Monday, June 15, 2009

Conspiracy of Silence

On Sunday, May 31, 2009 Dave Stancliff wrote in the Times-Standard newspaper in his column called “As It Stands” the article titled: “Trolls Exposed: What kind of troll is disrupting your online community?” Like everything in life, not everything is as it seems. Dave Stancliff has a presence on Internet Blogs and over time we've observed his commentary. Did he have an ulterior motive in writing that article? Who knew. How about the Times-Standard staff, did they agree with his premise? Who knew?

Well, we wrote about our observations here on this Blog. The tendency to vilify the writer, attack the messenger, when the subject being discussed touches a little too close to the truth, has led to some serious conditions, not only in America, and subject right here in Humboldt County, but around the World. We pointed out that Stancliff's approach to this subject was rather simplistic and in its totality largely responsible for causing the loss of media credibility and factual reporting. In that, we alluded, one person's efforts to illicit thought or thoughtful consideration was another person's “troll.”

Dave Stancliff's assault in his column was upon the person he tagged or simply claimed was a “troll.” In that, he assaulted their personal credibility, and suggested that they be starved to death -- ignored. In that he assaulted their legitimate right to exist in whatever manner they chose to present themselves. We witnessed a good example of this form of discrimination and bigotry with the active assault some months back by a gang of local blogger thugs on Steve Lewis. This is same tactic the United States in league and complicit with the United Nations has done to North Korea for more than 50 years simply because they refuse to recognize the North Korean people's right to sustain a totalitarian government. What's our point? Dave Stancliff didn't assault “trolls” he assaulted people, people he merely accused of being “trolls.” His definition of "trolls" detailed nearly everyone that posts and comments online and allowed him and his kind the freedom to accuse just about anyone at any time. What made this matter doubly serious is that he is published by the newspaper and writes under the same title: “AS IT STANDS.” As It Stands could just as easily be written, “As It IS.” Why is that important? The name itself speaks to a permanent, factual and truthful reality based upon his personal credibility and legitimacy to do so propagated by the Times-Standard newspaper. He's somebody in this community! And the Times-Standard backs that up by publishing him under his brand, “As It Stands.”

If there ever was some question about the Report's integrity regarding our observations, Dave Stancliff by his unsolicited demagogic tirade on our blog and his slanderous hate speech posting on his blog, “As It Stands” removed all doubt. As bad as that is, that fact that the Times-Standard continues to run his columns makes this issue far more serious. Whatever he writes under the name “As It Stands” is sanctioned and approved by the Staff and Management of the Times-Standard newspaper. Therefore the bigotry, prejudice and hate speech written by Dave Stancliff is legitimized by the Times-Standard. Consequently, we sent, in behalf of the Joe Blow Report, the following email to three people at the Times-Standard, Dave Kuta Publisher, Kimberly Wear Managing Editor and James Faulk City Editor:

Dear Mr. Kuta,

I would like to bring to your attention the latest blog commentary about me and my online blog, the Joe Blow Report, by Dave Stancliff. As far the the Report is concerned normal blog commentary and article postings are laissez-faire. They bring with them limited legitimacy and credibility as compared to published media. Whatever Mr. Stancliff writes for your newspaper, you approve. You can relegate what he says to "opinion," yet I contend ultimately you or someone representing your newspaper approves, therefore you stand behind what he says as if you said it yourself.

The Joe Blow Reports were designed to avoid the kind of personal diatribe and hate mongering that comes from assaulting the writer. Unfortunately, Mr. Stancliff was personally affronted by my observations regarding his Sunday, May 31, 2009 "As It Stands" article and the part that he played in writing it. He came into by blog and expressed that effrontery in graphic terms by formulating a false accusation to revile the integrity of me, backed up by days of ever more egregious personal accusations. The ensuing conversation, if that's what you want to call it, over the next days speaks for itself. What he wrote is easily erased and bears no ultimate threat as a consequence of some of the accusations he makes. That all changed, however, when he posted on his blog, As It Stands, accusations against me of operating a "hate-filled blog" and of being "paranoid," among other things, but more importantly of personally "threatening him." This goes way beyond the pale.
What was their response? They ran Dave Stancliff's column in the Sunday, June 14, 2009, issue of the Times-Standard. Anyone familiar with what's been going on here knows exactly what the staff and management of the Times-Standard thinks of the Joe Blow Report and everyone associated with it. Well, read what Dave Stancliff accuses us of being here. In that same Sunday newspaper on page A4 is the article, "'Lone Wolf' terrorists are harder to defeat." Who are these "terrorists"? They define three people as "an elderly man" in a museum, "a young man in Arkansas" and "another man opens fire in a Kansas church." -- All Americans! The article goes on to say:
"Each apparently was driven to act by beliefs considered by some as extreme." "It could be anyone. It could be the guy next door, living in the basement of his mother's place, on the Internet just building himself up with hate, building himself up to a boiling point and finally using what he's learned."
Now tell me that this is exactly what Dave Stancliff with all his published authority is saying about anyone associated with the Joe Blow Report?



  1. It ran on May 31st.
    Not on March 31st, or Mary 31st

    You start right off getting it wrong.

  2. I like the way you erase all of my comments just so you can slant your sob story.
    I see you made the correction on the date.
    Now try telling the whole story (put all the comments back)and not just slanting it so someone will think you're righteous.
    Why would you even do that - are you afraid of the truth?

  3. You know what?
    Forget about it.
    I'm going to.
    Wasted too much time on this whole subject.

  4. Anyone know who this guy is talking to or what he's talking about?
    ("erase all of my comments")