Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Another Logging Tradgedy

Fortuna logger killed in accident – Woods fatality is the second in Humboldt County in a week. Reported by John Driscoll in the Wednesday, August 25, 2010, Times Standard newspaper.

As a logger that's been around the woods most of his life, and set his fair share of chokers, one of the things I learned early on, is that injury and death happens, BUT not because “setting chokers” is inherently “dangerous.” Subscribe to Twitter and follow the California Highway Patrol and you'll darn soon learn that getting in your car and driving around the North Coast is darn “dangerous.” Safety in the woods is the same as driving in Eureka. It all starts with the right attitude – pay attention and don't assume anything.

Most of the time injury or death is just stupid carelessness. The young man from Idaho was too experienced to get caught-up that way. Here again, working down hill. How about Mr. Moran? The paper says his age is 36. How long had he set chokers or worked under a yarder? Giving the go-ahead after setting chokers when you are down hill, or below the turn of logs tells me there's something else going on here. Which is what usually always happens when there's more workers then there is work.

How many deaths attributed to Steve Will's operations in 30 years? 30 years is plenty enough time for any logging company to be considered experienced with experienced personnel both supervising the operation and in the brush. They, therefore, are experienced enough to know the dangers of operating in particular ways. Other times injury or death is the result of pressure. The constant demand to “move.” Priorities are set on “go” and safety becomes secondary. Expectations set the mental priority and your job is held in the balance. That's when you start taking shortcuts, putting yourself and others in harms way.

Then there's that situation you seemingly don't have any control over. The fluke limb that just came out of nowhere or one particular tree you missed that was rotten to the core and it came back on you. Or maybe you decided to sit down in the shade of a big old uprooted redwood stump one day to eat your lunch and for no apparent reason, without any warning, just toppled over on you. Yes, unforeseen accidents can happen in the woods and on the streets and highways even in our homes. It's been my observed experience, however, that REAL unforeseen accidents are a rarity.

These tragedies come close to home. Many times I put my job and my business on the line, jeopardizing my families welfare, over issues of safety. My wife and I feel the loss, again.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Humboldt HumBugs

For someone that's retired, there are foggy old cold days, like today in Eureka, that just don't inspire getting outside and working in the yard. So, for someone that loves computers and the Internet, computer and Internet consulting was the perfect hobby. Heck, I could develop and produce cutting-edge websites and web pages with the best of them. Evolving through that process I was introduced to Bulletin Boards, News Groups, Blogging, Twitter, Facebook and other social media. In the process I began to follow people that interested me. It's surprising what you can learn about people from what they post or write on the Internet. Personal and business websites, web pages and blogs are like Internet homes, personal offices or rooms. Ever notice there are some homes where you walk in and feel right at home the moment you go through the door? Others places are just the opposite. You go in, but you don't know if you should take off your shoes and leave them at the door or if you should even sit down.

Understanding how the Internet works and what is required to get your website noticed and recognized I needed to link to other bloggers. Since I was writing for mostly a local audience I was looking for people mostly in the Humboldt County area. After getting the Joe Blow Report up and running I began to visit local blog websites as I could find them. Occasionally, I would leave a comment if the subject interested me. What helped me a lot were the bloggers that listed other people's websites and blogs on their sites. As I remember, one of the local blogs that I connected with that had a featured list of other blog websites was the North Coast Journal Blog. They called it the Humboldt Blogwatch. They offered a really nice feature I later incorporated into the Report that updates featured blogs as new material is posted. I even include them in my Blogger Feature List of sites I follow, which is also included in Google Reader.

I've been waiting for the folks at N.C. Journal to include the Joe Blow Report in their Blogwatch now for two years. I keep checking, but no luck. I see other new blogs listed though. What's the problem guys?

