Showing posts with label Assault. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Assault. Show all posts

Friday, May 21, 2010

Answer to a Blogger Bully

Bloggers Have Rights
One of the more important rights is: The right to post anonymous.
  1. Bloggers are entitled to free speech. We're working to shield you from frivolous or abusive threats and lawsuits. Internet bullies shouldn't use copyright, libel, or other claims to chill your legitimate speech.
  2. Bloggers have the right to stay anonymous. We're continuing our battle to protect and preserve your constitutional right to anonymous speech online, including providing a guide to help you with strategies for keeping your identity private when you blog.
Blogger Bullies are far worse than Internet Trolls. Even though, in my book their both predators. This Report and its writer learned first-hand about how dangerous the threat these bullies can be when I wrote an objective observation last year about one of the local newspaper's so-called "opinion" columns. In this instance our blog report dealt with the Times-Standard's column by Dave Stancliff's "As It Stands." At that time I really didn't have a clue who this guy was and didn't really pay that much attention to him or his "opinions." He took the Report's observations as a personal affront and began personally attacking, provoking and vilifying everyone he thought he could get at. What he accused us of doing he continued to repeat over and over again. You can find all the proof you need of this man's state of mind and his wanton assaults in the comment section starting listed here - here - here - here. You can check the comment section for more examples that came up last year starting here - here - here - And the one that started it all: Trolls versus The Thought Police.

 The only thing that, so-far, has saved everyone from some sort of personal affront is our anonymity.

 If you blog or make comments you might seriously consider supporting Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Bloggers' Rights at EFF





Legal Guide for Bloggers



Whether you're a newly minted blogger or a relative old-timer, you've been seeing more and more stories pop up every day about getting in trouble for what they post.

Like all journalists and publishers, sometimes publish information that other people don't want published. You might, for example, publish something that someone considers defamatory, republish an AP news story that's under copyright, or write a lengthy piece detailing the alleged crimes of a candidate for public office.

The difference between you and the reporter at your local newspaper is that in many cases, you may not have the benefit of training or resources to help you determine whether what you're doing is legal. And on top of that, sometimes knowing the law doesn't help - in many cases it was written for traditional journalists, and the courts haven't yet decided how it applies to.

But here's the important part: None of this should stop you from blogging. Freedom of speech is the foundation of a functioning democracy, and Internet bullies shouldn't use the law to stifle legitimate free expression. That's why EFF created this guide, compiling a number of FAQs designed to help you understand your rights and, if necessary, defend your freedom.

To be clear, this guide isn't a substitute for, nor does it constitute, legal advice. Only an attorney who knows the details of your particular situation can provide the kind of advice you need if you're being threatened with a lawsuit. The goal here is to give you a basic to the legal issues you may confront as a blogger, to let you know you have rights, and to encourage you to blog freely with the knowledge that your legitimate speech is protected.


Please note that this guide applies to people living in the US. We don't have the expertise or resources to speak to other countries' legal traditions, but we'd like to work with those who do. If you know of a similar guide for your own jurisdiction or feel inspired to research and write one, please let us know. We can link to it here.


Judge Shields Identity of Online Critic Facing Baseless Lawsuit -- makes you wonder how this fits in with this local lawsuit and settlement reported in the newspaper here and here.
Why join the fight? Because the Thought Police never sleep.

Some important links:
http://www.eff.org/
http://www.eff.org/issues/free-speech

--Joe

Friday, April 23, 2010

Time To Change The Rules – Disagree to Demonize


[UPDATE Below] [UPDATE II] [UPDATE III] [Update IV] [Update V] [Update VI]
NOTE: As of June 1, 2010 the Times-Standard has ran four consecutive Sunday "As It Stands" articles without comment. Perhaps these people should consider Stancliff's latest conclusions in a similar issue: "As It Stands, it's hard to see any winners emerging from this social revolution with its dire economic consequences and threats against our Constitutional rights." He and they should know.

It is very rare anymore that I, the person using the pseudonym Joe Blow, of the Joe Blow Report on Blogspot and The Joe Blow Report 2 on WordPress make any comments on other blogs. When I do I always make sure that my avatar picture links me to my blogs. That's what make's this Joe Blow identifiable. So when I, by chance, happened to come across a link on Google of an obscene and disgusting commentary about me I hadn't seen before on Dave Stancliff's blog, As It Stands, I revisited the issue of Stancliff personally attacking someone for making observations about things he says and does. Of course Stancliff couldn't restrain himself, he had to come over to my home on the Internet and add some more to his long list of Ad Hominem vitriolic personal assaults.

