Dave Stancliff Versus Joe Blow - Will it Ever End?

[UPDATE Below - Doesn't look like it...] [UPDATE I]

Sancliff: "Would you like me to interview you for a future column"?

On Wednesday, 23, 2010, the following comment came in from Dave Stancliff:

Dave said...

I've met,interviewed, and published columns on some fascinating people over the years Joe.

Would you like me to interview you for a future column? Seriously. I have a column coming up in August on a guy I met back in 1985. People love to read about people.

It would give you an opportunity to reach more people with your observations on people and life. As a blogger, you have demonstrated an interest in sharing your observations on issues.

I'm not dis-respecting you Joe.

If you have no desire to share your observations with a wider audience then that's up to you.

June 23, 2010 6:56 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another Answer – Another Offer

Guess what? Dave Stancliff DID NOT simply walk away. He really wants to know who writes the Joe Blow Report. Regardless of whatever Dave Stancliff believes, thinks or fantasizes, people like him never ever impressed me.

Well, I've been expecting a column on me or my type of blogging from Dave Stancliff anyway. This offer under different circumstances might even be intriguing. It could also be just a ruse to find out who writes this blog. Unfortunately, there's a couple of problems.

I'm not averse to identifying who the Joe Blow Report writer is if I thought we (Joe Blow and I) could continue to keep our objective, non-personal perspective WITHOUT getting into the same kind of a situation Dave Stancliff has subjected me (us) and this Report. I could identify myself, but then I'd probably have move to Brazil. Publicity? People and publicity comes with quality, when the product is worth reading, when it's something people are interested. Most people are just not used to a really impersonal, objective perspective.

Then there's Dave Stancliff, himself. What has he done lately, except make this offer, to cause me think he really cares about my interests? Even in this latest comment (above) he sets the tone for the way he really thinks about me. He says, as if to assure me: “I'm not dis-respecting you Joe.” Then notice the condescending, permissive and dismissive attitude where he's trying to tell me how to think and what to do: “If you have no desire to share your observations with a wider audience then that's up to you.” Like, if I don't take him up his rather expansive and generous offer, I'm somehow really just blogging as a excuse or a means to get at him for some “personal grudge.”

So, what would it take to resolve these “differences”? Probably for heaven and earth to move. Something just as hard for Dave Stancliff would be to reconcile all of his personal invectives and threats he's leveled at me for the past year or so. That would be a start. To do that he'd have to crawl down off that elitist stool he's perched on and stop trying to talk down to me and everyone else like he's some kind of opinionated, know-it-all jerk. When Dave Stancliff can show me and everyone else that he can accept people for who and what they are without recriminations or filthy accusations – when Dave Stancliff can prove to me and the rest of the world that he's a man worth of our respect, we'll talk.

Joe Blow: Until then he's irrelevant.

---

[UPDATE :: Monday, June 30, 2010]

I wonder how well Joe Klein and Dave Stancliff would get along?
It is extremely refreshing and heart-warming to see what good company I am in keeping.
For the record, Joe Klein is TIME's political columnist and author. Just like Dave Stancliff and the Times-Standard newspaper, what Joe Klein says in his Vacation Interruptus article in Time says more about the magazine's integrity and value as a legitimate media source than the small-minded invectives and ad hominem assaults of a Dark Age Joe Klein. Too bad these editors aren't smart enough to figure that out.

[UPDATE I :: Monday, June 30, 2010]
Now you can another, ''falsehood-spewing war propagandist" to the list. This one is  Jeffrey Goldberg is a national correspondent for The Atlantic. Another national media outlet.

--Joe

Joe Blow Report Gets An Answer

[UPDATE Below :: Another Offer]

The Answer:

Dave said...

"Constant tirades" = constant non-constructive comments.

It's too bad you're so suspicious Joe. Meeting over coffee could have been beneficial to us both. We might have found out that we do actually have common ground on some subjects.

If you change your mind let me know. The offer still stands.

I really don't want to ask you to stop commenting on my stuff, because that's your right.

On the other hand, no one enjoys having a constant critic and not knowing why the person is so personal in their attacks against them.

In other words, try reversing our situation.
How would you feel if you were the writer being followed around by an unknown personal who appears to have a personal grudge against you?

You'd wonder why wouldn't you?

June 23, 2010 6:47 AM

I guess there wasn't as much respect here as you indicated, was there? The word “Tirades” is considerably different than “triads.” Perhaps, you should have just said it straight out: “constant non-constructive comments,” but then, thats not the definition of "tirades," is it? How is it that you can offer to sit down over coffee to ostensibly discuss differences "like civilized people" when YOU are constantly leveling personal uncivilized accusation at me? How many unsubstantiated accusations did you make in these two postings? Lets see...