The N.C. Journal aren't the only local blogs that don't feature everyone either. The blogs they DO feature says something quite revealing about them and relationships in this community. My goal was to try to be all inclusive. So, I looked for blogs that were all inclusive too. The first person I spotted was Kym at Redheaded Blackbelt. (Psssst! I copied her list, then I check back to see her latest updates.) Through her I found Eric at SoHum Parlance II and Ernie's Place and we were on our way. Even though Ernie isn't really considered “all inclusive.” Within the growing list I was primarily looking for websites or blogs that were current and relevant. As an old logger listing a “Tree-Sitters” blog didn't come easy. Too, when you go to someone's blog and ask them a direct question and they ignore you, other bloggers can see that. Doesn't take people long to see who is on the crap list. A couple of times and I began pulling them from my blog, but I got over that. When people come to my home and I invite them in, I figure their presence is a gift, so I treat them kindly and decently. If they go beyond simple decency I simply ask them to leave. Like some bloggers I've encountered, I don't invite people into my home then use their presence as an excuse to beat the hell out of them then kick them out into the street all bloody and bruised. My choice in listing had nothing to do with the number of people commenting either. That was irrelevant. Keeping track of the comments and commentators provided some good insight on occasion.

In the four blogs listed you see two diametrically opposed examples. Realizing lists are subjective to the likes and the dislikes of the blogger, they are extremely revealing. On the one side is a rather all-inclusive list. And on the other a rather good example of the good-ol' boy club snob list.

I've noticed that the first one's to rail against those running this city and county, the generations old entrenched good-ol'-boy club, are usually from this “snob list.” Some people might think getting listed on these blogs is a step-up in this blogger world we all live in. It means you've been recognized and accepted by the status quo. Which takes me to why I use a pseudonym. Joe Blow of the Joe Blow Report is not an “anonymous” blogger or writer. You want to know who Joe Blow is? Go to the Joe Blow Report or to The Joe Blow Report 2 and read what he or they say. He is exactly who he is and purports nothing else. Joe Blow's credibility is determined by what he or she writes. NOT by who he or she might be. You read Joe Blow's written observations for the value they present, and NOT because of the writer.

One of the writers that caught my interest was Glenn Greenwald who writes for and occasionally appears on TV news shows. I read most of what he writes because it's worth reading, at least to me anyway. I DON'T read his stuff because of his lifestyle or celebrity status or that he's a Constitutional lawyer living in Brazil.

My next project is to go through the list and if I find new and interesting blog sites to add them to my blogrolls. Local bloggers have different and interesting takes on issues and subjects. The plan is to start highlighting some of these blogs, bloggers, writers and their subject material. For instance, I came across and interesting article through Twitter the other day by a guy called the Vagabond Journalist. The title: “The Pentagon Vs. Free Expression.” -- “Wikileaks scandal exposes anti-American agenda of the police state.” He concludes:
On this Freedom of Information Day, I urge you to support your alternative media locally and globally and to support Access Humboldt in its mission of empowering this community with the means to create its own authentic and local culture of honesty and free expression.
He's got his work cutout, when I think about how it's been my experience in over 55 years, that “talk is cheap” and most people are “stone deaf.” You can also read what he says here.

I think this is a good start.


Sunday, August 15, 2010


Once again, this would-be obsessed parasite has come to my Internet home to tell me what a wonderful person he “thinks” I am and how he plans to treat my family and me in the future. I can hardly contain myself. I can't tell you how long I've waited for this particular comment. With this threat, Mr. Stancliff crossed the line and changed the rules for the second time. From this day forward everything he posts to the Joe Blow Report blogs goes automatically in the trash.

I wonder if people, BULLIES like Dave Stancliff ever understand, it is NEVER about fear of them or their threats, it is fear of self. Problem is, Dave Stancliff has proven himself to be much more than just a run-of-the-mill Internet Bully. These people, as clearly demonstrated in everything Dave Stancliff has said throughout the Internet and on the Joe Blow Report, including his current conduct, manifests the exact rhetoric or language of a terrorist suicider. I say that, because that's what you are when you attack another man's family to get at him. The tragedy here, is that suicide bombers don't just crawl out from under a rock one day and decide to go try to hurt people - they develop over time. If Dave Stancliff ever had any credibility as a writer or any legitimacy as a human being all he had to do was let his work speak for him, stay out of or off of my Internet home and keep his mouth shut. It is rather difficult to libel and slander someone for defending yourself against their lies and unproven false accusations when they come to your home and personally assault you.

