Wednesday, October 26, 2011

In Reply: Preaching to The Choir, and a Little Good Neighborliness

In reply to a comment at Zilla of the Resistance: Stand Against Evil - Never Let it Win that has apparently since been deleted. (My response was moderated away when I was banned on 11/27/11 (about a month after this posting), but the comment I was replying to--written by the blog owner herself to another blogger/person commenting on her blog, and parts of which I QUOTED in my response--has been COMPLETELY disappeared... Go figure...)
---

Zilla/MJ said...
"You've done good, Thom! I almost feel sorry for that guy."
Right back atcha, my dear...
"...he should know that he may not comment at my blog unless he registers as a known troll & pays the toll."
The comment is for you, Zilla... Whether or not you post it is your choice, and scarcely matters to me either way...

If I ever have a response to somethin' you write that I want others to read, I'll post it on one of my blogs, because I know that too few of you conservative types can be trusted to go in for honest debate right out there in public... It's all about stifling the voices of others, for you folks...
"I still suggest a Troll Toll though, as it has worked well for me. ;) "
If you call preachin' to the choir workin', I guess... Personally, I wouldn't be all that proud of it, but then I prefer honest discussion and debate.

In the spirit of good neighborliness, lemmie say I'm glad you finally got your root canal, and I hope it relieved the pain for good and all... I have an idea of what you've been going through, as I had to wait about two months for my insurance to kick in so's I could go for a root canal of my own... The appointment's tomorrow. (Had I read yer blog earlier, I might've contributed a few bucks, in knowing sympathy...)
---

Posted 10/26/2011 03:25 AM (and disappointingly, removed from view by the moderator on Sunday, 11/27/11, mid-day, so as not to make her friend Donald Douglas "uncomfortable," as the truth so often does. The truth is optional sometimes, especially where friendship and / or a shared political point of view is concerned...)
---

While I can't link to the comment I was replying to (which I still think is mighty, mighty weird), I CAN link to Zilla (the blog owner's) response to this comment, posted 10/26/2011, 06:32 AM in reply to Guest - 1 Like (Needless to say, I am the Guest. If I'm not mistaken, I am the "1 Like," as well...)

Conservative bloggers make no sense to me... While I've been known to ADD old posts to my blogs after the fact, increasing the record and cross linking posts, conservatives always seem to be limiting comment and hiding content (and particularly dissent) and generally subtracting from their record... It's almost as though they don't believe their words and ideas can withstand scrutiny and dissenting points of view...

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

X-Post: It's not who they are, but who WE are, that makes the difference (or should)

American Power: Muammar Gaddafi Allegedly Sodomized After Capture

"It's pretty awful, but seriously? Folks are going to get worked up about this? The dude promised to go "house to house" to cleanse the "greasy rats" from Libya." - Donald Kent Douglas
We don't react to things like rape and torture based on who the victim is, but based on who we are. It is the act of forced sodomy (essentially rape) that we humans condemn, no matter who the rapist(s) or the victim(s) are or what else they've done in their lives.

(It's kinda sad that anyone should ever have to point that out... ...especially to an American, given how exceptional our morals and values generally are compared to people the rest of the world over.)

This is "things I learned in kindergarten" material... Two wrongs don't make a right.

Also talking about it:
memeorandum
---

An American Nihilist x-post

In Reply: Robert P. Tuttle Throws Twigs and Pebbles From The Safety of His Moderated Blog

In reply to the following comment at "The Independent Realist" post "Repsac3, W. James Casper - The Final Word":
Thank you Dr. Douglas for the kind words and links to the Realist. I am afraid that the longer Walter (Walter James Casper, III) continues with his delusional rantings, the further he will slip down into the depths of his paranoia. There is nothing that we can do other than to block him from our blogs and such (I've already had to block him from my blog and Facebook page), and simply allow him to rant on his own site. Eventually he will alienate himself from even his own followers as they begin to realize the depth of his illness.

And as Walter is reading this blog, I would offer him this advice: seek professional help and seek it now. Do not wait.

---
I'm sorry, Rob... But I'm not real impressed by a guy (or pair of guys) who speak ill of me from behind a screen of moderation... ...and I don't much value the opinions of anyone who is, either...

So, I'm glad you two are having fun n'all... but until you're willing to say your piece in a place where folks are free to respond--ALL folks, not just the people and responses you pick and choose--you might just as well not be talkin', least as far as I'm concerned.

While folks like you and Donald seem eager to hide what those you disagree with have to say by moderating your comment sections for content and limiting the number of verbatim quotes, citations, and links you use when blogging, I want nothing more than to give folks every opportunity to read exactly what you have to say, in all of it's contextual glory, and thus will quote and link to your exact words as often as I can... ...and sure, I'll even add a few if you folks don't feel I've given you enough "Look at ME!!!" time.

Everyone please, go look at Donald Douglas and Robert P. Tuttle, III. Read what they have to say. Weigh their arguments (as well as the arguments of those who disagree with 'em, of course), judge as fairly as your conscience allows, and come to your own conclusions.

I ask for nothing more.

And I ask for nothing less.
---

Submitted for moderator approval 10/25/11, 4:40 PM (or so)

Monday, October 24, 2011

X;Post: Robert P. Tuttle, III Picks Up His Marbles And Runs Home In A Huff

The Independent Realist: Repsac3, W. James Casper - The Final Word

I considered an actual response, but most of what I'd say is pretty obvious...

I may quote his bit about my "conspiracy" post and append it to what I said there, because his absurd take on it is sort of funny, in an ironic "WTF?!?" kinda way, especially in light of Dr. Douglas' crazy "henchman" allegations and accusations to which the post was meant to respond... (Methinks it's possible Robert might be a little satire-impaired, himself...though it's far more likely that he was feigning ignorance for his audience, as I suspect he was throughout most of that sore loser, "If you guys won't let me be the captain of the team, I'm takin' my kickball and goin' home" response.)

But to Robert all I can say is so long, sweet prince... Our brief encounter was kinda pleasant, mostly--even when you tried to insult, you did so with some intelligence, rather than relying exclusively on the usual twin epithet categories of bad language (fuckhead!) and eeeeevil sociopolitical grouping (fascist!!)--and I'm sorry to see that you were and remain so unwilling to stand your ground when things get rough--or even to compete on an even playing field, where you permit everything I say to appear, rather than picking and choosing only those comments you agree with or have a ready answer for. I sincerely expected better from you...

Nevertheless, it was fun while it lasted... Should you ever change your mind, I'll be here... (I'll probably keep checkin' in on your blog, regardless... ...and if you do post something intriguing, I may even respond, as well... Like I said, I like how you write, even if I think most of what you actually say is shite.)
---

UPDATE, 1025/11, 4:40 PM (or so):
Twigs and pebbles tossed from behind the skirts of mommy moderation:
Thank you Dr. Douglas for the kind words and links to the Realist. I am afraid that the longer Walter (Walter James Casper, III) continues with his delusional rantings, the further he will slip down into the depths of his paranoia. There is nothing that we can do other than to block him from our blogs and such (I've already had to block him from my blog and Facebook page), and simply allow him to rant on his own site. Eventually he will alienate himself from even his own followers as they begin to realize the depth of his illness.

And as Walter is reading this blog, I would offer him this advice: seek professional help and seek it now. Do not wait.

---
I'm sorry, Rob... But I'm not real impressed by a guy (or pair of guys) who speak ill of me from behind a screen of moderation... ...and I don't much value the opinions of anyone who is, either...

So, I'm glad you two are having fun n'all... but until you're willing to say your piece in a place where folks are free to respond--ALL folks, not just the people and responses you pick and choose--you might just as well not be talkin', least as far as I'm concerned.

While folks like you and Donald seem eager to hide what those you disagree with have to say by moderating your comment sections for content and limiting the number of verbatim quotes, citations, and links you use when blogging, I want nothing more than to give folks every opportunity to read exactly what you have to say, in all of it's contextual glory, and thus will quote and link to your exact words as often as I can... ...and sure, I'll even add a few if you folks don't feel I've given you enough "Look at ME!!!" time.

