X-Post: that guy sez -- "It's just a good teaching thing"

link

1) I don't want to cast any aspersions here...but I'm virtually certain that the ad service Lawyers, Guns and Money uses targets the ads to the reader... (there was even some chat about it in the comments there, recently). The fact that this guy saw what he calls "Southeast Asian jailbait" when he went to the site probably says more about him and the cookies on his computer than it does the bloggers at LGM. I'm just sayin'...

2) Does the guy really not understand the difference between the ads added to a post by a third party advertising service and pictures added by the blogger himself, or is this just another bit of willful ignorance? This isn't his first foray into this particular kind of stupidity. (which was suitably answered at the time by fellow nihilist, brother Kevin: Hypocrisy, Thy Name is [that guy's name].)

3) Contrary to LGM or Roy, the guy himself posted the risqué shots on his own blog--a blog that--at the time--he was recommending that his students read, saying "I recommend my blog for students to read, on a voluntary, non-assignment basis. Occasionally I'll pull up an academic post in class as a lecture launcher -- and actually, THAT'S A GOOD TEACHING THING!!" (He seems to think that the fact that he has since stopped recommending that his students read his blog--perhaps because of the incident where someone contacted the college about the photos on his blog, though he does not ever actually say so--somehow absolves him of the argument against posting college-age girls in skimpy outfits to a blog you send your college-age students to read, rather than suggesting that it was not, in fact, appropriate behavior. I leave it for the reader to decide for themselves...)

[his blog]: National Security Expert Thomas Ricks Gets 'The Best Defense' Intel at GSGF

“Shoot, I’m not even always right, LOL!” - Lawyers, Guns & Money

[his blog]: The 'Hotness Gap' Just Too Much for Illiterate English Professor Scott Eric Kaufman!

4) And that's to say nothing of the fact that "Courtney" was running a "scam" on "her" readers (including our guy, who obviously took it kinda hard), and wasn't exactly who she said she was, even...so who knows whether "Lauren" even knows "Courtney" or that either really was of age at the time the pix were taken... (And holy shit... I don't remember those 2 comments (#1, and #2) from "Courtney" herself, s-l-a-m-m-i-n-g the guy hard at that post, either... Damn... That was some kinda take down, and right in keeping with how he treats conservatives--and especially female conservatives (to the extent we can even trust that much about ol' "Courtney")--who don't adhere completely to his ridiculous ways of thinkin'. I'm kinda surprised he even dared to leave those comments posted...)

5) And finally, there's this:

(Yeah, he added the "The owner of this blog neither necessarily uses nor endorses the products advertised on this site" disclaimer, since--which to me, kinda proves he understands the difference between blog owner content and ad service content, though your milage may vary on that point--but it was there, then...and without any disclaimer...)

I'm sorry, but the behavior and thought processes of that guy makes it very hard to take anything he posts very seriously...

...and yes, this is a post discussing something he said that isn't about me... The first I've posted in quite awhile. (I wonder if he will now think he has PROOF!! that I'm harassing him, finally, and get on the internet to complain go to his lawyer to sue call out the feds to arrest me for hurting his feelings... I wouldn't be surprised...by any of it)
---

An X-post from a blog that once was

X-Post: Asshole, indeed.

"Right. It's what they always do, because we wouldn't want to make any "sweeping generalizations" or anything. Assholes."

When you know you're making an asshole of yourself (and even say so in your post), but do it anyway, you leave little doubt that you are an asshole. But at this point, does anyone expect anything less from this crazy fuck?

Yes, there is a possibility that maybe these two drug addicts may've walked through an occupy site once, twice, or even camped out for awhile. But Occupy didn't call for or encourage drug use or bomb making, either explicitly or implicitly. Whatever illegal or outrageous things a relatively small number of possible Occupy participants or hangers-on said or did, at no time did the Occupy movement call for or encourage violence, vandalism, or bigotry. And yes, it is a sweeping generalization to attribute whatever crimes these two drug addicts may've committed to everyone in the Occupy movement, especially seeing as no one is even accusing them of committing any crimes at or on behalf of the Occupy movement. The guy knows all this...but in his zeal to attack everyone and everything with which he disagrees, he simply does not care that he's making a fool of himself by trying this cheap rhetorical dodge. In fact, he seems kind of proud of it, actually pointing out his own sweeping generalization.
---

You know... I do suspect that there may be something different going on with [this guy]... Several of his posts from late December seemed ripe for one of these obsessed mentions of his, but didn't include any...almost conspicuously didn't include any. Even the crazy post above doesn't mention me by name.

