X-Post: Dishonest Donald Kent Douglas - Obsessed Wingnut Blogger Still Obsessed

In reply to American Power: Ban, Block and Report Walter James Casper III in 2013

Some excerpts, and my replies:

As concerns PUBLIC COMMENTING SYSTEMS:

"Since then, Walter James Casper III has continued to stalk this blog, claiming "trolling rights" to comment here whenever he pleases. Of course, no one has a "right" to comment on someone else's blog. The right to freedom of speech guarantees freedom from discrimination by government."

The only one talking about rights (in the legal sense) or freedom of speech (in the government sense--though I suspect that most folks think "first amendment" for government censorship or discrimination, but view "free speech" more broadly to include other instances where one person or group tries to keep another from speaking out. YMMV...) in this situation is Dishonest Don. What I said was, as long as he posted about me on his blog, I would not agree not to refrain from commenting on those posts just because he demanded I do so, which sent him into a spittle-flecked, semi-litrate rant just about every time I said it. (Lost to ol' Dishonest Don was the fact that while I said it, I didn't actually do it. I even let him in on the game at least once, but he still came out ranting like some drug-addled stuffed-full-of-himself-to-bursting Charlie Sheen, regardless.) (There's links for this, somewhere... I'll post 'em when I find 'em.)

And keep in mind, almost all of this whining Donald Douglas is doing is about things that happened long, long ago (in blog-time, anyway). I'm almost certain that the last comment I tried to submit to an American Power blog post was in late January or early February, 2012. The fact that he's still this worked up about it--and still lashing out at me on his blog and on Twitter, largely unprovoked--should tell you all you need to know about the kind of guy Dishonest Donald Douglas chooses to be.

"In denying his stalking and harassment --- criminal activity of which I have reported to the police" (and for which they've probably laughed at him profusely, and definitely done absolutely nothing about, because no matter how much Donald Douglas wishes it were otherwise, unwanted blog comments are just not covered by criminal statutes - wjc) "--- Repsac3 claims that he was only "submitting comments to an area open to public comment, in rebuttal of posts attacking me by name." See that? He was only harassing this blog on the justification that the commenting system here is an area "open for public comment." The problem, of course, is that there's no such thing as a "public" blog open to "public comments.""

Dishonest Don keeps using that word "harassment," but shows no evidence that he has clue what the word means.

"Put aside the obvious fact that Blogger blogs are owned by Google and not the U.S. or any state government (and hence privately owned), the individual proprietor of a blog, even a Blogger blog, retains all the rights to allow any and all comments at the site."

I've acknowledged the fact that a blog owner may accept or reject any and all comments at the site repeatedly, including the very first time I said Dishonest Don's "banning" was a load of horse shit:

"As long as Donald Douglas is posting a public blog that accepts comments, I'm going to continue to comment on what he posts, whenever and wherever I choose. He's welcome to delete anything and everything I contribute to his blog if he so chooses--it is his blog, after all--but that won't stop me from making the contribution in the first place, and pointing out every cowardly deletion he makes (on my blog, I mean), as well."

I don't think I could've been more clear. Donald's "proprietor of the blog" argument is a non-responsive strawman smokescreen.

As Dishonest Donald probably understands full well (no matter how hard he tries to convince his readers and other gullible fools otherwise) whether or not what one posts is a public blog (or has a comment section open to the public) is not about "rights" or "ownership," but about whether or not the blog appears in public or the comment section allows the internet hoi-polloi to post public comments. And to put it plainly, Donald's blog is public, and has always had a comment section open to the public...and he well knows it.

(As to his other point, it's worse than that... As the owners, Google ultimately decides what can and cannot appear on a blog proprietor's blog...and if a given proprietor doesn't like Google's choices, s/he can go find another blog platform. The proprietor may have rights, but it's Google that's in control.)

"And this is after being repeatedly warned to cease and desist, the legal threshold over which Repsac3's actions became criminal."

Dishonest Donald Douglas is making that up. There is no law protecting Donald from blog comments that he doesn't want, no matter how often or BOLDLY IN CAPS he types "stop."

(That's not entirely true... If someone were actually harassing Dr. Douglas--submitting tens or hundreds of comments every day, or submitting comments threatening to injure or kill him or those he loves--I'm sure that Google and the law would be all-too-happy to make that behavior cease and desist and to punish the person(s) responsible for it, as well--and probably without Don's ever having to ask the person to stop a single time, besides.)

What Donald is talking about here are single on-topic comments (generally links to a reply post at American Nihilist) offered to those blog posts where he wrote about me, generally unprovoked. (And as often as not, prolly, I didn't actually bother making the comment. As I said above, just saying that I might comment was enough...) I think I figured out once that it came to about 30-35 comments over a two year period. And like I also said above...that period ended almost a year ago, which makes one wonder why Dishonest Don is STILL so obsessed about it...

By developing a psychotic theory of "public commenting," radical leftist harassers delude themselves that they have a "right" to torment their targets. A blog, of course, is nothing like, say, a public park. Anyone can use the park, regardless of whether they contributed to the provision of that park, a public good, through tax contributions or user fees to the government agency responsible for providing that service. In other words, there are distinct realms of consumption of good and services. The oceans are common pool resources that no single nation-state owns. The public good problem is the incentive for one state to use more resources than it would be allowed under existing norms, regimes, or legal treaties. Even in this case, an otherwise common resource is nevertheless restricted in its use by state actors, otherwise the common resources --- say fisheries --- would be depleted. In sum, Walter James Casper III has invented a system of "public commenting" that only exists in the dark recesses of his addled and hateful mind. There is no right to comment on someone else's blog, no matter the kind of commenting system the blog uses.

Again, Dishonest Donald Douglas is arguing against a strawman he built all by himself. I never said I had a legal (or even ethical) right to have my comments appear on his blog. Indeed, I fully expected that Donald would refuse to allow them to appear, showing him to be a coward afraid to be confronted at his own blog. That's why I generally simultaneously posted the comments I submitted to American Power on my own blog, showing that they contained no threats or off-topic nonsense, and very little bad language or other content that would justify their not being allowed through moderation.

(And yes, I fully understand that a blogger can refuse to allow specific comments or commenters for any reason s/he wishes, right down to bias against anyone whose name begins with their least favorite letter of the alphabet...but we who regularly read, write, or comment on blogs judge bloggers in part based on how they treat their commenters, and especially how they handle those who disagree with them... While a blog owner has every right to moderate away all comments written by folks whose online names begin with "R," it will affect how crazy or arbitrary the blog reading public thinks that blog owner is...and whether their online time might be better spent reading a blog with an owner more sane...)

If Dishonest Donald was really "tormented" by my posting a single on-topic comment in rebuttal to somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3's of the blog posts he wrote talking about me over a two year period, I think the problem lies with him, not me. The fact that not one of the political, law enforcement, or legal individuals or offices he's contacted about me has ever so much as sent me a text on his behalf speaks to how serious his allegations of criminality against me actually are. (I had one lawyer tell me that his accusations of criminality are the only actionable offenses he sees between us, and that he wants to represent me. Anecdotal and worth every cent you paid to read it and not one penny more, but true, nevertheless. Unlimited quantity of salt grains available on request.)

