Showing posts with label Anonymous Blogger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anonymous Blogger. Show all posts

Friday, January 14, 2011

Anonymity via Humboldt Herald Blog

Some sentiments regarding The Times-Standards attempts to rectify their Topix comments section by Humboldt Herald. Couldn't have said it better myself. Here's an excerpt:
Such sentiments from an anonymous blogger are sure to raise hackles of those who suffer elevated blood pressure from the existence of theHerald. But let us recall the oft-stated differences between this g*dd*mn f*cking blog and the proper, official, totally legit outfit that is the real newz.  Those reporters have names, phone numbers and offices where their professional hind ends can be contacted by people who care to deliver a grievance.  This blogger does not.  Feel free to spew away in the comments section below — they might even make it past moderation standards.
 What Heraldo says is not true. I brought to the Times-Standard's management what their premier Opinionator was doing and saying on their online comment section in Topix and the did absolutely nothing. I happened by chance, through an unrelated Google search to find Dave Stancliff railing against me with some of the most foul and obscene vitriol imaginable. I'd didn't even know about that forum, let alone make comments there. Yet there was a "Joe Blow" trying to defend him or herself with Dave Stancliff. As far as I am concerned, the Times-Standard opened the door to that problem a long time ago and has refused to deal with it all this time, because it served their personal interests. For me, they were merely providing him with another venue to spill the bile they wanted dumped on everyone. Keep repeating the lies and eventually it becomes the truth in everyone's minds. FAIT ACCOMPLI.

Keep up the good work Heraldo.
--Joe

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Tyranny versus Rule of Law - Cont.

Glenn Greenwald has an excelent article today on: Opposition to the rule of law.

Here's an excerpt defining how America is degenerating into chaos:
Consider the rationale driving these who object to real trials: it's vital that the Government be able to use information that it obtained by torturing people. It's equally vital that the Government be absolutely assured that it will obtain a conviction against anyone it accuses of being a Terrorist. Because this is a "war," we can waive our usual rules of justice. Any proceeding which imposes limits on the Government's ability to profit from its torture, or which introduces any uncertainty as to the verdict, is proven to be both inappropriate and dangerous. We can and should simply imprison whomever we want in the War on Terror without the need for any charges, but if we do charge and try them, it should only be in newly invented tribunals (i.e., military commissions) where traditional due process is severely reduced and the rules are designed to ensure a guilty verdict, even it means allowing torture-obtained evidence.

People who think this way, by definition, simply do not believe in the rule of law. A system that guarantees guilty verdicts is not one that operates under the rule of law. Those are called "show trials"-- at least they used to be when other countries did that.  And the demand that torture-obtained evidence be admissible not only removes one from adherence to the rule of law, but from the civilized world as well. ...
Read the complete article.
--Joe

Monday, October 4, 2010

Big Difference – Tyranny versus Rule of Law

[UPDATE II :: Thursday, October 7, 2010 - Excellent article on The American Concervative by Daniel Larison: Assassination (II).]
"... If someone tries to sue, the government will shut down the lawsuit by invoking secrecy and national security. This is the very definition of unaccountable, lawless government. Defending the particular instance of targeting al-Awlaki for assassination doesn’t even address the main question, which is the administration’s effective claim to be beyond the law." (Read the article.)
[UPDATE :: Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - Latest News update also related to The Bigot Is Back involving the Times-Standard's "As It Stands" article of September 19, 2010.]

Supreme Court hears case of Marine funeral protests

Baltimore Sun - ‎1 hour ago‎
An emotionally charged case - involving protests at the funeral of a Marine from Westminster - is getting a hearing before the Supreme Court today.

Also: "High court struggles with funeral protest case."

The important words here are "An emotionally charged case." The question remains, will this supposedly conservative-leaning Court uphold the Rule of Law and reaffirm the U.S. Constitutions legitimacy or will they opt for the emotion-driven, hysterical Rule of Man. My bet is they'll cave-in to the hysteria and uphold mob-rule - the essence of "psychological terrorism".