Highlighted here for posterity is Dave Stancliff's latest public comment, referenced below and posted on the other Joe Blow Report's latest observations “Fixation or Obsession?” in response to his previous comment referencing the article: Living With Dignity. Energetic Parasites look for any weakness or even a perception of some weakness as their way to bore in with their weasel words. These “weasel word” statements end here, enough is enough.

The purpose of these Joe Blow Report blogs are to present impartial, non-personal objective “OBSERVATIONS.” I refrain from writing personal, what we consider “worthless opinions” or conjecture. My goal is to remain impersonal and objective and let the facts speak for themselves. I write “anonymously” to avoid ego entanglements – to keep the “subject” separated from the “object.” We thought we'd done a pretty good job of staying objective until we had the misfortune to write about one of Dave Stancliff's As It Stands “opinions” published in the paper. Little did we know we'd uncovered one of the Anti-Christ' servants. He's tried to make our blog life hell ever since. Now he wants to make my family and my personal lives hell as well. I keep resisting him, but he just keeps coming back again and again. I gave him plenty of rope to demonstrate his true nature and he has, but that rope ran out today, Friday the 13th.  A rather appropriate day, I'd say.

I was reading Glenn Greenwald's article, “How propagandists function: Exhibit A” where he says,
“This is what a propagandist, by definition, does: asserts any claim as fact in service of a concealed agenda without the slightest concern for whether it's true.”
Dave Stancliff, for the past year has come on this blog and demonstrated exactly how “a propagandist” operates in finite detail with each and everyone of his comments. He "asserts" claim after claim and NEVER produces the slightest proof to justify his worthless assertions. Look below. You won't find any. Just his "assertions" he claims are "facts." It's actually a thing of beauty if you have the stomach, patience and time to wade through the history of his ever evolving self-judgment.

For entertainment purposes, since this is the last time I intend to deal with this scummy crap that keeps getting deposited on this blog, lets entertain the first idea he spouts off about and see what it tells us about him. He says,
“Your biggest fear is having your real idenity [sic] revealed Joe.”
What supernatural power does he possess that allows him to know “my fears”? This is what makes Dave Stancliff a “would-be god,” his stated ability to tell me and everyone else what I think, how they should think and what they should believe because he can read our hearts. He really needs to go back to his Sunday, August 1, 2010, “As It Stands: 'I know I'm right' syndrome or being stupid and proud of it” and keep his own counsel.
If you don't know, the Anti-Christ is that really good looking guy that passes himself off as Jesus Christ and all things that Jesus stands for or embodies. What gives him away is he's the very antithesis of Jesus. He proves to be exactly what he is. He doesn't tell lies, he is, in fact, "a liar." The Anti-Christ proves to be a malicious slanderous murderous, liar and hypocrite. At least that's how he's partially defined in the Holy Bible. I'd say he sounds a whole lot like Glenn Greenwald's “Propagandist.”

Conspicuously posted on the Joe Blow Report's Home Page Sidebar is the following partial statement: “Please be aware that the Joe Blow Report speaks for itself. You may or may not agree, but just remember, that is your issue.” Remember, anonymous writers or bloggers are fictitious entities. They live and die by the integrity and credibility of what they write, NOT by who they are. So how does a pseudonym or a non-entity slander, stalk, harass and attack with malicious intent, etc. someone that lives and dies by who and what he or she is? The fact is, something that is nothing can not. The joke is on Dave Stancliff and always was. He is a real person and Joe Blow is not. And that is the reason Dave Stancliff is driven to try to put a living face on Joe Blow. He shows this foolishness and stupidity, because Joe Blow is timeless.

The ability to end whatever it is Dave Stancliff believes plagues him, his sickness, was always his to end anytime he wanted. He made his choice, and that's that.

The End.

Friday, August 13, 2010

It's Official – Shooting Justified

Short notice on second page of the Friday, August 13, 2010, Times-Standard says: “Deputies going back on duty after shooting death.