A better question might be why Dishonest Donald Douglas was and seemingly still remains compelled to write all these posts--many of them unprovoked--where he mentions me by name in the first place. I'm not saying he CAN'T write them...but I AM saying it's mighty odd behavior for a guy claiming he has been stalked and harassed by me, and who claims to have been tormented by the blog comments that I used to submit in reply to some of those posts. Something to really consider, that...

And one more time, for the record... I submitted my last comment to American Power in late January or early February, 2012, which was a long time before Donald ever changed to the Disqus commenting system--three to six months before, if I'm not mistaken) Not only do I not "rue the day" Dishonest Don made that switch, I'm not entirely sure he has even successfully banned me via the "fabulous Disqus black-listing system" at all, seeing as how I never tried to submit a comment since he made the change. (I'm also pretty sure that I actually suggested he make the change to a commenting system that has a mechanism for banning, somewhere along the line...though damned if I can find and cite where I did so, now...) ((I'll plug the cite in here, if ever I come across when/where I said it...and actually remember where the empty "socket" is by then...))

Yeah... Dishonest Donald Douglas' attempt to criminalize blog comments is still a big ol' bust, just like it has been every single time since first he ever tried to sell folks on this big bad bag of nothin'. While it may be rude, there is no law or term of service against submitting a reasonable number of on-topic comments to a blog post, even if the author or blog owner would rather that you didn't. That's why Disquis and others have such "fabulous black-listing systems."

As regards NO SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS:

"Repsac3, at his Twitter profile, claims he's against 'sweeping generalizations.'"

I do...and I am... But (in yet another example of my having no trouble admitting when I'm wrong, much to the chagrin of Dishonest Donald Douglas), I just went over and changed my profile. I've been using the wrong term for what I intended to argue against. What I meant to say was I'm against "hasty generalizations," and especially against hasty generalizations backed with intentionally "cherry-picked" evidence.

A sweeping generalization goes from whole to part, suggesting that because a thing in generally true, it's true for every individual. For example:

Republicans supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...
...and therefore, Ron Paul (a Republican) supported those wars.

A hasty generalization--the fallacy Dishonest Donald so often commits--does the opposite, going from the individual to the whole. Donald cherry-picks the ten or twenty communists he finds at a protest attended by fifteen hundred people, and says or implies that everyone who attends the protest or supports the cause is therefore a communist.

But don't take my word for it... Let's use Donald's own examples:

"...when union goons are repeatedly caught out as violent thugs..."

Number of "violent thugs" in this example: 3
Number of union folks attending the protest: hundreds of union-tied protesters... Maybe even thousands of people.

"...and when the union leadership advocates violence..."

Two links (though Dishonest Don tries to make it look like three) about one guy, Richard Trumka, and one thing he said to the press about not inflaming an already bad situation by sending in scab workers to cross a mineworker picket line in 1993. (The company subsequently did try to hire scabs, violence broke out, and one man was murdered.)

"To be clear, generalizations are a form of argument to explain general tendencies. To say that unions are violent and thuggish is a generalization that is repeatedly demonstrated as true. The examples of individual union members who do not engage in violence or thuggery don't disprove the generalization."

A generalization only explains "general tendencies" if one can show that a significant number of the whole (over half, at the very barest of minimums) actually exhibits those "general tendencies." It's not the "individual union members who do not engage in violence or thuggery" that disproves the generalization, but that MOST union members do not engage in the violence or thuggery that does. Besides which, it isn't me using individual acts by individual actors to generalize about the whole...It's Dr. Douglas, so perhaps he ought to direct his argument back toward himself. What I'm saying--and what Donald apparently understands himself, at least when he thinks it works to his advantage--is that "the examples of individual union members actors who engage in violence or thuggery a given behavior don't prove any generalization about the larger group to which they belong." When there are hundreds or thousands of union members attending a given protest and even 10% of them commit some act of violence or vandalism while the rest do not, the threshold of Dishonest Don's "general tendencies" theory simply isn't met and neither hunts nor holds water. To say otherwise is to engage in a hasty generalization using intentionally cherry-picked evidence.

The rest of Dishonest Donald's examples--"seat belts save lives," "progressives favor high taxes," "Occupy Wall Street," "..."--all follow that same pattern of suggesting the behavior of a statistically insignificant number individuals "speaks to" or "proves" some generality about the whole group of those individuals. (In some cases, like with seat belts, the generality itself is born out by the numbers, but Donald throws in an argument that no one's making about individual deaths even with seat belt use. Again, it isn't the individual examples that count; it's how many of them there are relative to the whole. If four people out of a hundred die while wearing a seat belt, it's an anomaly; if seventy-five people do, it's probably safe to make a generalization about the deadliness of seat belt use.)

As concerns "LIBERAL-DEFENDER NOT LIBERTY-DEFENDER":

"Walter James Casper III has used his hate-blog American Nihilist to publish my workplace information with exhortations for progressives to contact my college administration, with the obvious intent to get me fired for my conservative advocacy and allegedly politically incorrect statements."

Quite the mouthful, but pretty much all untrue.

I have never published Dishonest Donald Douglas' workplace information.

Not only have I never made any exhortations for anyone to contact Dishonest Donald Douglas's college administration, I have repeatedly and consistently spoken out against every single person who ever has made exhortations to do so, who actually has done so, or who has ever talked about contacting any college administration about any professor's online behavior--including those times when Donald Douglas threatened to do so (and according to some accounts, likely actually did so) and when he posted approvingly about a mob of rightwing bloggers who contacted a school and succeeded in getting a liberal professor fired for he online partisan behavior..

According to those who did threaten to or actually did contact Dishonest Donald's college superiors, just about all of them claim to've done so in an effort to get him to stop harassing them online, which is awful ironic, in light of Donald's many protestations about me. Make of that what you will... None of them referenced his conservative advocacy or political incorrectness.

"But Repsac3 offered his co-bloggers front-page posting time to launch ideological attacks on my livelihood."

No... I never once said anything about ideological attacks on anyone's livelihood. Dishonest Donald is lying.

"The fact is that Repsac3 always had --- and still has --- editorial control over the contents published at his blog. If he didn't, then the post targeting me would still be available at the blog. (It has been edited by the blog administrator, Repsac3, to remove my contact information, as it should have been from the start, but wasn't.) Of course, it should have never been published in the first place, under any circumstances, and the "personal responsibility" for the post rests not with the author but with the person who provided the pixels at the front of the hate-blog, Walter James Casper, the blog publisher of American Nihilist."

I can appreciate that Donald Douglas has some very nanny state ideas about personal responsibility and how one should run a group blog, but these are things that reasonable people can and do disagree about.

To me, the idea that anyone is responsible for the words and ideas expressed in a blog post or comment aside the author who wrote and posted them is absolutely crazy. To my way of thinking, each person is wholly responsible for what they themselves say, and for deciding whether and when to amend or retract their own words.

Maybe there are group blogs where the authors discuss their posts ahead of time and the blog owner approves every post is for publication before the fact...but I've never heard of a single one.

Here at American Nihilist, (and at most group blogs, I'm willing to bet) every author is his own editor and publisher. And here at American Nihilist, every author takes personal responsibility for their own posts and comments, including deciding whether and when to admit that something they wrote crossed an ethical line.

To me, personal responsibility means giving the author of an offensive post the space and freedom to defend what he's written or apologize and edit or delete his own post. Donald seems to believe personal responsibility involves having some authoritarian daddy figure step in and censor the post for that author.