Authoritarian Extremists, Tyranny and the Thought Police -
How They Rule the World


About a year and half ago I picked up the Sunday Times-Standard newspaper and I happened to notice “Trolls Exposed: What kind of troll is disrupting your online community?” written by Dave Stancliff. Since I'm interested in the Internet and had recently observed how some local bloggers and commenters had discriminated against another local blogger after bigotedly calling him a Troll, I read what he said. It all seemed innocent enough when I sat down to post some observations on this subject “Internet Trolls” on the Joe Blow Report. When I began to read what he said in more depth, what intrigued me was how slick he was, the subtlety used to incorporate a rather ominous regressive message. It was this all-pervading message and the resultant serious negative consequences affecting American society today which prompted me to include the following comment below.

Consider the seriousness of what I said over a year ago and how that very issue is being debated right here in Humboldt County and all over this country today. I had inadvertently exposed what was really going on; the real agenda. What I said was going on, falsely accusing someone, then acting on that accusation to justify whatever action they take, is exactly what happened. Consistent with the premise of the newspaper article, comments were posted on this blog falsely accusing me of some hidden agenda motivated by some unspecified hate to personally attack the accuser. Amazingly, the more than a year long vicious, personal attack to vilify, discredit and threaten me – to make “me” the issue, proved the legitimacy of my original observations in the article and justification for writing it. Here is the relevant comment:
All this foofaraw about trolls and the Thought Police might be funny except for on thing: Two Thousand years of Dark Age thinking. That World and religious empire ruled with such draconian contempt for humanity, one wonders how anyone survived until today. Today we have people only "accused" of thinking like "terrorists," held and tortured indefinitely, coupled with the deliberate annihilation of the civilian populations because "someone that might think like a terrorist" might be hiding somewhere within all that population. Anyone wonder where and how it all got started? 
It got started with simpleminded people like Dave Stancliff and compatriot people that are willing to believe his kind of dogma and impose their thoughts on others all in the name of freedom.
This past week I was really struck by the example set by Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan in contrast with what happened to me. Both are extensively read people that publicly disagreed on a very serious issue confronting every American and our standing in the World. Each one of these guys respected the legitimacy of the other and stuck to dealing with the issues in contention. Neither one got down in the sewer and called the other one out. Their blog conversations remained NON-PERSONAL. Neither one was trying to rule over the other. Neither did they try to get the other to submit to some pre-conditioned right to judge the other's motives. More importantly, they respected the reader's right to decide for themselves what person's offerings had merit and what person is credible.

I'd like to remind a few people that there's a very big difference between making observations and occasionally critiquing the writings or statements people make from personally targeting them as individuals to harass, threaten and intimidate. There's also a big difference between trying to protect your reputation and defending yourself from vicious personal assaults and deliberately harassing someone that disagrees.

Well adjusted, mature adults understand these differences. There are many examples of such people that post daily articles on the Internet. The one positive example that I've tried to emulate is Glenn Greenwald and his Salon.com blog commentary. Here are a couple of examples of how intelligent, decent, mature and respectful people deal with one another over REALLY serious issues threatening the World and America.

Glenn wrote the following "Obama argues his assassination program is a state secret," then later this follow-up article about President Obama's supposed legal right to assassinate or execute anyone, more importantly an American, simply on the basis of an accusation; an unproven or unsubstantiated lie - a false accusation. The relevance is encapsulated in this quote and the issues he raises here,
“Along with several others, I focused on the DOJ's invocation of the "state secret" privilege because that was most viscerally horrifying: the very idea that the President claims the right not only to order Americans killed with no due process, but to do so in total secrecy beyond the reach of the courts, is -- as Radley Balko and Jamelle Bouie note -- as tyrannical a claim as we've heard in the last decade.”
...go right to the very heart of what's been going on right here on this Report blog.

