The Grasshopper welcomed in summer with this turn of a phrase: “Aspersions cast a wide net.”

I was thinking about some aspersions cast my way back in the day and how devoid of facts they were. They were of the variety “I know that you did something” – something to which there were no supporting facts.

People who spout unsupported aspersions cast very wide nets – so wide, in fact, that all the fish slip through them and at the end of the day there is no catch.

Generally what I find is that arguing facts with an unsupported aspersion caster is fruitless. They are immune to evidence and consumed with conjecture. They are “goal post movers” of the highest order. That means when you completely blow their argument out of the water, they won’t acknowledge that but move on to another equally empty aspersion.

Here’s an example:

“You said you would do ‘X.'”

“When specifically did I say that?”

“I read it on your website.”

“Where specifically on my website did you see that?”

“I can’t remember but I saw it. Anyway, you didn’t do ‘X’ like you claimed.”

“I never stated or wrote that I would do ‘X.'”

“You should do ‘X’ and because you don’t, you’re a fraud.”

Having done a radio talk show in the past, I can tell you that the majority of the callers were baseless aspersion casters. It’s the same today and it’s one of the reasons I never listen to call-in talk shows.

I find that aspersion casters are perpetually angry and like to argue. I’m not and I don’t. If you want to have a factual discussion, I’m all in. If you just want to vent your spleen, call a talk show; I find that peachy keen – mainly because I won’t be listening.

All the best,

John