Maybe it's just coincidence...but maybe it's not. I opted not to say anything at the time, hoping the creep was choosing to turn his life (or at least, his bile-fueled cannon) around, but now that he's lashed out again, I see no reason to refrain from speculation. Either way, I'll keep documenting the guy's obsession for as long as he keeps lashing out...but his behavior of late do seem odd...

Occupy American Power!! (because this blogwhore is still obsessed with 1 "occupy" tweet I posted November 23, 2011.)
— J. Casper (@repsac3) January 3, 2013

ADDED: [his blog] Occupy Wall Street: Deadbeats, Freeloaders, Scofflaws and Terrorists

Aaaaand, the all-too-predictable double-down, wherein he cites one other supposed "Occupy" tweeter (speaking against capitalism, this time, as though that has ANYTHING to do with his previous post about the two drug addicts and potentially violent criminals who--according to Murdoch's New York Post, anyway--may've somehow had something to do with an Occupy protest somewhere somehow, maybe...), and pretends that that one tweet somehow proves everyone who supports the Occupy movement is a criminal I mean, communist, and thus substantiates his earlier crazy-assed post. (Maybe the guy really doesn't understand what a sweeping generalization is... These posts sure make it look like he doesn't... Maybe I'm overestimating the poor guy's intelligence...)

---
Links:
Harvard Grad, Occupy Wall Street Activist Busted on Bomb-Making and Weapons Possession Charges

Occupy wherever you are

"occupy wherever you are"

Occupy Wall Street: Deadbeats, Freeloaders, Scofflaws and Terrorists

Obsessed much?
---

An X-post from a blog that once was

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

X-Post: Tragedy and Exploitation – The Way of the Lying Ass

The man is pathological.

First he lashes out at me for RT'ing a tweet from early in the day that said the Bushmaster rifle was used in the Newtown massacre when--unbeknownst to me, obviously--subsequent reporting said that it wasn't. According to him I was "ghoulishly exploiting the massacre," and "intentionally spreading lies and disinformation," and like that...

BUT THEN...

It turns out that the reporting the ass was relying on for his absurd attack was wrong, and the Bushmaster rifle WAS used during the massacre. So of course, the lying ass wrote a post apologizing for his "ghoulishly exploiting the massacre" just to launch an unprovoked attack on me and "intentionally spreading lies and disinformation," right?

No, of course not.

When our friend over there posts information during a news story that later turns out not to be true, it's completely different than when someone else does. And without so much as a blink--or ANYTHING at all in the way of support or evidence--the guy continues to say it is me to whom the actual facts of the story don't matter.

Which brings us to today. Another post where the lying ass breathlessly accuses me of "lies and disinformation," and by still linking back to that first absurd attack post where HE got the facts wrong, and damned near 12 hours after HE himself POSTED that the information in that first post was incorrect. (He never went so far as to say he was wrong, of course.)

Literally --L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y-- Un-fucking-believable.

Lies and disinformation for all, and to all a good night...


Links:
[his blog]: Tragedy and Exploitation – the Progressive Way

[Lying Ass] Exploits Newtown Gun Massacre to Lash Out and Lie About Me (So what else is new?)