His article: "Questions for Andrew Sullivan" was in response to his article "The Power To Kill American Citizens At War With The US" is subsequently responded to by Andrew Sullivan in his: "Answers For Glenn Greenwald; Yes, We Are At War." And just today: Sullivan's defense of presidential assassinations. Here is Sullivan's latest, as of this posting, response: "Answers For Glenn Greenwald; Yes, We Are At War, Ctd." People could take a lesson from what Andrew Sullivan says in this last link, even though he hasn't followed up like he said, yet.

The reason I offered these examples is, one, because the basis of Andrew Sullivan's argument is essentially the same made on this blog and other places to justify viciously assaulting this writer -- emotionally driven false or lying accusations as proof to justify, in this case, murder and war. Andrew Sullivan is essentially arguing for tyranny. Here is an excerpt by Glenn Greenwald defining exactly Dave Stancliff's documented course of conduct:
The central rhetorical premise of Bush defenders was that if they just scream "Terrorist!!' and "we're at war!!!!" enough times, and loudly enough, then it would make basic precepts of due process, Constitutional safeguards and the rule of law disappear. If they demonized their targets enough (this is a really bad Terrorist who wants to kill Americans, with nukes if he can!!) -- or manipulatively invoked 9/11 enough times (note Andrew's prominent display of a smoldering WTC photo strategically placed at the top of his argument) -- then it would mean that anything goes, that no compliance with law is or should be required to do anything to them (a claim that always led to the unanswerable question: if it's really so obvious that this is a really bad Terrorist, then why not prove it in court?). [About vigilante law.]
Contrast or compare what he says, "the central rhetorical premise" is "that if" he just screams "hate-filled hypocrite" and "vicious threatening paranoid cowards" "enough times, and loudly enough, it would make basic precepts of due process," or in this case PROVE what you accuse, in harmony with ALL American's "Constitutional personal rights and safeguards and the rule of law,"or in this case, the laws of common decency factually "disappear." They repeatedly scream "hate" and "threats" and the accused becomes a threatening hate-monger - all because they say so - by definition, the essense of tyranny.

This tyrannical lawless conduct is NOT justified or legitimate simply because of President Obama's unconstitutional actions, but because this is the de facto reality of a large section of fundamental, authoritarian extremists enforcing the Rule of Man on everyone. The Rule of Law or the Rule of Man starts at home, with the individual. Enough people enforce mob rule by what they do, you get tyranny.

And two, they simply never get personal with each other. Do you think either one, Greenwald or Sullivan, would become offended if what he did was characterized as "simpleminded"? Maybe, but based upon all the things they say, I doubt they would use it as an excuse to personally attack the other. They stick to the contested issues. They continue to talk to one another like decent human beings. Why? Because the truth is what it is. Because when people believe lawless tyrannical dogma and act on it to cause others to conform to their will, all in the name of freedom and liberty, they are by definition "simpleminded" among other things.

The record is there for anyone to see. It's all a bit tedious and a whole lot offensive. I left it up for anyone that wants to make comparisons. Make up your own mind. Notice the intent, what was done starting with the very first comments posted on this blog at the end of Trolls and the Thought Police about an immediate response, here, and follow-up blogs here and here and finally here.

I decided to post the above article because the comparisons are good examples of what is required to be at peace with your neighbor. In the end you either deal with the reality of each other's existence or one or the other becomes irrelevant. Some believe I'm a gutless coward or have something to hide for writing this blog anonymously behind a pseudonym. Apparently, that is what offered Dave Stancliff the platform he needed to personally and repeatedly assault me with all his false accusations and filthy invectives. The value of the Joe Blow Report is that is stands or falls upon its own merits. People don't read what's written in the Report because of "who" said it, but because of what's written. This is how men recognize the legitimacy of one another. The way to peaceful resolution. The willingness to accredit the other person's right to think or be who and what they are.