1. Constant triads (tirades) – No examples. – Hint. Probably should have stayed with "triades."

2. Following your every move – implying some sinister criminal conduct.

3. Hoping to pick on something – implying some personal vendetta.

4. Tirades or constant non-constructive comments – No examples.

5. Constant critic – No examples.

6. So personal in their attacks – No examples.

7. Be followed around by unknown person - Personally following you around? – Paranoia.

8. Has a personal grudge against you – Personal grudge for writing about your "stuff"? – More paranoia.

And you expect to sit down with me or anybody else after making all these PERSONAL unsubstantiated accusations and discuss anything civilly? Your offer was disingenuous, you knew it and all I had to do was give a chance to show it. Civilized people do the works of civility. You show none of that here. If you really “wonder why,” then ask. It is as simple as that, if you were actually sincere. But then you would really have to accept my answer and recognize me and that is not something you are capable of doing, is it?

The more insidious aspect of what you've demonstrated right from your very first posting and elsewhere are your plethora of personal threats. Take it for what it's worth, you not knowing who I am is my personal gift to you. Remember, Mr. Stancliff, YOU changed the rules and continue to enforce them in these two latest postings personally directed to me. When I tell you that my observations are about what you write and NOT personally about you and you totally disregard me or even consider anything I tell you, then continue to insist that I have some PERSONAL issues with you and you'd like to know why, as if you are totally innocent and justified in everything you say and do, you demonstrate the symptoms of a conflicted, disparate sick person. Your persistence in enforcing the victim demonstrates a delusional persecution complex that severely delegitimizes you.

For the record, if I have a problem at all in this regard, it is with the Times-Standard newspaper and their so-called reporting. Frankly, some of these local reporters insult their readers with their so-called mainstream media type biased renditions. All you do is overtly exemplify what they do. That ill-serves this community and certainly doesn't speak very well of someone or something that is as longstanding in this community as that paper.

Finally, it is as you say, my “right” to comment on your “stuff” and that is all I did until you made it personal and tried to take away my “right.” Accept responsibility for your actions and simply walk away. Do that and there is no need to sit down together to discuss non-existent “differences.” Irregardless, you've made yourself irrelevant anyway.

---

[UPDATE :: Thursday, 24, 2010]

 Dave said...

I've met,interviewed, and published columns on some fascinating people over the years Joe.

Would you like me to interview you for a future column? Seriously. I have a column coming up in August on a guy I met back in 1985. People love to read about people.

It would give you an opportunity to reach more people with your observations on people and life. As a blogger, you have demonstrated an interest in sharing your observations on issues.

I'm not dis-respecting you Joe.

If you have no desire to share your observations with a wider audience then that's up to you.

June 23, 2010 6:56 PM

---

Another Answer – Another Offer

Guess what? Dave Stancliff DID NOT simply walk away. He really wants to know who writes the Joe Blow Report. Regardless of whatever Dave Stancliff believes, thinks or fantasizes, people like him never ever impressed me.

Well, I've been expecting a column on me or my type of blogging from Dave Stancliff anyway. This offer under different circumstances might even be intriguing. It could also be just a ruse to find out who writes this blog. Unfortunately, there's a couple of problems.

I'm not averse to identifying who the Joe Blow Report writer is if I thought we (Joe Blow and I) could continue to keep our objective, non-personal perspective WITHOUT getting into the same kind of a situation Dave Stancliff has subjected me (us) and this Report. I could identify myself, but then I'd probably have move to Brazil. Publicity? People and publicity comes with quality, when the product is worth reading, when it's something people are interested. Most people are just not used to a really impersonal, objective perspective.

Then there's Dave Stancliff, himself. What has he done lately, except make this offer, to cause me think he really cares about my interests? Even in this latest comment (above) he sets the tone for the way he really thinks about me. He says, as if to assure me: “I'm not dis-respecting you Joe.” Then notice the condescending, permissive and dismissive attitude where he's trying to tell me how to think and what to do: “If you have no desire to share your observations with a wider audience then that's up to you.” Like, if I don't take him up his rather expansive and generous offer, I'm somehow really just blogging as a excuse or a means to get at him for some “personal grudge.”

So, what would it take to resolve these “differences”? Probably for heaven and earth to move. Something just as hard for Dave Stancliff would be to reconcile all of his personal invectives and threats he's level at me for the past year or so. That would be a start. To do that he'd have to crawl down off that elitist stool he's perched on and stop trying to talk down to me and everyone else like he's some kind of opinionated, know-it-all jerk. When Dave Stancliff can show me and everyone else that he can accept people for who and what they are without recriminations or filthy accusations – when Dave Stancliff can prove to me and the rest of the world that he's a man worth of our respect, we'll talk.

Until then he's irrelevant.

--Joe

Joe Blow Report Gets An Offer

Here's the offer posted in the comment section of Marijuana World Face below:

Dave said...
Joe,
why don't we get together for a cup of coffee and talk about our differences like civilized people?

Your constant triads tell me that you follow my every move hoping to pick on something.

It doesn't have to be like this Joe. Maybe if we meet, we can learn to respect each other more. What do you say?
I'll even come down to So Hum to meet with you at a coffee shop there.

June 22, 2010 9:19 AM

---

Dave Stancliff Makes An Offer

Get together over coffee (in a public place) to “talk about our differences like civilized people.” Just “like civilized people.” Like let bygones be bygones or no harm no foul? Sounds reasonable, right?

