My Exact Sentiments

[Stinky Poop Source]

---

--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

The Opinionator

If the Report only makes observations, why does it write about (so-called) opinions?

The fundamental purpose of this Report is to produce objective, non-personal observations. When it comes to “opinions” that's rather hard to do in a society of Opinionators that are unable to distinguish between unsubstantiated conjecture and who they are as a person. By the way, the definition of an Opinionator is: “n. An opinionated person; one given to conjecture.” The definition of “conjecture” is: “n. The formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof; guess; speculation.”

We can easily define an Opinionator as someone that is without any substantive legitimacy. They are essentially psychotic; devoid of reality. As such they are deluded and prone to hallucinations. Put another way they are or become their own dreams; unable to distinguish between the dark from the light. Unfortunately, Opinionators are one of the main tools or means used for dispensing propaganda in the main stream media today. While these 'opinion's may contain some facts or be loosely based upon a fact, these Opinionator's unsubstantiated conjecture is all about disrespecting the reader. The Opinionator's main goal is to get the reader to agree that he or she speaks truth, not guess-work crap, thus becoming legitimate individuals. Respect for the reader requires substantiated facts in sufficient proportion pro and con that allows the reader to decide for themselves what is and what is not.

That is why the Report looks at 'opinion' pieces and sometimes makes observations, to expose the fraud, misinformation, conjecture and mostly outright lies. Opinionators are revealed for what they are, illegitimate and mostly purveyors of knee-jerk stupidity. Consequently, they are essentially irrelevant to this Report. Whatever good service they provide is questionable and probably should be considered as such. Locally, when it comes to serious blogs of substance, there are a few. There are even some serious commentators.

What prompted this article was listening to the interview of Johan Galtung on the War in Afghanistan and How to Get Out with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now today. He said: “I Love the US Republic, and I Hate the US Empire – drawing a clear distinction between the two that's well worth considering. In fact his whole interview is a thinking person's gift. Drawing the distinction between the Republic and Empire, he says America will only become whole when it gets rid of its “exceptionalism” and getting away from the belief that the US has a “separate mandate from God, even a mandate to kill.” This interview was based on his latest book called The Fall of the US Empire, "in which he predicts the collapse of the American empire in ten years, by 2020."

To start he said:

Now let’s look at it from a Washington point of view: pursuing a victory which will never happen. I’ll say why: 1.56 billion Muslims are dedicated to the idea of defending Islam when trampled upon. Some of them are traveling to Afghanistan. Some of them are doing it somewhere else in other ways. Those ways can become quite disagreeable, as you know.

Point two, there is no capitulation in Islam to infidels. It doesn’t exist. To fight against Christians and Jews—you take the mini-empire of Israel, the regional empire—is not an invitation to a violent confrontation that will end with a capitulation. In other words, the time perspective of the Muslim community is unlimited. I don’t think the time perspective of Washington is unlimited. So you can say, of course, who has the longer time perspective will win. (Emphasis added)

Commenting on how Israel, the mini-empire fits into this is an interesting read from by Alexander Cockburn on Jun 11th, 2010, is the “Pariah Nation” in The AVA. He concludes with the following quote for an Israeli Journalist Gordon Levy that sounds like Levy is talking about America:

Israel is plunging into deeper darkness. As the Israeli journalist Gideon Levy recently told one interviewer: “In the last year there have been real cracks in the democratic system of Israel.… It’s systematic — it’s not here and there. Things are becoming much harder.” And Levy also wrote in Ha’aretz, “When Israel closes its gates to anyone who doesn’t fall in line with our official positions, we are quickly becoming similar to North Korea. When right-wing parties increase their number of anti-democratic bills, and from all sides there are calls to make certain groups illegal, we must worry, of course. But when all this is engulfed in silence, and when even academia is increasingly falling in line with dangerous and dark views… the situation is apparently far beyond desperate.”

Then there is Glenn Greenwalds: “The media's understanding of its role” published Tuesday, June 15, 2010, in Salon.com. He concludes by saying:

“UPDATE II: One other point: what Axelrod tried to explain to Gregory about accountability -- "trust" and attempts to understand someone's character are irrelevant; what matters is evidence and "mak[ing] sure that they do what they're required to do" -- is also a good guide for how citizens should think of political leaders, even (especially) their favorite ones.”

Did you decide for yourself?                                                                                          -- [source]

--Joe