Sunday, February 15, 2009

(O)CT(O)PUS = CYBER-BULLY

Some time back, (O)CT(O)PUS, the anonymous proprietor of The Swash Zone, began leaving the most awful comments on my blog. These were plainly trolling and abusive drive-by taunts. I tolerated them for some time and then finally I sent him an e-mail as follows:

(O)CT(O)PUS:

My blog, my rules, hello?

You've said your piece on your own blog. Maybe you've gotten some of your derangement off your chest.

You're free to comment on my blog as long as it's germane to the post, of which your earlier comments we're not.

Follow the rules, or be banned...

Donald
A few months later, I left a couple of comments at The Swash Zone, at entries posted by Captain Fogg and Repsac3, as the blog is a group effort. I frankly didn't make the connection to (O)CT(O)PUS (who I later realized runs the place), and for that transgression I received this threatening warning in my e-mail inbox:

And these are my rules: DO NOT HARASS ANY OF MY WRITERS AT "THE SWASH ZONE" AGAIN. IF YOU HARASS ME OR ANY OF MY WRITERS ONE MORE TIME, I WILL NOTIFY ELOY OAKLEY AND DONALD BERZ AT YOUR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AND TAKE IMMEDIATE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BOTH YOU AND YOUR EMPLOYER. THIS GAME OF YOURS ENDS HERE.
The ALL-CAPITALS format in BOLD TEXT are in the original.

I have to admit this caught me off-guard, and recall this stuff isn't new, as I've received hate-mail and death threats before.

But I want to draw readers attention to the stark differences here in the comparative responses: My original e-mail simply requested of (O)CT(O)PUS that he abide by a standard of decency and relevancy. He was free to comment at my blog without personal attacks on me or my readers. No threat was made or implied. (O)T(O)PUS in return, and in response to comments at posts he had not written, and that were not directed at him, threatened my livelihood, and my employers (oddly enough).

There's a real cheap cowardice at work here that's not only annoying, but downright creepy.

Considering this, it's even more bothersome to find
a whole new post dedicated to this threat at American Nihilist, a blog set up by Repsac3 to ridicule and smear me for fun and a bit of revenge (the only relief available in the face of the intellectual incompetence inflicting these demons).

Entitled "
DEFAMATION - DONALD STYLE," (O)CT(O)PUS is responding to my take down of Captain Fogg, who implicitly called for the execution of Rush Limbaugh in a post last month. (O)CT(O)PUS gets fairly vicious at the post, but it's the conclusion that's out of this world:
We know these behaviors all too well, and why some of you bother with this pinhead is beyond me. The Coward is not welcome at The Swash Zone; we delete his comments immediately. More disturbing are the comments and e-mails left by his followers: Profane, racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic … worthy of report to the FBI. What to do?

If the Coward or any of his followers harass you online you, contact President Eloy Oakley at (562) 938-4122 or Executive VP of Academic Affairs Donald Berz at (562) 938-4127 and describe the harassment. For serious online abuse or defamation, there is always
this option (case file in progress).
So notice here: Not only has (O)CT(O)PUS now escalated his campaign of harassment with a public call to threaten my employment, but he's accused me of online abuse and defamation without one shred of evidence.

It's been almost six months since I first e-mailed (O)CT(O)PUS and I haven't heard one word from my college administration or from a plaintiff's attorney. It's funny too, because
Repsac3's blog is all about abuse and defamation, for example in the next post to follow (O)CT(O)PUS', where Truth101 impugns my reputation by smearing me as "Donald the Dog."

And remember, all of this is taking place at a blog called "
American Nihilist," which (if you click the link) is a website specifically designed for a demonic campaign of personal attacks against American Power.

What's all very interesting here is that each and every one of my antagonists goes by an anonymous online handle. Now that's cowardly. And worthy of a little analytical consideration.

Readers may recall that I noted,
in response to TBogg, that I'm reading David Denby's Snark. Denby's extremely liberal, so a lot of his stuff is suspect, but I have to admit he's got one of the best discussions of online anonymity I've seen so far:

People who start their own blogs almost always identify themselves, but many snarking writers exercise power anonymously, hiding behind a handle, attacking people who appear in public, who run blogs, or other commenters. The insults come out of nowhere, as if waiting for the occassion. But why hide? This love of anonymity is amazing to me. If you have something to say, why in the world would you want to hide yourself? ....

The answer, of course, is that anonymous writers are either ashamed of what they're saying, or, alternatively, quite proud of what they're saying, but, in either case, they're not eager to confront anyone directly ... Anonymity frees us to attack whites, blacks, Muslims, men, women, gays, birders, arachnophobes, philatelists - frees us in a way that would be impossible in the office, at a cocktail party, in a bar, or a schoolyard ...
Denby continues with the notion that anonymity is inherently childish, something that's available to essentially non-grown-ups. But there's a totalitarianism to anonymity as well, for as Denby notes, "a phone call to the secret police is a much more serious act than a snarking post, but that's the kind of negative vibe anonymity can give off - it's not something to be played with; it has danger lurking in its secrecy."

And that's a perfect way to summarize the cyber-bullying of (O)CT(O)PUS and his demonic allies at
American Nihilist.

These people are manifestly ignorant pests of juvenile proportion. But they're totalitarian as well, in the classic standard of today's left where dissent against the Obamessianic line is not tolerated. But things have gotten to the point in which I can't ignore the abuse and attacks. While of course these idiots have no plausible case for a lawsuit, the opposite in my case is nearly true. "Donald the Dog" is pretty close to defamation, although these brilliant hacks don't have the faintest clue as to the inherent hypocrisy of their project.

If it's any consolation to me, it's simply the fact that what I do at American Power is working, and that's to expose the left's truly diabolical plotting for the death of moral right in this country, and when the left is reduced to pure babbling incoherence in failed attempts at intellectual parry, their only recourse is rank bullying.

As always, I'll stand my ground, even in court with legal representation if it comes to that.

46 comments:

rbosque said...

Doc, I've come across many left-wing apologists who are incapable of intelligent debate; they are reduced to ad hominum attacks because they base their conclusions on false premises. These trolls go around the net looking for fights while they hide behind fictitious names. These folks are twisted and go to great lengths to intimidate people simply because we don't share their beliefs. This is America and we have a right to debate civily but the left thinks this is the Soviet Union and would like to see us in jail or dead. We are marching down a scary road.

Donald Douglas said...

"We are marching down a scary road."

It is scary, Raul, especially as leftists can't win arguments in the marketplace of ideas. They instead intimidate and attack.

Thanks for our support.

Philippe Ohlund said...

The reason the leftists never can win is because they will be beaten by a superior culture.

In the mid-seventies I was first very attracted by the ideas of the Nazis.

I got convinced that everything evil came from the Jewish people, and that the only way to solve this problem was to exterminate all Jews.

Therefore I had to learn English, which I did not want to learn, but I believed I had to know everything about the Jewish enemy which had the U.S. as its headquarters.

Luckily, I got my reason back, and eventually started to admire the Jewish people.

But I still believed something was very wrong in the world. Therefore I jumped from the Nazis to the Communists, and decided the capitalists were the evil force in the world.

