RE: RE: Who's Kyle Carroll???

Well, well. Hello, Kyle. That was very pretty, very poetic. It was also complete horse manure (I'm being polite, in case you can't tell).

Let's start with your innocent phone call. Mrs. Brenneis is not subject to wild flights of fancy and she's not prone to sensitivity. After all, she's been married to me for 26 years, excess sensitivity would be a liability. So let's review a transcript of the phone call. You see, Mrs. Brenneis also has an excellent memory.

Mrs. Brenneis: Hello?
Kyle: This Brenneis?
Mrs. Brenneis: Yes, this is the Brenneis residence.
Long silence.
Mrs. Brenneis: Who are you calling for?
Kyle: I thought you said he was there.
Mrs. Brenneis: Who?
Kyle: Is he there or not?
Mrs. Brenneis: Who, my husband?
Kyle: Yeah. Steve Brenneis. Is he there or not?
Mrs. Brenneis: He's not home right now, can I take a message?
Kyle: When will he be back?
Mrs. Brenneis: I can't really say, can I take a message?
Kyle: You don't know when he'll be back?
Mrs. Brenneis: He'll be in this evening.
Kyle: When?
Mrs. Brenneis: I don't really know exactly when, can I take a message?
Kyle: I'll call back. Tell him I called to see if he wanted to serve on <unintelligible> board.

What does not come across in print is the fact that you were either growling at her or yelling at her for most of the conversation. I have no trouble envisioning this exchange. I've dealt with you and your father before in person, Kyle. You may not remember it, but I do. Arrogance and rudeness seem to be your stock in trade. Maybe you don't even know how arrogant and rude you are any more. And if you just wanted to engage me on my comments, Kyle, why the lie about the purpose of your call?

You said, "I do not believe in hiding behind the shadows of a computer screen blurting out my beliefs for open ended debate that can be taken out of context or misconstrued as hatred or harassment."

As I said before, this is a public forum. No one is hiding behind anything. We all use our real names and contacting us is quite easy. You managed to find Andy's e-mail address. The person who is hiding is you. First you sought to hide behind some long, drawn out whining session on the phone with me, then when I wasn't available at your immediate beck and call, you hid behind rudeness and arrogance with my wife, and finally, when all that failed, you hide behind some flowery, content-free protestation of your innocence. I played that game with you folks for five years of my life. I don't play it any more. Context and meaning is the responsibility of the reader once the writer has discharged his duties. You should have learned that in the process of earning a communications degree. Those of us who post our opinions in these very public forums are absolutely not at fault if the reader chooses to misconstrue what is written. There is no hatred and harassment here, but there is plain, frank talk. The people who occupy uncertain positions or who know they operate from hyperbole are the ones who misconstrue this as hatred or harassment.

Your father made public comments. His comments were completely out of line with reality and I called him on them. You don't like that and you want to defend him. That's admirable of you. You have ample opportunity to do so. You have chosen to demure and spend two thirds of your post protesting your innocence. So be it.

Here is your argument, deconstructed. You will characterize this as "open ended debate" or some kind of "duel." Welcome to the Internet. This is the town square of the future, Kyle. You can stand out in the light and hold forth, regardless of the cost, or you can stand in the dark corners, lurking and grumbling. There are very few rules, so it is really up to you.

You said, "There was a time in our community that people made things happen by applying 'sweat equity'."

Why do Democrats always start their arguments with this slop? Is the hypocrisy of a group of people who believe in looting wealth to redistribute to the non-productive not obvious in this argument? Where does your "sweat equity" lie in the equation of the welfare state?

You said,"They did not ask what political party they supported."

So you're dropping back to the nineteenth century, Kyle? What does that have to do with the point? You should know good and well that until recently, if you weren't a registered Democrat in Stokes County, you were a second class citizen. You didn't get a job, you didn't get a paved road, you didn't get a hearing on tax issues. Conversely, if you were a registered Democrat, you could get help with just about anything. You could get that speeding ticket fixed. You could get your taxes forgiven for a year. Don't even try to BS me on that one Kyle. I've been way inside Stokes County politics and I have these things from people who were alive before your Dad was born. I've even seen some of it myself, firsthand. And if you don't know these things, you better go ask your Daddy, because he's got some explaining to do.

You said, "In the past people looked for ways to make things happen, unlike the 'Modern Government' of today that are preoccupied with finding reasons that we cannot reach our goals."

Translation for non-Democrats: local government today doesn't just roll over and spend money in accordance with the whims of the insiders of the Democrat party machine. Local government today demands accountability for how its citizens' hard-earned dollars are spent. Hardcore Democrat insiders don't like this a bit. They translate that reality into a screed on how government obstructs social progress, when in fact they have offered no justification for government to even be involved in social progress.

You said, "If the true intention of this site was to open up dialogue from contributing members on current events, the ideological foundation has been lost."

So say you. You offer no evidence to back up this assertion. Here on The Bully Pulpit, we deal in opinions backed with reality and facts, not with wishful thinking. What you really mean is that the opinions of at least two of the contributors don't mesh with your view of life and reality so you choose to reject them. That is your option, however, don't try to sell us some snake oil about lost ideology.

You said, "What I have read on this site is not Courage, it is fact an outcry of Despair, resulting from the loss of communication skills needed to coexist in our society."

It is, in fact, no such thing. You predictably try to cast it in that light, but once again, you simply spew it without any evidence to back the claim. More accurately, you should have said these were your impressions, but you knew that most are free to discard your impressions so you try to sell your feelings as facts.

You said, "Here's an idea... instead of casting blame on others about our economic or social structures, do something!"

But we are doing something, Kyle. We're exposing the likes of you. You who seek to quiet discourse in order to impose your leprous Marxist paradise on us. You whose ideas are so corrupt and immoral that they shred and crumble in the face of honest criticism. And some of us have done even more, Kyle. At least two of us have cooked chicken for crowds, put up signs on the highway, donated money, put our family lives on hold, and even served in public office. We cast blame where there is blame to be cast and we back it up with information and action, Kyle. If your assertions weren't so patently rhetorical, they would be offensive in the extreme.

You said, "Put aside political bias and preconceived notions that everyone else is to blame and go to work on building a stronger community."

More translation: "Just shut up and let us get on with turning our society into a totalitarian, socialist cesspool. Stop exposing our motives and our simple lusts for power."

One might almost suppose you intended to run for some office, Kyle. It was very pretty, but alas, it was empty rhetoric.