Bigots Desperately Seeking Distraction

Anti-Muslim Bigots Desperately Seeking Distraction


After the recent exposes’ on anti-Muslim bigots and the subsequent bannings and blockings of their sites, they are in a panic about the facts revealed of their lies, deceptions, logical fallacies, their calls for mass murder, forcibly moving Muslim-Americans to concentration camps or deporting them, “nuking” Mecca (Islam’s holiest site), and doing whatever they can to start keep the wars going and even expand them, all for one of mankind’s oldest sins – the love of money. The hate mongers have found that selling hatred and fear pays quite well. Many of the hate mongers were unemployed prior to the 9/11 attacks, and have since become millionaires. Factually exposing their schemes threatens their illicit income (and triggers investigations by federal and international authorities.)

I have been alerted by one of these hate mongers that they are going to attempt to further distract people from the facts by using the old logical fallacy tactic of “ad hominem”, i.e., attacking the author instead of addressing or trying to refute the facts as published. This is always a desperate attempt to distract people when they are completely unable to refute the published facts, and is most often taken as an admission of the accuracy of the published facts.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem
1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."


Thank you to Ms. Cristy Li for the warning about the upcoming ad hominem campaign. BTW, I have advised Ms. Li that I know no one in Bluffton or Pandora, Ohio, (I’m not even sure where Bluffton and Pandora are) so it will be interesting to see what they come up with now. Will we be seeing a repeat of the old accusations that I am a communist, fascist, leftist, liberal, fundamentalist, homosexual, bisexual, trisexual, space alien, member of the Illuminati, a robot, a terrorist sympathizer, a terrorist, a missionary, a Jew, a Muslim, a right-wing war monger, a “fake” pastor? All of these have already been used, let’s see if they can come up with something new in their attempts to distract readers.

BTW, (an aside to the hate mongers), the ad hominems aren’t working, my readership is higher than ever. You’re sending thousands of readers to my site, where they get to read about your hate mongering and where they can see that everything is very well documented.


On 8/9/07, Cristy Li wrote:
Dear Rev. Sutter:

As a courtesy and follow up to you, we have been making some inquiries and have likewise reviewed the information contained in Jihad Watch about you.

It has been brought to our attention this afternoon from persons that know you in Bluffton & Pandora, Ohio they have in-fact confirmed that you have been misrepresenting yourself .

As Jihad Watch has done today, we will be following up with additional information as to "Who is Rev. Jim Sutter?" (The title may change)

Res ipsa loquitur.

Very truly yours,

Cristy Li


Ms. Li says she was “Born in Ohio and attended Ohio State University, former Law Clerk, I was married in 2002 to a native from China and have no children” (which is not quite true.)

She writes for Townhall.com (one of the identified hate sites), and has her own blog at http://cristyli.blogspot.com/, which has many bigoted anti-Muslim articles, using the same lies as the more famous bigots such as Spencer, Johnson (LGF), Foehammer, and the like. Ohio State University confirms that Ms. Li, of Columbus Ohio 43201, is a student at the Fisher College of Business, majoring in marketing and training to write magazine advertisements.


UPDATE: 8/23/07 Today Ms. Li again contacted me by email, to show me a story about the HLF trial, with her own interpetation based on an entire half dozen or so words, not placed in any context. Although I had read completely different accounts of the story she tried to portray, I chose not to challenge her on that, because it was her own opinion and I was trying to keep it pleasant. Since she mentioned that she wasn't pleased with this exposure on the Hatewatch Hall of Shame, I offered her the same opportunity that I offer everyone here: If you are listed, and find a mistake, let me know, provide some facts to show the mistake, and I'll gladly fix it. Specifically, I wrote the following to her:

As for my post about you - I offer you the same opportunity I offer everyone else listed in the blog. If you can provide factual information showing that I made a mistake, I would be glad to correct any such mistake. For instance, you said you were a law clerk. It's my understanding that the requirements for law clerks can vary from one court or firm to another, but that generally this requires an intern certification from the Ohio Supreme Court and completion of second year of law school. If you can provide information to verify this, and that you are not the person I identified from OSU, then I would make the appropriate changes. If you are indeed a graduate of OSU, I should easily be able to verify you as an alumni once you verify what year you graduated and if you had the same name at that time. Once again, thank you for writing.

In response, Ms. Li sends a vitriolic email, stating (in relevant part - I'll leave out the attempted extortion, actually demanding a "quid pro quo" - ORC 2905.11 (A)(4) & (5), such a silly mistake for a supposed "law clerk".)

It is not my intentions on providing you with any documents in order to disprove your delusions about me. What you wrote was in-fact untrue. Cease and Desist from making future statements which you can not support. Likewise I would request that you remove the statements made or in the alternative print a retraction acknowledging what you wrote was in-correct, making a public apology and refrain from this behavior in the future. By your own admissions, you acknowledge that you have not verified anything which you wrote. Your the individual that has made unsupported claims, the burden is upon you to prove what you claimed was accurate (which it is not) I am not under any obligation either legally or morally to prove that which you have written is untrue.

Hello? Where exactly did I say, admit or imply that I hadn't checked the facts? I verify everything. Anyone can go to the Ohio State University website and look at their student roster to find Ms. Li. Now, since Ms. Li is refusing to provide any evidence at all that any mistakes were made, I have no other choice but to assume that my information is completely accurate. After all, it would be quite simple for her to tell me what year she supposedly graduated from OSU and if it was under the same name she now uses, and just as simple to produce her intern certification from the Ohio Supreme Court (which mysteriously has never heard of her... I wonder why?) But instead, she chooses to to try to play me. I'm far too old to be conned by such a simple tactic, heck if nothing else this proves she never went to law school, it's too simple to see through. Lawyers (sorry, Uncles) are far too cunning to use a transparent and simplistic ploy.

Oh, and I do so appreciate the C&D, I needed something new to line the catbox, and this will work quite well - just in time, too, I printed it out and my cat jumped right on it to... well, use your imagination. If Ms. Li had actually attended law school, she would know that a C&D email or letter such as this carries no force of law, and has no legal basis to stop my writing this blog. But I do thank her in advance for what I anticipate will be her own scathing, foaming-at-the-mouth editorial about me, which will only serve to send more readers to this blog. So go back to writing your magazine ads, Ms. Li, and let the adults get on with their work.