[his blog]: Ghoulish Walter James Casper III Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Push Gun Control, Spread Lies and Disinformation

Ghoulish [Ass] Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Attack Enemies, Spread Lies and Disinformation

[his blog]: Semiautomatic Rifle Was Used in Attack

Obsessed much?
---

An x-post from a blog that once was

X-Post: Ghoulish Blogger Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Attack Enemies, Spread Lies and Disinformation

So, it turns out that facts make no difference to my dishonest, despicable far-right criminal stalker, who posted this bald face lie on his blog early yesterday:

LINK

As we now know,

link

There's lots more disinformation where that came from, at the same guy's blog.
---

Of course, the guy wasn't REALLY lying when he said the rifle wasn't used during the massacre (and attacking me as a liar spreading disinformation for a retweet saying it had been); he was simply working with the facts available at the time (a whole lot like I was, though of course, it's ALL DIFFERENT when he screws up.) He is a lying douchebag, but not for reporting facts that later change. No, he is a lying douchebag for failing to acknowledge the fact that my error was very similar to his, and that in these fast moving stories, reported facts do turn out to be wrong, sometimes, and that both his error and mine as regards whether the gun was used in the massacre were not the result of deliberate malice or disinformation. His attacks on me, on the other hand, clearly are.

This cannot be more clearly evidenced by what the ass says next in his post reporting that the rifle was used during the massacre (and that he reported bad information in saying that it wasn't):

"Well, the actual facts of the story didn't matter to the radical leftists like Angie Coiro and her hate-addled followers like Walter James "Hatesac" Casper III. Indeed, it's not about "gun control" with these people. It's about literally destroying right-wing impediments to statist authoritarianism:"

That's right... This idiot gets "the actual facts" wrong in his earlier post, where he also cast all manner of aspersions on me for "being wrong," and in the very post saying I had it right after all and that HE was wrong, still lashes out at me as though I somehow lied.

In these posts at least, the guy doesn't care one bit about the kids who were massacred or about getting the story right. All he cares about is attacking me in any way he can.

I quote information that I believed to be true when I posted it, but that later turns out not to be, and he accuses me of spreading lies and disinformation.
Then he quotes information that he believes to be true when he posted it, but that later turns out not to be, and he STILL accuses me of spreading lies and disinformation (only now, without any evidence, at all.)

"This is the evil that [I] posted yesterday in [my] utterly inhumane rush to politically capitalize on the deaths of those innocent children, 16 of them just 6 years old. This is why decent, intelligent and God-fearing people stand up for the truth. This is why decent, law-abiding Americans repudiate [my] lies. They know where it leads. They know that [my] dishonesty will bring the reign of terror and the camps. The piles of bodies stacked like cord wood is the "taste of what's coming." [I] just lay it out there for everyone to see. It would be shocking but we've seen this play before and the millions of piled corpses before the final curtain."

This lying propagandist can kiss my ass. He's an obsessed, pathetic, desperate liar, and the more he lashes out at me and at "the left"--whatever that is--with this kind of crazy, easily debunked nonsense, the more he makes it obvious to everyone concerned.
---

Links:
[his blog]: Ghoulish Walter James Casper III Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Push Gun Control, Spread Lies and Disinformation

[his blog]: Semiautomatic Rifle Was Used in Attack

Obsessed Much?
---

An x-post from a blog that once was

X-Post: That guy Pretends "NeoCon" Means "Jewish" in Yet Another Failed Attempt to Attack Liberals

Only one of us used the word "Jewish..." ...and it wasn't me.

In fact, if the guy were to've read the linked Mother Jones post, he might've read that the whole "Neocon" means Jewish" canard is what's actually anti-Semitic. (not to mention as phony as a three dollar bill, as that guy's own neocon self proves... Whatever he may be, it's pretty obvious that the guy is not Jewish. If he were, he'd be using it to claim every disagreement with him is proof of anti-Semitism.)

"Neocons exist. They're neither shadowy nor conspiratorial. They're part of an actual political movement with a very visible public profile. They tend to be hawkish, solicitous of Israel's right wing, hostile toward Arabs, and they played a big role in committing the United States to a disastrous war in Iraq. That's just reality, and the mere fact that many neocons are Jewish doesn't give them a magic shield that protects them from criticism.

There's nothing anti-Semitic in Dowd's column. She just doesn't like neocons, and she doesn't like the fact that so many of the neocons responsible for the Iraq debacle are now advisors to Mitt Romney's campaign. Pretending that this makes her guilty of hate-mongering toward Jews is reprehensible."

