X-Post: Nothing Good Lasts Forever: Dishonest Donald Douglas Lashes Out Again

After just over seven weeks of blessed silence in which crazy stalker Donald Kent Douglas curbed his need to lash out against me, Dishonest Don let loose with another crazy screed talking more about who and what he wants to fool his his readers into believing about me than about the subject at hand (marriage equality, this time).

There's little point dissecting the thing--it's just more of the same epithets and "guilt by association" nonsense that Donald Douglas usually writes, especially where I'm concerned. If anyone is interested in my views on marriage equality, they're not hard to find (look here or here), and they don't need translating or explanation by a third party, least of all some crazy obsessed fuck who periodically lashes out at me over the internet, unprovoked.

But since I'm here anyway, I'll crosspost the main part of the post that brought Dishonest Donald Douglas slithering out from under his rock. Those interested can read what I wrote, and then compare it with Dishonest Donald's rant over on his blog, and decide for themselves...:
=======

What'd I Say?: We Just Disagree (Marriage Equality)

I recently had a conversation in the comment section of a youtube video: Adam Carolla on Gay Parents vs Straight Parents (I'll link to it, but I refuse to embed the thing, both because I disagree with Carolla's take on the subject and because it's altogether a pretty obnoxious video.)

While the conversation started out kinda rocky--in part because I thought something the guy had said was kind of bigoted, and lashed out in reply in a way I wish I hadn't--it was generally not too bad a discussion. (In fact, I'll likely append it to the end of this post, in case anyone's interested.) The gentleman also sent me three e-mails to my youtube account containing links to posts with which he agreed, and which, surprisingly enough, agreed with him, too. What follows is my response to all three posts, as well as the discussion we had. When I stared writing, I initially intended it to be an e-mail reply but given the length, I decided to send him a link to this, instead. The title of this post is taken from the last of his three e-mails.

"homosexual marriage
Not to get all evangelical but the author below has written extensively on the issue of homosexual marriage and politics. His street cred is total and you will find his various articles insightful and even surprising.
I did.
R.O. Lopez writes from the heart and I feel you will benefit from his thoughts. The link below is not the only article and you can go to the archives and find his literary works and they are all valuable insights into this issue most people never even know they don't know.
Enjoy.
American Thinker: The Soul-Crushing Scorched-Earth Battle for Gay Marriage

---

I just stumbled over this...
American Thinker: The Annulment of Same-sex Marriage

---

We just disagree
So you see, there IS another side of the debate than yours. Remember: I am one of THOSE people.
American Thinker: The Price of Gay Marriage: The Galvanic Corrosion of Language"

My reply:

Of course there are more sides to the marriage equality debate than mine. In fact, I believe there are more than just two, although the question of equal marriage rights has only two possible answers; equality before the law or inequality.

Everyone has a right to believe as they will, for religious, ethical, or societal reasons. But only one side of this debate is advocating that the other be prohibited by law from acting in accord with their beliefs.

I've read through all 3 of the "American Thinker" articles you offered links to, and trust me when I say I've read many other articles and posts at similar sites by those authors and others with similar views. The fact that you (and they) believe the primary purpose of laws and statutes governing civil marriage is procreation and parenthood simply does not make it so. The laws pertaining to the birth and care of children are the ones that say so. To read more into the rest of the laws pertaining to marriage--the ones that are about tax rates, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, wills, and the rest of the over 1000 federal, state, and local rights and benefits automatically granted to traditional couples at the moment they say "I do"--and that DON'T specifically mention children--is seeing what you wish to see, rather than what's really there. Only a fraction of those same 1000+ rights and benefits are offered to same-sex couples, even in states that allow civil unions or have marriage equality.

Procreation is a natural phenomenon. Marriage is a human creation. It has probably always had a religious component, a legal one, and one based strictly in nature, involving procreation and sexual desire (both to continue the species, and for pleasure, as well). Sometimes those components are in synch, and sometimes they're not.

I understand the natural argument, but given that so few animals choose and stick with one mate for the majority of their lives, I don't see why anyone arguing in favor of marriage, traditional or otherwise, should or would offer nature as an argument. Were we to use nature as our guide, we'd be doing much better at propagating the species, but we'd be screwing like...well, bunnies, with little if any regard for the man or woman we were with the night before.

Once we get past nature, the religious and legal definitions and purposes of marriage have never been set in stone. I can appreciate that the Judeo-Christian God defined marriage in a way that is largely accepted in these parts (especially by the jews and christians who live in these parts), but there are other religions with other beliefs that define marriage in different ways. (Even different denominations within christianity define marriage in slightly different ways.)

A 10 minute google search suggests that a relatively small but still significant number of same-sex marriages and unions have occurred throughout all of recorded history. (Some were legal (that is, civil) marriages accepted by law and the cultures in which they took place, while others were religiously recognized--including by the Christian church. (St. Serge and St. Bacchus, Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John). One of the first laws against same sex marriage was in ancient Rome. Presumably they passed the law to stop same-sex marriages that were taking place at the time.

Even aside that, the religious, legal, and socially recognized and accepted rules regarding marriage have changed in all sorts of ways throughout history, from the ages of the participants, the number of participants, whether people of different religions could marry, whether people of different races could marry, the rules regarding divorce, the rules regarding remarriage after divorce, the practice of marrying the widow of one's deceased brother, even if you were already married, dowries, the role of husbands and wives in the home and out, the necessity of love (or any prior relationship at all) between the participants, ..., ... There is very little about legal marriage, the rite of marriage, or the social definitions of marriage that has NOT changed since each of these institutions began.

It's up to one's church and scripture to decide which changes to accept and which to reject and refuse; I would never want government law to determine religious doctrine, though I do believe change is possible, in that there are already faiths and denominations that allow gay folks to serve and to marry, and because of the extent to which an actual threat to traditional marriage--divorce--has already been accepted by so much of the mainstream religious community throughout the world.

Legally though, appeals to nature, to church, or even to tradition and "the way it's always been" just don't hold up under scrutiny. Marriage law is not primarily about continuing the species or the optimal raising of children, especially to the detriment of any family situation other than the supposed optimal one for raising children. If it were, we would hear all of the results of these studies that say "mommy and daddy in committed marriage is best," and perhaps outlaw more of what is less than optimal... poverty, single parenthood, divorce, ...

I do believe children should have male and female solid long-term role models in their lives, but I don't believe US law should prevent couples from marrying or raising children in an effort to encourage (or really, enforce) those standards.

Legal marriage can and often does include children, but it isn't--and shouldn't be--defined by children or the possibility of creating them. To my knowledge, it never has been--except of course, as an argument against marriage equality.... (Women were (and in a few cases, still are) tested for virginity, and blood tests were done to prevent certain diseases (chiefly syphilis, but TB and german measles were also mentioned), but I know of no tests for fertility, or laws or church doctrine that require children or the possibility of them to start or maintain a legal (or religiously recognized) marriage. We don't even require couples to sign an affidavit affirming that they are able to procreate prior to allowing them to marry, which would require no testing.

It's not that I don't understand the arguments those opposed to legal marriage equality are making... I just don't think they hold all that much water.
=======

Read what we each wrote, and decide for yourselves...

Links:

American Power: Anti-Marriage Extremist Walter James Casper III and the Unitarian Push for Polyamorous Sexual Licentiousness

What'd I Say?: We Just Disagree (Marriage Equality)

Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?
---

An American Nihilist X-post

List: Blocked On Twitter By...

