A Dishonest [blogger], Smirking

"Should he be fired for this? Of course not."

Bravo. Well said.

Perhaps I'd be more bothered by efforts to get Loomis fired if I hadn't been on the receiving end of identical efforts by his co-bloggers at Lawyers, Guns and Money and by his ideological allies in the progressive ASFL fever swamps.

Isn't that exactly why [that guy] should be EXTREMELY bothered?

Isn't he espousing one set of standards for himself and another for those with whom he disagrees, or are--in his mind--guilty-by-association with those who have wronged him in this way?

And putting the two quotes together, is the saying it's alright (or "alright, so long as it's someone in some way associated with someone else who did a similar thing") to attempt to get someone fired for what they say online, so long as the attempt is ultimately unsuccessful?

"And as regular readers know full well, Walter James Casper III used his blog, with his co-bloggers, to post my contact information and exhort his readers to contact my college."

Still, as always, factually untrue. I have never posted the guy's college contact information (though I may've linked to posts where others have--including posts at the guy's own blog--in the course of discussing why it's ethically wrong for others to post or use it against him), and have repeatedly spoken out against every single person--no matter their political ideology--who has posted his workplace contact information, used his workplace contact information to complain about anything he's ever done online or off, or suggested that anyone else use his workplace contact information to do so, either.

I did not delete the post (or any/all comments expressing similar themes, or those posts or comments expressing other ideas or behaviors with which I may've personally disagreed, or indeed much of anything ever, aside spam), because I believe(d) that everyone speaking here is an adult who can string together and then defend their own words and the ideas they convey, and doesn't need a metaphorical mommy or daddy to make decisions on their behalf.

If I didn't like or agree with something posted here, I either starved it of my attention by ignoring it, or commented about it, saying why I disagreed or didn't like it. That [the guy] refuses to comprehend this simple concept (willfully, I suspect) continues to amaze me.

"Screw these people. They reap what they sow. When they start calling out the workplace harassers among their own partisans maybe I'll give a f-k about stooges like Loomis."

Demonstrably untrue, just based on the paragraphs above (and many, many more like them posted by me over the years). But par for the course.
---

Links:
[his blog]: Smirking Spectator? Guilty as Charged

Workplace Harassment - (btdt FAQ files)

Obsessed much?

An x-post from a blog that once was