Each person reading this can decide for themselves which version of personal responsibility they ascribe to and judge Donald Douglas and I accordingly. If anyone wants to take me to task for my beliefs or behavior in this regard, please avail yourself of the comment section below. No literate comment will go unanswered...

Dishonest Donald is free to run his blog(s) any way he chooses, but he is not free to dictate how other bloggers must run theirs.

"No amount of dodging can possibly escape the truth, which is why Repsac3 has been universally condemned for his intimidation campaigns among conservative bloggers and free speech advocates."

Yeah, not so much... Not so much at all...

"After Carl S___ and SEK launched their vicious libel campaigns at my workplace, Repsac3 praised those attempts to get me fired, remarking that such attacks worked in having me no longer blogging about those pricks."

Again, Dishonest Donald Douglas is stretching the truth.

Here's what I actually said:

"The reason most of the folks who contacted LBCC about Donald gave for doing so, was to stop him from attacking them via trolling comments on their blogs and attack posts on his own. That certainly doesn't justify their solution--though ironically, it worked, in most cases; Other than repeatedly going back to the endless well of legitimate outrage and less legitimate victimhood these incidents seem to provide for him, Donald barely mentions any of the people who contacted LBCC, anymore--but it does shed a little more light on the situation... If you explore some of the posts and comments they made about these incidents, a few of 'em sounded pretty desperate to get Dr. Douglas to back the hell off."

And if that's not enough, here's what I said when Dishonest Donald first tried to spin my words about his focus on the guy who didn't (and said in no uncertain terms that they shouldn't have), rather than all the guys who did:

"What I said was, Donald barely mentions the folks who contacted LBCC anymore... And correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what Donald just said, too... I don't know his reason... Maybe it's because they took action against him, or maybe it's just because they're "no longer worth Don's time." But whatever the reason, aside these ridiculous whiny, weepy "I'm such a victim" diatribes, Donald barely mentions the folks who actually contacted LBCC, anymore... For whatever reason, Donald would rather lash out at me over this whole "workplace intimidation" thing, even though I never contacted anyone... I leave it to others to deduce why..."

I fail to see how I could've been more clear.

"Further, as the left's campaigns of lawfare and workplace intimidation have become widespread, Repsac3 has repeatedly defended the hate and laughed off attacks on conservatives has "wingnut" whining."

One only has to read the posts and comments I've written discussing "Team Kimberlin" to see how far off the mark Dishonest Donald is as regards lawfare. My posts about workplace harassment--including those situations involving Donald, himself--show him to be lying there, as well. As far as "wingnut whining," I could only find one tweet, which had to do with Michelle Malkintent and the supposedly liberal media... What Dishonest Donald was referring to is anybody's guess...

"So, for all of my readers and blog allies, remember that this is a dangerous ideological opponent and political enemy who is working to do harm to those with whom he disagrees. Like Zilla of the Resistance has advised, the best remedy is to ban these assholes, block them from your comments sections and block and report them on Twitter for stalking and intimidation."

Yeah... I don't even know what to say to that, except to suggest that, rather than taking Dishonest Donald Douglas' (or anyone's) characterization of another person as Gospel, folks ought to read what that person has to say and see how s/he behaves toward others firsthand, and then judge for themselves.

Please do...
---

Links:
American Power: Ban, Block and Report Walter James Casper III in 2013

Oh noes!!! "Repsac3 Banned from American Power"

Donald Douglas just can't let me go

Donald Douglas Abuses His Google

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

American Power: Jeff Goldstein Knows a Thing or Two About Low-Life Leftist Scum
Donald Douglas - An Ethical "Push-me, Pull-you"

What'd I Say?: 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)

Saberpoint: Strange Things Are Happening....Donald Douglas Annoyed by Leftwing Blogger

Online Disagreements and The Offline World We Live In...

Dishonesty and Ad Hom: Is this all Donald Douglas Has?

What'd I Say?: Search results for Kimberlin

Twitter: "Whiny Wingnut Victim"
---
Dishonest Donald Douglas Cries "Victimhood!!!" (and changes the definitions of common words to "prove it.")

BTDT FAQ Files - Workplace Harassment

Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?
---

If it was one of Dr. Donald Douglas’ many specious accusations and allegations about W. James Casper (repsac3) that brought you to this site, either directly--or far more likely, via your own due diligence (Dr. Douglas seldom actually provides links or citations, himself--please go back to the post, comment or tweet you read, and see whether Donald 1) paraphrased and characterized whatever it is he is claiming Mr Casper said or did, or 2) provided quotes, citations and links to Mr Casper’s actually saying or doing the thing Dr Douglas is alleging.

And then really think about why Donald Douglas (almost certainly) didn’t do the latter, and what that omission tells you about how seriously anyone should take his accusation(s)...

It'd be one thing if the primary source material of Dr. Douglas' complaint was no longer available to read and view in full context, verbatim, in whatever place he originally found it. But I know of no instance where that is the case. Donald Douglas is intentionally keeping his readers from the primary sources of his many complaints, and it's incumbent on every honest reader to take that fact into account, and to judge both the complaint and the complainer accordingly...

(Try it yourself. Decide on a page and link number--say the fifth link from the bottom on the ninth page of the Google search link above (pick your own page and link location, obviously)--and see for yourself whether Dr. Douglas backs his accusations against Mr Casper with anything concrete (quotes, links to or screencaps of exactly where he said or did whatever Donald is accusing him of), or whether it’s all paraphrase and characterization. While there may be exceptions, in the vast majority of cases there will be no quotes, no links, and no screencaps. There will just be Dr. Douglas telling you what he claims Mr Casper said and meant--as well as telling you exactly how you should feel about it--rather than showing you the supposed offense firsthand, and letting you judge it for yourself.)

While folks like Donald and liars like him want to hide what those they disagree with have to say by moderating their comment sections for content and limiting the number of verbatim quotes, citations, and links they use when blogging, I want nothing more than to give folks every opportunity to read exactly what they have to say, in all of it's contextual glory, and thus will quote and link to their exact words as often as I can...

Please read what Donald Douglas has to say about me and about the world in general. Weigh his arguments (as well as the arguments of those who disagree with him, of course), judge as fairly as your conscience allows, and come to your own conclusions.

I ask for nothing more.

And I ask for nothing less.
---

Oh yeah... The tweets...

The call for helper-trolls (which seemingly didn't get a whole lotta response):

...and the cliquey mid-teen mean-girl attack (which oddly, did... Go figure.):

Gotta love this crazy fuck... Yeesh!
---

Added:

Oh lookie... Another wingnut "blogger ally" using "he must be a faggot" as an attack against someone they disagree with politically... Could these assholes BE any more predictable? (or homophobic?)
---

An American Nihilist X-post

X-Post: Someone Call The Right-Wing Metaphor Police

link

I'm sure they'll all be suitably outraged... (or not).
---

Links:
Ben Shapiro's New Book 'Bullies' Out Tuesday

Twitter / benshapiro: Tomorrow, #Bullies is available in stores. Left about to get punched in the mouth. http://www.amazon.com/Bullies-Culture-Intimidation-Silences-Americans/dp/1476709998 …
---

A Wingnuts and Moonbats X-post

In Reply: Not So Sure About Arming Kindergarten Teachers

In reply to Move to arm teachers picks up steam in TN - The Tennessean - tennessean.com
---

I honestly don't know what to think on this one...