Like his "Octopus" freak-out back in January, that guy (by way of quote) says that "...depictions of Jews as snakes or puppeteers are classical anti-Semitic images, right up there with blood-sucking..." Now, anti-Semites have used octopuses, snakes, and puppeteers to individually or collectively attack folks who are Jewish. But it does not follow that therefore ALL references to octopuses, snakes or puppeteers are ipso facto anti-Semitic, and suggesting that it is--that one cannot say someone behaved like a snake without it being anti-Semitic--is itself kinda bigoted. It is not automatically anti-Semitic to refer to someone as an octopus, or a snake, or a puppeteer. It is not automatically anti-Semitic to criticize a Jewish person, EVEN by saying that person is a snake, or an octopus, or a puppeteer, any more than it's raaaaacist to call a black man a clown, that attending an anti-war demonstration makes one a socialist, or supporting the stated goals of the Occupy movement makes one an anti-Semite.

Guilt by association, sweeping generalizations--whether about folks you don't agree with, or folks that you do--or pretending that highlighting one attribute shared by two (or more) otherwise different individuals or groups makes those two (or more) individuals or groups practically identical (Take for example, pacifist priests who protest against war because they believe God opposed man killing man vs anarchists who protest war because they believe no government has the right to send people to kill and die, vs those who protest a specific war because they believe the reasons given for that war go against our American values. One can treat them as though they're all the same, and denigrate them all as anti-American, or whatever... ...but the bullshit in that approach is obvious.) While propagandists will employ one, two, or even all three of these tactics to lash out at those with whom they disagree, they are all plainly and obviously nonsensical ploys that cannot withstand even the slightest scrutiny.

And all that aside, the only person equating neocons with Jews is that guy... My tweet and the article to which it referred specifically says neoconservatism is a political movement and NOT a substitute for the word "Jewish." If anyone is slandering the Jewish people by calling them neocons (or is it "slandering neocons by calling them Jewish"?), it isn't me...

And lest anyone forget, that guy is the one who created the "Sasquatch Israel" myth out of whole cloth, in yet another failed attempt to attack all liberals (or at least a whole lot of them) as anti-Semites. This is what desperate, despicable liars do...

More: American Nihilist: BTDT Files - Jew-Hating Anti-Semite

---
The Anti-Semitic Slur Surfaces Once Again | Mother Jones

First the guy Came For The Hominids, Now It's Anti-Semitic Cephalopods

Brain Rage: that blog And Anti-Semitic Hominids
---

If I'm not mistaken, the guy's last attack on me was August 6th... I was beginning to think he'd finally wised up... but of course not... He's that guy. He cannot resist lashing out with these lies. He's that guy. 'nuff said.
---

UPDATED: The guy finds a friend sycophant:

Antisemite Walter James Casper III: Jewish 'Neocons' Should 'Stop Whining' About Being Slurred as 'Puppet Masters' americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/walter…

— WarEagle (@WarEagle8055) September 18, 2012

@WarEagle8055 never actually says why he calls me an "antisemite" --he didn't bother to respond when I pointed out a few of the flaws in his tweet, leaving me to surmise that rather than taking the time to think for himself, he just lapped up and regurgitated whatever the guy told him, thought unthunk...which kinda makes one feel sorry for the guy, given that guy's historical record with, well, facts...
---

An x-post from a blog that once was

X-Post: Partisan Propagandist Attacks Non-Partisan Tweet, In Lame Defense of His Own Political Bigotry and Propaganda

In reply to: Repsac3, Apologist for Homosexual Criminals, Remorselessly Defends Left's Hateful Intimidation and Vandalism on 'National Kiss-In Day'

In almost all political & social groups, violent & disrespectful members are the exception...despite what partisan propagandists say.

— J. Casper (@repsac3) August 5, 2012

The meaning of the tweet--and the fact that it speaks against propagandists on the left and on the right, skewering ALL who engage in it--is obvious to all who read it, and speaks for itself.