As of 6/28/12, (in order of most recent to least recent, as far as I know) I am blocked on Twitter by:

@jtLOL - Jim Treacher - Discovered today (6/28/12) and a complete surprise. The last time we interacted in any form was months ago, as far as I can even recall...and I think that was as commenters on some third party's blog, rather than via twitter. Nevertheless, I'm honored that he thought me worthy.
~~~

@Skye820 - Tania Gail (Ciolko) - Discovered 6/23/12--(but probably in place a whole lot longer than that--perhaps years, even--because I can't even hazard a guess as to the last time we interacted via any medium)--when she added her cents to a Donald Douglas slam on me, after he mentioned her in one of his tweets. "Casper fears me."

For the record, Skye820 and I had a few interactions on one of her blogs (now defunct - See: Wingnuts and Moonbats: Free Speech, Imus, and the Free Market) and in Youtube comments about anti-war protests back in 2007. If we interacted anywhere more than ten times in total between January, 2008 and now, I'd be surprised. That she ever accused me of "stalking" her to anyone, even based on the 2007 interactions--where I commented on her public blog no more than 5-10 times, probably, (mostly about the Imus case, as I recall) and also at youtube videos (one or two she posted, and a few others where we were both just commenters) for another 10 or so--is pretty laughable.

As I said in reply to her tweet (or was it Donald's?), the political blogosphere is pretty small, and anyone who hasn't interacted with many of the same people at/in different venues probably doesn't go to more than one or two very insular venues to start with. Even following someone from one venue to a second to see more of what they post--which I suppose it's possible I did do, perhaps seeing a YouTube video that she embedded at her blog, and then going to YouTube to watch and comment on it--shouldn't really be all that scandalous to anyone who's spent more than a few days on the internet. In fact, I'd argue that it's pretty common, and what most people who embed their videos or other activities hosted at other sites INTEND for you to do. I'm just sayin'
~~~

@AndrewBreitbart - Disgraced Conservative Blogger Andrew Breitbart - Blocked Sunday, April 25, 2010 - One of his fellow right-winger fans--or maybe just a troll--sent me a racist photo ( A quick search revealed that the guy sent weird photos to pretty much everyone who argued with Breitbart on twitter. Mine just happened to be racist), and I used it to rebut Breitbart's claim that there are no racist right-wingers. Hilarity ensues. (In this case, hilarity came in the form of a knee-jerk banning, rather than any reflection about what actually happened. In retrospect though, I was wrong to hold disgraced conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart responsible for his wacked out, bigoted fan (or troll).) The whole sordid tale, with photos and links and all, is recounted here. As with Jim Treacher--moreso, in fact--I was honored to be blocked by such a prominent wingnut blowhard.
~~~

@AmPowerBlog - Donald Kent Douglas - (Since the day he started the account, prolly. He obviously fears my obvious superior moral fortitude, obviously.) - If there's anyone reading this post who doesn't know the backstory, please peruse as many posts as it takes at the following blog to understand why we're not tweeps.: American Nihilist (another blog I once started, currently in hibernation). There is no honor to be had from this blocking...and no honor in the man doing the blocking, either...
~~~

Updates up top, as needed.

In Reply: Schadenfreudian Perks and Petar Hoistin'

In reply to the following comment at the Lawyers, Guns & Money post "Concerning Brett Kimberlin, Patrick Frey, Aaron Worthing, etc."

"And you know, I’d be a bit more sympathetic to Mr. Walker if he had’t linked to Donald Douglas complaining about this very blog as an example of people who had undergone similar experiences..."

Yeah, that is unfortunate... but even that hasn't been without it's schadenfreudian perks at the hands of several of his fellow rightwing bloggers, once Donalde started likening his trials and tribulations to those of Kimberlin's victims...and came up looking to some of 'em more like Kimberlin than like Aaron.
---
And on that score, I couldn't help but notice how something Aaron recently quoted Kimberlin as saying:

"His false narrative that I framed him is defamatory and inciting extremists to threaten me. He is responsible for their conduct."

sounded all too familiar:

"I banned YOU. But you publicly admitted my wishes were to be disrespected and that you would taunt, harass, and intimidate "whenever and wherever I choose."

And one of those places was my college. YOU had henchmen do it for you so you could claim plausible denial. But the cat's out now. YOU are liable."

(My henchmen contacted Aaron's extremists, and I'm given to understand our minions are all going on a picnic next weekend to trade "does your eeeeevil genius boss suck as much as my eeeeevil genius boss?" war stories.)
---