Everyone please, go look at Donald Douglas and Robert P. Tuttle, III. Read what they have to say. Weigh their arguments (as well as the arguments of those who disagree with 'em, of course), judge as fairly as your conscience allows, and come to your own conclusions.

I ask for nothing more.

And I ask for nothing less.
---

Previously (in reverse order):
What A Real Conspiracy Looks Like
Robert P. Tuttle - Six Up, Six Down
Thomas Paine Had More Balls Than This Pretender, Didn'e?
Thom Paine Gets It Really, Really Wrong...
---

An American Nihilist x-post.

X-Post: What A Real Conspiracy Looks Like

For Dr. Douglas, so he can compare it with his paranoid "Henchmen" theory:

The elements:

A ringleader  (or chief instigator):






















A plan:


Close-up












At least one second party (Henchman Henchwoman):












Verbal endorsement of plan by that hench...person (Not just once, but twice):
Once


Twice



And in case anyone's wondering...
Yes, I did send a report about it to Google (not that I expect them to do anything--at least not unless/until any suspiciously suspect action shows up on my account--but I wanted to be proactive about it, just in case), and yes, I do have screen-caps and text and all that whatnot saved up and ready to share with any person / IP / service with whom I may need to in future (obviously.)

And before anyone points it out...
Yes, I know this isn't a CRIMINAL conspiracy, and I'm not alleging it is, or that I necessarily have any legal recourse should their dastardly evil plan come to fruition and bloom, and I am actually barred from commenting everywhere on the internet, and have to spend all my time OUT THERE with REAL PEOPLE, actually organizing and voting and pushing for change, and whatnot.... (It's not highly likely, but there's no harm in leaving these dreamers with a little hope to brighten their otherwise sad days... We libs is good like dat.)

It is an ethical conspiracy, however, and a sad comment on how far some partisans will consider going (and who knows, perhaps actually go...)

It's like I recently said somewhere about Alinsky's Rules: "Every time you see them listed or discussed on a conservative site, half of the commenters describe them as evil incarnate (which for the most part, they're not... They're just political tactics folks all across the political spectrum use to make their case and reach their goals), and the other half wants to start (or keep) using them, themselves... ...and for whatever reason, the two factions never seem to acknowledge each other's viewpoints, let alone actually discuss/debate them..." It looks to me like poor Robert (Thom) is stuck arguing both sides himself in his post. On one hand, my supposed tactics are "conspiratorial crazy," "obsessive compulsive," "unoriginal," "destructive," and "reprehensible." But then he says "Unfortunately, conservatives do not engage in the same style of tactics...". It kinda looks to me like some of them just might... ...not that I'm mentioning any names, Robert...


((Now if only I knew where they worked, so I could tell their employers about their crazy plan... j/k))
---

Previously (in reverse order):
Robert P. Tuttle - Six Up, Six Down
Thomas Paine Had More Balls Than This Pretender, Didn'e?
Thom Paine Gets It Really, Really Wrong...
-----

A Devil's American Nihilist Henchmen X-post

Saturday, October 22, 2011

In Reply: Robert P. Tuttle - Six Up, Six Down

In reply to: The Independent Realist: W. James Casper (Repsac3) Responds, wherein Robert Tuttle attempts to prove that I was and am responsible for the posting of Dr. Douglas' workplace information, for the purpose of trying to get him fired from his job. Let's join his post, already in progress, to see what he has to say.

(For the record, most of what I'm skipping is a little one-upsmanship and peacocking, some housekeeping, and a few introductory remarks, all of which was also posted (and in that case, largely replied to) at American Nihilist. Follow any of the three links above to see for yourself...):


One of the things that you have consistently complained about is the lack of evidence to support Doctor Douglas’s claims against you. (I am conceding to your wishes here Repsac, and will refer to him as “Doctor” rather than “Professor” lest I inadvertently give your jibe any substance). The good doctor actually has given evidence to support his claims, in the way of statements and links on his blog. Perhaps you missed them. I didn’t. However, in the way of trying to make things easier for you to understand, I have simplified things somewhat. Let’s start with the basics first.


After a long (no, make that, extremely long) battle of words between Dr. Douglas, Mr. Casper (Repsac3) and others (known variously as Octopus, Captain Fogg, David Hillman, and Erik Kane – if I have spelled the names incorrectly, forgive me), said battle reached a point where certain information was posted in the internet, and in conjunction with this information, certain words were posted that could (and likely did) encourage some, including the posts author, to contact Dr. Douglas’s superiors at his place of employment. The alleged purpose being to cause Dr. Douglas to lose his job. To make this clearer, I will post what Dr. Douglas posted on his American Power blog:


A few months later, I left a couple of comments at THE SWASH ZONE, at entries posted by Captain Fogg and repsac3, as the blog is a group effort. I frankly didn't make the connection to (O)CT(O)PUS (who I later realized runs the place), and for that transgression I received this threatening warning in my e-mail inbox:


And these are my rules: DO NOT HARASS ANY OF MY WRITERS AT "THE SWASH ZONE" AGAIN. IF YOU HARASS ME OR ANY OF MY WRITERS ONE MORE TIME, I WILL NOTIFY ELOY OAKLEY AND DONALD BERZ AT YOUR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AND TAKE IMMEDIATE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BOTH YOU AND YOUR EMPLOYER. THIS GAME OF YOURS ENDS HERE.


We know these behaviors all too well, and why some of you bother with this pinhead is beyond me. The Coward is not welcome at THE SWASH ZONE; we delete his comments immediately. More disturbing are the comments and e-mails left by his followers: Profane, racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic … worthy of report to the FBI. What to do?

If the Coward or any of his followers harass you online you, contact President Eloy Oakley at (562) 938-4122 or Executive VP of Academic Affairs Donald Berz at (562) 938-4127 and describe the harassment. For serious online abuse or defamation, there is always this option (case file in progress).


A quick interjection... (Like Donald, ironically) Robert doesn't seem especially keen on providing too many direct quotes (though yes,in this case he did) or links and citations on those occasions where he does quote. Wherever possible, I'll add in what he left out, marked with his initials, like so: RPT: American Power: (O)CT(O)PUS = CYBER-BULLY. Also, keep this particular quote in mind... It'll come up again later...)


In response, Mr. Casper (Repsac3) related that he had nothing to do with the posting of this information. Mr. Casper goes on to state that he also doesn’t believe that either of the two individuals who contacted Dr. Douglas’s place of employment conspired together, or coordinated their actions in any way. Mr. Casper also states that Dr. Douglas have never offered any proof to suggest that the two incidents are connected.


In short, Mr. Casper states that Dr. Douglas’s assertions have no substance and he (Dr. Douglas) is lying. It is my opinion, however, that there is substantial evidence that would lead any reasonable person to draw the same conclusion that Dr. Douglas has drawn. The facts that my opinion is based on are:


Fact #1: Repsac3 (aka: W. James Casper) posts or posted on The Swash Zone, as did or do Captain Fogg and Octopus. 


Fact #2: Octopus publically posted personal information regarding Dr. Douglas (his place of employment and names & phone numbers of his superiors) on The Swash Zone blog, and stated that he intended to contact Dr. Douglas’s place of employment to complain about Dr. Douglas’s online writing, and through the use of his wording encouraged others to do the same.


Fact #3: Dr. Douglas’s employers were contacted by Erik Kane and David Hillman, who complained about what Dr. Douglas was writing online. (I do not know whether Kane is “Captain Fogg” or “Octopus”, or whether Hillman is Fogg or Octopus, however, it is a reasonable assumption that Kane and Hillman are Fogg and Octopus – or Octopus and Fogg).


Fact #4: Octopus did at one time post on the American Nihilist blog, which belongs to W. James Casper, aka: Repsac3, thus establishing a connection between Repsac3 (Casper) and Octopus. This connection is further established through their connection to The Swash Zone blog.