The guy opines:

"The "partisan propagandists" are the creeps in the left-wing media who refuse to report accurately on what's going on. But as soon as there's any kind of gun violence, these same people are off the blocks with allegations of "the tea party did it!""

In defending political propaganda--and simultaneously providing an example of it--the guy would have you believe that only "creeps in the left-wing media" engage in this kind of dishonest bullshit.

Obviously that is not the case, as our guy himself so aptly proves day by day, post by post.

My posts and comments about vandalism, both involving the Chick-fil-A incidents and in general, are online and available to anyone who cares to read them. That all he could find to attack me with in this edition of his his voluminous "I hate repsac3" series was that tweet above--a comment on bad behavior, with no mention of either side being better or worse than the other--ought to tell you all you need to know, at least about the value and veracity of the guy's latest specious attack (though I would argue it kinda speaks to any / all of them. YMMV...)

I won't post them all--those interested can check my twitter timeline and blog posts--but I've been discussing this subject quite a bit lately, both on Twitter and in blog posts and comments. Allow me to add the tweet I posted right before the one the guy highlighted though, lest there be anyone left unclear as to where I stand:

If you can't follow the Golden Rule, even (especially) when in pursuit of human rights & equality, you're doing it wrong. #Respect4All

— J. Casper (@repsac3) August 5, 2012

No, there is no way the guy could've missed it... His lies about me have never been more obvious, or more easily disproven.
---

Link: Repsac3, Apologist for Homosexual Criminals, Remorselessly Defends Left's Hateful Intimidation and Vandalism on 'National Kiss-In Day'
---

An x-post from a blog that once was
---

/

X-Post: In Reply: Them ignorant, illiterate, "Barack Obama supporters" (if ya know what I mean...)

In reply to [blog]: Michelle Malkin Gets Hate Tweets

Unreal, but to be expected from Barack Obama supporters. As I've said many time, Obama really needs to work on his inner city education agenda. These be some illiterate mo-'fukers', yo!

Whatever you think of the guy's tweet*, his thoughts no more represent "Barack Obama supporters" than the few racists in the tea party (like the guy with the "niggar" sign, or the one who wrote the "Colored People" rant about the NAACP) represent "the American right."

*Me, I don't approve of calling women whores under very many circumstances... (Male and female, whores do exist, and naming it is appropriate, when that's actually what's going on... But as with other slurs, it does take on a different meaning, depending on whether the target is male or female. Just as comments about being "cheap" take on an added meaning when said about jewish folks, the shaming of women by calling their sexual habits into question make the term different for "girls" than for "boys"...) As for whether Malkintent is closed-minded, a racist, or a puppet is more up for grabs, however...

Classy use of dialect there... That guy does black folks proud at every turn...
(It's almost as though he don't know no better, yo...)
---

x-post from a blog that once was

In Reply: I believe it's possible to work together toward a common purpose, even with people with whom you do not agree 100%

In Reply to Burkean Reflections: Should 12 Million Illegal Immigrants Be Granted Immediate Amnesty?

It's no surprise that the Google hit for "March 25 Coalition" pulls up the Marxist-Leninist vanguard page for International ANSWER, the American left's main hardline communist organization.

Please contact your Member of Congress at this link if the anti-American activities of these groups bother you.
---

ANSWER has communist and socialist organizations involved in the coalition, along with rights groups, environmental groups, religious groups, and other social and political groups. While I don't agree with everything every group stands for, I believe it's possible to work together toward a common purpose, even with people with whom you do not agree 100% on every issue. I do not fear people who believe different things than I do, whether they be Republicans, Methodists, Communists, or homosexuals. I understand why folks on the right wish to demonize people with this guilt by association nonsense, but that doesn't make it any less contrived and phony.

Here in America, it's ok to disagree with and dissent from our federal and state government, as well as from one or even both of the major political parties. While it's not mainstream, being a registered member of the American Communist Party (or a Muslim, or a Unitarian, or a Socialist, or a Libertarian, or...) is not anti-American.