Friday, June 19, 2009

Wolves In Sheep's Clothing

As It Stands and the Times-Standard newspaper

Jesus said: "Beware of the false teachers--men who come to you in sheep's fleeces, but beneath that disguise they are ravenous wolves." So, how do you know a wolf in sheep's clothing when you see one? You look at their tracks and the crap they leave behind.

Jesus also said deceitful liars, people that make false lying accusations are murderers: "You are of your father the Devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of liars." In other words, according to Jesus Christ, liars are the Devil's spawn.

Hate speech is defined in the Wikipedia as follows: "Hate speech is a term for speech intended to offend a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability." Of further interest is the purpose hate speech is used: "Critics have claimed that the term "Hate Speech" is a modern example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct." "As It Stands" defines the Joe Blow Report, in particular, the writer or writers, he's somewhat confused, as paranoid, hostile, hate-filled, extremist, cowards and blow-hards personally threatening him.

Notice the how Wikipedia describes paranoia:
Paranoia is a thought process characterized by excessive anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself. In the original Greek, παράνοια (paranoia) simply means madness (para = outside; nous = mind). Historically, this characterization was used to describe any delusional state. (Emphasis added)
"Persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself" defines Dave Stancliff perfectly. To publicly denigrate someone the way Dave Stancliff has, accredited and substantiated by the Times-Standard is beyond "simpleminded." It's just plain STUPID. And that was my point. Why would anyone want to threaten this guy? He's made an absolute fool out of himself without any help from me.

Dave Stancliff, according to what's printed under his "As It Stands" column in the Times Standard is a "columnist" for that paper. They also say "he is a former newspaper editor and publisher." When you consider the staff and management's stand regarding Stancliff then it begins to make sense their love affair with him and why he can do no wrong. So, who are the REAL WOLVES in sheep's clothing?

After posting "Trolls versus The Thought Police" article Dave Stancliff came into our web and posted six comments. What he said speaks for itself -- everything is personal! Nothing about the central premise of our article. Only verbal abuse, foul lying accusations, insults, diatribe -- nothing worthy of someone writing weekly columns in the local newspaper. Everything that was exemplified in the article was born out by what Dave Stancliff wrote on our blog. All of that personal crap was easily erased, but why do that? It was the proof in the pudding; it proved and justified the original intent of the article.

That all changed when he went on his own blog and posted his accusations. There he accuses the writer of threatening him, commenting on our "little hate-filled blog," of being a "paranoid lot of losers," "thinly veiled threats warning him" are proof of "hate that is spewing out from The Joe Blow Report blog" -- NO examples of hate speech -- Only his accusations.

But, that wasn't good enough! On June 15, 2009, apparently in response to our article "Conspiricy of Silence" he posted another personal attack on his As It Stands web. To show the racism and hate-speech we added the word "kike" in bold text.
Monday, June 15, 2009

Joe Blow (conspiracy) Report staff bawl like babies!

Well readers, this is what I have to contend with sometimes. "Kike" Extremists tend to attack anything that doesn't fit their world view. There's a "Kike" group at the Joe Blow Report blog that decided to attack me on May 31st and who posted a hate-filled rant about a column I did on trolls (of all the ironies!) This is a "Kike" group that has the mind-set of a steel trap.

Now they (these Kikes) have their crying towels (it took them two weeks to think of a reply) out and are blubbering to all that will read their raving. I'm not going to be intimidated by a bunch of "Kike" cowards who are whining about a conspiracy between me and the Times-Standard to attack trolls! Good grief! Get a life you blowhards.

I don't know who you think you are, but I do know that you seek to impose your will upon others by reading your past posts. Now you think you can silence me by making outrageous accusations and trying to get the newspaper to drop my column. Guess again "Kike" gang. You'll never be able to silence me. You best bet is to change your soiled diapers and to find someone else to pick on!

What he wrote under his column "As It Stands" is as offensive as modified by us for clarity as noted above in bold and is exactly why he wrote it, to offend. The purpose of accusing someone of being a "troll" is to shut them up. That's what all racist, extremist hate-mongers do. Today, the law defines such as "Psycho Terrorists."

As noted in our article, "Conspiracy of Silence," we had notified the staff and management at the Times-Standard newspaper of Dave Stancliff's web posting about us. Because his web is titled "As It Stands" and his newspaper column has the same name, the Times-Standard has a vested interest in what he says and does. The newspaper management approve his columns and that gives him credibility and legitimacy. What he wrote on his web, attacks the Time-Standard's credibility and legitimacy equally. We waited to see if their relationship was a marriage made in heaven. When no one at the newspaper responded, we posted the article and sent another more extensive email. You can read that email and Ms. Wear's reply here. This time Ms. Wear answered and then ran the "As It Stands" column Sunday, June 21, 2009. We heard the both of them loud and clear. Lets see if the local businesses want to be associated with this kind of sick racist behavior. The Basij are alive a well in Eureka, California!