Sometimes it's better to just let their own petar do the hoistin'...
~~~

Posted June 27, 2012 at 2:41 pm

In Reply: "I never thought that person did it because of their political leanings, I think they did it because they were cowardly bullies." (Popehat, Team Kimberlin, Donald Douglas)

Revised, expanded, and now updated, below, in reply to the following comment at the blog post Shut Up, They Explained: Another Blogger Threatened With Imprisonment For Writing About Brett Kimberlin | Popehat:

@Donald Douglas

"They view free speech as a right for those who uphold the progressive agenda."

That's news to me.

And I have been threatened with a defamation suit by someone who's right wing. I never thought that person did it because of their political leanings, I think they did it because they were cowardly bullies.
---

I feel yer pain...

I won't mention any names (not at Popehat, anyway), but I had a blogger (not so coincidentally named Donald Douglas) threaten to (and, according to what he himself publicly claimed, actually did) speak to two different police departments, unspecified federal authorities, at least one lawyer, AND his congressional representatives (again, at least one), primarily because I played tit-for-tat in the comment section of this fellow's blog whenever he mentioned me, even after he requested I not do so.

(For the record, none of the folks this blogger spoke to ever made any contact with me... ...but after speaking to several folks familiar with the law and/or the internet, and getting variations of the following advice from several of 'em, I pretty much stopped "inciting" said blogger...though we do still travel in some of the same circles.)

Here was that advice: "Any guy crazy enough to think he's entitled to have police officers, the FBI, and his congressman enforce the rules of his blog is likely crazy enough to be dangerous when he discovers that they cannot. In any case, it's probably not a good idea to put yourself in the position of finding out."

(This ties in with my recent comment at an earlier Popehat post on the subject: While those willing to stand up to Team Kimberlin even after being threatened--or actually attacked--by them are free speech heroes, there is something to be said for not poking bears or crazy people with sticks, no matter how richly they deserve it, and there is no great shame in refraining from doing so...)
---

Posted Jun 11, 2012 @4:22 am, Popehat blog time.

Updates, lots:

The blogger over at Popehat decided to remove a series of comments, beginning with mine, above, and continuing with several others that discussed what I wrote, after Dr. Douglas outed himself as the blogger to whom I was referring. While I believe the thread was discussing / debating important issues that are also at play in the Kimberlin saga, I can understand why Ken did what he did, and it is, after all, his establishment, not mine. I bear him no ill will.

That said, I don't believe the conversation should be lost, and not just because I was so heartened to read that others very quickly saw what I saw in Dr. Douglas' actions against me back then, especially as it relates to his hypocritical and nakedly partisan grandstanding about the Kimberlin matter now... ...though I'd be lying if I ever claimed that it had no bearing at all on my decision to repost the otherwise lost material. Guilty as charged.
---

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @9:08 am:

STFU Repsac. I went to the police because you were a ringleader in exactly the kind of campaigns that conservatives are now dealing with. You run an entire blog to attack me and organize workplace attacks: http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/ I was only after I took your harassment to the authorities that you finally stopped stalking me.

[It's 99% dormant now, and has been since February, but the "American Nihilist" blog was created to make fun of Dr. Douglas, and especially his at-one-time-pretty-consistant habit of slurring everyone and everything with which he did not agree with the adjective "nihilist." There was no "organization of workplace attacks," there, and no real "ringleader, either. I did start the blog, but there were several authors, all of whom wrote independently, and each of whom were wholly responsible for the content of their own posts. Donald is correct that I stopped responding to his posts and comments, both on my blog and on his --there was no "stalking"-- after he announced his trips to the police and congressman's offices but, as stated above, that was because it was at that moment I realized there really had to be something wrong with him. Normal, well-adjusted people don't appeal to the police and their congressional representatives to enforce their stated blog comment policies. On the advice of friends and law enforcement / legal professionals alike, I stopped poking the crazy man's cage, lest he take more extreme or violent action once he discovered that law enforcement would not make me stop commenting at his blog against his wishes.]

***

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @9:24 am:

@Repsac3: "...because I played tit-for-tat in the comment section of this fellow's blog whenever he mentioned me, even after he requested I not do so."

Yes, friends, I told Repsac to stop harassing me at MY BLOG. This is someone who backed a campaign of workplace attacks attempting to get me fired. He was not threatened with a lawsuit for defamation. He was about to prosecuted for criminal activity. http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/intent-to-annoy-and-fascist-hate.html So folks, again, please cite the examples of conservative lawfare. The campaign to silence speech is a left-wing phenomenon. That's nice that some "liberals" are speaking up here in the comments, but that doesn't mean that it's not the left that's seeking to clamp down on speech by any means necessary. See Pamela Geller for more: "Ray Bradbury Dead, Censorship On the Rise": http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/06/ray-bradbury-dead-censorship-on-the-rise-by-robert-spencer-the-man-who-wrote-the-novel-about-censorship-fahrenheit-451.html

[There was no "harassment." At posts where Donald mentioned or referred to me, I would submit a comment defending myself against whatever slur the man had posted about me. Because he generally moderated his American Power comment section for content before the fact, my comment would not actually appear on his blog unless he allowed it to. And again, at no time did I back any campaign of workplace attacks, or in any way attempt to get to get Donald fired. In fact, I regularly spoke out against every person who ever contacted Donald's employers, whether politically partisan friend or foe, on principle. I cannot prove that I was NOT about to be prosecuted criminal activity--it's kinda hard to prove a negative--but I followed up with one of the police officers that Dr. Douglas spoke to, who assured me in no uncertain terms that I was not in any criminal legal jeopardy as far as her department was concerned (though she was not pleased with the behavior of either party in the dispute, and felt we both ought to grow up, or at least spend more time outside and away from the keyboard--advice I have tried to follow, ever since.) My family lawyer here in NY and a lawyer who specializes in internet reputation-related matters based in CA, each said the same. So maybe I was about to be prosecuted for some kinda criminal activity, or maybe I wasn't...but in point of fact, I was never prosecuted for anything, and no one from any department, office, or firm ever contacted me based on Dr. Douglas' many complaints. Make of that what you will...]

***

Ken • Jun 11, 2012 @9:27 am:
Pertinent comments are welcome, but please do not use this as a venue to carry on disputes from elsewhere. Thank you.

***


Scott Jacobs • Jun 11, 2012 @9:40 am:

The "amusing" thing? We likely would never have known Donny was the guy Repsac was talking about had he not spoken up...

***

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @9:48 am:

Ken, tell that to Repsac please. I'm not dragging in other disputes. I'm responding to falsehoods. Thanks.

[Ummm... No, no comment. Press on.]

***

Ken • Jun 11, 2012 @10:08 am:

It was directed to everyone.

***

Scott Jacobs • Jun 11, 2012 @10:15 am:

Yes, friends, I told Repsac to stop harassing me at MY BLOG.

Did you ever consider, you know, banning him? And I love how you outted who, exactly, he is. That's really classy, and totally not the sort of thing people like Team Kimberlin do. Oh, wait. It is exactly the sort of thing they do. Yeah, my bad there. They also don't go to law enforcement to stop people from saying mean things about them... Oh wait, they do. Shit. Well, I'm sure I'll come up with a way you totally aren't like them, Donny, don't you worry. I'll not rest until I have discovered a way in which you are kinda like them. Well, I'll start right after my nap...

[To be more fair than I really need to be, Dr. Douglas was (and is) on a Google/blogspot blog and was using their comment system, which gives one no method for actually banning someone. One can moderate all comments before the fact, or allow all comments and delete those one does not like after they post. That said, Donald did very clearly announce that I was banned from commenting on his blog, in what I imagined to be his most authoritative voice. As he did not choose to ban himself from attacking me with all manner of slurs and falsehoods in his blog, however, I did not take his verbal banning very seriously, and continued to submit comments to those posts where he referred to me or my blog by name or other identifying feature.]

***


Goober • Jun 11, 2012 @6:00 pm:

Donald - I followed your link. I found this interesting tidbit:

Harassment consists of the intentional crossing of your emotional or physical safety boundaries. You must have boundaries set in place clearly in order for that to apply.

All I have to say is that while repsac might be an asshat troll, you are even worse.

