In reply to:
The Independent Realist: W. James Casper (Repsac3) Responds, wherein Robert Tuttle attempts to prove that I was and am responsible for the posting of Dr. Douglas' workplace information, for the purpose of trying to get him fired from his job. Let's join his post, already in progress, to see what he has to say.
(For the record, most of what I'm skipping is a little one-upsmanship and peacocking, some housekeeping, and a few introductory remarks, all of which was
also posted (and in that case,
largely replied to) at American Nihilist. Follow any of the three links above to see for yourself...):
One of the things that you have consistently complained about is the lack of evidence to support Doctor Douglas’s claims against you. (I am conceding to your wishes here Repsac, and will refer to him as “Doctor” rather than “Professor” lest I inadvertently give your jibe any substance). The good doctor actually has given evidence to support his claims, in the way of statements and links on his blog. Perhaps you missed them. I didn’t. However, in the way of trying to make things easier for you to understand, I have simplified things somewhat. Let’s start with the basics first.
After a long (no, make that, extremely long) battle of words between Dr. Douglas, Mr. Casper (Repsac3) and others (known variously as Octopus, Captain Fogg, David Hillman, and Erik Kane – if I have spelled the names incorrectly, forgive me), said battle reached a point where certain information was posted in the internet, and in conjunction with this information, certain words were posted that could (and likely did) encourage some, including the posts author, to contact Dr. Douglas’s superiors at his place of employment. The alleged purpose being to cause Dr. Douglas to lose his job. To make this clearer, I will post what Dr. Douglas posted on his American Power blog:
A few months later, I left a couple of comments at THE SWASH ZONE, at entries posted by Captain Fogg and repsac3, as the blog is a group effort. I frankly didn't make the connection to (O)CT(O)PUS (who I later realized runs the place), and for that transgression I received this threatening warning in my e-mail inbox:
And these are my rules: DO NOT HARASS ANY OF MY WRITERS AT "THE SWASH ZONE" AGAIN. IF YOU HARASS ME OR ANY OF MY WRITERS ONE MORE TIME, I WILL NOTIFY ELOY OAKLEY AND DONALD BERZ AT YOUR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AND TAKE IMMEDIATE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BOTH YOU AND YOUR EMPLOYER. THIS GAME OF YOURS ENDS HERE.
We know these behaviors all too well, and why some of you bother with this pinhead is beyond me. The Coward is not welcome at THE SWASH ZONE; we delete his comments immediately. More disturbing are the comments and e-mails left by his followers: Profane, racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic … worthy of report to the FBI. What to do?
If the Coward or any of his followers harass you online you, contact President Eloy Oakley at (562) 938-4122 or Executive VP of Academic Affairs Donald Berz at (562) 938-4127 and describe the harassment. For serious online abuse or defamation, there is always this option (case file in progress).
A quick interjection... (Like Donald, ironically) Robert doesn't seem especially keen on providing too many direct quotes (though yes,in this case he did) or links and citations on those occasions where he does quote. Wherever possible, I'll add in what he left out, marked with his initials, like so: RPT:
American Power: (O)CT(O)PUS = CYBER-BULLY. Also, keep this particular quote in mind... It'll come up again later...)
In response, Mr. Casper (Repsac3) related that he had nothing to do with the posting of this information. Mr. Casper goes on to state that he also doesn’t believe that either of the two individuals who contacted Dr. Douglas’s place of employment conspired together, or coordinated their actions in any way. Mr. Casper also states that Dr. Douglas have never offered any proof to suggest that the two incidents are connected.
In short, Mr. Casper states that Dr. Douglas’s assertions have no substance and he (Dr. Douglas) is lying. It is my opinion, however, that there is substantial evidence that would lead any reasonable person to draw the same conclusion that Dr. Douglas has drawn. The facts that my opinion is based on are:
Fact #1: Repsac3 (aka: W. James Casper) posts or posted on The Swash Zone, as did or do Captain Fogg and Octopus.
Fact #2: Octopus publically posted personal information regarding Dr. Douglas (his place of employment and names & phone numbers of his superiors) on The Swash Zone blog, and stated that he intended to contact Dr. Douglas’s place of employment to complain about Dr. Douglas’s online writing, and through the use of his wording encouraged others to do the same.
Fact #3: Dr. Douglas’s employers were contacted by Erik Kane and David Hillman, who complained about what Dr. Douglas was writing online. (I do not know whether Kane is “Captain Fogg” or “Octopus”, or whether Hillman is Fogg or Octopus, however, it is a reasonable assumption that Kane and Hillman are Fogg and Octopus – or Octopus and Fogg).
Fact #4: Octopus did at one time post on the American Nihilist blog, which belongs to W. James Casper, aka: Repsac3, thus establishing a connection between Repsac3 (Casper) and Octopus. This connection is further established through their connection to The Swash Zone blog.