That posting on his blog nearly a year ago caught my attention. What was written there was not about me, none of it was true, yet it was made to look like it was. So, when he said, “All a person has to do is look at your comments here, and at the Times-Standard reader's forum where you constantly troll around looking for trouble.” Well, that caught my attention again. First I didn't engage him in any “comments” there on my blog. You could say I made that mistake before only to learn I didn't need to draw him out to prove what kind of a person he is. All I had to do was go over the the [Times-Standard reader's forum] and take a crash course. There are 171 comments on that thread and all the Dave Stancliff anyone could ever want.

Nevertheless, when he accused me of “troll(ing) around looking for trouble” on the “Times-Standard reader's forum” I had to take a second look because I've never been to that forum or ever made a comment. Sure enough there is someone using the name “Joe Blow” making comments. I noticed at the comment section of the blog ANYONE can make comments using any name they want. No one is required to register with a valid email address. Anyone can use whatever name they want or anyone's name they want. So if you think that's me over trolling around looking for trouble, you got the wrong guy. I, frankly, wouldn't waste my time.

What I found on that forum thread was Dave Stancliff quoting something I was supposed to have said. Here's what he quoted that I was supposed to have said:
Stancliff you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Your gross generalizations are absurd if not outright slanderous. This is the kind of vile garbage that continues to divide this nation. Tea partiers want no New taxes and no New Governement. They are not anarchists. They are not represented under the current governement. Unlike people such as yourself the Tea partiers are those who actually pay taxes to pay for your failed progressive entitlements. You may have just sealed your own fate with that article. Whatever crumb of credibilty you had before is gone now. You are a disgrace.
This is NOT me. Even so, this is what Jesus Christ was talking about when said what would happen when you cast pearls before swine.

This is why you will not find me “talking” to people like Stancliff. Read his [reply]: “Look who crawled out from his troll cave. If you weren't such an idiot I'd reply to your rant. Based upon PAST EXPERIENCE with you I know that's a waste of time.
Here's a cookie....now go back into the darkness.”

Of course this pseudo Joe Blow didn't take the hint, Stancliff just made the conversation about the person, and call him on the things he said and deal with him as he is for what he is. Notice how he used that person's statement to make one of the most personally demeaning, and insulting things a person could say to someone. And he calls me a cyber bully?

The problem is, people making comments and blog site owners tolerate these kinds of personal animalistic attacks. Stancliff personally attacks people like he does because he can. If he tried talking to people like that in real life, out on the street, he'd darn sure find out what he can and can't do. The Times-Standard forum and all the people commenting in that forum tolerate that sewer garbage. You go along with that kind of crap, you support and condone it. So, despite all the people commenting, you get a forum that's nothing but filthy debauchery that mirrors their true agenda. And that's my nice way of saying it.

That's why I changed the rules. When the conversation ceases to be about the “SUBJECT” and becomes about demonizing the “OBJECT” direct engagement STOPS! An old logging boss was fond of saying, “You can't reason with an idiot.” What is proven true here is that when a person is unable to determine the difference between what they think, say or write from who and what the are as a person they cease to be cognizant of any reality and any further discussions are dictated and dominated by them. So, no matter what you say about what they think, believe, write or say you are attacking them. More importantly you are attacking their very reason for existence; their fantasy dreams they created in their small immature, uneducated and unliberated minds. Like all threatened animals they viciously attack. Notice how Stancliff dominates that forum with his obscene Ad Hominem, slanderous bullying accusations, personal insults and vile hatred for anyone that dare question HIM. Joe Blow of the Joe Blow Report didn't make his living in the timber industry most of his life without learning how to deal with mouthy juvenile bullies. You just plain don't give them any energy. They're like a mean dog. All it takes is a little eye contact and they bite you.

That said, mean dogs get contained so they can't bite people. On my Grandfather's ranch pups that grew up to become mean got summarily put down. As long as Dave Stancliff writes for the Times-Standard and they stand behind this kind of the debased behavior and conduct of the type I witnessed on their Forum you can be sure we'll be observing. Probably pay more attention to the Arcata Eye now that Kevin Hoover got my attention. [source]

[UPDATE :: Sunday, May 9, 2010 – Mother's Day]

Dave Stancliff Rides High

People ask me why I leave Stancliff's filthy personal attacks on my blogs for everyone to read. He clearly violates the posted rules for making comments on the Report. They say that the “proof is in the pudding.” Only dogs care about how it looks; pudding, that is. People care about how it smells and tastes.