Are you seriously coming at us with this weak-sauce BS and claiming that you were justified in going to the authorities to get him to stop hurting your feelings because "he crossed your emotional safety boundary?" My guess is that kimberlin feels like his well-established emotional safety boundary has been crossed, too. By your standard, he is perfectly entitled to go to the police.

You want to claim that
1.) you are somehow above Bret Kimberlin and
2.)that right-wing bloggers don't engage in lawfare to stop people from saying things they don't like?

1.) You're not.
2.) You did. Or at least you tried.

You don't get to stand against Bret Kimberlin when you'd be doing the exact same thing to Repsac that Kimberlin is doing to his opponents if the authorities had taken you seriously and acted like you asked them to.

Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that if the police had mistakenly pursued the matter, that you wouldn't be cheering them along. Tell me that.

And to say that your case is different than Kimberlins, I wonder how...

People said things about you that you didn't like.
They wouldn't stop when you asked them to.
They wouldn't stop when you warned them to.
They wouldn't stop when you demanded them to.

And so you went to the police.

Wait, I forgot, was i just describing your case or Kimberlin's? I lost track...

Ken is right. Stop with the partisan crap, folks. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and it doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum either comes from. if you let politics taint your thinking to the point to where you can condemn a man for doing something that you did, yourself, and justify it by playing a right vs. left game, you've lost track of the target.

Oh, and my politics are probably to the right of Ken's, in case you were preparing to throw insults my way about being a lefty supporter.

***

repsac3 • Jun 11, 2012 @6:51 pm:

Sorry to cause a kerfuffle...

My intent was just to say that:

1) these things happen, one way or another, all across the political spectrum. It's not about left or right--and especially not about "the left" and "the right," or any other demographic. It's about right and wrong, and that knows no color, creed, or political philosophy; and

2) bloggers and media types who don't discuss this whole "team Kimberlin" thing, whether because they are ignorant of the stories, or because they intentionally choose not to get involved out of confusion (some aspects go pretty far into the weeds) or out of fear of reprisal, are not evil and do not prove anything about the kind of people they are, either as individuals or as members of those demo groups I mentioned above.

As for the rest, both out of deference to the host and because it's all been said already anyway, I got nothin' more to add... (In retrospect, I'd even go back and subtract some, were it possible... But alas, bells cannot be unrung...)

***

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @7:04 pm:

To all the ignorant trolls who don't know what they are talking about, especially "Goober":

1. Repsac3 sponsored workplace attacks at his blog, designed to get me fired --- ultimately I found pro bono representation to defend against the left's lies and smears, which he never repudiated. I was defending against HIS BLOG's and his allies' Kimberlin-style attacks.

2. He harassed me at the comments to MY BLOG when he was told repeatedly to cease and desist --- that's not a "free speech" issue.

3. Brett Kimberlin is waging lawfare against anyone who criticizes him ON THEIR BLOGS, whereas I've never filed a lawsuit against anyone.

I'm not going to spam the comments with the evidence of the progressive attacks on me. THIS IS A PARTISAN ISSUE AND IT'S THE LEFT TRYING TO CRUSH FREE SPEECH. Progressives are on jihad. Look at the Atlas Shrugged link above FOR JUST ONE MORE example.

And get a clue, sheesh. Name one example of conservatives doing what Brett Kimberlin is doing. God, comparing me to Kimberlin, a convicted domestic bomber, is seriously deranged. Get some help.

***

Narad • Jun 11, 2012 @7:15 pm:

To all the ignorant trolls who don't know what they are talking about....

"Trolls"? I'm sorry that your CV as a complete academic washout failed to precede you before I responded previously, but perhaps you shouldn't compound the problem by not knowing what words mean.

***

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @7:20 pm:

@Repsac3, the guy who sponsored workplace attacks against my employment:

"...these things happen, one way or another, all across the political spectrum."

Wrong. Where are the conservatives waging lawfare against progressives for blogging the truth about someone? It's always the other way around. It goes like this: Progressives attack people. They then get called out for it by those defending the targets. And then they finally launch campaigns of destruction to obliterate their ideological enemies. The victim is either destroyed or ends up fighting long costly battles to defend themselves, as I did. It's that simple. No one here has evidence of a right-wing campaign against left bloggers who simply wrote the truth. I'll update my views when I see the evidence, but I'm not holding my breath. And with all due respect to Ken, Repsac3 is a proven liar.

[Response to the first link:
American Nihilist: Donald Douglas Says The Devil I Made 'em Do It... (See comments)
And response to the second:
American Nihilist: Donald Douglas: Satire Impaired]

***

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @7:24 pm:

@Narad:

"I'm sorry that your CV as a complete academic washout..."

Not. I'm an Associate Professor of Political Science at community college. The opposite of a washout, I'm a teacher and mentor to hundreds of political science students, and thousands of GE students over the years. And you? What do you do, besides launch ad hom attacks on people of which you have no clue?

***

Scott Jacobs • Jun 11, 2012 @7:25 pm:

No, Donny. While perhaps in this specific case it is about leftist groups funding an attack on free speech by (mostly) right-wing folks, the first target of this lawfare episode is a left-winger. And just because this single instance it is Leftists funding this, if you honestly think the Right is so virtuous as to never resort to threats of legal actions to silence critics, apparently you have never heard of Angela Corey. Nor of efforts to criminalize speech. Efforts that are supported by Republicans. See New York's efforts to pass cyber-bullying laws. See Tennesee's laws to that effect. See any number of similar instances. While, as Ken has said, there are valid partisan issues involved here, if you only care about this from a "Right vs Left" standpoint, you a) aren't helping the story because you become the basis of the Left's dismissal and b) you really don't give a flying fuck about free speech in the first place. I don't care who the fuck you think you are, Donny, but you're acting like a complete tool. How about you cut that out, hmm?

***

Jess • Jun 11, 2012 @7:31 pm:

Donald, I know I’ve posted this comment before but it bears repeating. It is what YOU make of it. You CHOOSE to make this a partisan issue and therefore in my opinion you are part of the problem. I’m with Scott Jacobs and Goober on this one. I don’t see anything about someone actually actively reaching out and contacting your employer and sending them false content to get you fired, which would be a different story all together. If your employer wastes their time getting hung up on reading some asshat’s blog you have a far bigger problem and that problem is with your employer. If you can’t delete or ignore asshat comments on your own blog you need to either become more technically competent or put on your big boy pants and suck it up knowing thats what happens when you have a blog. Ken has been the ONE place that has focused attention where it needs to be and you are becoming a very annoying distraction. Truly this is not the place for your pissing contest with another blogger. Please go away.

***

Ken • Jun 11, 2012 @7:34 pm:

I asked people not to drag a dispute from elsewhere to here. Apparently people felt that I didn't mean it. They continued, and others engaged them in it.

I've deleted the comments that were engaging in the dispute. If you have a problem with that, or will have difficulty not engaging in this any more, please go take a breather someplace until you are OK with it.

For now, cut it out. Further persistence will be met with me editing comments to amuse myself.

***

Following Ken's putting his foot down on this whole thread, Donald tried to justify his participation in it to Ken via Twitter, offering up still more links ostensibly "proving" I am the devil incarnate or whatever, and followed that up with quite the twitter war with Scott Jacobs--who by the way, is romantically involved with Breitbart blogger Mandy Nagy (Liberty_Chick), who in turn, has been intimately involved in this whole Kimberlin affair almost from the beginning.

You can imagine how it all turned out...

Anyway... That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it

In Reply: "Pretty Repulsive" Is In The Eye Of The Beholder, I Guess...

In reply to the following comment at the "Zilla of the Resistance" post New Death Threats from Islamic Supremacists and their Islamoblow Enablers Show How Much They CAIR:

Honestly, I find your blog pretty repulsive (no offense intended) since pretty much ALL of it is dedicated to just to attacking another blogger, so I try to avoid going there, but I will look around (I hate that stupid clown picture) and amend the update if necessary. I really wish you guys would find something better to do though, don't you ever get bored of the stupid blogwar?

I am sorry if I am less than cordial, but one of my dear friends HAS had her life threatened, in plain view for all to see (linked up early on in this post), among other horrible stuff that people who claim to be peaceful are doing to shut down those who engage in fact based reporting of various atrocities, and I am at this point more than a little bit cranky.
---

"Honestly, I find your blog pretty repulsive (no offense intended) since pretty much ALL of it is dedicated to just to attacking another blogger"

