I wonder how many people would invite into their home, specially a home with a newborn baby and young children some filthy, rotten-smelling diseased person, covered in boils, open pustulated sores, oozing yellow infected pus and filling the air in their every breath and racking cough with germ-ridden pneumonia and tuberculosis? I'm sure most people, if they didn't call in an emergency for the police, would call for an ambulance to take this person to the hospital. I know I would.
Yet this is exactly what thousands of people do every day on the Internet. They invite these infected, gutter-talking, diseased-ridden, degenerate, hate-mongering parasites into their Internet homes where they publicly fill the air with their wanton filthy obscenities, foul accusations and vicious murderous lies. I was showing my wife the other day Dave Stancliff's latest piles of filth he'd deposited on
my blog, and she asked me why I allowed that kind of a person to say such things? Why would you want to give this obvious juvenile punk bully a platform to personally attack you like this? My response to her was, “what he says is proof of who and what he is.” “For whose benefit,” she asked. “Decent, God-fearing, respectable people need only to see one example of his trash-talking to know what he is and the rest, those that agree he has the right to personally judge and assault people that don't agree with him or believe as he does, are just like him. You're not writing for his benefit anyway, or at least that's what I thought, so why don't you just put him and his hate-filled bile in the trash where he and it belongs”?
Bullies of all types survive by primarily sucking on emotional energy, in particular the fear or the anger of their victims. This is the state of being were the victim actually becomes vulnerable; when they get emotionally attached. When they take the bully's threats, accusations and insults “personally.” These kinds of people get off on causing an emotional response that connects. I guess it takes an objective perspective, sometimes, to call it for what it is - "sick."
******
The World is at War today. Most people believe it is a war on terror. Actually, it is a war promulgated on the masses of common men and women by a relatively small class of self-righteous, self-important “Dark Age” believers with a bully mentality. People that believe they are touched by God therefore preordained to rule the World with the right to tell people what to think and how to believe; what's right and what's wrong. More than that, they believe they have the god-given right to control and use as they see fit all that is valuable, be it life, land, governments, religions, thought, belief, food, water, and, lets not forget, money.
Stancliff's whole effort since the first of June 2009, for more than twenty-two months now, was about trying to bully, coerce and threaten me the author(s) of the Joe Blow Report, into going along with his right to destroy this blog and if he could its author for refusing to accept his god-given right to judge and condemn. He saw a threat to his ability to legitimize his opinions based completely upon his personal prestige and possibly his reputation in the community. That personal prestige is a picture of himself that resides solely within his mind. Anyone that doesn't conform to his personal image and bend to his will becomes his mortal enemy, or more precisely his conjured ego. That is, by definition, a parasite. Like a myriad bullies throughout history, he gets off on puking out his filth on people like me.
Dave Stancliff and his ilk were the same kinds of wannabe exceptional Elitist's high and mighty, “holier than thou” aristocrats, constantly lording over the Americans, constantly trying to force them to bow down and submit, so that when it became so intolerable, caused the Revolutionary War. I say that because not one time in all these months has Dave Stancliff defended, tried to substantiate or justified a single issue he wrote about as observed on this blog. That's because none of this is about issues, unless he is “the” issue, since everything is all about him. What is his proof? The latest record shows
here and again
you can read it for yourself here that he doesn't need proof. He said it's so, therefore, what more do you need? He is the proof.
Then there is this, repeated in one way or another, over and over again. Notice that
I made the statement that no one forced Stancliff to come to my blog Report and read what's written here. He turns around, as is his custom, and
now takes issue with the fact that I read his opinion in the Times-Standard newspaper – his inference to my apparent hypocrisy. He said: “I write a column (that you don't have to read but
do religiously every Sunday)and
then you attack whatever I said.” That statement [on its merits] is a bald-faced lie. The record of his weekly opinions and my blog reports repudiate that statement. The fact is that is exactly what he does to me with rare exception.
By the way there is a big difference between voluntarily going to someone's blog where they self-publish what's written there and writing for a newspaper where someone else publishes what's printed there then sold for money. That means the newspaper editors and publishers are responsible for this guy's opinions and everything else they publish in that paper. I pay for the right to read what's in that paper; the good with the bad. I don't pay him. I pay the newspaper, and I might add, despite the fact that they continue to publish this guy when they know what he is.
Finally, I'd like to offer a little test. Notice Stancliff's claim in his
first comment. What he took issue with in my article about his
As It Stands: “Gaming the system – frivolous lawsuits flourish in our courts.” I addressed that comment in my next article. Now
read his comment posted on that article. It is like he NEVER ever said anything relevant to my article BEFORE. Now he totally changes the subject, trying to use what I wrote addressing he previous comment to castigate me. Conclusion? His comments are nothing more than they are deliberately designed to be: PURE UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT.
Apparently Glenn Greenwald has similar problems with his writings. I came across the following statement that enunciates the exact sentiments
I had planned to post here, so I quote him instead:
There's one other point I periodically make about how I engage in these discussions that's worth re-emphasizing here. When I criticize a specific idea, I usually do so not by examining it in the abstract, but by focusing on a particular person's expression of that idea. That's how one avoids fighting strawmen and ensuring accountability (I strongly prefer "X wrote" instead of "some say"). But the focus for me is always on the idea, not its personal advocate. The point of this post was not that Kevin Drum is a mindless, subservient follower of the President's (the fact that I said I read him regularly and find it worthwhile should make clear that I don't think that). The point was that Kevin Drum expressed an idea that I found worthy of criticism, both because it was wrong and consequential (consequential because I encounter it frequently enough to make it worthy of examination). That style of engaging arguments ("X said Y and it's very wrong") can sometimes appear more personal than it is (especially for the person whose idea is being criticized), but it almost never is about the person; identifying a specific expression of an idea is, in my view, the only way to criticize the idea honestly and rigorously.
Dave Stancliff's unproven or unsubstantiated, i.e., “Any rational reader (notice: anyone that doesn't agree with him is not a “rational reader) couldn't help but conclude that you have some serious anger issues coupled with delusions of always being right” personal accusations forced me to accept his definition and the established issue he enforces. His personal accusations do not establish “my” anger or anything else. His acts, publishing his worthless opinions establish who and what “HE” is. Hence: “Since actions speak louder than words, the HYPOCRITE self-manifests for all to see. It isn't the fact of what observations Joe Blow makes regarding Dave Stancliff that harms or degrades his self-made importance and value. It is the fact that he has proven himself to be an unprincipled, deviate, and corrupt individual incapable of rational and decent behavior.”
So, to all you trash-talkers out there, just remember this: Are you ready for a throwdown?
--Joe
P.S. If you are, ready for a "throwdown," go
here.
