we can have a discussion. And.. I will not speak over you.. and you will not speak over me. So.. an outline of the topics will help me prepare.

If we have an understanding.. lets give it a go and see how we feel at the end. Who knows.. I might be your Alan Colmes.. (but much more effective than that wimp).

tom

If Doug agrees to my modest conditions, I'll appear on his show.. I'll post the specifics of how to listen in, if you really give a rat's ass.

I do have to give credit to Doug for one thing.. he's very relentless in his approach. I think he's a lying bastard, who has an ambition to be the next great media whore.. but he certainly does put a lot of effort into it.

There is a certain something that he has going on.. and I think he might have pretty decent leadership skills.. I still insist that he's a really shitty writer, but every time I read something he writes.. It occurs to me how it could be cleaned up, and made more persuasive.. if I were editing it..