Fair enough... (though I would say it's more a question of disagreeing with another blogger rather than attacking him... While I do occasionally respond to ad hom with ad hom of my own, most of my posts quote the man verbatim and then respond to the words and ideas in his posts.)

"I really wish you guys would find something better to do though, don't you ever get bored of the stupid blogwar?"

Yes... I've been known to not post anything there for weeks at a time, only to be attacked yet again, unprovoked... Most of my posts (especially of late) have been in reply to posts where I am name checked and attacked. (The record is available for all to see...)

"I am sorry if I am less than cordial,"

No, you've been perfectly cordial... If I have any complaint at all, it's that you didn't check the facts for yourself prior to posting your dishonest update. I mean, I appreciate that you're doing so now, but the responsible thing would've been to do so before posting the allegations in the first place... (At least you didn't repeat the photoshop that Dr Douglas so often posts... Seems we all have our "clown pictures"...)

Those who post threats or bigotry (or if I may, dishonest posts alleging sins and criminal acts with zero evidence, in an effort to ruin someone's reputation) deserve to have attention drawn to them, and providing quotes, links, and screen caps of the posts in question is the only responsible way to go about doing so...

I have no problem with the truth though, and I have a solid record of speaking out against bad behavior wherever I find it, and no matter what sociopolitical "side" it comes from or hurts.
---

Posted Saturday, 11/26/2011, 07:40 PM (and disappointingly, removed from view by the moderator on Sunday, 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...)

X-Post: There is simply no lie that Donald Douglas will not try to tell and sell...

In his most recent post, Donald tries to equate my support for marriage equality to pedophilia. As always, it's a specious charge to make, and again exposes the way Dr Douglas thinks about the gay folks around him, and about his tenuous hold on the truth.

Other than one link to me saying that folks have told me that Donald Douglas is a lost cause not worth debating online--one even suggesting that he might be dangerous--and my saying that I believed it was worth it, in order to expose a way of thinking that I believe is harmful to this country, Donald never quotes me, preferring instead to tell you what he claims I've said. (This is a common trick by Dr. Douglas... By paraphrasing his "enemy" rather than quoting him, Donald can create whatever narrative he wishes, without having to confront the other person's actual words or their actual connotative and denotative meanings. I'd imagine he thinks the people who read his posts are too foolish or blinded by partisanship to notice his deception or to care... ...and sadly, perhaps a few actually are...)

A few specifics...

"...REPSAC3 is all about live and let live and if it feels good do it."

Sadly, no. Were Donald brave enough to quote the things I've said about morality (whether sexual or otherwise), I'm sure he'd find that I advocate for both self-imposed and legally-mandated limits on behavior. While I do believe in personal freedom, personal freedom is not and should not be absolute. Donald Douglas is lying.

"When conservatives express traditional moral values he attacks them as bigots."

Again, sadly no. I have no problem with anyone discussing their own traditional moral values, and I've never attacked anyone for doing so. I have objected when folks have expressed the desire to make all Americans--whatever their religious or moral background--subject to laws based on the teachings of Christ (or God, or Buddha, or any other religious figure). America is not a theocracy, and American laws must have a secular basis in man's law, not God's law. I also don't buy into the Family Research Council's definition of civil rights, which suggests that all protected classes must be "inborn"--or mentioned in the Constitution (a clever way of including religion, which of course is not inborn, without tipping their hand)--or they are not legitimate. I want Americans protected from discrimination by law (and in law), and I include discrimination against gay Americans in those legal protections.

Most recently, I have come down on Donald Douglas for suggesting that posts eulogizing and memorializing marriage equality and women's health activist Christina Santiago were exploiting her death for political gain. (See: NoH8, Dr. Douglas and Donald Douglas attacks them again, for noticing). I believe that this is what has Dr. Douglas so upset--and so willing to fabricate these lies--in the post to which I'm responding. Your milage may vary...

"Like the endless progressive claims of "racism," [repsac3] screams "BIGOTRY!!" like a headless horseman charging along full-steam until the word is denuded of all meaning. It's just an epithet for attacking folks..."

Those familiar with the back and forth between Donald and I should recognize this passage as parroting (in an "I'm rubber, you're glue" style) things I've often said about Donald Douglas and his one-time use of the word "nihilist" to describe and denote pretty much everyone with whom he disagreed. (Recent substitutes include "communist-left," "ASFL," "extremist", ...), but for those unfamiliar, three examples from the last three years:

I wrote (in 2009): "Your NeoRaven-like chirpings of "Nihilist!" "Nihilist!" aimed at everyone with whom you disagree, and your unwillingness and inability to back much of what you say has made you seem weak and ineffective."

From 2010: "As Donald attacked other bloggers on his site or theirs, labeling them no good nihilists everywhere he went, this whole "nihilist" schtick of his became kind of a joke around the liberal blogosphere, and folks began to know him as the wingnut who goes around calling everyone nihilists, like the boy who cried wolf... He practically made the word meaningless through repetition..."

And from less than three weeks ago: "Terms like "nihilist" and. "racist" and "Stalinist" (and I've no doubt "anarchist" and "terrorist," as well) are nothing more than epithets to Donald. He might just as well be calling folks fucktard or asshat for all the accuracy with which redeploys them. Donald Douglas disagrees with you; Donald Douglas calls you a name... A meaningless, insulting, fact free name... And he thinks he's actually said something of substance by doing so... It's kinda pathetic..."

The fact is you'll seldom find me suggesting that someone is a bigot without my including a direct quote and link citing the full post or comment from which the quote was lifted, for context. Try holding Dr Douglas' accusations to that standard, and you'll quickly find it is one he often cannot or will not meet. I leave it to the reader to figure out why...

"And as we've seen in recent posts, today's truly extremist hatred and demonology is the exclusive domain of the progressive left."

Absolutes like these--where "they" are always evil, and "we" are always angels--should tip one off to the fact that Donald Douglas is preaching his own pseudo-religious catechism of conservative love and liberal hate, and nothing more.

Anyone who is being realistic is willing to admit that there are devils and angels all along the sociopolitical spectrum, and that pinpointing individual acts by individual actors does not say much of anything about the whole of any sociopolitical group... not the ones you (or "he") belong(s) to, or the ones you (or "she") do(es) not belong to. (There are words for those who attribute the sins (or accomplishments) of the individual to everyone in the groups to which that individual belongs... It'll come to me... Suffice to say, such bullshit thinking seldom leads anywhere worthwhile or good.)

"And W. James Casper is right up there as among the worst of the worst radical hate-bloggers in the world. No facts can get inside that warped mind. No outrage is evil enough to make W. James Casper speak up and cry, "Enough!'' Hate envelops all sense and meaning and moral right. Decency has been obliterated."

Donald is welcome to his opinions, of course... ...but a quick perusal of my posts pretty quickly puts the lie to his words, beginning with those posts about Donald's disrespect for Christina Santiago and those who mourn her death that I spoke about and linked to earlier... Much of what I discuss is about my morality and decency, and the morality and decency (or lack of it) of those I write about.

"In any case, considering that no social perversion is out of bounds for W. James Casper's sick socialist rim-station ideology, I'm putting money on it that he's down with the APA's push to legalize pedophilia."

"...sick socialist rim-station ideology..." Like I said before... Just epithets divorced from any objective facts... ...which Donald uses to allege yet more fact-free bullshit about his perceived enemy. Libelous propaganda. Sloppy, obvious, crude, but libelous propaganda, nevertheless...

"W. James Casper repeatedly claims that we shouldn't object to consenting homosexual couples engaging in any sex acts they see fit."

I'd have to see the quotes, but I'm willing to bet I included the word "adult" somewhere near the word "consenting," and that I included heterosexual couples in that, as well. I believe that where consenting adults are concerned, the neighbors and the government have no more business judging what folks do behind closed doors than those consenting adults are willing to give them. Obviously, that does not include rape, statutory or otherwise... But that pretty obvious fact doesn't stop Donald Douglas from alleging:

"Well, 5'll get you 10 that W. James Casper will offer the same kind of weaselly moral-free logic on the legalization of pedophilia debate."

No quotes, and a complete disregard for the obvious in the very words he paraphrased--(and when even your own paraphrase contradicts you, you've exposed the utter ridiculousness of your argument)--but Donald Douglas presses on, lying and libeling for all to see...