People can sample Stancliff for themselves. He says more about himself than he could ever say about this writer. His vociferous public diatribe defines him; more accurately it defines his ego. More than that, it defines all those that support and enable his continued self-exploitations at the expense of all those people that are decent and care about this world we all share.

When I realized, as a consequence of something Stancliff said, that the Times-Standard management, in particular Dave Kuta and Kimberly Wear, were not only supporting his kind of behavior, they were enabling him as well. When I saw how prolific his personal attacks were I wrote them a letter to make sure they knew and understood their involvement and what their paper's involvement was with “As It Stands.” Here is their reply.

T-S continues to publish and support “As It Stands”:

1. May 9, 2010: Oil politics legacy: Destroying gulf coast ecosystem since 1950s.
2. May 16, 2010: How to get in trouble for telling the truth -- be a Whistleblower.
3. May 23, 2010: Why Humboldt County will survive marijuana legalization.
4. May 30, 2010: Arizona immigration law creates deeper racial divide among Americans.
5. June 6, 2010: Researchers claim to have solved the mystery of life -- now what?
6. June 13, 2010: Presidential memorandums, or how to stay under the media radar

In the face of all the public commentary, what does the continued printing of Dave Stancliff's “As It Stands” column say about the moral and ethical standards of the Times-Standard newspaper? What does all this self-promulgating propaganda serve to prove? It may serve Stancliff's pious ego to tell everyone how to think, but it certainly doesn't do much for the newspaper's credibility when they engage in “opinion” reporting. Respect and consideration for the reader is demonstrated when they are allowed to decide for themselves what is and what is not. Just stick to the facts.
--Joe

Saturday, April 17, 2010

A Lightweight Makes Heavyweight


UPDATE Below :: There IS a Difference Between Disagreement and Demonetization

Nearly a year ago I picked up my Sunday, May 31, 2009, Times-Standard newspaper and began reading. In time I came to the the Dave Stancliff “As It Stands” weekly article. This week he was telling everyone who and what he says is an Internet Toll - Trolls Exposed: What kind of troll is disrupting your online community? (Dave Stancliff/For the Times-Standard - Posted: 05/31/2009 01:27:12 AM PDT)

Right at the start he was telling people what to do and what not to do, “Don't feed the trolls.” That's what the "Thought Police" do.

That wasn't the first so-called “opinion” diatribe from Stancliff that I'd read in the Times-Standard nor, unfortunately the last. It was, however, the one where he stepped over the line and required a Report observation. The Report posted: Trolls versus The Thought Police. Stancliff took what I wrote personal, and has tried to make it personal ever since. Frankly, I don't know the guy fram Adam and could care less who he thinks he is. He put it out for everyone to read. No one at the Report asked him publicly express his simpleminded worthless "opinions."

The Report article started by saying:
It seems innocent enough -- the latest Dave Stancliff tirade against Internet TROLLS!
When you consider Dave Stancliff's response to this article you know without a shadow of a doubt, we touched a nerve. We exposed his hidden agenda.

At the conclusion the Report said the following:

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.
Stancliff defines himself by who and what he is. What his opinions are publicly expressed make the definite statement about him, his character and integrity as a person, a man and a newspaper writer. Most people, as illustrated by his so-called “opinion” articles, hide their true character, their bigotry, prejudices, and their real agenda behind fancy, flowery words, all jumbled up in their prosaic discourses. He portrays himself sophisticated, intelligent, smart, exceptional, a person of good character and a man of experience and good integrity; his intentions are above question.

It took very little to expose his true nature for all to see. Notice the words above, “It got started with simpleminded people like Dave Stancliff” - that's all it took for him to do exactly what he was condemning in others. There are ten comments at the base of that article that expose Dave Stancliff for exactly what he is. What the Report wrote about in that posting was NOT about "simpleminded" Dave Stancliff despite his assertions to the contrary. It was about his hidden agenda express by what he wrote.

Now comes his Sunday, April 11, 2010: As It Stands: Tea Party Utopia: no taxes, no government -Ridiculing and demeaning these people and everyone that supports them by doing exactly what these kinds of people do and what he accused me of doing to him. They go right at the person or persons they believe are vulnerable to public ridicule and contempt with their insidious, personal accusations of hate, anger, racism, anti semantic, some sort of terrorist, and radical extremism as if they can read the minds and hearts of everyone that dares impugn what they say or think they stand for. Problem is, in this situation, Stancliff's doing it and being sanctioned to do it in the Times-Standard newspaper. Whatever he says in his personal blog by the same name, “As It Stands,” carries the same weight as what he writes in the newspaper.