I'm an "evolving" liberal on concealed carry--as far back as Virginia Tech I was supporting CCW for current and former law enforcement and military students on college campuses, but I've got nagging--though non-specific--reservations about elementary and middle school teachers being armed.

What would be the legal liability for teachers and districts who had armed employees who failed to protect their students...or worse, accidentally shot one in the course of trying to protect them? Any law that allows responsible gun owners--and especially non-law enforcement civilians--to carry guns in schools has got to explicitly address that issue.

While I do lean toward concealed carry these days, I still worry that it will lead to more self-appointed "heroes" like George Zimmerman looking for trouble and injuring or killing people who wouldn't be shot but for the actions of an over-confident gun owner. While I'm all but certain such cases will be few relative to the number of gun owners out there (VERY few, probably), those few cases do still weigh on me... (I'm more of a "Castle Doctrine" guy, myself... By all means shoot anyone whose trying to get into your locked house against your wishes. But any scenario that involves you going after someone to initiate a confrontation or take aim at someone who is retreating, doesn't sit so well with me...)
---

Posted January 7 at 10:47pm

Something I Really Need To Remember...

d'X-Post: Despairingly Desperate, Dishonest Donald Douglas Digs Deep

Desperate to lash out, Dishonest Don once again dips his dick in the "guilt by association" inkwell to brand me a "small c Communist," or some such thing....

In a post ostensibly about an inaugural ball being thrown by Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now program--wherein Dr Douglas proceeds to label everyone involved and their mothers "radicals" and "Communists," (so what else is new?)--Dishonest Don searches my twitter stream--finally going back far enough to locate a "#NowPlaying - Democracy Now!" tweet from last November--and goes on the attack:

"And yet once again, such hard-line communists and Israel-haters are regular listening fare for the extreme left-wing troll-rights harassment stalker Walter James Casper III:

#nowplaying Daily - repeat - Democracy Now! 2010-03-11 Thursday by Democracy Now! from Democracy Now! Audio

— J. Casper (@repsac3) November 29, 2012

As I've been reporting, Repsac3 has become more openly radical than ever and at this point it's safe to say he's a small-c communist as indicated by his radical activism and affiliations, far-left online blogging and Twitter footprints, and by the long list of hard-left and ideological communists who fill his mass media repertoire and inform his programmatic political commitments.

Walter James Casper III is a tool of the anti-American, anti-capitalist left in this country, and by definition is a traitor to American exceptionalism and the limited government system established by the founders. But like all the other communists manning today's hard-left ramparts, he will deny any of these orientations and venomously denounce the "McCarthyism," which is tantamount, of course, to a thinly-veiled confession of such un-American radical politics.

It's amazing how far out in the open the communists have come over these last few years. But with the Democrat Party today taken over by the "boring from withing" revolutionary radicals of the Alinsky mold, it's really no surprise at all."

Leaving aside all of the at-this-point-patently-obvious-bullshit about MY being the obsessed stalker here, what is Donald's evidence that I'm "extreme left-wing" or "openly radical" (which you'd think'd be easy to show with cites and quotes, what with my being so open about it, n'all) or, well, any of the rest of his nonsensical labels and lamentations?

Yeah, pretty much nothing but a tweet saying I listened to an almost-three-year-old "Democracy Now!" podcast a little over a month ago. Color the world shocked... Dishonest Donald Douglas is talking out of his ass, again...and still not backing any of it up with cites or quotes, preferring to TELL, rather than to SHOW. There's a reason for that, and I'm willing to bet that pretty much every person who reads these words knows exactly what that reason is. (...including Dishonest Don himself, when he inevitably comes slinking 'round like the stuck and stinky polecat he is.)

'nuff said.

Links:

American Power: Communists Angela Davis and Danny Glover to Headline Democracy Now!'s Inauguration-Night 'Peace Ball' in Washington D.C.

Dishonest Donald Douglas, Desperate To Lash Out: I'm connected to these stories how, exactly?

Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?
---

If it was one of Dr. Donald Douglas’ many specious accusations and allegations about W. James Casper (repsac3) that brought you to this post, either directly--or far more likely, via your own due diligence (Dr. Douglas seldom actually provides links or citations, himself--please go back to the post, comment or tweet you read, and see whether Donald 1) paraphrased and characterized whatever it is he is claiming Mr Casper said or did, or 2) provided quotes, citations and links to Mr Casper’s actually saying or doing the thing Dr Douglas is alleging.

And then really think about why Donald Douglas (almost certainly) didn’t do the latter, and what that omission tells you about how seriously anyone should take his accusation(s)...

It'd be one thing if the primary source material of Dr. Douglas' complaint was no longer available to read and view in full context, verbatim, in whatever place he originally found it. But I know of no instance where that is the case. Donald Douglas is intentionally keeping his readers from the primary sources of his many complaints, and it's incumbent on every honest reader to take that fact into account, and to judge both the complaint and the complainer accordingly...

(Try it yourself. Decide on a page and link number--say the fifth link from the bottom on the ninth page of the Google search link above (pick your own page and link location, obviously)--and see for yourself whether Dr. Douglas backs his accusations against Mr Casper with anything concrete (quotes, links to or screencaps of exactly where he said or did whatever Donald is accusing him of), or whether it’s all paraphrase and characterization. While there may be exceptions, in the vast majority of cases there will be no quotes, no links, and no screencaps. There will just be Dr. Douglas telling you what he claims Mr Casper said and meant--as well as telling you exactly how you should feel about it--rather than showing you the supposed offense firsthand, and letting you judge it for yourself.)

While folks like Donald and liars like him want to hide what those they disagree with have to say by moderating their comment sections for content and limiting the number of verbatim quotes, citations, and links they use when blogging, I want nothing more than to give folks every opportunity to read exactly what they have to say, in all of it's contextual glory, and thus will quote and link to their exact words as often as I can...

Please read what Donald Douglas has to say about me and about the world in general. Weigh his arguments (as well as the arguments of those who disagree with him, of course), judge as fairly as your conscience allows, and come to your own conclusions.

I ask for nothing more.

And I ask for nothing less.
---

An American Nihilist X-post

X-Post: Far-Right Whack-Job Dishonest Donald Douglas Confuses Posting A Link With "being down with a thing" In Yet Another Failed Attack Post

This likely comes as no great surprise to much of anyone, but Dishonest Donald is lying. (So what else is new?)

Nowhere in the tweet he references do I ever say I'm "down with" anything Thom Hartman said in that particular show (or any show, ever...).

All I did was post a link to it...just like Dishonest Donald did, himself...only four days earlier, and to a podcast instead of a youtube post.

So if Dishonest Don believes my link means "I'm down with Thom," do you think he believes his own link mean the same, or is he once again claiming the rules are dependent on what he wants them to say, and that his link to that Thom Hartman show is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than mine, because it's only eeeeevil when other people post it?

One set of standards, for friend and foe alike. Please make a note of it.

Link: American Power: Far-Left Whack-Job Thom Hartmann Wants to 'Outlaw Billionaires'

---
Ya'know... I posted several tweets and links regarding Dishonest Don, today... Funny that he doesn't claim that means I'm down with what he posts, huh...

Situational ethics and standards, through and through... Things mean just exactly what Donald needs them to mean at that given moment, and nothing more or less... (And please pay no attention to the hypocrisy.)