Donald obviously doesn't like me. (One might even use the words "Hate Blogger" to describe Donald Douglas.) He doesn't like that I discuss the words he writes and the things he says, and that I expose him for the shell of a man he chooses to be. Donald Douglas is a liar and a hater. And the more he engages in these dishonest posts, the more people see that he is a liar and a hate-filled partisan who will stop at nothing to destroy the folks with whom he disagrees...


American Henchmen: NoH8, Dr. Douglas - Highlighting the work of activist Christina Santiago after her sudden death at age 29 isn't "crass exploitation" *UPDATED: Double Down*

American Henchmen: Donald Douglas Attacks People Mourning the Death of Marriage Equality Activist Christina Santiago... ...and then attacks them again, for noticing

---
An American Henchmen (Nihilist) x-post

X-Post: American Power: Gettin' Desperate, and Diggin' It Deep

"No Friends" - American Power

I guess Don's rule is, "When you can't beat 'em, just make stuff up about 'em, and hope somebody buys into your bullshit."

Pretty pathetic, if ya ask me...
---

Sure, I could refute the thing point by point, exposing all of Dr. Douglas' lies... But with ad hominem attacks like this, why even bother? I know the truth, my friends--offline, online, and fellow nihilists--know the truth, and when it comes right down to it, down in that tiny part of his soul that hasn't yet been tainted by partisanship and bile, Donald Douglas knows the truth, too. There's no need to "prove" a thing to anyone...

And besides... Doesn't the attack itself say more about Dr Douglas than any expose of his nonsense ever could?
---

An American Henchmen (Nihilist) X-post

X-Post: Stop it double-D (or "repsac3...? a hater?")

Funny video... In fact, much of "the Right" is really down with it too...

But I wonder if Donald knows that Felonious Munk has other videos, too...


Background: American Power sez repsac3 a hater
---

An American Henchmen (Nihilist) X-post

X-Post: Workplace Harassment - (btdt FAQ files)

(As long as Donald Douglas keeps repeating this ridiculous accusation, this post will likely be a work in progress. - repsac3, 5 August, 2011)

Let's start with a few simple facts:

I have never contacted Donald Douglas or anyone he loves, lives with, works for, worships with, or has anything to do with offline, for any reason.

I have never suggested that anyone else contact Donald Douglas or anyone else in his offline life for any reason, either.

I have never supported or defended anyone who has threatened to, or actually has contacted folks in Donald Douglas' life for making those threats or taking those actions.

While Donald Douglas often makes these and other claims (see growing list of links below), he has offered zero evidence that I have done any of those things myself, or played any part in encouraging or supporting those who have. (In fact, there are numerous posts and comments on several blogs where I have directly spoken out against contacting employers, spouses, preachers, teachers, siblings, neighbors, etc., about online issues. Here are some of them: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)

I cannot speculate as to why Donald Douglas continues to make these specious accusations, but I can say that they are wholly without merit, as evidenced by the fact that he offers no substantiation for any of his charges aside his own words. No quotes, no testimony from anyone saying I "made" (or "suggested", or "cajoled," or "svengalied" ) them into contacting Long Beach City College or into harassing Dr Douglas in any way.

In short, when Dr Douglas says I did any of these things, Dr. Douglas is lying.

The facts:
One guy, who wrote 6 American Nihilist posts in total, and authored his last one in August 2009, submitted one post here where he suggested that anyone who was offended by Dr Douglas' bigotry and lack of netiquette should contact the school where Donald works. In the same post, he provided the information to do so, which he found posted for all to see at the website of the college where Donald Douglas teaches. The information the one-time AmNi author repeated is posted at that same site to this very day.

I verbally objected to the post in the comment section at the time, but felt that the author was an adult who could and should make his own decisions and live with the consequences of his actions. I therefore did not censor his post or force the author to remove it. But I did continue to speak up against making such a threat or encouraging anyone to act on it... At least in part due to my disapproval of the post and of involving a blogger's workplace in online disagreements, the author resigned his American Nihilist authorship and left this blog behind. (He also removed my authorship at a group blog he was the owner of. He both removed himself here, and removed my authorship there, without discussing it with me until I wrote him to ask about it.)

Once he left, I did go in and censor the contact information out of the post. I did not remove it entirely, in part because I didn't feel right about messing with another blogger's post, and in part because there were so many links to and comments and posts discussing it that I believed it would look like I was trying to hide something if I were to make it disappear. (Had Dr Douglas not made such a stink about it, I probably would've just left it as it was, to be used as evidence of whatever it was a person wanted to try to convince others it proved...)


No one else who ever was or is currently an author at this blog has ever contacted anyone in Donald Douglas' offline world, threatened to contact anyone in Donald Douglas' offline world, spoken out in favor of contacting anyone in Donald Douglas' offline world, or supported the words and actions of those who have threatened to or actually contacted anyone in Donald Douglas' offline world.

Donald has never offered anything but his own words to suggest that anything in the previous sentence is untrue, and Dr. Douglas is lying when he alleges that anyone from this blog aside that one former author has done any of those things.

Yes, other bloggers have threatened to or actually contacted individuals at Long Beach City College to discuss the online antics of Donald Douglas.
Three of them wrote for right-of-center (libertarian, or moderate Republican) blogs. I had no contact with any of them before they threatened to contact or contacted LBCC, and none of them said anything beforehand, during, or since to suggest that I played any role in their actions.
The other two individuals are liberals, but they are not authors here, and as with the right-of-center folks, they have never said anything to suggest that I played any role in their actions, either.

Donald Douglas' repeated allegations and accusations about my having any role in what these individuals said or did, or that I have supported their actions as regards Donald Douglas and LBCC at any time before or since, are not borne out by any facts that Donald has offered. I am not anyone's "leader." I have no "henchmen." I believe that Donald Douglas knows his accusations are false, and that he is making them in an attempt to sully my reputation. As such, Donald Douglas' dishonest allegations may well be legally libelous.

Whatever their legal status, these allegations and accusations are certainly immoral, illogical, unsubstantiated, and obviously deceitful. That Donald Douglas continues to make them regardless, is evidence of the kind of man he has chosen to be.

I once again call on Donald Douglas to put up or shut up. Less tell and more show. If he believes I have done any of the things he regularly accuses me of, I demand that he offer evidence in support of his allegations, or admit that he has none.

Unless / until he escalates this situation (there are times when he seems to be threatening legal action, but I have not been contacted by anyone from his legal team or CA law enforcement, thus far...) I can do no more than put these facts out there, and demand that he address them with something--anything--of substance.
---

Following is some of the more eloquent verbiage I've posted on the subject over the years:

February 21, 2010 2:18 AM - repsac3 said...

It's not that I don't understand where you're coming from, my eight-armed friend... It's just that I don't agree with your remedy.

To me, it doesn't matter whether Donald dared you, baited you, or even politely invited you to contact his Department Head and/or College President. It also doesn't matter to me that you told him you would.

What does matter to me is that this is not a college matter in any way, shape, or form. Had he threatened to harm one of his students or blow up the school, I'd be sending e-mails and making telephone calls right there with you. Even if he was making bigoted comments about his students or co-workers, I might give it some thought. But posting vile, bigoted, or even threatening things on your blog without permission doesn't merit workplace action in my book. (If you take the threats seriously, I'm all for legal action, involving the police and lawyers, however. And if he's coming to your blog often enough, perhaps you can report him to Google for stalking, or something.)

What a college professor (or a musician, or a cocoa-cola bottler, or a retail manager, etc.) does online has little bearing on what s/he does at his/her job. While I believe that the college ought to be paying attention to what their employees are saying & doing online--just as any "company" should, these days), I don't believe we citizens should be reporting each other to workplace authorities, especially for infractions we can't get legal authorities to do anything about... unless we believe that someone is in danger, anyway. (If you really believed he was a rapist, but didn't have legal proof, I'd support you informing the folks at the college, so that they could weigh your story and take whatever action they deemed necessary.)

