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

How Do You Honor A Man?

We, the Joe Blow Report, do so by posting the following words of Martin Luther King spoken April 4, 1967. As you read and contemplate what he said, ask yourself, was there a "revolution of values" in this country. America votes in a black man hoping for a Martin Luther King moment and what did they get? They got a Nixon, a Reagan, a couple of Bushes, and a Clinton on steroids; you can throw in a Jimmy Carter, if you want. These men and their supporters did everything they could to maintain and enforce the devalued state of American character and self worth. Their looting of the American treasure is almost complete.

---

Here is the introduction by Amy Goodman 42 years later.

While Dr. King is primarily remembered as a civil rights leader, he also championed the cause of the poor and organized the Poor People’s Campaign to address issues of economic justice. Dr. King was also a fierce critic of US foreign policy and the Vietnam War.

In his “Beyond Vietnam” speech, which he delivered at New York’s Riverside Church on April 4th, 1967, a year-to-the-day before he was assassinated, Dr. King called the United States, quote, “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” Time magazine called the speech “demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi.” The Washington Post said King, quote, “diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people.”

Today, we’ll let you decide. We play an excerpt of Dr. King’s speech “Beyond Vietnam.”

REV. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.: After 1954, they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered.

Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. And they remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South, until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the President claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than 8,000 miles away from its shores.

At this point, I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called “enemy,” I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else, for it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after the short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long, they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America, who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.