Another press release statement from the Sheriff's office reveals Sheriff Gary Philp's decision: “After reviewing physical evidence, officer statements and witness statements, Sheriff Gary Philp decided to return seven-year veteran Deputy Dave Lundie and Deputy John Fomasi to regular duty, according to a Sheriff's Office press release. Philp determined that neither deputy violated Sheriff's Office policy or procedure during the incident.” [Emphasis added]

“Press release” information doesn't provide much if any opportunity to ask the Sheriff any questions. Surely, there are people in this community that would like to know what “policy or procedure” justifies using lethal force to shoot someone for “refusing to comply with officers' orders”? I know I would. Be nice if the Sheriff would produce the “metal handle of a garden rake” so everyone could see the real threat that suppposedly confronted these officers that a three-foot heavy guage steel or 3/4 inch lead pipe could.

 Again we see the Times-Standard's propensity for their play on words when reporting on police action in this community. In the above referenced article they state: "He was shot multiple times after allegedly approaching officers aggressively with the metal handle of a garden rake [...]." That statement is considerably different than the "broken" three-foot" piece of a "handle" reported earlier. By the way, my rake handle is five feet long, it's not metal, but it's not a child's toy either.  For the record, the Tuesday, August 10, 2010, newspaper article reported that Sheriff's Lt. Steve Knight said it, “looked like a three-foot metal pipe.” He also says that Robert Garth was close enough to these officers that, “at one point, had contact with one of the officers.” So, they could clearly see if that “handle” constituted an actual deadly threat. It obviously DID NOT constitute such a threat to the victim – the guy that called in the assault.

Since this action by the Sheriff establishes a baseline for the justifiable use of lethal force, i.e., the mere perception of some sort of fear induced threat or failure to immediately comply with an order, this community needs to see and know exactly what the Eureka Police Department and Sheriff's Office's policies and procedures are. If nothing else, they certainly need to be explained for everyone's protection. Be interesting to see if there's any kind of follow-up by the Times-Standard or any other local media outlet on this latest incident and the related questions that have serious implications for everyone in this community.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Lethal Force – Always the First Resort

... or:
Shoot first, ask questions later.

[UPDATE Below]

What's it take to get shot by North Coast police officers? What do we learn, if anything, from the latest reported police killing of Robert Garth on Saturday, August 7, 2010, by Humboldt County Sheriff's deputies?

First, by the time the deputies arrived at the scene of the incident, he apparently, as it was reported to the deputies, had a broken rake or garden tool handle in his hand that he'd been using to assault another man. Apparently, that man had time during the ongoing assault to call 911 and tell them about being assaulted with a rake. The report is he was treated at the hospital for head and chest wounds. The garden tool handle caused physical damage, but apparently not life threatening, since he declined medical assistance at the scene. Apparently, the assault with the "garden tool" didn't hurt him enough that when the deputies arrived that he couldn't “run away” as he is reported to have done. Was the rake handle a “deadly weapon”? Usually, such metal garden tools are made of flimsy material, as testified to by it breaking. Did it even matter? As soon as he turned on the deputies, the guns came out.

Who in their right mind, holding a flimsy piece of metal, advances on two police officers with drawn guns pointed directly at your heart? It is also reported that he was barefoot. Next, he was shot multiple times apparently by BOTH officers because he “kept advancing.” Apparently, Robert Garth was in “close” enough “proximity” so as to touch one of the officers. Are you telling me that they couldn't determine what Garth had in his hands and that two highly trained able-bodied Sheriff's deputies could not easily “stop the threat” or disarm this guy if they wanted? How much harm was he going to do after being shot a couple times? Where's the mortal threat here?

The Times-Standard's Thadeus Greenson reports that “Garth was arrested a number of times over the past handful of years, including arrests that resulted in convictions for possession of a deadly weapon and obstructing a peace officer in 2007 and for battery in 2005.” Robert Garth had a history with the local police. The question is, did these deputies know this guy?