Fact #5: Casper (Repsac3) claims that he was and is against the posting of Dr. Douglas’s information on The Swash Zone, that he was and is against the contacting of Dr. Douglas’s employers, and further claims that he disagreed with Octopus’s posting of said information, and that he suffered removal from his role as a contributor to The Swash Zone because of it. Casper’s claims do not ring true, however, as after he was allegedly removed as a contributor to The Swash Zone (due to his breaking ranks over the posting of Dr. Douglas’s information), Casper undertook a determined search to find the internet cache of the offending Swash Zone webpage that contained Dr. Douglas’s personal information, and he (Casper) then re-posted it in its entirety on his own blog, The Immoderate Monk, thus in effect, Casper also posted Dr. Douglas’s personal information, as well as the encouragement to contact Dr. Douglas’s employer.








Screen capture of The Immoderate Monk blog, showing Casper's re-posting of Dr. Douglas's personal information






Fact #6: W. James Casper, as Repsac3, has not only continually baited Dr. Douglas through his (Repsac3’s) posts and comments (rather than take the high road and ignore anything that Dr. Douglas may say if Repsac3 found them offensive), but Repsac3 has admittedly devoted an entire blog to publishing negative comments about Dr. Douglas, and has also devoted voluminous space on two of his other blogs to promoting negative comments and attacks on Dr. Douglas. 


Conclusion: Although Repsac3 states that he disagrees with what Octopus did in posting the offending information, he did the exact same thing, ostensibly to show/prove that he (Repsac3) was not the responsible party, but the fact that he (Repsac3) reposted it, thus showing/proving his (Repsac3’s) guilt to be equal to Octopus’s, and thus, the allegations made by Dr. David Douglas do indeed have merit, as proved by W. James Casper’s own blog.
Posted by Thomas Paine at 4:56 PM

My reply (revised and extended a little from the three part comment I submitted for moderator approval Saturday, 10/22/11, at about 2:20 AM):

First off, any and all of the points that show relationships between the players and imply that the fact that we have interacted before or since these incidents means we are all collectively guilty of these incidents are bunk. Guilt by association is nonsense.

We (none of us, including any blogger you can name) don't deserve credit or blame for posts and comments we did not author... not even if they were written by bloggers we know, bloggers we have interacted with before or since, or even bloggers who did, do, or will post on the same group blogs that we do. So goes Fact #'s 1 and 4.

Fact #2 is substantially correct. It was Donald who posted the name and some of the other details about his place of employment, but Octopus (who by the way, IS David Hillman) subsequently reposted contact information he found at the college's website--where it is still posted to this very day.  But I'm not Octopus, and guilt by association is still bunk. So goes Fact # 2.

E.D."Erik" Kain is a pretty well known right of center libertarian writer and blogger. As best I understand it, Donald was mad at him because Mr Kain rethought his one-time neoconservative views, and pretty much killed off a blog he used to run called NeoConstant (See: New to the Blogroll: Neoconstant | All American Blogger, and How Did I End Up In the Middle of a Blog War? | All American Blogger) Donald repeatedly lashed out at him in response, and ED Kain did eventually reach out to someone at Donald's college, in the hope that that person could get Donald to back off. (Another take, by another right of center and former NeoConstant blogger: The Blog of Walker: Donald Douglas: give it a rest, mate). Suggesting that ED Kain has any connection to or is involved in any conspiracy with David, and/or with Fogg, and/or with me, is just nuts. It's unlikely he even got the information about Donald's college from anything Octopus posted. Google is pretty easy to use, even for a one-time neocon libertarian.

And yes, David Hillman (Octopus) did subsequently use the information Octopus (David Hillman) posted to contact the college at which Dr. Douglas is employed.

(And if I may once again interject, if you're going to call what you're posting "facts," you prolly ought to've at least bought the program, so's you know the players about which you're alleging these so-called "facts." I'm just sayin'...)

Still nothing there about me, and guilt by association is still bunk. So goes Fact # 3.

I don't know where Robert's been, but internet caches ain't all that hard to find, especially if the post was only disappeared (and reconstituted by me) in the last 7-12 days. I did so because I believe in having a full and complete record of the facts (so I don't have to hypothesize or make stuff up, y'understand), especially given the years of stink I've gotten about all this, both from Donald, et. al, and from Octopus and some in his little seasunk band.

Look, I can see where this might be an issue for Robert, given that he doesn't seem to quote or link to much in the course of his own blogging, but some of us like to refer readers back to the actual posts and comments we're discussing, so they can see them for themselves, in context. Sometimes, we even quote, cite, and repost words and pictures that we most heartily disagree with, in order to express our disgust with what was posted and / or the people who originally posted them. The fact that something written by a third party is quoted on a blog does not mean that the author of the post agrees with the words contained in the quote. Often you can tell the reason they quoted the particular words by what they say outside the quote marks.

Given his line of argument in Fact # 5, I wonder whether Robert read the words on the top of my post -- why he failed to, if he did not -- and alternatively, why he's feigning ignorance about my motivation for posting those screen grabs, if as I suspect, he did read my introductory explanation...

Also... In point of fact, Robert, Dr. Douglas quotes and links to that very same post and passage on his blog as the one we're discussing here.... (and so by extension, I suppose you've done so now, as well) ...but because someone over at the Swash Zone killed off the post last week, the Dr's links are no longer any good. But had Robert and I been having this debate two weeks ago, Donald and I would be showing the same links to the same Swash Zone post, with the same workplace information available from both blogs. (via link, only, on mine, and actually quoted on Donald's.) I'd even go so far as to bet that you'll find more instances of Dr. Douglas' workplace information being posted on Donald's own blog, often complete with the exhortation to "Call these people if Dr. Douglas harasses you" than you will at any other site. Something to consider, that.

Sorry, Robert... Unless you're arguing that every conservative who posts pictures or videos of an anti-semitic liberal on their blog is themselves anti-semitic, (because it is the fact of the post, rather than their reason for posting it, that's important) Fact # 5 is a non-starter...

And, Robert, just one more thing to consider:








Screen capture of The Independent Realist blog, showing Tuttle's re-posting of Dr. Douglas's personal information


Whoops.


Fact #6, while overwrought and hyperbolic, has a few truths, but none that apply to the case at hand.

While I spend a whole lot more time responding to Dr. Douglas' crazy conspiratorial charges, of late, I did and still do enjoy pulling Dr. Douglas' chain. Just the threat that I might submit a comment to his moderated blog sends him into fits of apoplexy and full page ALL CAPS, inappropriately. punctuated. spittle-flecked. rants. (often with those WHOO HOO!!'s and ROTFLMFAO!!'s that you found so "insightful and elucidating" when you took note of them in your first post--back when you thought I authored them, of course.)

You're also correct that I don't often ignore what Dr. Douglas posts... Given your vehemence about me in your first post--to the point that you were--though hopefully not still are--threatening to underhandedly sabotage my commenting, by getting a mob together to flag my comments as offensive (again, for ideological content and partisan gain, rather than because they actually deserve to be flagged), in the hopes that I will be banned from commenting on as many sites as possible--I would think you'd understand that just ignoring a problem and hoping it will go away generally isn't the answer. (Of course, neither is underhanded bullshit like the tactic you threatened.) I do challenge Dr. Douglas' posts whenever I have the time and the wherewithal to do so... Not because I'm offended by him, but because I believe he is lying, or overlooking an important perspective or set of facts, and because it's important to stand up for one's point of view.

It'd take too long to explain the birth of the blog American Nihilist... Suffice to say, it started off as a parody, but because I got comfortable with American Power--unlike most folks, I prefer to stay in one place and kind of "adopt" one blogger at a time, rather than taking on a different rightwing blog and blogger everyday--and because Donald's reaction to it has been so over-the-top absurd, AmNi has kept chuggin' along...

We've already done the "several blogs" bit... I explained that I have different blogs for different purposes, including one where I discuss Dr. Douglas, and another where I repost pretty much every blog post and comment I make on the internet--and yes, by definition, those two blogs will contain some of the same posts and comments about things Dr. Douglas has said, won't they?... As many times as you bring it up, the answer will stay the same... Several blogs, including one that regularly discusses Donald Douglas and the posts at American Power.