Well, today, Saturday, April 17, 2010, amid all the earthquakes, the Joe Blow Report's heart was blessed with some little rays of sunlight producing JOY! It took Dave Stancliff going after the Tea Party movement to get Mr. Joshua Kinch's back up enough to write the article in: My Word: A glib, belittling opinion on tea party - It seems there are others in this community that don't like being told what kind of people they are by the likes of a Dave Stancliff and the Times-Standard newspaper.

Unfortunately Mr. Kinch's litany of the Tea Party movement and why it exists gives Dave Stancliff far too much consideration for the status he's accused of occupying. Mr. Kinch ends his article, of which we totally agree, saying:

Light weights like Dave don't care to further the cause of social understanding, or intelligent dialogue. Like many shallow rooted celebrities in our shallow rooted mass media, he is content to make a living highlighting disagreement, or discord, while offering no substantial thoughts to further honest debate.
What Mr. Kinch says, while true at its essence, and based upon Stancliff's personal assaults upon the Joe Blow Report as demonstrated and those that support it, Dave Stancliff is ONLY about himself and his ongoing efforts to justify his legitimate right exist as an American Exceptionalist with the God-given right to dictate to and tell others how to think, what to believe and how to live. And if they don't agree or go along with what he wants, then they are free to wage undeclared war on them and anyone that has anything to do with them. Apparently, the Tea Party movement crossed the line and posed some sort of a threat – If only in his mind.

To conclude Stancliff says,
As It Stands, with the next presidential election coming up in 2012, not only do we face worldwide doomsday predictions from the ancient Mayans and a Russian mystic; now we must consider the possibility tea partiers might achieve their dream of no government at all.
When you consider that it is the purpose of the Excptionalist Elite through their Corporate Governement to wage war and enslave the common man, maybe the Tea Party folks are on to something, Dave Stancliff and his kind not withstanding.

Mr. Kinch and people like him are showing signs of getting this situation figured out. Personally, when they do, I wouldn't be in Dave Stancliff's shoes for all the tea in China.
[Picture Source - Source]

UPDATE ::  Sunday, April 18, 2010

How can you express your opinion, make an observation or flat out disagree with someone when they try to pick a fight with you; accuse you of personally threatening, assaulting and attacking them as an individual when you do? What good are your First Amendment rights when for exercising them you are relegated to the pits of hell – demonized?

What you think, what you say and what you believe IS NOT THE SAME as who you are. There is a distinct difference. Yet the Dave Stancliff's of this world are totally unable to distinguish their thoughts, beliefs, essentially their dreams FROM their self-worth and moral integrity as an individual person. That is why Stancliff accuses me, the writer of this Report of personally “attacking” him. People that confuse what they think and believe from reality, who and what they are as a person, by definition, are deluded and paranoid.

Just as there is a difference between facts and opinions there is a difference between men and women. Respect for the legitimate rights of other individuals starts by allowing them to decide for themselves. In the example below, Stancliff tells all readers what he says the “facts” are, but nowhere does he produce the truth or evidence to define and justify what he says those facts are. He is demanding that everyone accept his opinions, thus justifying his inherent RIGHT to tell everyone HOW and WHAT to think and believe; what are fact and what are NOT facts. You can readily see by what he says below that it isn't just the writer of the Joe Blow Report that consumes his vitriol, it is everyone that he perceives as a threat; anyone that produces facts that he perceives as an assault on his personal credibility and integrity.

Read for yourself, Dave Stancliff and all those that support him are a far worse threat to the peaceful viability of this community then his wanton bullying threats to this writer and the Joe Blow Report. Just to set the record straight, the writer of this Report nor anyone associated with it personally knows Dave Stancliff or any of his family. We do not know what his political views or his religious beliefs are. What we know of him is what he writes in the paper, on his public blog and what he writes on my blogs. Neither are we affiliated with the Tea Party movement. Or, for that matter, personally know anyone that is. Nor do we personally know Joshua Kinch.

The following are two comments posted on this blog by Dave Stancliff. They speak for themselves.

1) Dave has left a new comment on your post "The Face of a Pompous Thug":

Sure did Joe,
You made an anonymous post and said "it raised the hair on your neck," when you read it.
Fact.

You are conducting a personal vendetta despite everything you claim.
Fact.

Look at the things you called me and tell me that they aren't an opinion on your part.
Fact.