[Photo] [Some interesting background on the Basij on Democracy Now today]

UPDATE: Tuesday, June 23, 2009

When I wrote “Trolls versus The Thought Police” I had spent months observing commentary by Dave Stancliff on other local blogs I frequented. I had a fairly good idea his motivation for the article; I'd seen him in action. On the face of it, so-called “Online Trolls” are a good mark to disrespect and disrepute. Whenever someone says something of which others do not agree, the first thing they do is try to shut the person or persons up by changing the subject to the object. Frankly regarding Stancliff, as far as I was concerned he could yak away all he wanted. He had his blog and newspaper columns and even I would occasionally read what he had to say. It was his knee-jerk reaction to justifying accusations that I took exception to, specially to being published as if there was some legitimate reason. Not to say Online Trolls do not exist, they do. Dave Stancliff's posted comments on my blog are a good example; he is self-defining. That was not my issue in writing the article. My issue was how easy it is to make false accusations against someone, in this case an Online Troll, in other cases an Online Terrorist or just your neighbor. The consequences in our society are overwhelming.

It was my contention that he was arguing ostensibly for the same right President George Bush, his government administration and his supporters had made justifying the permanent detention of people based only upon, what turned out to be in many cases, coerced, false lying accusations. How this atrocity, designed to extract counterfeit witnesses and produce phony testimony to justify a “War On Terror,” is codified by Andy Worthington. He is a British journalist and historian and the author of “The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America”s Illegal Prison." In his interview this morning on Democracy Now he explains exactly how falsely accused, innocent men were held prisoner for nearly a decade when the Bush government and the military knew, all along, they were totally innocent. You can read or listen to his interview, Judge Orders Release of Guantanamo Prisoner After Seven Years, Saying Government Position “Defies Common Sense” here.

We all know that, to a large extent, the news media sold out the American people for the “government” line. Dave Stancliff's demagogic tirades and baseless accusations are racist, hate-speech for sure, but they pale in significance compared to the Times-Standards approval of his conduct. Without much help from the Joe Blow Report, well not much anyway, he did a real number on his own credibility – his big worry – his legitimacy as a newspaper columnist. In the end, however, he's doing a number on the newspaper's, at least the staff and management, objective credibility. It's what's called “biting the hand that feeds you.”



  1. This kind of thing demeans both of you - I'd advise dropping it and moving on. You both have better things to do.

    Rise above. Both of you.

  2. Rose,

    You are right! I thought long and hard about this until I saw what Kimberly Wear of the Times-Standard did Sunday. This issue is way MORE than just the sum of the parts!

  3. I have to say that Kimberly's response is exactly what I would do if I were her - "These issues have nothing to do with the Times-Standard newspaper. This is an issue between you and Mr. Stancliff and your respective blogs. He is not a Times-Standard employee nor do his views neccesarily reflect the views of this newspaper."

    In this instance that is exactly correct, even if upsetting - but, perhaps a (anonymous) blogger would be allowed a response "My Word." Worth asking.

    Both you and Dave have good points - the use of the "troll" definition is overused and is used as a means to avoid real discussion and dissenting views AND real trolls do exist and are a problem on the internet.

    I do have to laugh, though, it is always the lefty blogs who employ "moderation."

  4. Is there something I'm missing about this “moderation” thing?

    The only time I might strike a comment is if it uses gratuitous foul language. Repeated, gratuitous personal attacks get a serious look too.

  5. Rose,

    Naturally! That's exactly what I expected her to say when she published his “As It Stands” column again on Sunday. There's just one big problem with her “conditional” denial. His blog and his column carry the same name: “As It Stands.” They, the Times-Standard, without any disclaimer or he without any disclaimer publish the same articles. They also print at the end of each of his columns the following endorsement: “Dave Stancliff is a columnist for The Times-Standard.” His every word they publish is personally approved by someone at the Times-Standard. This gives him undeniable standing that neither I nor the Joe Blow Report has. It is what makes what he did so grievous.

    What's lost, and apparently lost on Kimberly Wear, in this whole unfortunate affair is what Dave Stancliff has done to the integrity of the Times-Standard and those who support him. He has a certain responsibility to the newspaper, equal if not more so than that of Dave Kuta, Kimberly Wear or James Faulk. What he said is what he wrote. I did not put those words in his mouth. What he says about me, in this paranoid climate we live in, is dangerous as hell. It could, and I emphasize “could,” pose a serious threat to me and my family if anyone was to take what he said seriously. My problem is, based upon the position Kimberly Wear for the Times-Standard took, and I have to ask, what's to stop him from writing those same accusations about me in his “As It Stands” column in the Times-Standard he published on his “As It Stands” web?

    Just so there's no misunderstanding, neither I nor anyone one else that may or may not be associated with the Joe Blow Report is trying to get the Times-Standard to drop his column. He brought the newspaper into this whether they or anyone else likes it or not. Unfortunately, illicit relationships tend to taint everyone.

    Since the newspaper's credibility and integrity are in dispute, for me to ask them for anything would be rather self-defeating and hypocritical.