I occupied buildings with leftists extremists, fought the police, and my new idols became the Baader-Meinhof group.

Then I had to learn more English again, to know more about the enemy, but initially I hated foreign languages, but I had to know the language of the enemy, because I believed all capitalists had to be exterminated, since I believed they were evil.

Before I turned 20 I had to come to know English so well that a new civilized world opened up before me.

My former crazy ideas just vanished away.

I definitely abandoned all my former totalitarian ideas and became Christian and started to believe in democracy and freedom.

But then I had to learn even more English to understand what the Western culture really meant.

Sometimes, it is very funny how destiny can work. What I wanted to conquer conquered me, because it was founded upon better values, superior achievements, and upon justice.

My former enemies, Jews and Capitalists, became my best friends, and I understood.

Then at the age of 29 I met the American Prophet, Elijah the Tishbite in Athens, Greece, and since he only speaks English I started to see a reason for my strange walk in life.

I found God in Jesus in a new and very profound way, and my global understanding of democracy and freedom increased.

But I believe more than ever that evil exists, and that it is "spiritual wickedness in high places", just as Paul said in Ephesians 6:12.

Dennis said...

In all things, one has to allow others to have an affect upon them. Since I have no respect for their opinions they are of no value to me and I scroll past the trolls and anonymous commenters.
Rbosque is correct about most on the left. They are incapable of anything approaching intelligent dialogue, so I ignore them. Why waste your time on a fool? I almost never return to see what comments are posted after mine. I have a life to live and enjoy.
Keep up the good work Donald. You have to be doing something right in order to have so many leftists fearing your comments.

CS said...

Phillippe,

Who's to say that your current affinity with Israel and America, and Christianity might make a turn towards another extreme in the near future?

Based on your own analysis, it seems you are clearly capable of switching allegiances from different extremes so whos' to say your affinity with Donald and his hegemonic, neo-con views is just another blip in the PHillippe train?

That being said, I don't consider you a bad person, or that you have inferior motives behind what you say, but that I have a hard time relating to people who consider a certain population to be somehow "superior" to that of others. You have claimed in the past that Western culture is, somehow, better than all others. I am not going to bother questioning what brought you to this ridiculous conclusion, but that is conversation left for another place and time.
YOu might not know it, but this is inheritely an extremely racist view of the world. If you don't believe me, just open up a basic social-psych text, and look up "racism and Prejudice".


The fact that mr. Douglas considers himself an academic is kind of curious to me. He has requested that I refrain from commenting without giving a single reason other than that he obviously disagrees with my point of views and the FACTS I used to substantiate them.

It is also rather curious that he seems to hail America as the beacon of Democracy and freedom and that these freedoms should be brought, unsolicitated, at the tip of a gun barrel. That is why I wish to ask why he's unable to uphold these apparently awesome democratic values on his own blog?

I suppose this is the shining light of Neo-conservatism?

George Bush's favorite Philosopher (Jesus Christ) coined the term "hypocrite" for a reason.

CS said...

"......so I ignore them. Why waste your time on a fool? I almost never return to see what comments are posted after mine. I have a life to live and enjoy...."

I'd admit, that us Nihilist leftists aren't as savvy about our interest in dialogue as you obviously are.

Apparently, ignoring everyone that disagrees with you is the best way to learn new ideas and improve on your own. Sounds like a new-age philosophy, or does it already exist under the term "neo-conservatism"?

Philippe Ohlund said...

CS you ask "Based on your own analysis, it seems you are clearly capable of switching allegiances from different extremes so whos' to say your affinity with Donald and his hegemonic, neo-con views is just another blip in the PHillippe train?".

My answer is that it is very true that I was politically unstable as a teenager, and that I am very ashamed of my views I had back then, and that I honestly from my heart deeply regret all the bad things I said and wrongly thought concerning the Jews and also Capitalism during the 70s.

But since when I was 19, I have not switched my basic democratic views, and today I'm 49 so that is passé. Its history now.

It is true that I wore a Nazi uniform with a Swastika and everything, when I went to school when I was 17.

I really regret that. And I am very ashamed of that.

I really believed then that Jews were evil.

And when I switched and said Josef Stalin was the best political leader who ever lived I was also stupid.

Those of the Jewish people who never will forgive me for my views when I was a teenager I understand.

I believed they all were evil and that was my view, but I was wrong.

I am terribly sorry.

But that was my view more than 30 years ago.

Since 1979 I am a Christian and democrat, and since then I am not an extremist any more.

Actually I am a very calm and reasoning person.

What happened during the 70s was that I revolted against certain things, but because I lacked in knowledge, understanding, and also in common sense I made the wrong conclusions.

That was stupid of me.

Later I was elected and got a seat in the military parliament 1985-86, and then I ran for local public office during the 90s for the Swedish Center Party, but I unfortunately got beaten.

Evil exists, and that is the reason why Israel needs every inch of its land as well as Jerusalem as its undivided capital.

Because of all evil, God has chosen His people to stand for what is good - the Jews!

Because of my earlier erroneous views I have at least learned to see clearly to defend both the Jews and the Gospel of Christ at the same time.

To spiritually discern things is a gift.

Good people did not do enough to help the Jews during WWII, and 6 million perished.

Today we live in the last days before the second coming of Christ.

Elijah the Tishbite has his place right at the side of the Lord Jesus.

Evil people want to kill him.

But who can recognize him? The Pope? The Orthodox Patriarch? The Head of the Lutheran or Anglican Churches?

To discern evil and good requires an extra effort.

Good people don't recognize Elijah the Tishbite, but evil people do, rest assured.

When Jesus Christ walked the Earth, the religious chiefs said He had a demon.

Even His disciples betrayed Him, or denied Him, and even fled, although they had seen all His miracles with their own eyes.

Those who will confront Elijah the Tishbite and call him a false prophet will be religious leaders and Christian Churches.

But I believe the Jews with their history will recognize something and will understand something, when they see this man stand for his beliefs, and standing until the end.

I hope so.

Grace Explosion said...

OK, this is ridiculous. This is America. We need to discuss, debate, and even have freedom to be snarky, rude, and even offensive at times. Why?? Because we are engaging in debate of ideas. A blog proprietor has the right to set any rules of his own blog because it's a property rights issue. The blog owner makes the rules, and the people have to respect the rules the blog owner states... because it's a dictatorship.

??? - Do these liberals SO HATE capitalism and ownership - and then turn to deride the laws of ownership?? As they exercise the rights of ownership of their own blogs?? (My eyes are crossing at the rank hypocrisy of it all.)

Donald, your comments were rather mildly asserting your rights as owner of your own blog. You can make any rule you want. I am a supporter of your blog, for example, I was requested to make a change in my commenting. Well, if I really wanted to "appeal" that judgment of yours -- my responsibility would be to appeal... to you... because it's your blog. Like my dad always said, "You live in my house, you live by my rules." It's a matter of ownership and authority.

Now, that OCTOPUS person didn't merely assert his ownership of his blog (which he has a right to do even if he's unjust - it's his blog - he can do what he wants with it)... he went so far as to attempt to blackmail you. I mean, I take this threat of his as blackmail. He's going to step outside the blogosphere into your personal life to harrass you in an effort to intimidate you into silence relative to your right to speak and air your own opinions and perspectives as is your right in a free society.