The reason you seldom get anyone to comment here is because you attack them. Note, I'm the only one to respond to this post. Scroll down.
How many more posts have comments?

2) Dave has left a new comment on your post "A Lightweight Makes Heavyweight":

Don't be shy Joe. Go ahead and just subscribe to my blog.
As you are a regular reader of my newspaper column it should continue to provide you with things to atatck.

Read the comment section in the T-S The only one that agrees with you is your buddy Joshua who wrote the piece. You and he spend a lot of time attacking anyone that doesn't agree with you.

what fun it must be to attack people anonymously. See ya soon.
BTY - I hope your not threatening me when you say you "wouldn't want to be in my shoes."

The authorities frown at bad boys like you...




Be Wary of Energy Suckers!

Stancliff reacts this way because his life or legitimate right to exist in whatever form he wants or dreams up totally depends upon getting people to “agree” with him and submissively and meekly go along with whatever extreme desire he wants or imposes. His newspaper columns and blogs are merely tools to accomplish or fulfill his needs. So, kudos to Joshua Kinch for objecting. This is the behavior and conduct of an Energetic Vampire folks. So, BEWARE!

Postscript:

By the way, one of the very few ways of defeating the psychic parasite is to oppose or object to their wants and demands; their personal judgments. You literally stand against them, you don't hang your head and acquiesce in silence. For those of you that might be interested, this is what Jesus meant when he said, “love your enemies.” - Luke 6:27, 35.
--Joe

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Protect and Serve. WHO?

     Why, the POLICE, of course!

Catastrophes, calamities, disasters, i.e., floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, even riots all produce interesting lessons. As a resident of Eureka, CA having just experienced the January 6.5 magnitude earthquake I was extremely interested in how the local support infrastructure worked to inform, protect and serve the local community. I tried the TV, radio – both AM and FM bands and basically found nothing relevant. If there were broadcasts on some emergency channel, I couldn't find them. Finally, after securing or satisfying myself that there were no immediate threats of any kind in my immediate neighborhood, I tried the Internet. What I learned is the stark fact that the general public are all on their own. That means you'd better be ready to fend for yourself. Suffer the kind of devastation experienced in Haiti and Chile and we'd find the police and fire departments overwhelmed. At the point the police began to think they might lose control, you will see them act like the New Orleans' police right after the Katrina hurricane disaster. You already see indications of this problem in the way policing is conducted today. Look at how the whole attitude and implementation has changed since 1970. The police are almost incapable of performing their “duties” unless they are backed up by a squad of anonymous, highly trained, militarized and equipped with the latest high powered guns, armor, armored vehicles, etc. You would think they were combating or fighting some sort of insurgency movement. The simple fact is, you cannot alienate a major segment of society and walk around free and unbothered. Couple that with a measured amount of paranoia and the general public begins to present a serious threat. You can see the results starting to come out in this discussion here: “Federal Probe into Post-Katrina Shootings by Police Widens.” (Picture: New Orleans, shot seven times IN THE BACK by police using an assault rifle.)

It is a common misconception that the police work for the people. They do not! They work for the people that supervise them. In the case of the Eureka Police Department, that is the City Council. They defer to that council regardless. In the case of the Sheriff's Department, even though the Sheriff is directly elected by the people and they can ostensibly vote him or her out every four years, that “department” answers to and defers to the County Supervisors. The Highway Patrol, CDF, Fish and Game, etc. all work for the Governor and state legislature. The policing agencies enforce their supervisor's laws on the general public. They serve and protect themselves. A good example of this is posted on the Humboldt Herald here: “Push back against cop assaults.”

The Eureka City Council passed a unanimous resolution to have the DA prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anyone that resists, actually the word is “assaults” the police. Are they going to pass a similar resolution for complete criminal prosecution for a police officer that assaults someone? I hardly think so.

Why is it that the Wednesday, March 17, 2010, Time-Standard newspaper does not have anything on this latest Eureka City Council resolution? How is the general public supposed to know about these kinds of actions if the paper does not report them?

This is a serious issue that needs serious consideration and NOT the knee-jerk simple-minded kind offered by the City Council in support of their servants. We certainly do not need in Humboldt County what happened post-Katrina in New Orleans.  Neither do we need the kind of “push back” enforced in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan that justifies the legal precedent that the police assault no one. Criminal assault is a criminal assault regardless of who commits the act. When it is done by the police it is a far more heinous crime and should be dealt accordingly; with the full force of the law.

[Picture source]

--Joe