And for the record, yeah, I also think Thom's "tax everything over 1 billion at 100%" is "seriously some f-ked up shit." But unlike Dishonest Don, I'm not afraid to listen to people I disagree with...and I don't need to demonize them, either.
---

An American Nihilist X-post

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

1/3/13 - Hypocrisy

Well, I haven't been doing so good with the posting here everyday, bit... (I did post a few things at American Nihilist earlier today, but that really doesn't count, does it?)

So, to get something posted--and in keeping with the AmNi posts, perhaps--a quote about hypocrisy:

Many of us believe that wrongs aren't wrong if it's done by nice people like ourselves. ~Author Unknown

More here: Hypocrisy Quotes, Sayings about Hypocrites and Self-Righteousness

So...It's January 1, 2013...

...and I decided to try to post a little something here everyday this year... Maybe some kinda confessional, maybe a photo or video, or maybe...well...whatever else is possible to post. We shall see...

I haven't got a whole lotta time tonight (it'd be a good night for one of those picture or video posts), but I figured I'd do what little I could.

In addition to posting a lil something everyday, I've also set taking better care of the health (taking the prescribed drugs, exercising, seeing the docs and doing the tests,...), trying to cook something at least once or twice a week, and getting more organized as goals for the year.

I don't have all the drugs (waiting on insurance company mail prescription order), but I did do the exercising, and testing...

No cooking yet.

I shelved a few books in the "library," today.

And of course, this is the first post.

Not perfect, but not too bad...

In Reply: "I've been "evolving" on the gun control debate since at least VA Tech..."

In reply to Saberpoint: "An Opinion on Gun Control" Article Goes Viral
---

A good post over there. Shocked as you may be, I think Larry Correia comes off--and actually is--very knowledgable and persuasive. I've been "evolving" on the gun control debate since at least VA Tech--even suggesting in comments after that one that military vets and other law enforcement types who're also college students or employees be permitted concealed carry on campuses. (I went back recently to find, quote and cite those earlier comments at that blog, but the blogger where I'd posted them had changed commenting platforms, deleting all the old reader commentary.) By this point, I'm probably not too far away from supporting unlimited concealed carry.

Since you're probably more familiar with the issue in general and Correia in particular (and since 1000+ comments are a whole lot to even skim through), are you aware of (and can you point me to) anything he's said about the argument that when the police do arrive to a "shots fired" crime scene, they won't be able to tell the good gunmen from the bad ones. Where I have seen that addressed at all by people who I think would know (police officers, mostly), they do see it as an issue. (Not one that should prevent CC necessarily, but an issue.) Curious to see what this guy has to say...

I do still worry that more guns in more hands could well lead to more / more lethal "crime of passion" / "heat of the moment" violence, but as I've been saying recently about another situation, you can't legislate away possibilities and " what if's."
--

I originally "posted" this comment today at 10:48 AM (Saberpoint blog time), but it only showed up via the mobile device Saberpoint blog feed. I also e-mailed Stogie about this "mobile (google comments) vs desktop (Disqus comments)" disconnect an hour or two ago, but curiosity got the better of me... I wanted to see whether this Disqus comment would show up in the mobile stream, or whether it's one or the other, whichever way a commenter starts. Needless to say, Stogie, you can delete the earlier one, as long as this one shows up for folks to read on the blog. (As long as I was "re"posting, I also corrected a spelling and grammar error or five I didn't notice the first time.)
---

Posted Saturday, December 23, 2012, 3:48 PM (or thereabouts)

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

In Reply: Rolling Heads Stuck on Sticks (Erik Loomis, metaphor, partisanship; National Review)

In reply to: Poor Erik Loomis - By George Leef - Phi Beta Cons - National Review Online, and the following piece, in particular:

"Some academics are mounting a defense of Loomis, as if he had transgressed no boundary of civility. I think he did. It’s bad enough to blow your lid and blame someone you dislike for a tragedy he had nothing to do with, but unacceptable for a professor to suggest, even rhetorically, that violence is warranted."
---

Dr. Loomis "blew his lid?"

No, I'm pretty sure Dr. Loomis doesn't even have a lid.

See, that's a metaphor for something else; being very angry and reacting inappropriately. Generally it's only non-native speakers who take a metaphors literally, and when they do, miscommunication runs rampant. (Well... not literally rampant.)

Wanting someone's head on a stick? A metaphor for wanting that person to be publicly punished for something they did, thus made an example of. To (willfully or otherwise) misunderstand that fairly common idiom as a call to violence and “eliminationist rhetoric” is, well, kind of transparent.

I would think having too many writers at National Review who consistently took metaphorical statements literally would cause heads to roll. (though not literally, one hopes.)
---

Submitted for moderator approval Posted (for real, this time) 12/20/12, 5:20 PM (or so)
(Thought I saw that it had posted over there while I was finishing this post here. Either I was mistaken--the guess I'm going with for now--or it was moderated away after the fact.)

In Reply: If this clown saw his mother use her "hardware" to cook, she was doing it wrong. (and it would explain a lot about him, too.)

Revised and extended, in reply to: Do We Really Need Easy Bake Ovens For Boys? (Video) | The Lonely Conservative, and the following video and comment, in particular:



Zilla sez:

People freak out over the silliest things these days. A boy playing with a toy that is pink won’t make him less of a boy and a girl playing with a blue toy won’t make her less of a girl. My kids know better than to judge based on color.
---

If grown men cook--and I'm pretty sure most do, these days--I see nothing wrong with young boys pretending to cook. (...or helping out in the kitchen with real meal preparation, for that matter.)

Zilla's right about the color thing...but it's so ingrained in this culture, I can see why one would want to avoid that fight (especially when there are people like the guy in the video, still getting so worked up (and dare I say, emotional?) about boys playing at assuming "female" roles like cooking. (If this is the way he actually lives, his wife must be thrilled to be doing all the cooking and cleaning and laundry and childcare in their home.) The bigger issue is whether or not we want children role-playing (and thereby learning about) the various roles the adults and older siblings in their lives exhibit, day to day. The color battle can wait.

The gentleman in the video can raise his children according to outdated strict gender roles if he chooses...but to whatever extent his sons can't feed themselves when mom's out of the house, or his daughters need rescuing because they can't change a flat tire "like a man," the fault will be with him.

All that said, we bought one of these new easy-bake ovens for our niece last Christmas. NO ONE needs the version they make today. The light bulb was less safe, but the narrow slit through which kids are supposed to insert the baking tin full of mix insures a complete mess. My sister-in-law let my niece try it two or three times, then cleaned it all up, packed it back up, and donated it to her church's daycare program. (And she suspects that they didn't use it either, but sold it at a garage sale fundraiser.) As the one's who gave the gift, it was kinda disappointing...but having been there for at least one of the baking sessions--and subsequent clean-up--we understood completely.
---

Posted 12/18/12, 1:04 PM

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

In Reply: Glorifying Violence, and How Not To...

Revised and extended, in Reply to: Why Do We Tolerate Glorified Gun Violence In Movies And On TV? | The Lonely Conservative, and the following passage in particular:

Even if you don’t go out seeking violent movies and TV shows, just watching a football game can bring the violence into your home during commercials. It happened yesterday when ads for Gangster Squad, starring Josh Brolin ran.
---

There are plenty who argue that the football game itself promotes and glorifies violence (along with--variously-- boxing, pro-wrestling, mixed martial arts fighting, ...).