While Donald is most certainly a creep, nothing you've described is anything his job can or should do anything about. Being an anti-social online troll isn't--and shouldn't be--something his boss has any control over. Posting inflammatory comments at your blog--or even inciting others to do the same--isn't a crime. It isn't against his college's code of ethics. And it isn't any of his boss' business.

I understand that you see things differently, and believe you are justified in continuing to contact Donald's school. I simply and respectfully disagree.

Until you can explain why the things Donald Douglas does online is the business of LBCC, or explain what you expect them to do about it, I don't see how my feelings and beliefs on the subject are going to change... ...though I'm glad that you value my opinion enough to try to persuade me... - American Henchmen: Donald Douglas - An Ethical "Push-me, Pull-you"
---

Relevant Links (also a work in progress, obviously):

2009

Thursday, February 12, 2009, 6:28 PM - American Henchmen: DEFAMATION - DONALD STYLE

Sunday, February 15, 2009, 8:03 AM - American Power: (O)CT(O)PUS = CYBER-BULLY (Read comments, as well as initial post)

February 16, 2009 7:49 AM American Henchmen: NON SAPIEN NIHILIST OF THE WEEK (comment: repsac3 said...)

Sunday, June 7, 2009, 10:03 AM - American Power: Blogging Anonymity and Blogging Ethics (Several comments, as well as post)

Sunday, June 14, 2009, 10:18 AM - American Power: Social Network Stalking? Grace Explosion Gone, Repsac3 Lurking... (Post and comments)

Saturday, June 27, 2009, 10:15 AM - American Power: Democratic Epic Moral Fail! Post mentions, but mainly commentary content)

September 15, 2009 10:33 PM - American Power: Black Thugs Beat White Student on Bus in St. Louis (Comment: repsac3 said... "I absolutely take full responsibility..."

Monday, December 14, 2009, 10:42 PM - American Power: E.D. Kain Alleges Defamation: True/Slant Blogger's Workplace Intimidation Attempts to Shut Down American Power!:
"I've been previously threatened with workplace intimidation by (O)CT(O)PUS and Repsac3 (see "DEFAMATION - DONALD STYLE"). They posted my college vice-president's information online and encouraged readers to file complaints against American Power with LBCC's administration!"

Tuesday, December 15, 2009, 6:16 AM - American Henchmen: Donald Douglas stamps his feet in a(nother) petulant frenzy

Tuesday, December 15, 2009, 7:55 PM - American Power: E.D. Kain Contacts Department Again: Intimidation Campaign Escalates; Fake 'Apology' Seals Moral Indictment Against True/Slant Blogger! (E.D. Kain)

Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 9:19 AM - American Power: E.D. Kain's Double-Standards: Claims of Libel Continue Amid Bleatings to Christian Ethics - Wallowing in Denial, Little Bully Refuses to Apologize!

Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 7:13 PM - American Power: E.D. Kain Denies 'Disciplinary Action' as Motive for Workplace Intimidation!

2010

Thursday, February 18, 2010 (Earlier than 5:07 PM Pacific, obviously)- THE SWASH ZONE: THE RACIST BIGOT WHO TEACHES AT LONG BEACH CITY COLLEGE (And read the comments, please, including this one, which was posted elsewhere for reasons that will become apparent.)

Thursday, February 18, 2010, 5:07 PM - American Power: Swash Zone's Cyber-Bully Harassment Escalates!

Saturday, February 20, 2010, 12:00 PM - American Henchmen: Donald Douglas - An Ethical "Push-me, Pull-you" (Please read the comments.)

Saturday, February 20, 2010, 6:20 PM - American Power: Leftists Are Liars, and I'll Show You...

Monday, February 22, 2010, 7:30 PM (4:30 Eastern) - American Power: Libel Blogger David Hillman (Swash Zone) Workplace Harassment Fail

monday, february 22, 2010, 5:30 PM - Immoderate Monk: Blogging While Employed - Where is the line? (The famous 31st comment from the SWASH ZONE "RACIST BIGOT" post above--still the one and only time any liberal blog or blogger has ever moderated away something I said for content.)

Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 1:22 AM - American Henchmen: The First Amendment and the Continued Free Speech of Donald Douglas

Thursday, July 22, 2010, 3:47 PM - American Henchmen: Imploding Upward (This one is all about the comments, mostly because Dr Douglas left an off-topic "trackback" to an American Power post about AmNi and workplace intimidation (the "Update on Blogging Anonymity and Blogging Ethics" post listed just below) on this post which was not about either of those topics, and we all (Donald included) ended up discussing his AmPow post, rather than the content of this post... This comment section also contains the germ that was to become the "been there done that" and "Donald Douglas on ___" series of posts and keywords here at AmNi... (Like I said, I just got tired of posting the same answers to the same repeated charges, over and over and over and ... After awhile, talking to Donald necessitates a FAQ file or two...):
American Henchmen: Imploding Upward: "Much of the rest has been tossed out by you and struck down by me enough times that I might as well just make permanent links (which I just may do, because that's the kinda thing that tickles my fancy in the same way drive by trolling tickles yours, apparently--judging by what you said above, anyway...)"

Saturday, July 24, 2010, 7:38 AM - American Power: Update on Blogging Anonymity and Blogging Ethics:
"American Nihilist, for example, exists for the sole purpose of attacking me personally with the most demented bile imaginable, and that blog has gotten more perverted over time, eventually devolving into a Satanic hate outlet for workplace intimidation and non-stop vicious personal diatribes. It's a hate blog. It exists for no other purpose but to spew invective and evil. And I've repeatedly challenged the authors to put or up shut up by posting their full personal identification and contact information, but they have not done so. And that's cowardly."

SATURDAY, JULY 24, 2010, 3:55 PM - What'd I Say?: Anonymous/Pseudononymous Blogging and Commenting: Cowardly?:
"Yes I run a blog where folks are mean to you, in some cases personally, rather than on point. I'd prefer that folks wouldn't do that, but I don't intend to substitute my blogging ethics for that of one of my fellow authors. While I may not personally like or agree with everything every author writes, I put a higher value on their ethical right to post according to their morals rather than mine, though I'm welcome to revisit that decision where circumstances (such as the writer who voluntarily resigned his authorship, and left the rest of us with a post containing ideas that no one felt comfortable defending) or the law are concerned. Further, I don't accept the notion that *every* writer at a group blog is responsible for the words or ideas that *any* writer posts. You have a problem with me, fine. But if I didn't write the post or comment with which you're taking issue, you're talking to the wrong guy. Authors and blog owners at other group blogs are free to make their own decisions as to how to handle such questions, and they certainly needn't agree with mine.

American Nihilist (blog) exists for the purpose of giving those who wish to avail themselves of it a place to respond to you, whether it be to a personal attack or an ideological difference of opinion. It's authorship and blogroll is entirely made up of folks you've picked a fight with on American Power. You can view it as a hate site or a personal attack on you if you like, but I maintain that a good number of posted responses deal primarily with issues you've raised on your blog."

Thursday, October 14, 2010, 12:00 PM - American Power: Deb Frisch, Left-Wing Blogger/Stalker, Mounts New Attacks on Goldstein Family:
"American Nihilist was a co-conspirator in this workplace intimidation, and that blog routinely post vicious attacks on me, so vile as to make the likes of Deb Frisch proud."

Sunday, November 21, 2010, 11:30 AM - American Power: You're Not Entitled to Your Own Facts:
"In any case, I shouldn't be returning to this subject, but as Repsac3 is a stalking asshat and a liar who maintains a stalking website, and who has been the ringleader in a campaign of harassment, including the publication of my workplace information, I don't mind taking the time every now and then to point out what a pure bigot and demonologist prick he is." (Also, contains some of Dr Douglas' oft-repeated, never substantiated crazy raaaaacism allegation against me... Yay.)

Saturday, December 4, 2010, 12:01 AM - American Power: Unpacking Progressive Trolling:
"Folks will recall that Ordinary Gentlemen is the blog home of uber weasel E.D. Kain, who, like Repsac3's nihilist horde, mounted a campaign of workplace intimidation against me."

2011

Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 6:00 PM - American Power: Alex Knepper Contacts My College in Campaign of Workplace Harassment

February 26, 2011, 8:53 PM - American Henchmen: Guilty as charged.: Comment: repsac3 said... (A colloquy on the subject between Donald and I, beginning with this comment at this post.)
"And Donald... I have never posted your workplace information or suggested that anyone contact your employers about anything. You can repeat it as many times as you want, but you're lying every time you do. (Prove me wrong. Post a link to the time and place I supposedly did this.) The fact is, every bit of the information that "David" posted is publicly available on your employer's website to this very day. At best, he cut and pasted what he found.

Yes, I do think he was wrong to encourage folks to contact them regarding things unrelated to your job that you'd posted on your blog and on his, which (contrary to your repeated accusations), is exactly what I said from day one.

Your beef (such as it is), is that I didn't censor his post.

I believe in free speech, and that bloggers are big boys and girls who can stand up and defend their own posts. Therefore, I did not censor his post or demand that he remove it from the blog.