We always used to say, "It's a free country". But if these people have their way, freedom will perish and they will bear fascist rule through threats, intimidation, domination, and control.

OCTOPUS person - please grow up.

This is as bad as the Mormon thing. Trying to attack people's ability to earn a living??? Come on. That's mafia stuff going on there. That's acting like organized crime.

Besides, you can't keep a good man down. You'd just drive Donald to rightwing radio... where he'd probably start making multimillions.

Are you trying to get him to promote... himself... and get a promotion or something??

This is ridiculous. People, grow up. OCTOPUS... we don't agree with you. We have a right to free speech. Stop trying to use economic means to control people. I thought you were against financial exploitation?? I thought the left said that the right financially exploit people?? My observations show me that if I want freedom and liberty in the USA, I had BETTER support right wing conservatives because the left wants to take away basic freedoms by hook or by crook - and too many are using the means of crooks.

Leave Donald alone - and stop making blackmail threats. I'm going to pray for Donald to be invited onto talk radio - even the Rush Limbaugh show.

Donald, I'm going to ask you to WILL to go on talk radio. WILL IT.. I will it with you. Sometimes I figure willing is just the same as praying... because my Bible says, "Ask what you WILL." And as long as it's a good or righteous thing... I think it's pretty prone to happen.

There OCTOPUS, I've petitioned Heaven... for Donald's PROMOTION.

(I may need to grow up. I just stuck my tongue out at you. lol)

Grace Explosion said...

Was this wrong when I left this comment on the "American Nihilist" in response to T101 in a remark about American Power and Donald being against free speech??

"Well, from what I'm seeing, it's OCTOPUS who is attempting to suppress free speech. OCTOPUSSY is probly what we should call that 8 limp wristed wimp, right??

ha ha ha!!"

lol

Grace Explosion said...

CS,

Maybe Donald just needs a break from a season from replies that are "heavy" to him. My replies were "heavy" to him. Now, I could have ignored his remarks or argued or stated my rights. Maybe he just was being wearied and needs a bit of a respite.

Maybe it's a time for affirmation. Why is that so wrong. I pull away from blogs that are wearying me at times. I'll visit and comment on blogs. But to continue discourse with those who are not in agreement are often wearying after a period of time. Maybe he wants to limit his blog for a season to those who are more in alignment with his views.

It's his blog. Maybe he will be strengthened by encouragement. What's wrong with that?? :)

JBW asked me to not post on Brain Rage. I didn't see his note... then when I did see it... I didn't argue with him. It's his blog. I began to "pull out". I was wearying JBW because I have a diverse view from him. Plus, he said that he had friends who shared his same view -- and he found my comments not in keeping with the community he wanted to build and maintain.

I didn't feel like arguing with JBW. It's his blog. I respect ownership and the authority of ownership and the boundaries people set when they do have that authority. It's civility. I doubt it's being "against you" that motivates Donald. Maybe he just needs a respite from negative comments directed at him at this time.

That's his right to create a boundary on his own blog. Maybe he will change it in the future. Just my thoughts. Sometimes things are not as personal as we think because it's not really all about us. Like I had to see things from JBW's point of view, just like I had to accept a bit of an admonition from Donald... I think sometimes that's just being a good neighbor... so that people can enjoy the activities to which they commit their time. Just my thoughts.

God bless.

PrivatePigg said...

"The answer, of course, is that anonymous writers are either ashamed of what they're saying, or, alternatively, quite proud of what they're saying, but, in either case, they're not eager to confront anyone directly"

Unfortunately, many of us are pseudo-anonymous for exactly the reasons you illustrate in this post (though not the reasons you explicitly give). I don't need anyone to contact my employer, know where I live, harass my children, or defame my wife, etc. I can still participate in the "game" of ideas, but I can do so without fear of personal reprisal. If everyone were identified, then I'd have no problem identifying myself. If everyone was identified you can bet no one would be writing that inane stuff about you. But because other people remain anonymous, and in their anonymity feel safe to list your workplace numbers and exhibit other bad behavior, I, too, must be anonymous, simply because blogging is not worth the personal attacks on my employment or my family. Simply put, being identified would silence a lot of voices in the blogosphere, as many bloggers would simply choose to stop blogging rather than open themselves up to personal reprisal.

In any event, bloggers I have learned to trust know who I am, what I do, where I work, the ethnicity of my wife, my kids' names, and other wholly irrelevant trivia.

repsac3 said...

Exactly, PP...

When I started out talking politics on the internet I was among those who didn't think much about personal privacy or security. A pair of more rightward leaning assholes causing problems on my property (trash can fire and graffiti) made me rethink what information I do & do not willingly disclose.

For awhile I was very careful, but in the last year or so I've let my guard down a bit. The fact is, just about everyone is more exposed than they think they are.

There is no real virtue in blaring one's real name throughout the blogesphere, though I'm certainly not opposed to those who choose to do so. Similarly, there is no vice in posting under a regularly used screen name. Protecting one's personal privacy by preferring to use a screen name is not the same as hiding behind anonymity. The author of Snark knows the difference, and when push comes to shove, Donald does, too. (Reread his thinking about Facebook for insight.)

I'm sure that Donald would never suggest that he believes everyone who comments on his blog (or anywhere else on the vast internet) without disclosing their real name is a coward... not even if that's what he kinda said, there...

Folks can argue amongst themselves about whether or not PrivatePigg & I are being too cautious, or Donald Douglas, who teaches at such-n-such College in the city of Whatchamawhozit, CA, isn't being cautious enough... But given the vast number of nuts left & right, I know where I stand... PP & I are maintaining a little safety for ourselves & our families that's worth the occasional nattering of someone I believe to be unnecessarily foolhardy.

I support the right of pretty young women to wear skimpy outfits in crime-ridden neighborhoods, too... That doesn't mean I think those that choose to do so are using the brains God gave 'em...

Donald Douglas said...

PrivatePigg: You needed to add that you do not spend your time smearing, attacking, ridiculing, harassing, and threatening others on the web. You hide your identity to protect yourself, not as a way to disguise evil predation, which is what many, many folks who use aliases are doing, especially folks like (O)CT(O)PUS and Repsac3.

I don't use anonymity simply because I have nothing to hide and I don't fear threats to my employment, but I don't begrude you, for the reasons you note.

Donald Douglas said...

Repsac3: You've got a lot of nerve comparing yourself to PrivatePigg. What a pompous hypocrite your are, and yes a flaming nihilist. You hide behind anonymity because you want to destroy, you and your freaking idiot comrade (O)CT(O)PUS.

God, you people are awful. Indeed, W. JAMES CASPER, aka Repsac3, you're a liar and a disgrace. You enable the demonic activity precisely described by David Denby, and he renounces it!

I renounce you and all you stand for, now and forever.

P.S. You totally ignore what PrivatePigg is saying about you, you freak:

"If everyone were identified, then I'd have no problem identifying myself. If everyone was identified you can bet no one would be writing that inane stuff about you. But because other people remain anonymous, and in their anonymity feel safe to list your workplace numbers and exhibit other bad behavior, I, too, must be anonymous, simply because blogging is not worth the personal attacks on my employment or my family. Simply put, being identified would silence a lot of voices in the blogosphere, as many bloggers would simply choose to stop blogging rather than open themselves up to personal reprisal."