I wonder what those “differences” would be?

First, I'd have to know what “constant triads” are. Whatever it is he thinks they, these “triads” are telling him is of his own fabrication – making. Of course, trying to deny this accusation, that I've got some personal vendetta against him, is a waste of time. Which is a “difference,” unfortunately, that precludes personal one-on-one meetings.

Then there's the part about “learn to respect.” Actually it is, “learn to respect each other more.” So, that seems to indicate that Dave already has a certain measure of respect for me. That's good!

The question is, can we build on that? Why would I want to? What incentive do I have in losing my ability to keep this Report non-personal and objective? You know, if he really doesn't want this Report to comment on his “As It Stands” columns in the Times-Standard, perhaps, he should simply ask.

So, what do YOU say, Dave?

--Joe

Newspaper -- Toilet Paper

Newspaper makes lousy toilet paper and toilet paper makes a lousy newspaper. Yet that's exactly what newspaper is -- and we've got toilet paper.

A functioning Democracy rests upon an informed voting public that, at the minimum has the capacity to think with an ability to separate the subject from the object and is endowed with some moral and ethical compass. Clearly, the 100 year (more or less) experiment to formulate "good citizens" rather than teach problem solving skills with the necessary tools for a decent sense of self that empowers one to use those tools has failed -- failed miserably. Or, did it?

For someone's point of world view beyond Joe Blow's observations, read the following:

The question:

What is your comment on the current mainstream media and how it shapes our perceptions and priorities?

The answer:

I don’t believe anything as changed. If it is one to change in the middle east as other parts of the world, I think one of the really significant and building areas of discussion- and data has been building for the last few years—is just the kind of information we get through the so- called mainstream. We have many alternative sources of information now, not least of all your own program. though I wouldn’t call that alternative.

But for most people, the primary source of their information is the mainstream. It is mainly television. Even the internet for all its subversiveness has still a very large component of the mainstream. And that means we’re getting still either its this singular message about wars, about the economy, about all those things that touch our lives. All we are getting is what I would call is a contrived silence, a censorship by a mission. I think this is almost the principal issue of today because without information, we cannot possibly begin to influence government. We cannot possibly begin to end the wars.

All of this, it seams to me, has come together in the presidency of Barack Obama who is almost a creation of this media world. He promised some things, although most of them were more for us, and has delivered virtually the opposite. He started his own war in Pakistan. We see the events in Iran and Honduras in quiet subtlety, but very directly influenced in the time-honored way by the Obama administration. And yet the Obama administration is still given this extraordinary benefit of the doubt by people, who in my view are influenced by the mainstream media. It is a time when I think, where either we are going to begin to understand how the media really works, or we’re going to let that opportunity pass. Its almost a historic opportunity the we understand that the perception of our world is utterly distorted, most of the time through what are seen as credible sources of information.

Read the rest of the interview with John Pilger.

A good example of this is Israel, Pilger says, "The way Israel is reported in the United States is media manipulation as almost as high art form."

But no one ever presses an Israeli leader. Netanyahu or Olmert or any of them. There are given, Israeli leaders were given a legitimacy during what was unconditionally a massacre in December-January of this year. And the sum of that was to suggest, number one, that there was a war between Israel and Gaza and there wasn’t. There was an assault on Gaza that was aimed at civilians, on a defenseless country, a helpless country, a trapped people. And the second impression was that, yes, Israel is a democracy. And we will discuss this on television with you, we will discuss the finer points.

The way Israel is reported in the United States is media manipulation as almost as high art form. When people like Netanyahu whose very utterances and his background would suggest somebody, I think safe to say not credible, but somebody of well, those of us who would say somebody would be a prima facie war criminal, is given this kind of legitimacy. Not even questioned, not even challenged about the events in this country and his own extreme utterances. ****

I think it is that legitimacy the mainstream media gives one side. And the sum of that, as far as Palestine is concerned is that there is no illegitimate occupation. There is no illegality. There is sum illegality as Obama referred to in his Cairo speech about the continuing building of settlements, but there is no suggestion that this is the longest, most brutal, illegal military occupation in our lifetime.

Why is any of this okay? Anyone read the Times-Standard for Tuesday, July 7, 2009? We've got a bankrupt creamery, a corrupt 20 year old county jailer, out of control homeless campfires spread around the Eureka area, and a convicted sex offender sentenced. On the inside we've got James Faulk's solution for humanities long-term survival - space travel. Included is an article by Byron York on Democrat double-speak on immigration. How appropriate!

Not to forget page A6, we got the headline, " ... the completion of border berm." Don't you just love the words they use for "steel-meshed fence and bright lighting"? Word manipulation, double-talk; double-speak propaganda à la the anonymous Associated Press.

Truth, honesty and integrity -- any part of someone's moral compass?

John Pilger writes on his web "johnpilger.com": 'It is not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers without understanding the hidden agendas of the message and myths that surround it.'

Words this Report strives to emulate, but not without paying a heavy price.

[Picture Source]

--Joe