I'm sorry that principle offends you, but Donald, this isn't your blog. You can certainly start your own group blog and censor your fellow bloggers' posts whenever and however you wish. I chose to treat the bloggers here as adults, and to allow them to say whatever they felt was appropriate--and to defend their posts. Anyone interested can cruise on back to 2009 when this all happened and verify for themselves that what I'm saying is true. So Professor Douglas, you can either learn to cope, or keep whining. Either way, the choice is yours."

Friday, August 5, 2011, 4:00 AM - American Power: Charles Johnson Denies Obsession with Pamela Geller While Organizing Book Defamation Campaign Against Her on Amazon

Wednesday, August 10, 2011, 1:00 AM - American Power: W. James Casper H8� — Was That Wrong? - Donald Douglas is still talking, but still not saying anything: "Stalking, sponsoring workplace intimidation, recruiting attackers against my economic livelihood, posting my college administration's contact information with directions to harass, and hosting commenters spiking the football after workplace contacts..."
---

This post last updated 8/10/11, 8:45 AM (AmNi), and 8/10/11, 9:25 AM (here)

X-Post: Donald Douglas: Insert Hypocrisy Noises Here.

Guy who preemptively moderates comments for ideological content whines and cries like a stuck polecat when his off-topic trollery gets moderated away. (Cached version)

And, addressing the purpose of Donalde's drive-by trolltack, one has to be a real douchebag to intentionally spread offline (and seemingly, unverified) information about another blogger to get revenge for some online difference of opinion. (After all, isn't posting (or, in the following referenced case, reposting) offline information what this freakout was--and continues to be-- all about?) Given the sickos out there, it can be an invitation for trouble.

Bad enough, if the info's actually accurate.

Worse yet, if they're painting the bullseye on the wrong guy's back.
---

Added:
1) Sadly, No! - Die Verwandlung

And apparently (with h/t to S,N! link @#1):
2) Who is Tintin at Sadly, No? Jonah Goldberg, of course! ~ Serr8d's Cutting Edge:

"This deleted comment from Dr. Donald Douglas found at Brendan's (bjkeefe) 'Free Speech! blog...

"I moderate comments primarily against your racist attacks, Reppy, but your stupid remark is beside the point."

I believe this is the second time Donalde has said that he moderates the comments to his blog for content, before to allowing them to appear, even, just because of me... I don't think I'm really all that scary a guy... Not even if I actually am "potentially even more dangerous than those hoisting banners on the street," who'd "kill you if [I got] the chance." (And I may be... I just may be...)

If that's really true (and Donalde has at least twice said that it is), I think that's kinda pathetically cowardly and sad... The record of most of what's gone on between us exists (Is anything ever really gone on the internet?) and I just don't believe that Donalde's self-confessed fear of me is warranted... They're just blog comments, and most of 'em were on topic and on point, and not at all about him... (Personally, I think the guy just doesn't like being shown up and beaten down right there on his own blog... but of course, that's just my opinion, and worth every cent you paid for it.)

3) The dreaded, diabolical, Donalde Douglass double-down. (Cached version) Despite "Carl's" denial, the ass prof is stickin' by his story, true or false. Also no recognition of the hypocrisy of shouting other folk's personal info far and wide--and whether he's factually correct or not, he thinks he is... In his mind, he is intentionally "outing" a pseudononymous blogger's given name, with the intent doing him some kinda reputational (if not actual) harm, all because of petty online disagreements--which is kinda weird, given all that whining he did when folk's posted his employer info online. (And lest we forget, that employer information was already online--and still is. It's even posted on Donalde's own blog, even.)

In any case, the truth is out there...

4) Why double down, when you can triple dig that "isreally" grave? (Cached version) "First rule of holes? That's only a suggestion, idnit? No, I'll just keep on keepin' on..."

There's no conspiracy that can't be made to sound even more conspiratorial and crazier with a whole lot more verbiage expressing even less possibility that one might, maybe, be mistaken. QED

5) American Power: Carl [Salamipants] Flushed Down the Memory Hole at Whiskey Fire!. (Cached version) The denials and off-topic trollery deletions (and calling him "Donalde," of course... I mean, who knows to do that, besides Tintin?) is the proof. Confession is good for the soul. It's obvious. Actor's T, and Carl is he, and we are all together. Koo-Koo Ka-Choo

(The possibility that folks are deleting his stupid fucking allegations and accusations for being in violation of online integritude, inane, or just plain off-friggin' topic never crosses Donalde's mind. He's got his meme, and he's stickin' to it, no matter what.)

6) At Carltintin's request--in a tweet to "himself," natch--all mentions of Carltintin's full name up to now will be disposed of. New mentions will be deleted. (Just further proof that we're all Tintin, I guess... TINTIN ISREAL!!!)

7) So, if other folks deleting his "Carl" comments was proof of a vast leftwing cover-up, what does it mean when Donaldee deletes his own posts on the subject? Is HE now part of the conspiracy, too?!?

"I'm on the verge of obtaining the mother of all tips on Tintin's identity. So until that information becomes available, and since Carl [] is threatening punitive retaliation against those looking into his shady his activities, I'm temporarily pulling my previous posts in the series." - Donald Kent Douglas - American Power: Outing Tintin at Sadly No!

8) American Power: Carl [] Threatens Libel Action Our little energizer bunny of malice is still going... Someone may or may not've brought a lawsuit against him. (He believes so, but I think the phrase "It's brought" is kinda vague, and could easily mean something other than what Dr Douglas thinks it does. On the other hand, he might be right. Either way, the posts pertaining to this subject that he took down are still down. Lawsuit or not, he's still talking tough, but acting kinda intimidated... YMMV...) And the intimidation tactics he's throwing in return (Countersuits, "Carl doesn't want this kind of publicity..." "The conservasphere will rise up like an army of Davids and investigate every aspect of his life if he sues..." don't seem to be having much effect. Still no big reveal, either...

9) (5/18/11) Added cached versions of the disappeared posts. Still no big reveal (or any mention of the topic at all, since 5/16/11) over at Donalde's blog.

10) (5/19/11) And Donalde keeps digging: American Power: Update on [] For the Record Of note, is this secton, where he says:

"Anyway, my (other) longstanding nemesis (James Casper) has been getting off on all of this, so I decided to drop a non-profane comment in the thread pictured, but he deleted it --- four times. Racist Repsac3 is one of the most hardcore free speech blog administrators online, but he wouldn't let this one through, despite the specific omission of actor212's identity. Maybe he didn't want that link to actor212's comment at Sadly No!, although that's an ad hoc adjustment. Racist Repsac3 = Casper keeps moving the goalposts:

The problem that Donalde has is that he jumps to conclusions. The fact was, his comment (the one he attempted to post 4 times in the space of just over an hour) was caught in the spam filter. I saw it, I added the comment (the first attempt, for the record), and deleted the three repeats.

I didn't screencap my spam comment queue, but the comment itself is posted here, just where Dr Douglas left it.

Jumps to conclusions... If this little incident isn't a metaphor for this whole hypocritical, conspiratorial (conspocritorical?) incident involving the "outing" of one/some of his enemies "real life" lives in the name of vengeance--if not much of Donalde's blogging, itself--I don't know what is. Donalde fixates on one idea--the one that most fits his chosen meme of 'fuck that other guy,' generally--and refuses to admit there could be any other possible possibility aside the one he's chosen.

A) [] IS Tintin. (Quite likely untrue, which is why it's at least a 50/50 shot that Donalde's disappeared posts will never again appear at his American Power blog.

B) I intentionally deleted his comment four times. (Check the bogus claim and the proof for yourself.)

C) Sasquatch Isreal represents the "'legitimacy myth' of Israel’s existence. As there’s of course a “Sasquatch myth,” it’s worth noting the implied comparison: that Israel is also an ape-like beast existing only in historical folklore. Absent legitimacy, Israel has 'no right to exist.'” [cite] (Need I say more?)

(For those interested or curious, there are more examples of Donalde seeing just what he wishes/chooses to see in this post.)

Maybe Donalde will correct his post, and maybe he won't. But either way, he's already shown himself to be a little too quick on the trigger, and I've shown it's not an anomaly. It happens entirely too often, and when it does, it's done with the purpose of attacking some perceived enemy with his quickly drawn (if not actually concocted out of thin air) conclusions.

Still waiting on the big reveal.

11) (5/26/11) - Just a quick non-update update. The closest our friend Donald Kent Douglas has come to this story since 5/19 is a few oddly-placed and forced mentions of [] or Sadly,No!, or links to the Alkon attack on same in posts about other topics on his blog. (An example: "And more at the "Amanda Marcotte" search. A really bad woman. Reminds me of []..." (The post was actually about John Edwards, so even the Amanda mention was kinda out of place...) No mention of "the investigation," or Tintin, no reposting of the disappeared posts, and needless to say, no big reveal... American Nihilist will keep you informed, should anything new develop. For now, though, it appears that Teh Donalde's bluster on this subject has been worth every cent you paid for it, and not a penny more...
---

An American Niiiiihilist X-post