All well and good, so far, and we're actually discussing me, in this fact... But up to now, we've been focusing on the claim that I am somehow involved with (if not actually responsible for) attacks on Dr. Douglas' livelihood... But Robert, those claims are nowhere to be found here in Fact # 6... Now it's about pulling Donald's chain, and how many blogs I have and how often I use Donald's name on one of 'em... ...and that ain't going to cut the mustard, bro... Fact # 6, too, fails inspection.

The conclusion is just a bad remix of #5, id'nit?  #'s 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 barely play into it, at all...

And as I said in reply to Fact # 5 proper, to convict me over the fact that I repeated a post containing Don's workplace info, without regard for WHY I repeated the post containing Don's workplace info, is to convict every conservative blogger (or for that matter, newspaper writer, talking head, radio personality, ...) who quotes a liberal argument (or posts examples of racism, anti-semitism, hypocrisy, anti-christian bigotry, ..., ...) of in effect supporting and propagating those liberal or bigoted ideas via their quotes and reposts--because according to what you're saying in Fact 5 and in this conclusion, it doesn't matter WHY they (re)posted or re-aired them, only THAT they did so.

Stop and look around the conservative blogosphere, Robert... Flip through your blogroll... Check your own archives... Hell, check this very post, where you indict me for quoting a particular post with particular info, AND THEN QUOTE THE VERY SAME POST AND INFO...

...and then think about this, Robert...

Given the circumstances, "Fact" # 5/conclusion-wise... Are you sure this is really the argument you want to go with?

I await your reasoned reply... ...whenever you have the time.
---

UPDATE: I neglected to include the 4th part of my 3 part response, submitted to Robert's Independent Realist blog a few hours after the first three (at approximately 6:05, AM, Eastern). (I was having technical issues that night, and e-mailed all this stuff from my iPad to my home computer in separate bites (bytes?). I misplaced this one, the first time through...)

Part 4:

In all your tromping around looking for evidence of my "chief instigator" ways, you entirely missed what is Dr Douglas' crown jewel argument against me...

Around the same time that Octo--

(Sorry... I only ever knew the guy as Octopus, and I'm not altogether certain that "David Hillman" isn't an alias, as well, for what it's worth)

--posted his piece on The Swash Zone, he also authored a similar post at American Nihilist...

...AND, though I spoke out against it, I didn't demand that he remove it or delete the thing myself, preferring instead to treat Octo as the adult he was, and allowing him to do the right thing--or face the consequences of not doing the right thing-- on his own. (Little did I know that three years later, I'd still have people blaming and haranguing me for what Octo wrote... Yeesh!!!)

AND, when Octo suddenly and silently bailed out of his authorship at American Nihilist, and then removed my authorship privileges at the Swash Zone, I STILL didn't delete the post, which at this point had several links and references to it, mostly from Donald's blog posts and comment sections. Instead, I cut out the names, titles, and phone numbers of the people to contact, and left the post, well, posted, believing that it was worth keeping it up as an everlasting record of what was (and wasn't) said in the post and comments and by who, but that the tools to commit any harassment (the actual info) had no place on the blog, unless there was anyone left willing to defend it... ...which there wasn't.

There you have it. Donald believes that my actions constitute endorsement, and I wouldn't be surprised if you take that line, as well... But regardless, that's what I did and why... ...and even knowing what I know now, I believe I'd handle the situation the same way, if I had it to do over, again. -- My reasons were sound, and in keeping with my philosophy of individual, personal responsibility for individual acts--not crediting or blaming others for what one party says or does*... ...even if some of the folks I was and am still dealing with were (are) less adult than I thought...

*The guy or gal with the bigoted sign at the protest doesn't speak for EVERYONE in the protest, and the whole group or movement is not responsible for every individual attendee, no matter whether that protest is a Tea Party event or Occupy Wall Street, for instance... ...And the guy who posts another blogger's workplace info and tries to get others to harass the guy... ... (you see where I'm goin' with this?)
---

Previously (in reverse order):
Thomas Paine Had More Balls Than This Pretender, Didn'e?
Thom Paine Gets It Really, Really Wrong...

Friday, October 21, 2011

X-Post: Is The Right To Free Speech Unlimited?

In reply to American Power: Patricia McAllister Fired by LAUSD: Anti-Semitic Teacher Caught on Tape at 'Occupy L.A.' Protest

Here is the story:

(Ironic last line, if ya ask me...)

Dr. Douglas expresses some very definite views on the matter in his post:
"The woman's entitled to her opinions, no matter how sick..."

"I find McAllister's comments reprehensible. But as one who's been the subject of a three-year campaign attempting to get me fired, I have serious issues with concern trolling bullshit like this."

"The district states a principle, yet abandons it because the teacher is untenured. Thus, being tenured creates rights that are denied to individuals not similarly situated. Ugly or not, the woman was stating her opinion, a political opinion, at a political rally while acting in private capacity. The district's decision reaches into the realm of personal space. And it should not. This is tyranny. They fired her because they could, not because it was right. And there's so much more going on there: McAllister taught small children, so perhaps parents would have been upset, as the Times suggests. Fine. Let the parents pull their kids out of class. Or better yet, let them pull their students out of the school altogether."

"Note how McAllister is not misspeaking when she spouts her hatred. It would have come out on the job, sooner or later. And if the kids in her charge are young and vulnerable, transfer her into the higher grades. If students are offended they'll know without having to be force-fed outrage. They can complain fair and square and the school would have been on solid ground in terminating her for racist, discriminatory speech in the classroom, prohibited by statutory regulation."
Donald Donald obviously believes that free speech is an absolute right, and there can be no abrogating the right of someone to say whatever they wish, without official consequence. It's an attractive idea...

But some feel differently...

From: Free speech -- within limits - latimes.com:
"This newspaper ardently supports the right to free speech, even when that speech is controversial, hateful or ignorant. But no right is absolute, and Patricia McAllister, a substitute teacher with the Los Angeles Unified School District, crossed a line with her anti-Semitic comment at Occupy Los Angeles."

"McAllister wasn't at work when she spoke. Though she identified herself as a school district employee, she was careful to note that she was not speaking as a representative of L.A. Unified. And Deasy knows as well as anyone that courts have historically — and correctly — protected teachers' free-speech rights.

But there are limits. As a teacher, McAllister works with a captive audience of vulnerable children. Her comments certainly raise questions about her ability to treat them all equally and fairly. What's more, even if she's been the soul of discretion on the job, as well as kind and evenhanded with all her students, by making herself a public symbol of intolerance, McAllister no longer can serve effectively as a teacher."

"As execrable as her comments were, it might be a different matter if McAllister were, say, a Department of Motor Vehicles clerk. There, she would be dealing with adults who could hold their own, and would have little direct authority over them. It also might be different if she had expressed a controversial opinion that was not an inflammatory attack on a particular ethnic or religious group.

We're reluctant to restrict anyone's ability to express even the most loathsome views openly and publicly. But when a teacher trumpets hateful opinions that could intimidate the impressionable young people she's supposed to be serving, that's not just free speech — it's a performance issue. In speaking out so intemperately, McAllister's ability to do her job was fatally compromised."
I'll note here that I made a similar distinction regarding WHERE someone works as regards another teacher, posted before this story broke (or before I knew anything about it, anyway), saying:
"While I oppose online disputes going offline, there are folks who have a legitimate right to speak to individuals at a person's place of employment, even about online issues--including someone's boss, if that's where it led--assuming the grievance is valid.

Were I a student or parent of a student at LBCC, it's likely that I would request not to be assigned into any of Dr. Douglas' classes, based on what I believe to be bigoted attitudes about African Americans, Muslims, gay folks, and those he deems too far left of center. I wouldn't want to be forced into subjecting myself or my child to someone who espouses such views, and were I a student or parent at that school, I believe I would have both the right and good cause to express my concerns. (Whether it's the right thing to do in a given circumstance is subject to interpretation, of course, and different individuals will likely have different opinions. While I'd speak up if Donald was a teacher or a candidate running for office, I wouldn't if he was a fry cook or a shoe salesman, though I probably wouldn't shop/spend money where he worked even then, just on principle.)