Finally, notice “who” caused the deputies to fire their weapons: “Knight (Sheriff's Lt. Steve Knight) said the deputies repeatedly instructed Garth to drop his weapon but he did not comply and kept advancing, causing the deputies to fire on him as they retreated backward.” This is probably the most telling statement in the Police Press Release account of the incident. These deputies showed absolutely no capacity or intention to disarm Garth without using lethal force. As demonstrated, if he did not immediately do what he was told, he was dead. As far the the officer's were concerned their responsibility to this person ended right there. You either instantly submit or you die – simple as that. This man was obviously not rational and clearly posed a threat to others as well as to HIMSELF. Whatever happened to the police priority to protect and defend those that are not only a threat to others, but to themselves? [Emphasis added]

What, then, poses a “threat” to a police officer? This is important because the general public needs to know how to interact with these officers in order to protect their safety and lives. The fact that these deputies, as Knight says, “We're trained to stop the threat [...].” Begs the question, what does he say defines that “threat” in the context of their, police officer training and general attitude toward the general public? He says, “[T]hese officers were in fear for their safety, and in fear for their lives.” [Emphasis added]

Accept what he says, just for a second, that this is a valid reality. What in the hell does that say about the legitimacy and mental state of mind of the police officer's ability and capacity to safely enforce the law in this community? What triggers a “threat” to “personal safety”? They decide what or that there even is a “threat” according to their perceived “fears.” What actually puts these officers into “fear” for personal safety or life? Notice “lethal force” is activated for simple issues of “personal safety.” What are this “issues”? Non-compliance with officer “instructions,” that's all.

We've all experienced "fear" at one time or another in our lives. Fear caused by a genuine "threat" to one's "life," however is an extreme experience one usually never forgets. That is a different experience than "fear" caused by a "threat" to one's "safety." Here's the definition to fear:
1. a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.
2. a specific instance of or propensity for such a feeling: an abnormal fear of heights.
3. concern or anxiety; solicitude: a fear for someone's safety.
What do we learn in this latest incident?

What I learned is that we have police officers operating on a hair-trigger in our community and that we live here at our own risk or peril. They justify the “shoot-first, ask questions later” based upon the “value” of their own perceptions of personal safety and NOT that of the general public they are supposed to serve and protect. That means, that anytime you do not instantly do what a police officer tells you to do, regardless of what that might be, you run the risk of lethal force – dying.

Does that remind anyone of the time your father told you to do something and when you didn't instantly move you got smacked upside your head or worse? It didn't take many “smacks” to learn that you NEVER threaten you father's authority; you never made your parent's look bad. Is that the kind of authoritarian society we live in today? Or, for that matter, want to live in?

More importantly, since we need the police, this kind of policing has negative consequences for them as well. While they may all answer to their respective governments, they need the community's backing and our personal support for legitimate operation and authority. Why they can't see that, I don't know. When this relationship is reduced to “it's either us or them,” we're in serious trouble. The picture in the newspaper says it all.

[UPDATE Thursday, August 12, 2010]

Initially, I had decided to let this shooting incident pass until I read in the paper how long it was before the police removed the body. That seemed rather unreasonable and disrespectful to the family. It also demonstrated "attitude," attitude that's consistently demonstrated in the above picture. What stands out is the effort of the policing authorities to make sure they did everything they could to protect and justify the shooting. It's going to be interesting to see if the forensic evidence is consistent with the officer's stated accounts.

Here are a couple of links with more information:

  1. The Reporta:  Story:  Aftermath of the Blue Lake Shooting
  2. Redwood Curtain Cop Watch:  Story  Sheriff's Officers Opened Fire On Robert Garth: "The cops didn't even give him a chance," says witness neighbor.
Let's see if there is any followup from the Times-Standard. Or are they going to continue to publish the unquestioned press releases as fact.

Meaning of "first resort": "To have recourse."
"Shoot first, ask questions later" - Unintended consequences.
Versus: "Last Resort."
Times-Standard Articles: 1) Saturday, August 7, 2010: Deputies shoot, kill suspect near Blue Lake
2) Sunday, August 8, 2010: Deputies shoot man on SR 299
3) Tuesday, August 10, 2010: Blue Lake man shot on 299 identified

[Image: Great photo from the Times-Standard]

Monday, August 9, 2010

Living With Dignity

[UPDATE Below :: D. Stancliff Reacts]

How can anyone accept the finality of death with dignity if they've NEVER lived with dignity? Even more so, what gives such a person the authority to tell other people what it means to either live or die with dignity?

