Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history - revisionist historians is what I like to call them ~ George W bush (dob 7/6/1946) 43rd POTUS (unelected) and starter of 2 illegal wars (via lying).
Announcing an exciting new work of historical revisionism by novice history reviser Willis Hart...
| Willis Hart Pontificates on the War of Northern Aggression: A Dissertation in 1,001 Parts, Volume 1 (Where the History Books are Right and Where the History Books are Wrong). |
Anyone going to be lined up at Barnes & Noble on the day this is released to get his or her copy personally autographed by Willis Hart?
Published by "The Crazy Southern Conservative History Revisionism Press" (Copyright 11/28/2014). Makes the perfect Christmas gift for your crazy Rightwing history-revising-enthusiast relative!
Rejected (unread) by more than a dozen major publishers due to Willis' REFUSAL to use paragraphs. Although, if he had used paragraphs they likely all would have rejected it anyway, due to it's major historical inaccuracies ("inaccuracies" some might refer to as canards).
Note: This post in response to a commentary from Willis regarding my "new Netflix series". See here for links to many more commentaries in which Willis Hart discusses (insults/lies about) Dervish Sanders (as the subject/headliner or in passing)... as well as posts written in response to comments submitted by me to his blog (published or not).
You do indeed have way to much time on your hands.
ReplyDeleteBTW, how's your cellar? Lonely I bet.
In response to the insulting comment by Lester (above) I went to his blog and submitted the following...
ReplyDeleteDervish Sanders: Re Lester's comment submitted to my blog... right now I'm cutting out a 4.5 x 5.5 screen which enables me to cover the comments section but which also allows me to see the author of the words, and when I see "Lester" I plan on promptly deleting what I can properly assume will be more of Lester's virulent idiocy.
BTW, is Lester's cellar lonely? Mine isn't, since I don't have one. Also, I was just kidding about that screen thing... that's the dipshit idea of the moron Willis... but I'm sure you know that. I did send your comment to spam, however.
Anyway, now that Willis isn't reading my comments (even by mistake), perhaps I should shift my attentions to rAtional nAtion uSA? What do you say, Lester? (Sun Jun 01, 2014 AT 10:21:00 PM EDT).
When Lester published (which I did not think he would given the fact that he banned me), I decided to delete the comment. The "dipsit idea" I refer to can be found explained by Will on his blog here, and really, have you ever heard of anything stupider? He holds up a screen to his computer monitor so he doesn't accidently read anything from me that contradicts the BS he writes on his blog? How pathetic is that?
Then, after publishing my comment, Lester runs back to Will's blog to issue a report, as follows...
Lester: Hey, the wd just commented at my sight. This one I decided to post and leave a comment. The dude is a serious head case. (JUNE 1, 2014 AT 8:01 PM).
Awhile later he comments on Will's blog again...
Lester Correction, should be site, not sight. Watching the hockey game. (JUNE 1, 2014 AT 8:32 PM).
That's two lies from Lester. I am not a "serious headcase" and Lester did not mistype "sight" when he meant "site". I know this because I've seen him make this "typo" MULTIPLE times. It's not a typo, but simply Lester's word-salad-inflicted brain at work. Lester only corrected himself because of my comment on his blog (this time not published) telling him of the "error"...
Dervish Sanders: I commented on your SITE because you commented on mine, you liar. I said absolutely nothing about your sight (or "at" your sight). I can see you wear glasses (from your picture), but there is nothing wrong with that. I do too. (An unpublished comment submitted to the blog "rAtional" nAtion uSA).
[Continued from previous due to me being over the character limit]
ReplyDeleteIn reply to Lester's two comments on his blog, Will writes...
Will: It looks like he deleted it. It must have been really bad if it was too embarrassing for him. (JUNE 1, 2014 AT 8:53 PM).
No Will, I was not "embarrassed". I deleted it due to a lack of context. Not knowing what had transpired on my blog (Lester insulting me with the cellar comment) and on Will's blog (my comment being a callback to the "cutout" idiocy of Will), anyone reading what I said would have simply taken my words as an unjustified attack on poor Lester... and a certain blogger would have surely jumped to Lester's defense.
Frankly, I've had enough lecturing from this blogger who jumps to Lester's defense. BTW, I'm not knocking this other blogger (which I shall not name, but I'm sure most know who I mean). He has a point in defending Lester. Doesn't mean I'm still not sick of the lectures. I get why he says what he says. It makes sense (from his point of view). That said, Lester doesn't like me, and I don't like him. That is a fact that nothing can be done about now. Let's just say that it takes two to tango and I admit to my part in getting to where we are now (me being banned from Lester's "rational" site).
Now I'm thinking I shouldn't have deleted my comment, as Will looked, saw it was removed, and was thus free to make up a fictional reason I removed it. I was "embarrassed" he thinks. And YES, I know he believes it 100 percent. Just as he truly believes all the completely-invented-out-of-whole-cloth narratives about me he spins (with the help of Dennis) on his blog of misinformation.
ReplyDeleteSon, have you ever considered seeking professional help?
You submitted this question to the wrong blog. I suggest resubmitting it here. The blog proprietor might not appreciate you referring to him as "son", however.
DeleteIn regards to comments made on other blogs that pertain to this blog...
ReplyDeletedmarks: All I see is him whining about being properly identified as a troll. (JUNE 2, 2014 AT 5:58 AM).
Dennis is the only one who should be properly identified as a troll. Actually, someone already has... and documented the proof of Dennis' trolling, offensive behavior and lying on their blog.
"rAtional" nAtion: Nah, nothing embarrasses wd. My guess is he's just circling his wagons, preparing for his next onslaught of absurdities. (JUNE 2, 2014 AT 7:29 AM).
What, exactly, should I be embarrassed about "rAtional"? Whatever it is, surely it canNOT compare to comments from "rAtional" concerning a group of people that went willing to... someplace. I know "rAtional" knows which people and where they went "willing". As I recollect, "rAtional" defended himself and was absolutely not embarrassed (as he should have been) concerning those comments. He was actually rather indignant concerning the horribly unexcusable remarks. Given this reality, "rAtional" can stuff his suggestion that I have sh!t to be "embarrassed" about.
As for the "onslaught of absurdities"... you planning something "rAtional"? I gather it involves even MORE "rAtional" absurdities than usual?