The same principle comes into play in the case of Vicky Knox, who was mentioned by one of the bloggers above. Vicky absolutely has free speech... ...but so do the parents in that school district, whether in support of her or otherwise. Free speech doesn't mean you're protected from having folks disagree with you...or even from folks holding you accountable for what you say..."
The debate is given a good airing in the comments at Libertarian Republican: Nazi-sympathizing LAUSD worker given the Axe by School District, including the following:
Chuck, OCTOBER 19, 2011 1:52 PM:
"Rightfully? Had she not announced who her employer was, thereby associating her remarks with same, you might have a point. Short of that, she has no case to make. If someone working for me was on tape all over the internet saying, "Yeah, I work for Coffer Contracting and I hate me some Jews, and we need to run their asses out of the country.", They'd be lucky to escape getting the shit beat out of them by yours truly, and I sure as shit wouldn't feel compelled to keep paying them to wreck my public image. Any suggestion that it should be otherwise is simply irrational."

Gary, OCTOBER 19, 2011 2:10 PM:
Chuckie only sees the little picture.

What happens when those evil and racist "Tea Baggers" are fired for their hate speech?


KN@PPSTER, OCTOBER 19, 2011 5:58 PM:
Chuck is meta-right -- to the extent that she may have associated her employer with her remarks, they had reason to dissociate from her.

On the other hand, this wasn't just any employer -- it was a government agency. I may not like private discrimination, but it's a right. Discrimination, even against the truly reprehensible, on the taxpayer dime is less justifiable.

And on the third hand, does anyone think that she'd have been fired if she had been speaking in favor of a school bond issue, or in support of same-sex marriage, or for in-state tuition for immigrants?

Even given my earlier statement, I do find the absolutist argument seductive, too. And of course, it all gets tied up in the fact that this woman worked for the government, rather than a private interest, which brings a different degree of scrutiny to bear... Firing her does amount to government censorship of her ideas, and once we grant the government the right to censor her views, an argument can be made that we give them the right to censor any government employee's views, whatever their politics...

Whatever you think about this story now, would your mind change if she had worked for--and been fired by--a private school?... your local pizza joint?...

Does an employer have the right to fire an employee whose outside-of-work behavior reflects poorly on his or her business, and should there be different rules for folks who work for the federal, state, or local government than there are for employees of private schools and businesses?

As long as a teacher keeps his or her disgusting bigotry or other nasty beliefs out of the classroom and off-campus, should there really be no recourse for those who find the bigotry reprehensible, short of removing yourself from the situation--home-schooling or changing schools--assuming that is even possible-- if one is the parent of a student (or the student himself) or finding another job if one is an offended co-worker?

Is there a difference between the freedom to express a thought, and being free of any legal or government consequence after one has done so, and are both embodied in the principle of Free Speech as we understand it?

What about the right of other individuals to speak in opposition to bigoted or other disgusting ideas, including demands that teachers (or anyone) who engage(s) in them not teach (or work) in their community? What obligation does an employer have to their "customers"?

There are limits to free speech... From inciting a riot to libel laws to "free speech zones," it is clear that one cannot say anything one wishes anywhere one wishes without consequence.

I believe that like pornography, there is a line between free speech and offensive speech, and every employee--including government employees--has to avoid stepping afoul of that line, or pass a kind of a smell test when they don't, where "we can't absolutely define it, but we know it when we see it" applies... Firing someone for expressing a conservative, liberal, atheist or Christian viewpoint is different from firing someone for bigoted speech... I trust the American people--in the form of juries, and the judges we elect or appoint--to understand the difference, and to get most of these questions right (though yes, there will be mistakes and decisions with which folks will disagree, just as with every other aspect of our imperfect judicial system.)

As tempting as it is to say all speech is and should be free of legal or government consequence, it's just not realistic... There have to be circumstance-specific standards, and a means to limit the exposure to/of those who refuse to abide by them. One size does not fit all, and each situation should be judged by it's own merits and the standards that apply to it...

Thoughts?

---
Also talking about it:

American Power: Patricia McAllister Fired by LAUSD: Anti-Semitic Teacher Caught on Tape at 'Occupy L.A.' Protest

Free speech -- within limits - latimes.com

The Devil's American Nihilist Henchmen: Online Disagreements and The Offline World We Live In...

Libertarian Republican: Nazi-sympathizing LAUSD worker given the Axe by School District
and
Libertarian Republican: Patty the L.A. Nazi doubles down: Truth needs to be told about the "Zionist Jews" controlling our money system

Reason Guilty of Anti-ANTI-Semitism: Sub Teacher Fired - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Should anti-Semitic Occupy LA woman have been fired? (Reader poll) - Legal Insurrection
---

An American Nihilist and Wingnuts and Moonbats X-post

In Reply: Thomas Paine Had More Balls Than This Pretender, Didn'e?

UPDATE: Robert Tuttle (pretender Thom) has allowed the comment in question to appear after all, (at least partially--I submitted it in two parts, but he only approved the second of the two) and even replied here (IR) and here (AmNi). (Long and short of it is, he's in control of his blog (and will therefore approve comments (or not) on his timetable--and at least some of the time, anyway, his timetable includes holding comments until he has written his reply to them, so he can post them both simultaneously--and thus never have ideas with which he does not agree just hangin' out there on his blog, unanswered.)
=====

Robert P. Tuttle, III sez "LaLaLaLa... I cannot heeeaaaar yooou!!" but the cognitive dissonance just won't go away...
In reply to The Independent Realist: Liberal Socialist Attacks College Professor (not so much the post, which I responded to about 15 house ago, give or take, but the fact that "Thom" refused to allow that response to appear, in spite of his claim that "In the spirit of healthy debate, I will probably post any comments that are made, unless they contain profanity, or degrading speech."

Before you ask, yes, I am certain that he has been to his moderation queue (he approved a friendly comment made later than mine), and that he is aware of my cross post (he has also been to American Nihilist, where the initial response is currently the headline post.)

My response:
-----------

It really doesn't bother you to be so dishonest in the first instance--anyone who actually read any of my blog posts and comments could not make the false accusations you do--and then be so unwilling to post my comments in rebuttal and respond to them, in the second?

Congratulations on your wholly dishonest "victory" over me, Thom... ...but you and I both know that lying, refusing to face your opponent, and blindly marking comments "offensive" is a pretty pathetic way to "win" an argument... (assuming your conscience will even allow you to call it a win, in the first place...)

I guess I can only hope that some of the folks who take your advice and Google up my posts will actually read them, and have enough confidence in their values and beliefs to openly and honestly disagree with what I have to say...
---

Submitted for Independent Realist moderator approval Posted October 21st, 2011, 12:29 PM (IR blog time) ((Actual post time: 4:48 PM, IR blog time)
---

Previously: Thom Paine Gets It Really, Really Wrong...

In Reply: Thom Paine Gets It Really, Really Wrong...

In reply to Liberal Socialist Attacks College Professor - Independent Realist
(Entire post appended below)
---

I hope you won't mind if I step in to clarify a few things... (I'm not even going to bother with the specious ad hom and misunderstanding of my political views, as none of it is germane to the topic at hand...)

It seems the chief instigator of the attacks on Prof. Douglas is one W. James Casper, a liberal socialist who has become so enamored with the destruction of Prof. Douglas that of Casper’s six different liberal blogs he personally writes, he has devoted voluminous space on three of them just to his attacks on Prof. Douglas. One of these blogs contains numerous posts offering the most insightful and elucidating verbiage “ROTFLMFAO!!, WHOO HOO!!, BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!, & LOL!!!” written repeatedly, hundreds of times, as if Mr. Casper were an obsessive compulsive on speed.