In a similar vein, some applaud the fact that Little Rascals" shorts and copies of Disney's "Song of the South" are so hard to find, celebrating their removal from society as a blow against racism. (And a subset of these folks advocate removing "Huckleberry Finn" from school libraries, too.)

The key is what WE individually tolerate. I trust no one here is advocating government or corporate censorship of violent films--or having someone like Bill Cosby buy them up and lock them away in a vault, either--but there is something to be said for asking why WE support these violent films and video games with our entertainment dollars. The less money these things make, the less those in charge will choose to make or bankroll them.

We have to decide where to draw the lines for ourselves and for our children--I wouldn't want the government preventing films from being made or marketed, and I doubt any of you would, either--but there's always going to be someone advocating against "violence" (or "racism") that you find perfectly acceptable.

Free speech isn't pretty.
---

Submitted for moderator approval Posted 12/17/12, 1:28 PM (or so)

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: Dishonest Donald Douglas Exploits Newtown Gun Massacre to Lash Out and Lie About Me (So what else is new?)

Ok... In one respect, Dishonest Donald caught me. I did RT a tweet originally posted at 1:39 PM (and RT'd by a person I follow at 9:37 PM) somewhere around 10 PM without checking to verify that the information I heard somewhere around 3 PM (I'm guessing... it was early-to-mid afternoon eastern the last time I watched a straight news report on the shootings) was still true in the 10 o'clock hour. As Donald notes, the information about this gun not being used in the massacre was updated (by CNN, anyway)at 6:51 PM. (I have since sent out two tweets (see below), one of which was @'ed to both the original tweeter and the retweeter)--and soon, there'll be this post, too--correcting the error.)

Apparently the tweet below misstates a fact. This gun waited in the car. (But does that really negate the question?) twitter.com/repsac3/status…

— J. Casper (@repsac3) December 15, 2012

@angie_coiro @aurosan Apparently this tweet misstates a fact. This gun waited in the car. (Some pretend that negates the question. Sad.)

— J. Casper (@repsac3) December 15, 2012

So, yeah, I was guilty of further spreading one "fact" reported early in the day that turned out not to be a fact later on. Anyone who thinks my doing so constitutes a "bald-faced lie" (like our friend Dishonest Donald Douglas, fer'instance) is claiming that they can read minds, and can somehow prove what I knew and when I knew it. And that's just nuts.

I should've checked. As soon as I found out--from Dishonest Don's absurd attack post--I corrected the error.

But given Donald's history of lashing out at me, I suspect that his most recent hissy-fit post--like oh so many others where he lashes out at me in similar fashion--has nothing to do with the Newtown massacre or with whether or not I intentionally lied or hit RT before verifying that nothing had changed since 1:39 PM, and everything to do with Donald Douglas' creepy obsession with me. As always, I invite each reader to check the facts and come to your own conclusions.

Links:
American Power: Ghoulish Walter James Casper III Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Push Gun Control, Spread Lies and Disinformation

Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?
---

An American Nihilist X-post

In Reply: The "Now is not the time" / "Don't politicize the tragedy" Waiting Period

In reply to the following comment I received on Facebook, which in turn was a reply to a share of the following tweet:

Immediately address the issue of gun control through the introduction of legislation in Congress. wh.gov/RN6U

— J. Casper (@repsac3) December 14, 2012

"Can we start by enforcing the laws we already have? Adding new ones is pointless if none of them are enforced. We also need to close the gun show loopholes."
---

I'm with you on all points... I just want there to be an intelligent conversation about all of the issues involved, including the mental health and family/societal issues you posted about on your wall. I believe we probably ought to reinstate the automatic weapons ban--it wasn't a factor in this massacre, but those weapons have played a part in others--and maybe do something to limit large magazines/clips, too, but aside that I don't have any real suggestions or answers.

My goal in signing this petition was to combat the ever-present bullshit about "it being too soon to talk about it" and admonitions against "politicizing the tragedy," both of which impose "waiting periods" that always seem to last just long enough to get us to the next tragedy that some would have us not talk about or politicize, either.

I don't know whether or not there are any new laws that could minimize the number of mass shootings in this country or the number of victims of them when they do occur... but I believe it's high time we stop waiting until the moment is perfect--it never will be--start talking about it and exploring the issues now, before the next mass casualty gun massacre occurs, and the "now's not the time"/"don't politicize the tragedy" waiting period clock starts all over again.
---

(Ironically, I accidentally posted about the White House petition twice; Once via the tweet, and once by sharing the link at the petition site. The friend who commented chose to do so at the tweet share, rather than at the link share to the petition, to which I'd added the following note in the first place):

This petition is a little vague, but because it's being featured at Memeorandum, it's likely going to get the signatures. I DON'T want to blindly limit access to guns across the board. But I would support waiting periods, more thorough background checks, closing gun show loopholes, and limiting access to weapons of war. No, you can't prevent every crime, and yes, a person determined to kill who cannot get a gun will probably use a knife or a bat. But if the killers at Va Tech (or Aurora, or Columbine, or ..., or ...) had been murdering with knives, far fewer would've died. We can talk about limiting access to knives when homicide by blade even begins to approach the numbers of those murdered by firearm.
---

Immediately address the issue of gun control through the introduction of legislation in Congress. | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

In Reply: "...and the man who was coming at me I think tripped over the tent peg, fell towards me, and that’s when I said ‘You assaulted me.’" - Steven Crowder

In reply to: What Did Steven Crowder Say About His Video Editing? - Forbes

From the article:

I asked Crowder why that initial assault was edited, he responded:

"The camera pans away because the camera was jostled, the camera man was shoved around too, a bunch of people were being shoved as the protesters tried to tear down the tent. A tent which wasn’t their property. They were tearing down a tent with women and children in it, and the man who was coming at me I think tripped over the tent peg, fell towards me, and that’s when I said ‘You assaulted me.’ Right after that he sucker punched me. My guess is that he was on his way down, he grabbed me, and started shoving me.”

---

If Crowder knew the guy tripped and fell into him–which is the story he’s telling here–then it was awful dishonest of him to claim he was assaulted there in the video BEFORE the guy ever got up or threw the first punch.

However the guy went down–and even if he believed Steven Crowder put him down, somehow–trying to clock Crowder repeatedly wasn’t the moral/spiritual/legal response. (I don’t know where justice will come down on this, since it’ll probably be one guy’s word against the other’s, with video that isn’t conclusive about who did what first…assuming that matters, that is.) But eye-for-an-eye caveman behavior is a part of who we are, and there’s some aspect of “being a man” that calls for it, which for me anyway, makes the response to being knocked off one’s feet and thinking it was done on purpose understandable…Still subject to civilized law and Christian standards of behavior, but understandable.

The fact that Crowder stated ahead of time that he was there to prove that union folks were thugs, AND the fact that he made the knowingly false assault claim above–in real time in the video, AND that he intentionally edited the fall out of the video he released on youtube, AND that he has yet to file charges with the police–instead walking this weird tightrope between “I’m a victim” / “I’m an MMA tough guy” and taking part in the vaguely vigilante-looking “wanted/reward” postings on various rightwing websites, all suggests to me that something isn’t quite Christmas morning with his version of events…even if he’s telling you the truth, and honestly played no part in the union guy’s initial fall…but I’m suspicious as to whether that’s the case, as well… (…And not only that… This isn’t the first time Mr Crowder has claimed to be assaulted–by a woman, the last time. How many wolves are in these pastures, anyway?)