The way of the authoritarian extremist, the tyrannical, and the Thought Police is either stop making war on your fellow neighbors to dominate, judge and rule over them or become irrelevant. The day of murder by accusation is at its end. These murderer's are defined, identified and judged by their actions, conduct and attitude. The Universe has always had its way of bringing harmony - one way or another.
[Emphasis added] [Source]
--Joe

Monday, September 27, 2010

Threading the Needle

[UPDATE Below :: Update II]


Declaration of War  ::  “When a War Starts, It Knows No Limits.”

A week ago this Report posted observations about the gross hypocrisy demonstrated by a local newspaper Opinionator championing and defending all American's First Amendment rights, he would have everyone believe was bought and paid for by people like him, while at the same time demeaning and vilifying a small minority of religious people to incite the public to deny them to freely defend and express these very same rights. For exposing this hypocrisy this person has personally attacked me, and would deny me these same rights too. (Read latest update below)

This guy's conduct of threats and intimidation, lies and abusive accusations has incited and inflamed others in this community to join him in his personal assault on Law and the Constitution. Can we be so surprised, then, at the impunity with which some of louder Opionators, editors, commentators and other self-righteous preachers and the like incite hatred for everyone that would defend and enforce Law over emotion driven worthless opinions?

It is the threat, based upon lies and false accusations acted upon with all self-righteous hypocrisy that defines the warmonger criminal. It is the abhorrent, loathsome existence of such animal scum that they would justify their existence by using nothing more than their malicious lies and baseless, unproven accusations to assault and murder innocent women and children. In Mexico these thug bullies use guns to enforce their legitimacy and right to control with total impunity. In America, for the most part, this country hasn't degenerated into such physical chaos and anarchy where the State is powerless to protect the common man and women. No, we're not quite so unsophisticated as the radical extreme Islamist and Mexican Death Squads. We don't use bombs, guns and suicide vests, nor do we corrupt the judiciary, police and government representatives. Unlike them we DO NOT first make threats of death against falsely accused people and their families. Death? Yeah, death. What do you think life is? Life is freedom – death is slavery or control. Thug bullies control by threats and intimidation. The thug bully exists by its lying accusations, their guns are their threats, their bullets are the police and the courts. Dave Stancliff would see this blogger DEAD. If he could get at, drop a bomb, on my family to get at me he would – the ultimate act of a craven coward. It is as simple as that. Don't believe me? Read his public threats below.

Dave Stancliff NEVER acknowledges any reader's ability to think for themselves or their right to distinguish facts from worthless opinions. He NEVER defends his opinions. He ONLY defends himself. You don't agree with what he says, you don't agree with HIM. To a wanton bully questioning ANYTHING they do or say is a personal insult. His whole existence as a person totally depends upon getting you to agree that only HE has the god-given, legitimate right to tell you how to think and what to believe. This is how the so-called American Elitist impose the Master-slave relationship. It is what drives most employers, police, politicians, bureaucrats and religious leaders. It is also what unifies a group of wannabe elitists in societies, communities and on the Internet. It is the festering sore that raised its inflamed, pusy head in this community.

Not one time did I find where Dave Stancliff justifies or defends the legitimacy of any of his “opinions.” No matter what, whenever anyone questions his thesis he immediately assaults that person. He absolutely refuses to consider any reader's differing opinion or basis in fact with what he says. Anyone that doesn't agree with him, hates his guts.

I watched these interviews on Democracy Now the morning of Thursday, September 23, 2010, about what's going on all over Mexico and in particular Juárez, just across the boarder at El Paso, Texas. The Mexican Federal and State governments are unable to protect, not just news reporters, but everyone – all Mexican citizens, from the least to the greatest. Everyone is in physical jeopardy. Their lives, their family's lives, their friend's lives, their business associates lives, are all threaten by thug bullies who are completely protected with total impunity for the most obscene and horrendous acts of hatred and murder. Murdered for doing what? Nothing more than writing about and exposing what's going on in their towns and communities. That is EXACTLY what the Joe Blow Report is about in its own limited way, Citizen Journalism. In Mexico and the United States as well, crazy lunatic bullies resort to violent THREATS as their first resort to try to silence anyone they can't control or don't like. That is EXACTLY what Dave Stancliff tried to do when I, by chance, happened to write an observation about one of his newspaper “Opinion” articles. Because Dave Stancliff takes everything personally, he immediately assaulted me with his ad hominem, personal filthy, lying accusations that continue until today. His personally directed accusations are lies because he cannot and does not prove or provide any definitive proof other than his personal opinions. He audaciously expects everyone to accept and believe his personal opinions or more factually, conjecture, as proof and justification for his personal assaults simply because HE says so.