Silence a lot of bloggers. That's exactly what you and (O)CT(O)PUS are working to do with your childish posts.

This essay is about you. Denby is talking about you. PrivatePigg is maintaing his privacy because of people like you. And you have no shred of decency or honesty, and you're disgusting to even be twisting PrivatePigg's words to fit your evil game.

PrivatePigg said...

repsac3 - I agree with your words, although, unlike Donald, I don't know you personally or in the blogging world and whether or not you actually live what you preach and are simply anonymous to protect your identity. Of course, if you do have a blog dedicated to mocking a blogger with whom you disagree...well, that sort of speaks louder than your words, I suppose.

As for Donald's retort: Zing!!

PrivatePigg said...

repsac3 - And, of course, if you have ever posted personal information about another blogger with the obvious intent of silencing them, or mocking them, or causing them any personal or professional embarrassment - for any reason - well, again, that would make your words ring pretty hollow. Again, I won't bother reading your blog, so if none of these things apply to you, then so be it. But if they do, then, yes, I am anonymous because of people like you.

Donald Douglas said...

PrivatePigg: Check American Nihilist. That's Repsac3's blog, and his co-blogger (O)CT(O)PUS wrote the post publishing my information. You can see why my retort to Repsac3 is rather pointed.

There is no truth or goodness to people like this. I'm simply astounded at Reppy's comparison to you, and his put down of me for being "foolhardy." Think of the sumpreme irony: I would be foolhardy to open myself up to the abuse Repsac3 is enabling, fostering, and personally promoting on his blog. I guess that's a double attack, a direct one in smearing me and an indirect one for not using anonymity to protect myself from the very same smear.

You can see why I routinely expose and denounce these people as evil.

repsac3 said...

Donald makes many hysterical charges, but is hard-pressed to back them with much of anything of substance...

I could ask Donald to put up some post or comment of mine in furtherance of this nebulous "destruction" he's on about, but I already know he won't, if for no other reason than he can't. There is no such post or comment.

I could ask him to point out any lie I've told, but again, I know he won't.

I could even ask him, as I have so very many times before, to show how anything I've written fits any definition of nihilism published in any mainstream non-partisan source. Donald never has; Donald probably never will...

I really don't wish to silence anyone. I have a blog that exposes Donald's incessant cries of "nihilist!" "nihilist!" for what they are... The calls of a bird unwilling to back such ad hominem namecalling with actual fact. I intended it to be a place where the many bloggers who've been attacked by Donald Douglas on their own blogs and his could get together & post what they chose to an audience of like minds. The snarky humor of the thing took off, and it has become a satire of what we all think Donald just may mean by this whole "nihilist" meme of his...

No, PP, I have never personally posted any information about Donald or anyone else that the person in question did not reveal on their own. (Of course, thru the new math of Donald's "distributive properties of nihilism," if anyone did so on a blog with which I am associated, that means I did, too... In that case, I guess I'm guilty.)

But I will point out that in his first comment in reply to me, Donald did choose to reveal something about me that I just stated I preferred remain private, for reasons I can only allow you to surmise for yourselves. (Yep, that is my name, Donald... You must be so proud as having ferreted it out for broadcast.)

I am not hiding anything... My blogs are available for any/all to see and read... Donald (and everyone else) is free to attack, defend, laugh, cry, or react in any other way he chooses, here, there or anywhere else... No one's stopping him. No one even wants to stop him. Most of us think he's quite funny, and we're all too glad to point it out as often as we can.

Quite simply, Donald has been claiming to "take down" other bloggers (frequently by calling them nihilists, strangely enough) for a long time. What's good for we "nihilist" gooses is certainly good enough for the glandular gander that is Donald.

Donald Douglas said...

Repsac3: No, it's not goose for the gander, because I do not threaten your livelihood or place of employment. YOU MAKE THREATS! YOUR BLOG MAKES THREATS! THEN YOU BLAME ME FOR NOT BEING CAREFUL ENOUGH! HAVE YOU NO SHRED OF DECENCY, SIR!

That is what your blog is about, and your ideology itself is all about destruction, of morality and traditionalism. You cannot rebut arguments with reason, so you deny any argument exists, and continually ask for evidence of your own perfidy and moral bankruptcy. That's called postmodern denialism.

This post is about all of you at American Nihilist. Yes, that's what you are. You have no values, no truth, and no God.

repsac3 said...

We are all our brother's keeper.

What any "nihilist" / conservative / Democrat / Catholic / demonist / black / white person does, EVERY white / black / demonist / Catholic / Democrat / conservative / "nihilist" person is responsible for.

Donald's "distributive law of nihilism" at work.

I ask for evidence Donald, because you fail to offer any on your own... You accuse and accuse, and show nothing that would substantiate your charges...

I invite anyone to look at what Donald does and does not say in his last comment (or if you prefer, the one before, or the one before that), and decide for yourself whether there's any there in there, or whether it's just a bunch of spurious noise that anyone or his brother could post about anyone else.

JBW said...

Well, it is true that I have no god...

You might want to simmer down there, Don. If that vein in your forehead bursts the blood splatter is going to seep into your keyboard and make the keys stick.

Just remind yourself of how superior your Christian values and beliefs are to our own supposed lack thereof and I guarantee you'll feel a wave of zen calm descend over you. There you go.

Grace, I never asked you to quit posting at my site, just that you refrain from commenting multiple times at seven to eight paragraphs each on every thread. I like a little bit of crazy on my toast in the morning but your monopolization of the chatter (my community is smaller than Don's here) was discouraging others, who both shared my views and did not, from engaging.

Reppy, as I've said before you seem to me to be entirely reasonable and calm every time you engage Don in debate and I really have no clue as to why he loathes you so. He recently came over to my site to complain about Octo's actions as well because I made an offhand comment about his whining. Never mind that I have never posted to American Nihilist of my own free will, I was made to understand that if I didn't repudiate Octo's words that I was totalitarian and suffered from "Obamessianism" (apparently the round of shots I received has cleared up my BDS for now).

Donald Douglas said...

Repsac3: I need to point you back to what Private Pigg said above:

" ... if you do have a blog dedicated to mocking a blogger with whom you disagree...well, that sort of speaks louder than your words ... "

The evidence for what you seek is in the mirror, Repsac3. You are not a good, decent man. And you're intellectually capable of argument or truth.

You started American Nihilist because I repudiated you so completely and unequivocally in my post, "About the Comments," from Januay 18th.

You're a dying to find a way to get out from under the diabolical plague afflicting you but you cannot, because you have no goodness or sense of right or wrong, and what the people are posting at your blog is not debate or ideas, but personal, rank, ad hominem attacks and threats to me and my employer.

I just wrote a post, and this fits you perfectly, you pure scab of shame:

"You must realize the Left's effort is not to gain the moral high ground, it is only to squat and defile that land once they have tricked you into leaving it. Make no mistake, their intention is not to act morally or enact decent policies or truly help the individual. It is to take the moral high ground from you so you will have no place to stand."