Once again our great North Coast Opinionated Conjecturer lays bare his 'I know I'm right' syndrome or being stupid and proud of it' in his latest Sunday, August 8, 2010, rather convoluted masterpiece “Accepting Death Is Unacceptable To Many Americans.”

Dignity is defined:
1. bearing, conduct, or speech indicative of self-respect or appreciation of the formality or gravity of an occasion or situation.
2. nobility or elevation of character; worthiness: dignity of sentiments.
3. elevated rank, office, station, etc.
4. relative standing; rank.
5. a sign or token of respect: an impertinent question unworthy of the dignity of an answer.

Such a person would never come on this blog, assert foul unsubstantiated accusations, and then repeatedly ask a totally unrelated question that was already answered at least twice in his vain efforts to get me to give him standing. Dave Stancliff's level of character, self-respect and measure of standing is demonstrably revealed in all its glory within the pages of this blog for everyone to see.

Life is far too valuable to be squandered by living the way regressive, self-righteous, arrogant and admittedly stupid dark-age believers would dictate. Death is not my master and neither are these people.

[UPDATE :: Friday, August 13, 2010]

Dave Stancliff's customary reaction to the Report article, "Living With Dignity" is reposted here as is the link to our response: "Fixation or Obsession?" Normally it would have been posted on this blog, but we didn't want it to interferer with the other commentary.
Comment here: 

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Pot Calls Kettle Black

[UPDATE Below]

A great scholar quoting some ancient words made the following observation and wrote them down for us today over 2,000 years ago:

It's written, “I'll turn conventional wisdom on its head, I'll expose so-called experts as crackpots.”  So where can you find someone truly wise, truly educated, truly intelligent in this day and age? Hasn't God exposed it all as pretentious nonsense?
As some of you that follow this blog know, this Report has had fun for the past year with the premier tub-thumping, pretentious, Opinionator, Pontificator or Big-Mouth Blowhard at the Times-Standard newspaper. In a couple of days it will be a month since he came here to try to defile the Joe Blow Report again. In the meantime we posted the teaser-test, the “Modern Day Vampire” on July 19, 2010, to see if he would do what he said. The trick, of course, is to confront these “suckers” without giving them any energy, light or life. You know the old saying, “play with fire, get burned.” Same thing with Energy Vampires, egoistic people that can't exist on their own power, you run the serious risk of getting infected yourself.

Well, wouldn't you just know it? These last two Sunday Times-Standard Editions of As It Stand's exposés revealed a couple of interesting facts about his gross hypocrisy and why he's still a fixture at the paper.

An opinionated person is defined as “one given to conjecture.” Note, “conjecture” is the opposite of “fact.” Fact is defined: “something that actually exists; reality; truth.” Conjecture on the other hand is defined as: 1) The formation of expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. 2) An opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation. 3) Obsolete: the interpretation of signs or omens. – Really not quite so “obsolete” as you might think it is.

For example, someone may dream an image or a reflection of you, believe that dream is a fact and justify that dream-judgment, act on it and call you a stupid idiot – that would be a lie. It is a lie because it is based on an unfounded opinion; it originated in that "someone's" mind. However, the anger you consequently feel is the truth, because that experience is a fact. You didn't dream it up in your head. Unfortunately, if you act on what you experienced and beat the hell out of that “someone” you may just become, for a fact, a stupid idiot.

When this guy's public accusations and ad hominem assaults went way 'beyond the pale,' (Unacceptable; outside agreed standards of decency) we brought this matter to the Times-Standard management. They politely told us that what he said or did on his blog, other blogs, bulletin boards and on other Internet domains had nothing to do with them. That's not always true with other mainstream newspaper and TV companies. We wondered at the time what they'd say if he'd actually used the pejorative “N” word, since he called us just about everything else. We did what we could and let the matter stand. The paper publishing Dave Stancliff's opinions says more about the newspaper than it could ever say about him. While Dave Stancliff is doing the writing, it is the newspaper that is doing the talking. That's what these observations are about.