Only one blog, American Nihilist, regularly discusses Dr. Douglas. (The man has a Ph.D... Show him some respect.) A second, What'd I Say, is a catch-all for everything I put out there, from cross posts from my other blogs, to this very comment, whether or not you choose to allow it to show up here at your blog... (after it's written and submitted, of course...) The third, called Malicious Content--the one you reference here with all of the “ROTFLMFAO!!, WHOO HOO!!, BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!, & LOL!!!” nonsense, is a blog dedicated to recording trollage and spam, and the particular "elucidating verbiage" you refer to are word-for-word transcripts of comments made by the very guy you're defending, Dr. Douglas. That said, I agree with your characterizations of both the comments themselves and the person who wrote them.

As for whether or not I'm instigating attacks on Dr. Douglas, the only one's I'll accept credit for are my own--most of which, especially of late, have been responses to posts and comments made by Dr. Douglas, and all of which never leave the blog realm... (...with one exception... I do own a "Sasquatch Israel" tee-shirt, which I obviously wear in my offline world.)

Any suggestion that anyone has ever contacted the college where Dr. Douglas is employed, or has in any way taken any online disagreement with Dr. Douglas into his real life world at my bidding or for my benefit is quite simply wholly unsubstantiated paranoid nonsense cooked up by Dr. Douglas himself, for reasons that remain unclear...

"Casper (not to be confused with Casper the Friendly Ghost, who is actually quite benign) seems to want to curtail Prof. Douglas’s First Amendment right to free speech, while at the same time demanding he be allowed to continue defaming Douglas’s character, assumedly in the hopes that Douglas would be fired from his job."

Leaving aside the fact that only the government can curtail anyone's First Amendment rights, and I'm a private citizen, exactly what leads you to the conclusion that I want to curtail Dr. Douglas' speech or have him fired from his job in the first place, particularly since I repeatedly say quite the opposite in my posts and comments, including speaking out clearly and consistently against those who've contacted the college where Dr. Douglas is employed--the impetus for Zilla's initial post, and thus this one, as well? Is there some specific link(s), post(s), or comment(s) that you can reference in support of your claims, or is this just some vague feeling you have when the moon rises, and the bats take wing?

"Perhaps we should each make a concerted effort to Google search the names W. James Casper and Repsac3, find out what sites he is commenting on, and flag each of his comments as offensive. Perhaps if enough of us do this, Casper will find himself banned throughout the web, and be forced back to the liberal socialist sty from whence he came."

Golly... Talk about limiting one's speech...

Isn't that a little cowardly, Thom? Wouldn't it be braver and far more honest to answer my posts and comments with posts and comments of your own--perhaps quoting and citing the things I actually say this time, of course--and beat me fair and square in the marketplace of ideas, right there at the posts where I'm spouting off?

I mean, I'm just sayin'...
---
Submitted for moderator approval Approved and posted (partially, anyway--It was submitted in two parts, but only the latter was approved. Nothing prior to my quote of Robert saying "Perhaps we should each make a concerted effort..." made the cut.) 10/21/11, 12:25 AM (or so), Eastern
---

Liberal Socialist Attacks College Professor

As we are all too familiar with, liberal socialist attacks on conservatives is commonplace. Whether at the various “Occupy” protests around our country, or on the many conservative blogs, or even from the Oval Office itself, these folks just can’t seem to help themselves. Whenever they are faced with truth (which happens anytime anyone takes an unbiased look into their beliefs) they come unglued. Along with their usual bag of tricks which include ad hominem attacks, circular reasoning, name calling, yelling incoherently, mindless chants, illogical babbling and outright lies, we can now add libelous attacks designed to destroy lives and livelihoods.

I first learned about the attacks on Professor Donald Douglas through a very insightful and well written article over at the Zilla of the Resistance blog. Entitled Stand Against Evil – Never Let it Win, Zilla’s article outlines just what has been happening to Prof. Douglas. By the way, in case you didn’t know, Prof. Douglas is the author of the American Power blog.

It seems the chief instigator of the attacks on Prof. Douglas is one W. James Casper, a liberal socialist who has become so enamored with the destruction of Prof. Douglas that of Casper’s six different liberal blogs he personally writes, he has devoted voluminous space on three of them just to his attacks on Prof. Douglas. One of these blogs contains numerous posts offering the most insightful and elucidating verbiage “ROTFLMFAO!!, WHOO HOO!!, BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!, & LOL!!!” written repeatedly, hundreds of times, as if Mr. Casper were an obsessive compulsive on speed.

After spending the day reading all six of Mr. Casper’s blogs (stopping only for the occasional trip to the porcelain throne – you know what they say “what goes in, comes out”), but refraining from reading his Huffington Post comments (leftist drivel rarely changes, and Casper’s doesn’t), I came to the conclusion that W. James Casper needs to loosen the hat band on his tin foil cap, and try ever so hard to come up with something original. Well, actually I guess he did in that most liberal socialists do not spend such an exorbitant amount of time (and bandwidth) trying to destroy someone simply because of their views. And that seems to be the crux of the issue with W. James Casper (aka: Repsac3), namely Prof. Douglas’s views. Casper (not to be confused with Casper the Friendly Ghost, who is actually quite benign) seems to want to curtail Prof. Douglas’s First Amendment right to free speech, while at the same time demanding he be allowed to continue defaming Douglas’s character, assumedly in the hopes that Douglas would be fired from his job.

But alas, isn’t defamation of character just another tool in the liberal socialist bag of tricks? Of course it is. And if Casper manages to get his way, and Prof. Douglas is terminated from his position, well, then of course his family will suffer, but I am sure that Casper will consider them “collateral damage.”

All in all, W. James Casper is a liberal socialist troll, and a troll of the first order. His blogs reflect this, his comments on other blogs reflect this, his tweets reflect this, and his Facebook wall reflects this. Unfortunately, conservatives do not engage in the same style of tactics used by W. James Wilson, otherwise he would likely find his blogs and twitter feed and Facebook wall flooded by the comments of conservatives outraged by his reprehensible actions. Of course, the lack of such a flood only encourages and emboldens cretins such as W. James Wilson to continue their attack on truth. Wilson has been banned not only on Prof. Douglas’s blog, but also on Andrew Breitbart’s site as well. Perhaps we should each make a concerted effort to Google search the names W. James Casper and Repsac3, find out what sites he is commenting on, and flag each of his comments as offensive. Perhaps if enough of us do this, Casper will find himself banned throughout the web, and be forced back to the liberal socialist sty from whence he came. Because if he isn’t stopped, then he will just continue. Why? Because this is what trolls do, whether they are liberal socialists like Casper, or islamic terrorists. The lack of a concerted effort to stop them just encourages them to continue what they are doing, and we must ask ourselves, is Prof. Douglas the only target, and who will be next? Just a thought.

Posted by Thomas Paine (Robert P. Tuttle, III) at 5:24 PM

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

X-Post: Well... Is it?


Is American Power Blog Under Attack From Satan? | Lisa Graas

Also:
Nasty Progressives Try to Get Conservative Blogger Fired | The Lonely Conservative

Zilla of the Resistance: Stand Against Evil - Never Let it Win

The Pagan Temple: Donald Douglas-Struck By The Poison Of Progressive Ideology

When Flame Wars Spill Offline

They Truly Hate Liberty : The Other McCain

Right Wing Bloggers Under Relentless Attack: The Battle Rages On � The Camp Of The Saints

Beware the Howling Mob : The Sundries Shack

Shout First, Ask Questions Later: Calling All Browncoats, Join The Fight For Free Speech.

WyBlog -- Free Speech for thee but not for me?

Invincible Armor: Stand With American Power Against Intimidation And Harrassment

Marooned In Marin: Standing With A Fellow Blogger & Friend Against Vicious Attacks By Leftists

Stand Against Evil – Never Let It Win - That Mr. G Guy's Blog

American Power: Conservatives Stand Up! — Zilla's Resistance Honor Roll Keeps Getting Bigger! (and with it, Donald's already swelled head and ginormous ego... They know not what they do... ...or so one hopes, anyway...)

The Independent Realist: Liberal Socialist Attacks College Professor

A Progressive Attack on Conservative Blogger | Midnight Blue Says
--------------

For new visitors (or old ones, if you've not yet gotten the message): Workplace Harassment - (btdt FAQ files), and now, Online Disagreements and The Offline World We Live In....