From where I sit, there is no difference in his intimidating threats and the serious consequences that do not bode well for me and my family than the threats and and personal harassment caused these reporters in Mexico. The only thing that has protected us so far is the fact he doesn't know who I am. My so-called anonymity protects him as well, but he's too stupid to see that fact. When I watched this program and these interviews this morning I realized the similarities and decided to post this observations, Threading the Needle - A Declaration of War.

"Explain to Us What You Want from Us"–Juárez Newspaper Publishes Editorial Addressing Cartels After Another Reporter Gunned Down.

Also: Special Report: Silence or Death in Mexico's Press - Crime, Violence, and Corruption - Are Destroying the Country's Journalism.
The drug traffickers, violent criminals, and corrupt officials who threaten Mexico’s future have killed, terrorized, and co-opted journalists, knowing that controlling the flow of information will further their needs. They have been increasingly successful, and the results have been devastating.
This just quoted statement about successful threat to "Mexico's future" is the goal of the Dave Stancliffs and those that support him in this country. It all starts with these kinds of threats and incitement while hiding behind their state of virtual impunity and in this man's case, hiding behind the literal support and protection of the Times-Standard newspaper. By the way, legal counsel tells me the following copy of Dave Stancliff's blog posting is sufficient evidence to justify asking a Judge for an injunction. I post some of what he says on this Report because his own words define what he is better than anything anyone could possible say about him.

Blogger Alert: I’m offering a reward for exposing hate blog author.
If you’re not familiar with the Joe Blow blog you’re better off for it. But if you’re one of those people Blow goes after, then you know what he’s all about. Just look at today’s blog attacking me – his favorite pastime.

For well over a year this anonymous coward that calls himself Joe Blow has been attacking me and spewing malicious lies, slander and libel. Just look back at his archives. They’re proof of his campaign of hate.

I’ve put up with his shit long enough. It’s time for an accounting. If you can provide me with his name, address, phone number, I’m offering a reward. Email me at [***] You’re name will not be revealed to anyone.

It’s time Joe Blow finds out that he can’t get away with his hate-filled rants that cross the line. I’ve never had a problem like Joe Blow in over 20 years as an editor and publisher. The man is obsessed with me. I’ve offered to meet with him in Southern Humboldt where he lives, and to talk out our differences like mature adults, but he refused and spewed more paranoid blather. (See his archives)

If this crazy bastard would leave me alone, I wouldn’t pursue this avenue to stop him. However, after his post today it’s evident he’s never going to stop harassing me.I don’t read his blog, but Google Alert warns me every time he posts stuff about me.

I’ve outright asked Blow boy to reveal his name, but he told me he couldn’t or “I’d have to move to Peru.” What’s that mean? Is he a criminal on the run? Perhaps someone with a criminal past? In past comments he’s mentioned about living in South America for a while and going broke while doing something there. Any connection? Who knows, but whatever it is it’s bad enough to make him conceal his identity.