He concludes his latest Sunday “standing,” declaring: “Stupid is as stupid does.” And what “Stupid” did was expose his true nature coming on this blog with his wanton litany of diatribe (a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism) and demagoguery (defined below). His public conduct, despite his monumental efforts to the contrary put forth in these last two newspaper columns, destroyed whatever credibility and integrity he had. This problem for the newspaper is somewhat modified or obfuscated because not everyone reads the Joe Blow Report and actually experiences his conduct. In his Sunday, July 25, 2010, where he and the newspaper are celebrating his two year anniversary, he explains why his conduct was and is ignored by the Managing Editor, Kimberly Wear.

Just a side-note, he says, “I've learned not to get upset at negative feedback [...].” He certainly can't prove that statement by what he said to and about us. By the way, this article is NOT "negative feedback." This is our observations on two Times-Standard newspaper articles and the public conduct of Dave Stancliff.

What motivated this observation, “The Pot Calls the Kettle Black,” was his latest “opinion” in the Sunday, August 1, 2010, Times-Standard, his brilliant masterpiece: As It Stands: 'I know I'm right' syndrome or being stupid and proud of it.

Dave Stancliff would serve his and his readers best interests if he was to read, apply and put into practice “The Four Agreements” by Miguel Ruiz. Those Four Agreements are: 1) Be Impeccable with your word. 2) Don't take anything personally. 3) Don't make assumptions. And 4) Always do your best.

When he does he will repudiate his very first statement: “Regardless of the way some of us act, no one is perfect.” Writing this declaratory statement violates all four agreements. If he wants to believe that unsubstantiated opinion is somehow truth or fact because he believes it is, that's his business. Here again, he's trying to tell everyone how to think solely based upon his ideas or more aptly, worthless judgmental opinions that he chooses to believe. Who gave him the right to tell anyone how to think or what to believe? The Times-Standard? God? Everything else he says is built upon that one monumental assumption. This is where he speaks only for himself.

The complete statement is “Regardless of the way some of us act, no one is perfect. That's where stupidity comes in. Because we know we're not perfect we often try to cover up our mistakes, or even the mistakes of others. That's stupid because everyone knows their time to screw up will come. It's as inevitable as taxes and death.” And that is why he is the “Pot” calling himself “Black.” He's stupid and he knows it. In his case, he hypocritically tries to cover up his mistakes, protect his flawed ego, by trying to blame those that don't agree with his dreams. [Emphasis added]

“Facts” are NOT the same as “Opinions.” Opinions are simply lies and conjecture, the opposite of facts and truth. Facts and truth are derived from experiencing reality. Lies, conjecture and worthless opinions come from the dreams and fantasies conjured in the mind. You would think, abstractly reading his Opinion in the newspaper, that he'd certainly know the difference. He says, “Facts enlighten us and result in clear thinking. Accepting facts is acknowledging the truth. To turn away from facts is stupid. But not everyone is interested in the truth.” Once again he equate his opinions as “truth.” Anyone that doesn't agree with “his” opinions rejects truth. According to him, anyone that doesn't accept his “facts” is guilty of unclear “thinking.” Therein lies the crux of the issue, disagree with one of these kinds of people and they immediately attack your inteligence and sanity. He certainly NEVER demonstrated any of the above understanding in what he wrote about us. Everything he expounds about us as “facts” are revealed only to be his worthless opinions, which he believes and acts upon as facts and excpects everyone to accept. When he acts upon his lies is when he reveals himself and is consequently judged accordingly. When it comes to “clear thinking” and “enlightenment,” the question goes begging. Unfortunately, if he wasn't such a blue-ribbon hypocrite, his column might just be worth reading – sometimes.