Before responding/reacting to this post, please follow those links and read both posts to be certain I have not already addressed your concerns. (I haven't said much on the Biblical aspects of this situation, but I have laid out the earthly facts as far as they concern this author and this blog.)
---

One of The Devil's American Nihilist Henchmen X-posts.

Friday, October 14, 2011

X-Post: Donald Douglas and his Paranoid "Henchmen" Conspiracy Theory

UPDATE: For the one or two people who may follow Donald's Google search maze from his Saturday, October 15, 2011 ""Roundup on Progressive Campaign of Workplace Intimidation and Harassment" offering to get to this post, here's all you need to know:

W. James Casper has clearly and consistently spoken out against EVERY SINGLE PERSON who has ever threatened to or actually contacted Long Beach City College to complain about Donald Douglas' online antics. Donald's suggestion that anyone has ever said or done ANYTHING to or about him to anyone at my bidding or on my behalf--leaving me with clean hands and "plausible denial"--is paranoid conspiratorial nonsense. If you read his post(s) carefully, you'll note that he NEVER OFFERS ANY EVIDENCE THAT I PLAY ANY PART IN ANY INCIDENT--and in fact, if you follow the link that concludes this paragraph, you'll find many examples of my speaking out against such behavior, against Donald or anyone else, for any reason, written at the time the incidents occurred or were being discussed. (I also don't believe that any two of the folks who contacted Long Beach City College about Dr Douglas over the years conspired to do so or coordinated their actions, and Donald has never offered any proof suggesting any two incidents are linked in any way.) For my roundup of Donald Douglas' specious accusations against me in this regard over the last several years, please follow this link: Workplace Harassment - (btdt FAQ files)

Now back to the post at hand, in response to Donald's prior post accusing me of conspiring and coordinating these workplace incidents, written Thursday, October 13--a whole three days ago...

I invite any and all to read it through, and then to comment below if you see any evidence of Donald's allegation that the post "confirms [my] clinical obsession with seeing [him] fired." (Or, if you can't figure out what he's talking about either-- or perhaps believe that the post below suggests quite the opposite of what Dr. Douglas is alleging it does --may I suggest that you consider those facts when evaluating my posted statements and Donald's... ...and then, if you're brave enough to risk becoming another of his eeeeevil, niiiiihilist enemies for daring to question the great and powerful Douglas (who, in making these specious allegations and calling folks "assholes and dickwipes," apparently believes himself to be on a mission from God, which itself oughta tell ya something), may I suggest that you offer a comment to his post***, asking him to provide the specific quote(s) to which he's referring in making such a crazy, fact-free allegation. (***Sadly, Donald has removed any possibility to comment publicly on his recent post... ...which leads one to question what it is he's hiding... If you have anything to say, my comment section remains open and available to all, whatever your opinion on the matter.)

And thanks for stopping by... Now back to that earlier post:
==================================================

Poor Donald... He's once again putting forth the theory that when other folks contact his workplace, suggest he's not fit to be in the classroom, or ridicule or criticize him in any way, shape, or form, *I* am somehow responsible, as though I am some eeeeevil genius who has minions who hang on my every word and act in my stead (thus giving me "plausible denial," y'understand...) The following is the latest iteration of Donald Douglas' paranoid theory:
American Power: W. James Casper's Demonic Band of Progressive Totalitarians

I was notified of yet another round of workplace attacks at the college.

I don't yet know who's once again contacting my employer (I should know next week),
Donald admits he doesn't know who contacted Long Beach City College, and yet he's already making accusations, both about the person he thinks actually did it, and against me, because the guy he's accusing left a few comments on my blog over the years, including a few in the last few days.
...but I've got a clue. It turns out that Captain Fogg left a comment at stalking hate-blogger W. James Casper's hell-hole, American Nihilist: Donald Douglas: Pathetic and Insecure (but proud right wing squirmer):
I certainly don't participate in what anyone but you would call retaliation, but then I'm not as worried as you that I've stepped over the line of common decency. You in fact, have good reason for retrospection and introspection. At this point I worry for the public at large and for students taught by you. I think you sound dangerous. I almost expect to see you in some headline some day.

I have no problem with people being called to task for harm they might have done to others. As an educated man, you certainly can distinguish between justice and retaliation even if you're somehow unable to get any point across without behaving like a foul-mouthed and spoiled little boy with serious self-esteem and impulse control problems.

How this makes me improperly retaliative or dishonest in your eyes, is beyond me, but then I know more about electrical engineering than about abnormal psychology.

So do you think people need to know about how you express yourself or is someone "retaliating" for quoting you? You either stand behind your words or you have your nose rubbed in them. It's up to you.

Was it you who showed up out of the blue at The Impolitic raving about impotence and penises and stupidity and all that after a rather dry assessment of Mitt Romney? Seems odd that you could dare to accuse anybody of excess after that repetitive example of your obsessive and obscene program of hounding and punishing anyone who writes anything you disagree with. The only reason I'm here is that you were there.

Frankly I think you're so far beyond the bounds of responsible civilized behavior that some public light should be shed on it and you know it because you wouldn't be squirming and squealing about persecution if you didn't know damn well how inappropriate it is for a teacher of young people to be what you are. You've got a body of "work" out there and it speaks for itself and it doesn't speak well of you.
I'll know more later about this. Folks can read the whole comment thread at that top Google result. I have no idea what Fogg is talking about with "retaliation." But I can say that this is the new line of attack from W. James Casper's demonic band of progressive totalitarians.
It's odd that Donald has no idea what Fogg was talking about as regards retaliation, since it was Donald who first used the word in the comment thread, and Fogg was responding to Don's comment...

My record as concerns contacting the workplace of someone you disagree with online should be crystal clear by this point--even to Dr. Donald Douglas, Pee HD, and the fact is, Fogg and I have disagreed about the particulars of Donald's situation and whether his words and deeds merit contacting Long Beach City College from the get-go.

(In fact, the only comment I ever had moderated out of existence by a liberal blog was this one, arguing with Fogg and others AGAINST contacting Donald's workplace. As a result of this disagreement, my affiliation with the owner of that blog came to an abrupt and unannounced end, when he removed his authorship here at AmNi, and removed my authorship there at The Swash Zone, without discussing either move with me ahead of time.)

That said, I respect Fogg's right to state his case in favor of contacting LBCC, both back in 2009, and--if that's what he was doing--again in the last day or so. And if Fogg ever did contact LBCC, he did not do so at my urging or with my blessing. He is not my "henchman." As with the others who've threatened to or actually contacted LBCC, whatever Fogg says or does, he says or does by his own volition, and I am not responsible for his or anyone else's actions, or the credit or scorn that results from what they say and do.
It's a variation on the old line: "Dr. Douglas has no business being in front of a classroom." And so in the progressive mind, this is reason enough to mount campaigns of libel and workplace harassment for the sole purpose of getting me fired. This was the attack of the atheists some time back, during the Elizabeth Edwards backlash. This was the same basic attack launched by Carl Salamipants and one of the asshats at Lawyers, Guns and Money. And this has been W. James Casper's latest ploy to continue his hate campaign of sponsoring threats against my livelihood.
I do believe that Donald Douglas lacks the temperament to appear in public, let alone teaching students, but by many student accounts he is a proficient professor... ...and--while I'm shocked that he can act like such an opinionated, vindictive buffoon online, and not be that same person in the classroom--that's good enough for me. As I've said many times before, making sure Donald does his job appropriately is up to his employers, and I hope they're paying attention... ...but barring evidence of a credible threat to harm someone at Long Beach City College, I will let LBCC pay as much or as little attention to Donald Douglas as they choose.

I don't know the details of these other situations where folks have contacted LBCC--I never asked, and they folks involved never offered any info, either--but I played no part in their actions, before, during, or after the fact. If Donald had evidence to the contrary, he would've offered it by now... He won't. He can't. It doesn't exist.