I’m taking this drastic measure because it’s the only way to stop him. I’ve already had a lawyer look over his past posts maligning me and he says I have a strong case against Blow boy. This is a case of constantly attacking a person’s reputation with lies and malicious slander. We do have laws to prevent this. Now, I just have to find the coward and get him in court. He picked this fight and I’m going to finish it. [Emphasis added]
I am told Dave Stancliff crossed the line with what he said here. There are laws to protect people from this kind of online bullying and overt personal threats, as well the inciting others to violent actions. What happens when Stancliff or some of his supporters can actually get at me and my family? It's been my experience when dealing with people that demonstrate such irrational and psychotic behavior that lawsuits are the last thing motivating them. Here's one quote: "There is no punishment on earth that is fitting enough." Think I might have to move my family? Threatening to take drastic measures to finish a fight to stop someone is ominous enough, but couple that with threatening to take someone to court is an act of violence. He intends to use that court to violently attack me and my family, to violently force me to stop living my life as I decided and live as he demands. These are the threatening acts, dictates and demands of terrorists. He, by implication, is telling everyone exactly what they can and cannot say about his “As It Stands” opinion column published in the Times-Standard newspaper. Not unless you want to endure the full limit of his wrath.

Anyone that follows this guy is very well aware what happens to anyone that makes the mistake of publicly disagreeing with anything he says or writes. Dave Stancliff is totally intollerent of anyone that does this. The Internet is replete with examples of this behavior and conduct, berating and denigrating people.  I had no idea when I decided to write some observations regarding one of his newspaper “opinion” columns on Internet Trolls that he suffered from some form of apparent neurosis (*) and paranoia (**). He immediately, however, began asserting all kinds of personal, ad homonym accusations of hatred and personal attacks against him. He still believes he, like some little, tin-god, would judge my motives: “I’m offering a reward for exposing hate blog author” and “campaign of hate.”

Ad hominem: [Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.]
 
Rather than talk about or dispute over what's said or written, he takes everything personal and forces everyone to defend themselves and their motives. When he refused to stop, that's what we did. We allowed him to define himself and simply accepted his judgments on the matter. The only libel or slander that's supposedly damaged his reputation is what he's said and written about himself.

 The Joe Blow Report occasionally makes observations about Dave Stancliff's newspaper “opinions” and he accuses the writer of being a “hate blog author” and writing a “campaign of hate” about him. What he establishes here (copied above) and by everything he has posted on my blogs, on his and throughout the Internet is that Dave Stancliff is unable and incapable of distinguishing the difference BETWEEN what he “says” or “writes” from “who” or “what” he is. That when someone says, writes, critiques or disagrees with something he publicly publishes, either in the newspaper or online, he immediately accuses them of personally attacking him, i.e., "For well over a year this anonymous coward that calls himself Joe Blow has been attacking me and spewing malicious lies, slander and libel." You'll notice, that absolutely nowhere does he define any of these so-called "attacks," "lies," "slander" or "libel." He expects everyone, including me, to simply take his "god's gospel word" for everything, rather than put out the facts, show the reader some respect as someone smart enough to make up their own minds. The self-defined reality is that his documented conjecture and opinions, whatever originates in his mind, becomes him and his reactions define him. Everyone that accepts his personal dreams as fact or truth, strictly on his say-so allows Dave Stancliff to re-define them as juvenile or really stupid too.

Is Dave Stancliff beyond hope? Since you never know, for him and all his buddies that have allowed him to get them all riled up over his juvenile nonsense and tender, hurt feelings, I'd like to suggest he and they read Dave Silverbrand's timely and appropriate article in the Thursday, September 23, 2010 Times-Standard article: "Taking Criticism."


(*)Neurosis:
Mental and emotional disorder that affects only part of the personality, is accompanied by a less distorted perception of reality than in a psychosis, and is characterized by various physiological and mental disturbances (such as visceral symptoms and impaired concentration).

Science Dictionary - Neurosis
A psychological state characterized by excessive anxiety or insecurity without evidence of neurologic or other organic disease, sometimes accompanied by defensive or immature behaviors.

(**)Paranoia:
1. A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.
2. Extreme, irrational distrust of others.

Dictionary.com
Paranoia:
1. Psychiatry . a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission.
2. baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.