If Leftists can successfully make you feel as though they will take care of the moral needs of this nation (do you realize how absurd that sounds?), then you will stop daring to interfere, they hope. And when you stop interfering, when you retreat, the Left's own hypocritical inaction guarantees this nation will be condemned by their god of nihilism, narcissism, and self-hate.

Donald Douglas said...

JBW: I visited your site because I feel a glow, a smidgeon of decency in you, but if you seriously have no problems with what Reppy's doing, that's your sin.

JBW said...

Wow, a whole "smidgeon of decency". My high school guidance counselor was right after all.

Don, I'm just saying that I read most of Reppy's comments here and I don't see the evil bastard you constantly describe him as. Now if there's some online bathhouse where you guys engaged in a heated exchange that I'm not privy to that's your business.

While I know just as little about your feud with Octopus he does indeed seem to be a rather angry fellow, although I'm not sure if that proves your point about him or not but I see very little evidence of the apparent depravity you claim in repsac3.

And if I believed in sin then perhaps you would have a point there but as I obviously believe in nothing (as you've accused me of on many occasions) despite my "glow" I suppose you will now dismiss me and my views with as much prejudice.

repsac3 said...

Yes, Donald, I have created a blog that mocks your incessant and unprovoked use of the word nihilist... If that is the hook on which you choose to hang your whole "evil," "nihilist," "denialist," "demonic" hat, I guess you've got me, bud...

I still maintain that you're making ridiculous charges and refusing to back them with actual facts (and that the remainder of your latest comment is just more of the same... Lotta you talking, but no substance in support of your words--If you want, I can prove that my AmNi blog predates your "About the comments" post by about a week, though I suspect if I did, that'd only cause you check back in your archives for some other post where you "repudiated me, completely and unequivocally" (whatever the hell that means)--but you go ahead & declare your victory, if it helps you sleep better. You're always welcome to your own delusions.

As usual, I feel no need to tell folks who "won" or "lost" anything... I trust that those who read these exchanges are intelligent enough to decide for themselves...

Donald Douglas said...

JBW: Maybe you don't do nuance, but this really shouldn't be that hard for you to understand.

Donald Douglas said...

Repsac3 said: "I trust that those who read these exchanges are intelligent enough to decide for themselves..."

I trust so as well, especially on the fact that you refuse to address the subtantive points that others have raised, like your eminently "bad" behavior at American Nihilist that "sort of speaks louder than your words ... "

Again, as usual, that's called avoidance, prevarication, and moral cowardice.

Just keep it up. I'm sure it makes you feel good that you can play dodge ball all day, and all the while real moral clarity consistently alludes you.

JBW said...

Don, I'll thank you not to try to condescend to me if you don't mind. You seem to be a bit more emotionally agitated than this situation warrants.

You're a smart guy, repsac3 is a smart guy, and I'm no slouch myself: are you really saying that the problem is that I just don't understand what you're talking about? That you are completely right on this and that Reppy and I are both completely wrong? I already asked you this question on a higher thread earlier today and your answer was: "Yes, JBW, the left is wrong, through and through ... what more do you have to say for yourself."

I don't ask it again because I expect a different answer from Don but rather to point out to others reading this the unyielding, unthinking ideology we're dealing with here. How do you reason with someone who absolutely refuses to admit that they even might be wrong? Or that you might be right?

The obvious answer is that you can't. The inability to empathize or even identify with the views of those with whom you disagree indicates a serious lack of open-mindedness and intellectual honesty. Just like everyone else here making blanket statements about how the left always does this or the right always does that, this is the overarching problem with politics in this country.

Blame the left all you want Don, and they do share some blame (see how easy that was?) but you're also just another cliched part of the problem. This why you guys lost last year. It's actually kind of sad that you can't see that. Good luck with your blog, guy.

repsac3 said...

repsac3 said: "I trust that those who read these exchanges are intelligent enough to decide for themselves..."

I trust so as well,...

If that were true, you wouldn't claim victory over others as often as you do. I don't believe you trust the readers to decide for themselves at all...

...especially on the fact that you refuse to address the subtantive points that others have raised, like your eminently "bad" behavior at American Nihilist that "sort of speaks louder than your words ... "

I'm pretty sure I did address any and all of my behaviors at American Nihilist, as well as here. I have a blog that mocks you. If PPigg thinks that says I'm not a nice guy, he's welcome to feel that way... If you want to blame me for every word any blogger on my site posts, you're welcome to do that, too.

To PPigg, I can only urge him to visit the site & see for himself what is & isn't posted there.

To you, I will again say that to blame Peter for the words of Paul always was stupid, & ever shall be so. I don't know what did or did not happen between you and Octo, but I've seen you "shade" truth far more often than I have him. (Tell me again about Fogg threatening the FoxNews people with death, by saying that if the ratings & finances don't improve, "heads will roll." That's classic Donald...)

Do I think Octo's wrong for getting your job involved?
Yeah, probably....
But does that mean I'm going to censor his post? No, of course it doesn't.

Octo's a big boy. He can defend his post as he sees fit, assuming you ever stop trying to place the blame for his (mis)deeds on any/all other "nihilists," and deal with Octo, directly...

Again, as usual, that's called avoidance, prevarication, and moral cowardice.

Avoidance of what, exactly?
Prevarication about what?
Cowardice? You're dreaming, Donald.

Just keep it up. I'm sure it makes you feel good that you can play dodge ball all day, and all the while real moral clarity consistently alludes you.

I'll simply again point out who is dodging the questions here... I've repeatedly asked for quotes of anything I've said or done to warrant all these silly names and adjectives Donald has used in reference to me. I invite anyone here (but especially the man, himself) to point out Donald's substantive reply(s) to my queries...

Donald Douglas said...

JBW: You make a fair point, and I'll be the first to admit when I'm wrong, although so far that's rare. In this case, it's pretty much cut and dry to me, that (O)CT(O)PUS is not in the right on this one, and for you to give him a pass certainly doesn't speak well to your powers of reason or moral right.

As for the earlier post, I was kidding mostly, but not that much as to the gist of my comments. I can't see much that's good with current progressivism. Atheism, abortion, gay radicalism, big government redistributionism, global warming hoaxes and hysteria, affirmative action absolutism, multicultural moral relativism ... the list goes on. So, yeah, the left is wrong on most things. And what folks like about Obama is his sneaky shrewdness in sliding all this radicalism under the rug with fancy words and truncated debate.

It's going to come back to haunt you guys big time in four, maybe eight years, but in a big way, I'm convinced.

PrivatePigg said...

repsac3: "Do I think Octo's wrong for getting your job involved?
Yeah, probably....


Really? Only probably? I don't need to read your blog or anyone else's to be able to draw a line like that...It's wrong.

When I was at Libery Pundit with Brian the guys from Iowa Liberal would always respond to Brian with personal attacks, talking about his wife, even going so far as to do a criminal records / personal records search and posting the contents (maybe there was a past divorce they posted, I forget). They were doing that prior to our move to LP, too, so I learned early to keep private info. close to the vest. It's a disgusting practice, to say the least.