One other thing… It sure looked to me like from “Tony’s” appearance at :33 to the edit at :38, he was focused on and arguing with the guy in the grey hat/black earmuffs to Crowder’s left, NOT Crowder. Post edit, that guy goes out of frame, and I never notice him again. (Even in the FoxNews less edited version, the guy kinda slips away.) I don’t know how significant that is, but I did notice it…and that I think you’re misstating the facts to say that “Tony” was actually approaching Crowder in those 5 seconds. (Part of me even wonders whether it was the Gray Hatted Man who knocked “Tony” down…)

Posted (in two parts) Friday, 12/14/12 and about five minutes after the first.
---

ADDED: Not an admission that Steven Crowder was himself responsible for "Tony" ending up on the ground, but he's obviously aware that the man did not simply trip over a tent post, and an admission that he himself was among the people who "got into a physical confrontation with the union activists.":

However, during an interview with a conservative blogger, Crowder noted that the scuffle began when pro-union protesters tried to bring down the white tent on the site provided by the group Americans for Prosperity.

The Fox News contributor then stated that he and other people defending the canopy did get into a physical confrontation with the union activists.

“We didn’t get violent with them, but we did try and push them off the tent,” he said, adding that the reason the man was seen getting up off the ground was because he was one of the people who were pushed away from the tent and fell to the ground as a result.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2012/12/15/steven-crowder-files-criminal-complaint-regarding-alleged-assault-pro-un#ixzz2FK9UuCm3

In Reply: Crowder Unedited? and Why No Police Report?

In reply to: 'Democratic Underground' Users Claim Steven Crowder Caused Michigan Union Violence | NewsBusters.org, and the following lines in particular:
"

Despite all the incredibly irrational comments made at DU about this incident, there was one very apt question poised by one DUer:

Everybody has a videocamera in their phone nowadays. Shouldn't there be some unedited footage out there?"

---

There is (or should be) unedited footage, already... Where is the raw version of Crowder's tape (and why didn't he post that to youtube, rather than this edited version?)

There is very little that Crowder could've done that would legally or spiritually excuse the swings that the guy took...but something is edited out at 38 seconds in (right in the middle of the confrontation), and the union guy is getting up from the ground when the edit is over... If Crowder was responsible for the guy landing on the ground, that would explain why he got up swinging, at least... (Maybe the guy was just standing his ground.) A lot of people turn the other cheek (and in that regard, I think Crowder handled himself admirably once the guy started swinging.) Some don't--and while it may be against the law to throw punches, even in retaliation--and certainly not what Jesus would do--it's not all that uncommon, either.)

Crowder still needs to file a police report, so the police can investigate and work toward punishing the guilty...and maybe provide a narrative of the story that's less potentially biased than Crowder, the union guys, or the partisan pundits and online spinners, too. (That he hasn't done so yet is also kinda suspicious.)

Then too, is the fact that apparently, this isn't the first time Crowder's yelled wolf. (or "I've been hit!! I've been hit!!"), and that he's a student of the Breitbart school of video manipulation and low-rent propaganda, who now works for the professional version of Breitbart's BigPropaganda sites, FoxNews. When you have a Brietbart tape that's been edited, you should always ask why, and be careful not to judge the facts of the case until you actually HAVE all the facts...

Also, he's awful smug and cocky...

Still no excuse for hitting the guy, but curiouser and curiouser...
---
Posted '12-12-12, 6:00 PM, EDST

X-Post: I bet he can write his name in the snow with it, too...

Epic loser Dishonest Donald Douglas thinks I care...

They're like two teenage boys in the high school shower room... (I can understand McCain's fascination with his blog-hit / follower penis size... It is his only job, I think... But Ol' Dishonest Don just wants to fool himself into thinking he plays with the big boys...)

Original link: Epic Loser Walter James Casper III 'Isn't a Very Effective User' of Twitter

Twitter / rsmccain: @AmPowerBlog The troll to whom ... (and still misusing the word "troll," I see)
---

And lest anyone forget, I answered that tweet a few days ago, as well:

Did he really not understand I was talking about (and in fact quoting) him regarding his "reports" about me? twitter.com/repsac3/status…

— J. Casper (@repsac3) December 10, 2012

Reporting speakers you don't like to the authorities is no way to stand up for free speech...even if "the authorities" laugh in your face (or behind your back), and refuse to act on your whiny complaints...
(...and what's with that "#retard" thing? Methinks Sarah Palin (or Trig, at least) would not approve...)

Quick update: Saw this tweet. Suspect McCain thought I was defending the Schmalfeldt guy (who I know very little about, and haven't the time or inclination to find out about, either), rather than questioning how Dishonest Don's mind can turn a small number of on-topic comments submitted to the moderation queue of his blog--generally at posts where Donald attacks me by name--into "harassment," and then try to report that "harassment" (those comments) to the police, the FBI, his local congressman, lawyers, Google, etc...

It's ok, McCain... I probably wouldn't be following my story either, if Dishonest Don didn't keep dragging me back into it by periodically lashing out at me...
---

Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?
---

An American Nihilist X-post

X-Post: Dishonest Donald Douglas Cries "Victimhood!!!" (and changes the definitions of common words to "prove it.")

In a recent post, Donald Douglas once again claims that a "criminal" "troll" (yours truly) has "harassed" him over the internet, "coordinating" actions with others. Donald wants so badly to be seen as a victim that he invents "obsessive email stalking campaigns," and periodically lashes out at me by name with imagined slights, even when (and I suspect, BECAUSE) I don't post anything about him at all.

But as frequently happens when dealing with Dishonest Donald Douglas, the facts are far different... In a nutshell:

Dishonest Donald Douglas is whining and whinging and begging for the sympathies of his ideological tribe because up until ten months ago-- (Yes, pretty much everything Donald is complaining about took place in the first two months of 2012, if not earlier. Some incidents took place as early as 2008...and he's still going on about them.) --I submitted a reasonable number (read "one," generally) of on-topic rebuttals to the public comment section of his moderated blog--most often at posts where he discussed me by name--against his expressed wishes. Donald is also upset because I had the temerity to call out and expose his self-reported pleas to Google, two California police departments, the FBI, one or more lawyers, and his congressman, all done in a misguided attempt to have them enforce the rules he laid out for his blog-- (rather than, y'know, just not approving the comments held in the moderation queue, like pretty much every other blogger who screens his comment section does) --for the anti-free speech nonsense it always has been. That's the whole ball of wax. Everything that follows expands on these few sentences.

1) I have never "harassed" Donald Douglas. I used to submit public comments to his blog, often disagreeing with his posts. I did not submit an unreasonable number of comments, either at individual posts or to the blog in general. (If I did submit more comments to a particular post than others, it was because I was responding to the points of several other participants who had all addressed me.) I did not engage in crude language or ad hominem attacks any more frequently than did other participants or Dr. Douglas himself. My comments were on topic disagreements (or occasionally, supportive agreement) with what Donald or one of the other comment area participants had to say.