Psychosis: (Medical Dictionary)

1. A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.
2. Extreme, irrational distrust of others.

Science Dictionary - Psychosis:
A mental state caused by psychiatric or organic illness, characterized by a loss of contact with reality and an inability to think rationally. A psychotic person often behaves inappropriately and is incapable of normal social functioning.

Threading the Needle
The phrase generally means to find a path through two opposing views. It's often done by politicians (or "Opinionators" writing for newspapers) who try to have their cake and eat it too.
[Source]



[UPDATE]
Maureen Dowd and Glenn Greenwald present two interesting commentaries on America's slide into lawlessness. 1) Slouching Toward Washington.  2) The Obama administration's war on privacy.
The choice is simple. You can believe what people say or you can believe what they do. Better to believe when what they say and do is the same thing.

[UPDATE II :: Monday, September 27, 2010]
Stupid is as REALLY STUPID DOES. "Get your lawyer and I'll get mine so we can fight this out." This is not only really stupid, but absolutely childish. This is what little punk bully-boys do on the playground. That is until the bully-boys learn there's more to life than what they want.

This scum-bag sack of lying shit posts his filthy lies, threats and personal attacks then accuses me of harassing him. Coming on my blog with his threats is no different than coming to my home and confronting me personally. This is exactly what thug bullies do. This statement is the ultimate in arrogant impudence. He can say and do whatever, "get a better lawyer," threaten, "He picked this fight and I’m going to finish it" and then spreads his filth all over the Internet, but let me comment on what he's doing and I'm "harassing" him. Does he repudiate one thing I wrote above that proves "harassment"? He comes on this blog and proves every observation made and thinks he's going to threaten and intimidate me with his histerical and childish behavior.


Dave has left a new comment on your post "Threading the Needle":
I have a great idea - let's exchange our lawyers names and meet in court.
We're going to someday as long as you keep harassing me. You aren't going to get away with this Joe...
Time will tell.
ps - please get a better lawyer, as the advise above is not only wrong but glaringly so.
Posted by Dave to Joe Blow Report at September 27, 2010 12:58 PM


--Joe

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

The DEVIL'S in the Details


This posting is really an update on my observations: The Bigot is Back posted below. It seems Ernie Branscomb has horned in on the discussion and brought in some others as well with his Monday, September 20, 2010, Not Fair! You going to join in the lawsuit too, Ernie?

My intent here is not for the purpose of justifying how or why I have dealt with the issue of Dave Stancliff as I did. Since his personal attacks against me and my family have escalated it seems only fair to clarify the purpose of the Joe Blow Report and why it exists. Considering the comment section along with Ernie's opinions, their bitch seems to be that they don't know who I am so they can vent their extremist demagoguery directly in my face or at my family. Or that Dave Stancliff can sue me for writing about some of his newspaper "opinions," personal public threats and demagogic vitriol. What hypocrisy! Dave Stancliff hides behind the newspaper “Opinion” writer's protection to assault and vilify at will and then accuses me of being a craven coward for not telling him who I am so he can try to hurt me and my family. It's a good thing I don't take any of this personal.

If I was interested in trying to be an egocentric bullying jerk out here in our community trying to tell everyone what is right and wrong and how to think and believe, I'd be the first one to post my picture and display my name. Joe Blow of the Joe Blow Report is hardly “anonymous.” Anytime I post a comment on any blog or website I am identified by name and picture. The issues raised on my blog stand on their own merit. As yet, all anyone does, when they don't like what's written is call me names and make bucket's full of unproven and unsubstantiated accusations. In all of Ernie Branscomb's 1,084 words in his “Not Fair!” opinion, NOT one word took issue with what I said or the issues I raised about the extremist rhetoric assaulting Law. This is the best Ernie could do, make a personal accusation, “To have “Joe Blow” openly taunting him, from behind his cowards curtain of anonymousness, seems to be patently unfair. ” Where's the “taunt” Branscomb? Is that all you know how to do, make unproven or unsubstantiated accusations. This is nothing more than a personal attack on the messenger. This is exactly why I tried to keep “ME” out of the fray, to avoid this very issue.