Divulging personal information is never relevant unless the post is specifically about that. You should be able to debate by using the poster's or commenter's words alone. There should never be a time and a place for mentioning personal information, or asking people to harass an employer. I might go so far as to say that interfering with one's employment, simply because of an online debate, is un-American. To each his own to earn a living, eh? Even Obama got himself all pissy when his girls were mentioned, even though he's the damn President and his girls are paraded before the cameras! Funny, I remember how Obama smeared Joe the Plumber's personal reputation after being exposed as a socialist...Well, with role models like that...

Anyway, right or left, leave the personal information out of it. It's wrong every time (unless someone makes their own personal information the actual subject of their own post). Even if you disagree with Donald, even you should recognize his personal information is completely irrelevant, no?

repsac3 said...

Even if you disagree with Donald, even you should recognize his personal information is completely irrelevant, no?

If that's the whole of your response, PPigg, I'm good with that. While you are free to play with the affect I put on my response ("Yeah, probably..."), I do agree that Octo was wrong to do as he did.

As I've said several times, it isn't something I would do (or anything I did do, contrary to the "blame game" distributive properties with which Donald likes to play), but I still maintain that the guy who was responsible for posting that publicly-found info is a big boy who can stand up for & defend himself and his actions... ...or do you think I should've removed his post (or that portion of it), simply because I had the power to do so?

I'll refrain from asking you to publicly repudiate Donald's mention of my given name here on this blog less than two hours after my explaining why--perhaps like the phone number of his department chair--I prefer to keep it out of the public realm.

Having read some of your stuff here & on your own blog, I believe you are intellectually honest, and do repudiate Donald's action as strongly as you do Octo's, though perhaps just a tad bit more quietly... It's cool... That final paragraph was clear enough for most of us here to understand, even if you weren't so willing to spell it all out...

PrivatePigg said...

Repsac3 - I can say openly that Dr. D should not post your name, but I'll admit I might be compelled to do as much if someone posted my personal information and employer info. I don't know all of your and Dr D's history. In any event, it would not be right of me to do it.

That said, posting simply a name is not even remotely as egregious as posting specific employer info. Whatever your name is, I'm sure I could put it in to google and never find you, your family, your employer, or anyone related to you in this big country of ours. I have a pretty uncommon name, but have found people all over the country with the exact same name, and even some guy who has registered "my" name and uses it as his personal website/business. Considering the size of the US, ones actual name ("John Anderson") without accompanying info. would probably leave one as anonymous as any clever moniker. There is not a high probability that anyone will find you based on simply your name. So Dr. D's listing of your name, with nothing else, in these comments does not aid me if I wished to harass you.

However, posting Dr. D's employer, including phone and address, obviously allows people to intimately interfere in the Doctor's life, going so far as to permit me to disrupt this man's ability to earn a living (which, truthfully, can be the only point in publishing such information).

Again, personal information should be off limits, but some personal information is worse than others.

PrivatePigg said...

JBW: "I like a little bit of crazy on my toast in the morning but your monopolization of the chatter (my community is smaller than Don's here) was discouraging others, who both shared my views and did not, from engaging."

Just curious - why do you suppose that you have a smaller community than the Doctor does?

JBW said...

Don, as I said I don't know the extent of your history with Octopus. I know what you've both said here but the level of emotion and animosity coming from you both makes me loathe to choose sides except to say that I think posting anybody's personal info without their permission is wrong, be that names, work phone number or other.

My powers of reason or moral right are not up for debate on this issue as I've neither given him a pass nor condoned his actions. I don't know the full extent of your tiff and I'm not getting involved.

As far as the progressive left goes, I was going to repudiate your points one by one but we've danced this dance before, you and I. Of course I think you're wrong and admissions of the weaknesses of our respective sides would be a good place to start but you've made it clear that you have no intention of doing so, so I'll just give my opinion that only a child or a fool speaks in absolutes. Intelligent adults are able to see the grey areas in between their rigid beliefs.

As far as Obama goes, again we've already done this. You think he's a radical hell-bent on the destruction of this country and everything that makes us great. I think you're an unthinking ideologue who would most likely say the same about anyone the Democrats elected as president. The liberal may change but the talking points remain the same.

PrivatePigg:"Just curious - why do you suppose that you have a smaller community than the Doctor does?"

Well PP, I suppose it's because I don't have a blog roll, I'm not registered with Technorati or Digg or Reddit, political commentary isn't my chosen profession... Oh wait, you're saying that I have a smaller community because I'm a liberal or stupid or something like that, huh? Oh man, that's clever! You're clever! Hey everybody, PrivatePigg is clever!

I see I'm going to have to keep an eye on you, being that you're such a clever boy and all. Well done. That was a good one. Well done.

PrivatePigg said...

Actually, I didn't say why you had a smaller community, did I? That was a bit of an over-exaggeration on your part. I was just wondering why you felt the need to mention you had a smaller community. It was not otherwise relevant.

I also have a smaller community. It's because Dr. D. is a better blogger than I. It's not really a big deal. Yet, you seem to think that I'm trying to get you to admit that you are somehow an inferior blogger and that I find myself oh so clever by simply asking you the question and implying the answer...Except that the so-called implied answer that you want to impute to my question actually rings true to me, and I have no problem admitting it...Which makes your answer seem a bit silly now, doesn't it?

But funny how you quickly defended yourself - "I don't use Technorait, or Digg, or..." blah blah. If those are the only things holding you back, then why not take 5 minutes and sign up? I assume you don't blog in the hopes that no one reads your stuff, right?

repsac3 said...

I'll admit I might be compelled to do as much if someone posted my personal information and employer info.

Hmmm... I didn't see you as a two wrongs make a right kinda guy...

Second, Donald posted his employer info himself. The college has a website, and anyone willing to look can find Donald's public page--or the public page of his department head.

Also, you understand that I am not the someone who posted any of Donald's info, right? (O)ct(o)pus writes on several blogs, including one I created, but he isn't me.

Even if one does buy into that stupid "eye for an eye" thing, I'm not the guy... I'm not the eye.

For all your clever defense of Donald's posting of my real name, it isn't about the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of his doing so, but about his doing so in the first place. Why do you suppose our fair associate professor posted my name here less than two hours after I agreed with you about the benefits of using a nom de keyboard? Personally, I think he threw a petulant little fit of maliciousness, but you're free to draw your own conclusions. (It isn't hard to find the info in question, PPigg... Just go back & read Donald's 10:43am comment in this thread. It's one or two comments down from my initial reply to you...)

One more time, I agree that (O)ct(o)pus shouldn've repeated the info he found on the Long Beach City College- History & Political Science Department website. He did so for the expressed purpose of doing harm to Donald. But I'm not (O)ct(o)pus, and fail to see why anyone's beef in that regard should be with me, or why any action some other blogger took should justify Donald's outing of my real world name in anyone's eyes...

Everyone who posts or comments at American Nihilist is responsible for their own words and ideas, and I've no intention of editing or censoring the posts of others, whatever I may think of what they have to say. They're all big boys, and can all defend themselves... I understand that Donald and some others of his ilk like to lump folks together, and hold every _____ (Democrat, liberal, "nihilist," ???) responsible for the bad acts of the one _____, (Check out Donald's posts blaming Kos as a whole for any racist/antisemitic comment, or every homosexual marriage protester for the few reported individual acts of prop 8 violence or bigotry) but I refuse to be held to such silly, sweeping generalization standards. I'm willing to accept my own credit or blame, but I've no use for anyone else's...