Once Dishonest Don began deleting posted comments and moderating his comment stream before the fact to weed out content with which he did not approve, I restricted my comment submissions to blog posts where he lashed out at me by name, making sure to keep a record of the submission and post a copy of the comment where Dr Douglas could not make it disappear. I did not make repeated submissions or otherwise abuse the comment system. I was a member of the public submitting comments to an area open to public comment, in rebuttal of posts attacking me by name. And just to be crystal clear, I have not attempted to submit a single comment to the American Power blog since sometime in January, 2012.

A quick word about RS McCain's term "Troll Rights:" the "antisocial belief that [one] should be able to say anything to anyone in other people’s privately-owned online space, without regard for the proprietors’ rules or even basic human decency."

I don't know about "troll rights," but free speech rights as understood here in the US anyway, suggest that yes, one ought to be able to submit one's point of view to the comment area of a blog that accepts public comments. It does not mean that those comments must to be PUBLISHED by the blog owner--and I've never said otherwise--or that free speech rights absolve the commenter for hateful, disgusting comments or genuinely harassing behavior, as either is legally or socially understood--and I've never said otherwise. But one does have the right to submit one's comments, and to make note of the ones the blog owner chooses to keep hidden, as well--especially when one is the subject of the blog post in question. One also has the responsibility to stand behind one's words and the reactions one receives for doing so, both positive and negative. And while Donald Douglas apparently disagrees, I'd be surprised if RS McCain says he is similarly opposed to this use of speech. (I suspect RS was conceding as much by saying that "troll rights may be an interesting legal concept..." Indeed they are, McCain. Free speech rights (including the speech of those some might (incorrectly) label internet trolls) are seldom called on to protect popular, pretty speech.)

2) Nothing I've said or done as regards Donald Douglas has been "criminal." While Dishonest Don cited a whole series of laws in support of his claims, he also took his so-called "evidence" to lawyers, police officers, and congressmen, all in an effort to criminalize my speech and stop me from posting. AND...Nothing came of any of it. No individual or office that Donald complained to has ever contacted me in any way, shape or form. (I did initiate a conversation with the officer at one of the police departments Donald contacted, who assured me that she had seen no evidence of my running afoul of any law.) And according to the internet lawyer I spoke to in one of those "you pay nothing unless we win" free consultations, Donald's repeated claims that I had broken the law were far more actionable in civil court than anything I had ever done as regards Dr Douglas. Needless to say, I declined the lawyer's offer to file a suit for libel.

3) When did "troll" get redefined to mean "disagrees with me on the internet," anyway? That ain't it, kids... And for gosh sakes, stop being so damned thin-skinned.

Almost all of my internet comments have been on-topic, or at least reasonably related to what someone else has said. I have never dropped a single provocative bit of prose into a comment section or message board and then sat back and watched the chaos ensue. I've never been unwilling to defend the positions I've taken or to admit when someone else has a valid point. Once upon a time, THAT (or "not doing those things," I guess) was the definition of trolling...

Reasonable folks can certainly argue that it is impolite to submit comments to a moderated blog after the blogger in question has stated that he would prefer you do not do so, but being impolite isn't the same as trolling.

4) There has been no "obsessive e-mail campaign." I sent three comments via e-mail in response to blog posts...because that was what Dr. Douglas requested:

And finally... It doesn't take much to figure out which of us is actually the obsessed aggressor... It's been almost a year (1/5/12, for those keeping score) since I last authored a post at American Nihilist that was not responding to an American Power post where Dishonest Donald Douglas mentioned me by name (often in posts where he shoehorned my name into posts ostensibly about other topics). I do still read his blog, and I sometimes follow the links or discuss the same topics in other venues, but it isn't me who is periodically lashing out in some crazy desperate plea for attention and relevance.

Like I said in my earlier post, I feel very sorry for Donald Douglas. I can't imagine what it must be like to hate so many people for such petty reasons.

Life's too short to waste much time on him... but I do reserve the right to respond to Donald Douglas' attacks on me, when and where I choose:

[Dr Douglas is] not going to run my life. And I am not going to spend every waking hour responding to [his many] lies. I’ve come to realize that there is no point in worrying about the latest defamation from a tiny and already discredited [man]. Put simply, I’m not going to spend my life obsessing over [him] — even if [he] insist[s] on being obsessed with me. Unlike [Donald Douglas], I have a life apart from the Internet.

That said, I am also not going away. And if I feel like setting the record straight on a particular point, and have the time and motivation to do so, I will.

Threats just give me something new to talk about. At a time of my choosing.

[Donald Douglas has] tried to intimidate and threaten me for over [four] years now. No threat [or lie he's told on the internet or to "the authorities"] will stop me.

I am not going away.

Links:
American Power: Cyber-Stalking Harassment Troll Bill Schmalfeldt

Donald Douglas Abuses His Google

June 3: Bill Schmalfeldt Begins Cyberstalking Aaron Walker : The Other McCain

Criminalizing the Internet - The Ongoing Saga

I’m not a troll—why does everyone on the Internet keep calling me one? - Slate Magazine

American Power: W. James Casper's Demonic Band of Progressive Totalitarians

American Power's Cyber-Stalking Harassment Troll Donald Kent Douglas

Patterico's Pontifications � Stacy McCain on Cyberstalking
---

An American Nihilist X-post

X-Post: In Reply: American Power's Cyber-Stalking Harassment Troll Donald Kent Douglas

Blah, blah, blah... Maybe I'll respond to Dishonest Donald's most recent attack post more thoroughly in some future offering--or at least add the relevant rebuttal links to this one--(I'd do it now, but I had some minor surgery a few days ago that makes keeping my arm up high enough to use the keyboard on the desktop for any length of time a little uncomfortable), but there really is no need. It's all the same old, same old unsubstantiated bullshit accusations and attacks Donald Douglas has been repeatedly posting about me for years:

American Power: Cyber-Stalking Harassment Troll Bill Schmalfeldt

Just think about this; In Donald Douglas' world, one fights the words and ideas one does not like by going to the police, lawyers, the FBI, and his congressional representatives...

"That sounds familiar. Progressive stalking trolls claim a "free speech right" to harass someone even after they have been told repeatedly to cease and desist. This is why I reported Walter James Casper III to the authorities: "Intent to Annoy and the Fascist Hate-Blogging Campaign of Walter James Casper III." As we've seen for some time, progressives have quite a different view of how free speech works, the most important manifestation being the notion that left-wing free speech includes the right to suppress political views that contradict the left's radical agenda."

If that isn't the scariest view of free speech I've ever seen, I don't know what is... (And for the record, Dishonest Donald's many reports went exactly nowhere. Not one person, office, or agency contacted me in any official or unofficial capacity as a result of his anti-free speech reports to his various authorities. Not one.)

I feel sorry for Dishonest Donald Douglas... I really do. I can't imagine what it must be like for him to so dislike the world and the people with whom he must share it that he feels compelled to post the things he does about others. It's just sad.
---

A double-down, because when you're lashing out, once is never enough.: American Power: Progressives Can Just FOAD
Of course, a double-down... Dishonest Donald Douglas is so very predictable...
---------
LINKS:

Dishonest Donald Douglas attempts to wage lawfare: 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)

Donald's low-budget conception of "free speech": Dishonest Donald Douglas' "Raging Primordial Rage"

Free speech for me, but not for thee: Dishonest Donald Douglas: Fascist First Amendment Fail

---

An American Nihilist X-post