Apparently according to Ernie, and others, it's okay for Dave Stancliff to “taunt” me when it serves his or their interests. Dave Stancliff changed the rules when he got personal with his threats and ad homonym vitriolic diatribe. So, for those of you that can't quite figure all of this out, when he wrote this last piece and said the things he did, he self-defined himself as a neurotic “bigot” among other things. Since he made sure we are talking about one another and NOT what we say or what he got published in the very public newspaper, I made the simple observation.

Unlike Ernie Branscomb or Dave Stancliff, I don't write or blog to try to justify who or what I am in this life; why I exist. I don't need people to agree with my worthless opinions nor do I need to justify my legitimate right to exist as a person by telling everyone that doesn't agree with me how to think, act and believe. Ernie Branscomb, Dave Stancliff and everyone else that has joined in on their vitriolic diatribe are simply nothing more than blue ribbon hypocrites. Stancliff can personally threaten me and my family, call me every insulting, despicable and disgusting name in the book, rant like a neurotic extremist all over the Internet, and that's just fine with everyone. Let me point out some differing points of view regarding what he “wrote” and I'm a quivering coward “taunting” a poor, sensitive, emotionally fraught little sick Davey.

In all fairness, all of you people, with some rare exceptions, need to grow up and start taking some responsibility for what you say and do. Did I or Joe Blow asked any of you to read my blog? Did I ask you, Ernie Branscomb, to “swallow” anything? I DID NOT come on any of your blogs, or forum boards and say one word to any of you about this issue regarding Dave Stancliff's newspaper “opinion” article. Nor have I personally gone to any one of you and tried to turn your opinion against him or campaigned to get him out of the newspaper for what he's publicly done this past year to discredit himself. I pay for that Times-Standard newspaper I get everyday and I support some of their local advertisers. That gives me the legal right to express myself about what they publish whether I read what's in it or not. No one put a gun to anyone's head, made them come to my blogs and force-fed them my blog observation. You don't agree with me? So what! What makes you think or believe I care? If you want to take issue with my observations, fine - I leave the door open. Whenever I make a comment on someone's blog, my picture is always there identifying me – you are forewarned. No one forces you to read the comment or anything I say anywhere at anytime.

People come to the Joe Blow Report to read what's written there. Absolutely no one comes to the Joe Blow Report to read what "I" wrote. The real issue confronting everyone is that a select minority want to dictate who can blog and who cannot. It is about these so-called wannabe Elitist's right to enforce their personal wills upon all others - they define who the Law benefits. These would-be Elitist scum think they are in control today. Well, they are not.

For the readers benefit, Ernie and I went to school together. I knew his family and they knew mine. If Ernie knew who I am, he'd NEVER think to accuse me of being a coward. He'd know or should remember my stand on principles, religion and bullies. I've tried to explain, that in this kind of a situation, I am doing everyone a favor by keeping these kinds of people at arms length. You get personal with me, start threatening to take me to court because I write some observations about “opinions” published in the newspaper, you threaten my family and my children's inheritance. Anyone that follows my writings should know I take life very seriously. I don't hide behind a pseudonym because I have something to hide or because I'm afraid of online bullies or even off-line bullies.

Now that takes me to this latest attack from Dave Stancliff: Blogger Alert: I’m offering a reward for exposing hate blog author. Stancliff's good at throwing around pejorative accusations, isn't he? To "hate" Stancliff, I'd have to know him, now, wouldn't I? The fact is I've never met the man. Since he's posted his picture all over the Internet, I might recognize him should our paths cross on the street. The same goes for Ernie Branscomb. While I knew him in school 60 years ago, I haven't had any dealings with him since. So, what is it I hate you two?

Be interesting to know what the reward is. You'd think that people that have experienced as much life as Stancliff and Branscomb, they would have learned by now the life works BOTH ways. In fact,this was quoted in the news today: “When a War Starts, It Knows No Limits.”