Donald's claim of "sponsorship" consists of the fact that I allow these individuals to comment here--and in one case from 2009, be an author here. (The fact is, everyone except spammers are welcome.) Of course, I also allow Donald to comment here, and no one--including Donald--has ever suggested that that PROVES I sponsor his nonsense. I let people have their say, whether I agree with 'em or not, and if what they have to say interests me, I respond... It's called blogging.
Now it's not just that I'm conservative, but that I use salty language in responding to these assholes. Yep, they're assholes and dickwipes and I have no problem pointing it out. So now, yet again, we've got the same bunch of idiots down with the defecations on Wall Street screaming like stuck pigs and contacting my employer? Heaven forbid I used some profanity! Fire that man! He's a danger to the commons!
Donald's wimpy profanity (the man uses asterisks to "protect" his delicate sensibilities when he writes "fuck") is hardly an issue for much of anyone... Most of us see it as his attempt to prove his manliness, but, because his purpose is so obvious, it has the opposite effect. And again, not even Donald knows who contacted his employer, so his excited ejaculations on the whole subject seem awful premature... (I'm not saying it couldn't be Fogg or some other blogger or commenter I've heard of, but the fact is, Donald is obviously and admittedly shooting off his fool mouth before he knows who or what he's even talking about...)
Fogg mentions Libby Spencer's The Impolitic, where I commented last week. But those comments have been deleted, so there's no actual record of what Fogg's talking about.
How creepy is it that Donald's "defense" is "you can't prove what I said in those comments?" (Of course, Donald forgets that anyone who gets blog comments via e-mail has a copy of everything he posted...)
And that's it exactly: If someone disagrees with comment at a blog they can delete it, or they can moderate them in advance. But for stalking asshats like Casper and Fogg it's always about contacting my employer, and making libelous allegations.
Sadly for Douglas, none of that has ever happened, at least as far as I'm concerned... For all his bullshit and bluster, Donald Douglas has no evidence that I have ever contacted LBCC... ...because I never have. He has no evidence that I ever instructed anyone else to do so, either... ...because I never have. (And like I said, there are a myriad of comments and quotes where I have expressly come out against anyone who ever contemplated or actually did contact LBCC.) Donald's conspiratorial "henchmen" fantasy is the product of a vindictively partisan feverishly paranoid mind. Even his "libelous allegations" bit as concerns me melts when confronted... For all his legal blather about lawyers and the police, he's never actually pulled that trigger... ...because he can't, and he knows it. I have never "harassed" or "intimidated" or "stalked" or "libeled" him. (And I'd venture to guess that his allegations to the contrary--being declarations that I have broken the law--are more legally actionable than anything I've ever posted about him.)
Notice above how Fogg claims I'm "dangerous." That would be perfect, wouldn't it, to allege that "Donald Douglas is a danger to his students and the college community, and he shouldn't be permitted anywhere near a classroom full of impressionable students"?
I sometimes wonder myself--especially given Donald's recent conspiratorial fantasies about me--but I trust that the relevant authorities and supervisors will see that glint of madness in his eyes before he actually does any harm.
BONUS: Hey Fogg, here's the link to the properly spelled "Murphry's Law," and you can thank your idiot hate-sponsor RACIST = REPSAC3 on the origins of your epic self-douche. BWAHAHAHA!!!!!
Sadly, no, on both counts...

Follow the link... There is only one "R" in Muphry's Law. Donald fucked it up yet again... (...yet again proving that Muphry's Law--that any written criticism of someone else's spelling, grammar or usage will contain at least one error in spelling, grammar, or usage--is all too often true, and that Donald ought to stay off that high horse of his, before he really hurts himself by falling off so often...)

And no, Fogg actually didn't make a spelling, grammar, or usage error in correcting what he had every right to think was Don's spelling error. (...though it was ironic that he corrected the only instance where Dr Douglas actually spelled "Muphry's Law" correctly.) Donald gave him no clue that he was referring to the law about spelling errors--the title of which is an INTENTIONAL misspelling of "Murphy's Law,"--though not the misspelling that Donald keeps using--and yet Dr Douglas is trying to hold him responsible for reading his mind and knowing what Donald was intending to say. Since he made no error in spelling, grammar, or usage, in the comment where he corrected Donald's misspelling of "Murphy's" Law, "Muphry's" Law doesn't apply, much as Donald may wish it did.

So thanks for playing, Donald, and bwaaahaha.
EXTRA: The only reference to "penises" I can think of would be "Captain Fogg Just Can't Go Long!" And that's a parody, protected by the First Amendment. But hey, progressive totalitarians hate free speech!!
I'm pretty sure Fogg didn't question Don's right to so often blog about penis, but the wisdom of his doing so, and what all of that penis talk says about ol' Don...
NOTE: Comments are closed. Readers who'd like to comment may reply to me by e-mail (at my Blogger profile) and I'll add comments in updates to this post.
Pretty cowardly there, Dr. Douglas... Almost as though he was afraid of something' (or he wanted to create more of those "whisper-in-his-ear" comments about how awful I am... Not that I'm accusing Donald, or nothin'...)

In any case, I replied as instructed:


Keywords: Donald Douglas: Pathetic and Insecure (but proud right wing squirmer) American Nihilst blogurl:http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/
---------

More info: Workplace Harassment - (btdt FAQ files)

An American Nihilist X-post

In Reply: Don't Drink The Spilt Milk (or eat the sour grapes)

In reply to American Power: 'It doesn’t matter if an accusation against a conservative is true or false...'
"...the only question is: can we use it to win (or discredit and demoralize conservatives)."
Or to literally destroy conservatives.

I can attest to that from first hand experience. But see Charles Sykes, "The Goal: Chaos" (via William Jacobson).

RELATED: "W. James Casper's Demonic Band of Progressive Totalitarians."

---
Kinda seems like crying over spilt milk, dud'nit... Blame all your failures on the "liberal" media, and those nasty citizens who disagree with you...

No way to run a railroad, if ya ask me...

Pretty sure your conspiracy theories about me aren't "related," either...
---

Submitted for moderator approval 10/14/11, 1:58 PM
---

Added: The funniest thing about these kinda tactics lists (whether this Charles guy's, or the eeeevil Alinsky's "rules," which I've ONLY ever seen / heard about on con sites... though I did recently buy the books, to see what all the fuss was about); Every time you see them listed or discussed on a conservative site, half of the commenters describe them as evil incarnate (which for the most part, they're not... They're just political tactics folks all across the political spectrum use to make their case and reach their goals), and the other half want to start (or keep) using them, themselves... ...and for whatever reason, the two factions never seem to acknowledge each other's viewpoints, let alone actually discuss/debate them...

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

In Reply: Fascism: Citizens Are Not "Pro-Government Forces"

Revised and extended, in reply to Is it fascist? - Don Surber
I see where the Occupy Wall Street crowd is going to march on the homes of billionaires. This ain’t no tea party. At what point do we call intimidation by pro-government forces fascist?
---
I know of no definition of the word fascist that includes describing where and how folks protest, so no, it's not fascist. If the "pro-government forces" actually worked for the government and were being ordered to act on the government's behalf, Don Surber might have a slightly stronger case--but even then, he'd then be describing the police and the military as fascists, which kinda makes him sound like a left wing extremist... ...or a member of a right wing extremist militia group defending their compound.

Citizens, whether protesting in favor or opposed to a particular government action, policy, or form--and really, even those opposed to the government as it is are protesting in favor of government as they want it to be and the politicians advocating for those changes, making almost everyone "pro-government"--are not equivalent to armed and organized martial units enforcing the wishes of the government for money.

That said, I disagree with protesting at folks homes or in any way involving innocent family members, no matter who the target(s) of the protest or the folks doing the protesting are...

A march through a particular neighborhood is one thing--and some of the accounts I'm reading say they plan to (or have) pass(ed) by the homes. To the extent that that's all they plan to do (or did), I have no problem with that; massing on an individual's lawn and shouting is quite another. (I was opposed to the tactic when it was used against abortion providers, and I'm just as opposed now.)
---

Submitted for moderator approval October 11, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)