JBW said...

PP, based on the antagonizing nature of your past comments towards me I just assumed that you were trying to be an asshole. You're right, that was presumptuous of me.

But now you've admitted that you do consider me a stupid liberal so my answer, while still presumptuous, doesn't seem that silly in the least because my evaluation of your character (although not your original intent, so you say) was correct. And if you consider a blog "better" because it gets more hits and comments then Huffington Post is the best blog on the Interwebs, right?

My point in saying that I have a smaller community was to point out that one crazy religious chick is enough to discourage most of my readers from commenting if she sets her energies towards monopolizing the discussion with her wingnuttery.

And I'm having some trouble divining how answering your question was me quickly defending myself; you asked why my community is smaller and I told you. Is being truthful defensive to you? The truth is that I just haven't bothered to do those things because growing my blog traffic isn't really a priority for me right now.

You can assume that I blog for any number of reasons but my reasons for doing so are entirely my own. The people who read my blog are intelligent, knowledgeable family and friends I enjoy having discussions with and I don't plan on making a living from this hobby. If I was really that ambitious and growing my traffic was really that important do you think I would waste so much time dicking around on Don's blog with guys like yourself?

Donald Douglas said...

PrivatePigg:

Here's Repsac3:

"Donald posted his employer info himself. The college has a website, and anyone willing to look can find Donald's public page--or the public page of his department head."

Don't be fooled by this dodge. Repsac3's information is public:

W. James Casper

Repsac3 has no claim to anonymity. It took me a second to find it on Google, so what you're seeing here is Repsac3's evasion on the issue at hand.

This is a red herring, and moral cowardice, which is what we usually get from Reppy.

I'm not going around posting people's information in a campaign of intimidation. Indeed, the only reason I even used Repsac3's real name is to see how much he likes it, and apparently not so much. And therein lies your double standard.

Repsac3 and (O)CT(O)PUS are making explicit threats that if I don't stop blogging about their nihilism they'll contact my employees and initiate a lawsut. Obviously, this is the only sense of power they can have over me, since they're unable to make an argument more compelling than those I've made against them; they are so incapable of winning a battle of wits and ideas that they'll in fact seek to suppress those ideas. Naturally, I'm showing the world that these are just awful, horrible people, and Repsac3's defense of himself is pathetic. It's evasion and obfuscation.

Repsac3 built a blog to smear and snark and vilify me and American Power. Why? Because, like David Denby indicates, their goal is to attack and ridicule to cause pain and sow fear, even death. It's not a joke here or a laugh there. It's a project of diabolical vengeance. I'm being libeled right now, as a worthless lying dog, a right-wing freak, a cut-and-paste neocon robot.

I can handle debate like this, clearly, but this has gone on to harassment. The phone numbers for President Eloy Oakley or Executive VP of Academic Affairs Donald Berz are not on my department's website or on my personal information page. There's no reason to post them other than to intimidate me.

This is why you blog anonymously, PrivatePigg, and I don't blame you. But don't be fooled by Repsac3's attempt at moral equivalence. There isn't any. He's not an anonymous blogger, and he's said so himself above:

"For awhile I was very careful, but in the last year or so I've let my guard down a bit."

That's putting it mildly. He let down his guard all the way by posting his name online. Repsac3's a dishonest, vile man out to slander others and stifle debate. The current post is a record of their deeds in case of legal action.

Anonymous said...

Dude, we think that your blogging about us being nihilists is a freakin' joke. That's what AmNi is. It's a response to the joke of your calling everyone who disagrees with your warped political philosophy a nihilist or Stalinist or postmodernist or something else that is inappropriate to reality.

repsac3 said...

Here's Repsac3:

"Donald posted his employer info himself. The college has a website, and anyone willing to look can find Donald's public page--or the public page of his department head."

Don't be fooled by this dodge. Repsac3's information is public.


I'm pretty sure I said as much, Donald... Both from older and newer info, one can find either of us if one looks... If you're now arguing that this makes it alright to offer such things maliciously, I'm not with you. It wasn't right for (O)ct(o) to do what he did, and it wasn't right for you to do what you did... It's one thing when one releases one's own information, but another when it is offered by a third party... That was my point. I still wonder what yours is...

Repsac3 has no claim to anonymity. It took me a second to find it on Google, so what you're seeing here is Repsac3's evasion on the issue at hand.

Neither of us has any claim to anonymity, Donald. Anonymity isn't the issue. Maliciousness is the issue. It isn't for (O)ct(o) or for you to decide how & where to release another person's info without their consent. And once one asks the question why either of you chose to do so, things get even more sticky.

This is a red herring, and moral cowardice, which is what we usually get from Reppy.

Pray tell, what is the red herring here, Donald? What is the issue I'm avoiding?

I'm not going around posting people's information in a campaign of intimidation. Indeed, the only reason I even used Repsac3's real name is to see how much he likes it, and apparently not so much. And therein lies your double standard.

Considering I said as much not two hours earlier, in a comment you pretty obviously read, your malicious little experiment might've easily been avoided, no? (And should I hunt on back into the archives for the previous time or two when you've done the same, or would you have a snappy answer explaining your reasoning behind those, as well?)

Repsac3 and (O)CT(O)PUS are making explicit threats that if I don't stop blogging about their nihilism they'll contact my employees and initiate a lawsut.

Donnie... Baby... You're lying. I have never made any such threat, and you know it.

Go ahead. Quote my threat. Link to it. Prove what you say, or admit you cannot. (as though you would ever do either...) You're making it up, Donald.

The closest thing to a threat I've ever made is to tell you that as long as you keep acting the fool, I was going to keep laughing at you. Neither of us have stopped, so far.

Obviously, this is the only sense of power they can have over me, since they're unable to make an argument more compelling than those I've made against them; they are so incapable of winning a battle of wits and ideas that they'll in fact seek to suppress those ideas.

Again with the tell... Never with the show... Stop claiming victory, and start showing the victories, Donald...

Naturally, I'm showing the world that these are just awful, horrible people, and Repsac3's defense of himself is pathetic. It's evasion and obfuscation.

It looks to me like alot of questioning from me, and no answers from you... But ymmv...

Repsac3 built a blog to smear and snark and vilify me and American Power. Why?

Because you're a funny character, Donald. You claim to "take down" all these "nihilists"--the definition of which appears to be "doesn't agree with me," based on common usage, here--and I got to wondering whether all these folks on your "enemies" list had anything in common, and whether any of them had ever gotten a straight answer out of you as to why they fit any definition of nihilist. (I know I certainly haven't--and I must've asked a good 25-30 times--between day one and today.)

Because of your constant use of the word and your equally constant refusal to coherently explain it, it's become a joke around the leftwing blogesphere. YOU have become a joke around the leftwing blogesphere. I intended for American Nihilist to be a one off joke on the silly "nihilist" meme you created. I sent invites to all the "nihilsts" I could find, thinking we'd all just have a quick laugh at the expense of the silly little meme, & that'd be it... But some of 'em wanted to sign up, and once they did, and started writing--in character--it became something better than the one off joke I intended... You've caused alot of people to want to laugh at you, Donald. You've not made many friends over here in "nihilist, enemy" territory...