Of note, he concludes with the following: “Finally, we have institutional stupidity where we let lawmakers lead us into stupid wars that drain our economy. The cruel thing about all of this is the poor people who suffer through one stupid failure after another as our politicians continue to raise the bar in being stupid.”“Stupid wars” based on “LIES”? [Emphasis added]

And “we” wonder why? When the newspaper publishes LIES or “opinions” as fact and truth you got to seriously ask yourself who really is the “stupid” one, when the poor suffering people continue time after time to vote in these so-called “stupid politicians.” You don't suppose that it has anything to do with what and how the newspapers and other mainstream media produce their “facts,” do you? Besides, you got to ask yourself, why would Dave Stancliff and the Times-Standard newspaper want everyone to think that these politicians are, in fact “stupid” rather than plain old-fashioned malicious deviants promoting worthless opinions as facts and truth?

His ultimate hypocrisy is where he says, “People who are insecure or feel threatened can't move on when confronted with facts. Researchers have found these people are less likely to listen to dissenting opinions, and they are more easily controlled.” This is the ultimate stupidity when he equates “facts” with “opinions.” However, he really defines himself when he sums it all up here: “Combine that information with the fact that misinformed people often have the strongest opinions, and you have the ingredients for being stupid and proud of it.” "Misinformed people" are now classified as "stupid" people and "pround of it."

The conduct demonstrated within his historical statements posted on this blog alone, speak for themselves. It all started with our May 31, 2009, observation titled, "Trolls Versus the Thought Police” when we unearthed a cyber-bully and exposed ourselves to a whole lot of hate speech.

It was for this very purpose we left all of his comments available for anyone interested in the FACTS and the TRUTH. If subtle indoctrination and propaganda, being told how to think and what to believe, is acceptable with you, then you can accept some responsibility for this bold assertion: “Most Americans lack even a basic understanding of how our country works.” ... “[T]he political ignorance of the American voter is one of the best documented data in political science.”

Now we know why. “God exposed it all as pretentious nonsense.”

“A person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people. To treat or manipulate - obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.”

[UPDATE :: Friday, August 6, 2010]

Just like clockwork, guess who showed up this morning first thing? Some Chinese spammer and Dave Stancliff's pretty face. Did you note what he says in his comment below? Did you read his Sunday, August 1, 2010, As It Stands brilliant exposé and compare him to his comment? His unsolicited comment presented below demonstrates what the kind of people he wrote about in the newspaper are. This is some of what he said: 
People who are insecure or feel threatened can't move on when confronted with facts. Researchers have found these people are less likely to listen to dissenting opinions, and are more easily controlled.
Then he turns around, when given the opportunity, and acts exactly like them! Apparently, he's incapable of seeing his own hypocrisy when he accuses this writer's observations of being a "ridiculous rant." A classic example of what he says, "misinformed people" with "strong opinions" are "stupid and proud of it."  He totally justifies this Report's observations.

As bad as that is for someone publishing in the newspaper, he continually insults the reader with his unsubstantiated insinuations, lies and accusations. He expects you to agree with him and his worthless opinions and if you don't then you're proud, vain and stupid. In his mind that makes our observation, “Pot Calls Kettle Black,” without any example or demonstration, without any substantiating facts or even any of his opinionated conjecture, a “ridiculous rant.” That's what I call a vain act of pride. Unlike him and his pretentious conjecture we offer the reader the opportunity to consider the facts as experienced and decide for themselves. More importantly, just exactly like an Energetic Vampire Parasite, he expects me to give him what he wants – an invitation.

Why would anyone want to do that when he is already providing all this luscious “Opinionator” material. By the way, I do keep or comply with the Four Agreements. I am “impeccable with my word” and “always do my best.” If you can show me where I am not, please be my guest. Before you start throwing your opinions around, make sure you know what you're talking about. That means know what it means to "be impeccable with your word" and "always do your best." In other words, read the book, experience the agreements (a great help with your self-esteem and ability to accept what you are), then come talk. You just might  find out I really do posses a "sweet nature."

Dave has left a new comment on your post "Pot Calls Kettle Black":

So why would you have to leave the country (your words) for Brazil if people knew who you were Joe?
Just it because of your sweet nature?
Or, have you ticked-off too many people with ridiculous rants like you posted here?
Posted by Dave to Joe Blow Report at August 6, 2010 7:45 AM