Because, like David Denby indicates, their goal is to attack and ridicule to cause pain and sow fear, even death. It's not a joke here or a laugh there. It's a project of diabolical vengeance. I'm being libeled right now, as a worthless lying dog, a right-wing freak, a cut-and-paste neocon robot.

Gee... You really are a drama queen, aren't you?

You do tend to be a cut-n-paste neocon robot, but it's a part of your charm.
Donald, you're reaping what you've sewn. Everyone who writes for AmNi, and many of the people who read it, have been slandered by you here. Almost as many have had you over on their sites with one line versions of your schtick here. They're laughing because they get the joke, and they get the joke because they've seen you in action.

I can handle debate like this, clearly, but this has gone on to harassment. The phone numbers for President Eloy Oakley or Executive VP of Academic Affairs Donald Berz are not on my department's website or on my personal information page.

They are both on the website of the college though, aren't they? Doesn't that make them "public information," just like my name? Or do you want to have that cake & eat it, too... (It's wrong when (O)ct(o) posts public info, but fine when Donald posts public info... Mmmm... Yummy double standard icing...)

There's no reason to post them other than to intimidate me.

No, I'm pretty sure the college wasn't thinking of you at all when it posted them, Donald...

Now, (O)ct(o). on the other hand... (But then, one might say the same about you... Pot, meet kettle.) I say both of you were wrong... What say you, Donald?

This is why you blog anonymously, PrivatePigg, and I don't blame you. But don't be fooled by Repsac3's attempt at moral equivalence. There isn't any. He's not an anonymous blogger, and he's said so himself above:

"For awhile I was very careful, but in the last year or so I've let my guard down a bit."


I never said I was an anonymous blogger, Donald. (In fact, I'm pretty sure that was you who said that, in your original post.) I said I prefer not to use my real name on blogs. Then--& I submit, BASED on that--you chose to use it... Not good, Donnie. Too much of your character showing through, there...

That's putting it mildly. He let down his guard all the way by posting his name online.

If that is your standard, then you have nothing to complain about as regards these guys from your college. Just like my name, the information is on a public website where anyone can find it.

Personally, I think you should set the bar higher, and say that individuals have the right to disclose or hide their own information as they see fit, but that third parties do not, but to do so, you'd have to admit personal fault, and I've never seen you do any such thing.

Repsac3's a dishonest, vile man out to slander others and stifle debate.

The fact that I keep coming here asking the same unanswered questions is evidence of the lie in those words... Man up, Donald. Stop telling people what to think about me, and start providing evidence of your allegations. If childish names & unsubstantiated labels and theories about my motivations is all you have, fine. But if you ever intend to "take me down," you're going to have to do better than that...

PrivatePigg said...

repsac: "Hmmm... I didn't see you as a two wrongs make a right kinda guy...

I clearly stated in the very next sentence it would not be right of me. I could not have answered your question in a preemptive manner more clearly.

JBW: "But now you've admitted that you do consider me a stupid liberal so my answer, while still presumptuous, doesn't seem that silly in the least because my evaluation of your character (although not your original intent, so you say) was correct. And if you consider a blog "better" because it gets more hits and comments then Huffington Post is the best blog on the Interwebs, right?

You make no sense. At no time did I "admit" you are a "stupid liberal," (1st falsehood) I can't imagine how you "evaluated" my character correctly based on the fact that you wrongly implied meaning from my question, and nothing else, (2nd falsehood) and I never said a blog is better "based on hits." I just said Dr. D. was a better blogger than I. I did not give a reason for that evaluation, did I? (3rd falsehood)

As for the "defense" comment - you charged me with asking a question not because I was actually interested in your answer to the question itself, but rather because the question itself was implying an answer, that you "have a smaller community because I'm a liberal or stupid." But then you went ahead an answered the question as if it was asked honestly anyway! "It's Technorati, or Digg, I swear!" If you are accusing me of not wanting to know the real answer to the question, but rather implying some other answer with the question itself, why would you waste your time answering the real question? You have accused me, more or less, of asking, "Are you an idiot?" No one asks that question because they want a reasoned answer, but because the implication is that yes, you are an idiot. You accused me of similar with my simple question - implying an answer. But then you went an answered anyway: "No, I'm not an idiot because I have a college degree and my mom says I'm smart and..." So, you actually knew I wanted a real answer to the question, but you accused me of implying an answer...for what reason? Because I'm conservative? I mean, had reppy asked you that question, would you have responded like you did?

I've spoken with Reppy and Dr. D. as much as possible on this topic, and I think all has been exhausted as far as I'm concerned. I asked you a simple question and it has morphed into you saying things that are not only false, but are so far outside of anything I've actually said, that they must be deliberate on your part. Feel free to respond for the sake of anyone else who is reading. I'm done here.

Dr. D. - I pity you to have to deal with this day in and day out.

repsac3 said...

I clearly stated in the very next sentence it would not be right of me. I could not have answered your question in a preemptive manner more clearly.

I maintain that it isn't right of anyone, regardless of what was done to them, personally. And I'm still surprised that you seem to be implying an ethical standard subject to the whims of the situation. You didn't seem to be the kinda guy who'd say, "Well, it's wrong to do that, except when it isn't..." From reading your blog, I expected you to have a set of values more firm than that.

I expected this guy, (and in my heart of hearts, I suspect that this is who you really are):

Anyway, right or left, leave the personal information out of it. It's wrong every time (unless someone makes their own personal information the actual subject of their own post).

Perhaps you should've just left it at that. Playing at wishy-washy situational ethics in order to help exonerate a friend who's done wrong doesn't really suit you.

Philippe Ohlund said...

Did the war over words end?

Thanks anyway! :-)

JBW said...

PP, you're right again. This is a stupid argument, because I overreacted. You've given me ample reason to in the past but the fault is still mine. I'm man enough to admit it and I consider the dialogue closed as well.

Don, I'm not speaking as a political foe or antagonist or anything like that now. I'm being honest with you because for some reason you've cut me a lot more slack than my fellow "nihilists" for saying pretty much the same thing as they in the past.

It seems that what Octopus did to you was wrong, but it also seems that you've tried to avenge this act by wronging repsac3 in Octopus' stead. I've written that I can't see what infuriates you about Reppy other than his reasoned debate and steady logic and that still holds but I really think you've driven off the pier here. He isn't Octopus, and as much as you hate them both that isn't going to change.

I'm being very serious when I say that. Your reaction above was coated in off the charts, over the top rage. I can relate: I do the same whenever I've had too much Pinot Noir (just ask PrivatePigg) but I think taking a few minutes for a serious self-evaluation would do you a world of good and maybe help your blood pressure as well.

You may take these comments as snarky or pseudoly bi-partisan but I assure you that they are sincere. Relax, and re-evaluate.

Philippe, it makes sense that you would be the voice of conciliation. I dare say that you're a better person than most of us here. Take care.

Philippe Ohlund said...

Thanks for your kind words, JBW.

I try to be a good person, but I still have a long way to go.

I'm not better than anyone of you.

I've just been lucky! :-)