Fact #5: Casper (Repsac3) claims that he was and is against the posting of Dr. Douglas’s information on The Swash Zone, that he was and is against the contacting of Dr. Douglas’s employers, and further claims that he disagreed with Octopus’s posting of said information, and that he suffered removal from his role as a contributor to The Swash Zone because of it. Casper’s claims do not ring true, however, as after he was allegedly removed as a contributor to The Swash Zone (due to his breaking ranks over the posting of Dr. Douglas’s information), Casper undertook a determined search to find the internet cache of the offending Swash Zone webpage that contained Dr. Douglas’s personal information, and he (Casper) then re-posted it in its entirety on his own blog, The Immoderate Monk, thus in effect, Casper also posted Dr. Douglas’s personal information, as well as the encouragement to contact Dr. Douglas’s employer.
 |
| Screen capture of The Immoderate Monk blog, showing Casper's re-posting of Dr. Douglas's personal information |
Fact #6: W. James Casper, as Repsac3, has not only continually baited Dr. Douglas through his (Repsac3’s) posts and comments (rather than take the high road and ignore anything that Dr. Douglas may say if Repsac3 found them offensive), but Repsac3 has admittedly devoted an entire blog to publishing negative comments about Dr. Douglas, and has also devoted voluminous space on two of his other blogs to promoting negative comments and attacks on Dr. Douglas.
Conclusion: Although Repsac3 states that he disagrees with what Octopus did in posting the offending information, he did the exact same thing, ostensibly to show/prove that he (Repsac3) was not the responsible party, but the fact that he (Repsac3) reposted it, thus showing/proving his (Repsac3’s) guilt to be equal to Octopus’s, and thus, the allegations made by Dr. David Douglas do indeed have merit, as proved by W. James Casper’s own blog.
Posted by Thomas Paine at 4:56 PM
My reply (revised and extended a little from the three part comment I submitted for moderator approval Saturday, 10/22/11, at about 2:20 AM):
First off, any and all of the points that show relationships between the players and imply that the fact that we have interacted before or since these incidents means we are all collectively guilty of these incidents are bunk. Guilt by association is nonsense.
We (none of us, including any blogger you can name) don't deserve credit or blame for posts and comments we did not author... not even if they were written by bloggers we know, bloggers we have interacted with before or since, or even bloggers who did, do, or will post on the same group blogs that we do. So goes Fact #'s 1 and 4.
Fact #2 is substantially correct. It was Donald who posted the name and some of the other details about his place of employment, but Octopus (who by the way, IS David Hillman) subsequently reposted contact information he found at the college's website--where it is still posted to this very day. But I'm not Octopus, and guilt by association is still bunk. So goes Fact # 2.
E.D."Erik" Kain is a pretty well known right of center libertarian writer and blogger. As best I understand it, Donald was mad at him because Mr Kain rethought his one-time neoconservative views, and pretty much killed off a blog he used to run called NeoConstant (See:
New to the Blogroll: Neoconstant | All American Blogger, and
How Did I End Up In the Middle of a Blog War? | All American Blogger)
Donald repeatedly lashed out at him in response, and ED Kain did eventually reach out to someone at Donald's college, in the hope that that person could get Donald to back off. (Another take, by another right of center and former NeoConstant blogger:
The Blog of Walker: Donald Douglas: give it a rest, mate). Suggesting that ED Kain has any connection to or is involved in any conspiracy with David, and/or with Fogg, and/or with me, is just nuts. It's unlikely he even got the information about Donald's college from anything Octopus posted. Google is pretty easy to use, even for a one-time neocon libertarian.
And yes, David Hillman (Octopus) did subsequently use the information Octopus (David Hillman) posted to contact the college at which Dr. Douglas is employed.
(And if I may once again interject, if you're going to call what you're posting "facts," you prolly ought to've at least bought the program, so's you know the players about which you're alleging these so-called "facts." I'm just sayin'...)
Still nothing there about me, and guilt by association is still bunk. So goes Fact # 3.
I don't know where Robert's been, but internet caches ain't all that hard to find, especially if the post was only disappeared (and reconstituted by me) in the last 7-12 days. I did so because I believe in having a full and complete record of the facts (so I don't have to hypothesize or make stuff up, y'understand), especially given the years of stink I've gotten about all this, both from Donald, et. al, and from Octopus and some in his little seasunk band.
Look, I can see where this might be an issue for Robert, given that he doesn't seem to quote or link to much in the course of his own blogging, but some of us like to refer readers back to the actual posts and comments we're discussing, so they can see them for themselves, in context. Sometimes, we even quote, cite, and repost words and pictures that we most heartily disagree with, in order to express our disgust with what was posted and / or the people who originally posted them. The fact that something written by a third party is quoted on a blog does not mean that the author of the post agrees with the words contained in the quote. Often you can tell the reason they quoted the particular words by what they say outside the quote marks.
Given his line of argument in Fact # 5, I wonder whether Robert read the words on the top of my post -- why he failed to, if he did not -- and alternatively, why he's feigning ignorance about my motivation for posting those screen grabs, if as I suspect, he did read my introductory explanation...
Also... In point of fact, Robert, Dr. Douglas quotes and links to that very same post and passage on his blog as the one we're discussing here.... (and so by extension, I suppose you've done so now, as well) ...but because someone over at the Swash Zone killed off the post last week, the Dr's links are no longer any good. But had Robert and I been having this debate two weeks ago, Donald and I would be showing
the same links to
the same Swash Zone post, with
the same workplace information available from both blogs. (via link, only, on mine, and actually quoted on Donald's.) I'd even go so far as to bet that you'll find more instances of Dr. Douglas' workplace information being posted on Donald's own blog, often complete with the exhortation to
"Call these people if Dr. Douglas harasses you" than you will at any other site. Something to consider, that.
Sorry, Robert... Unless you're arguing that every conservative who posts pictures or videos of an anti-semitic liberal on their blog is themselves anti-semitic, (because it is the fact of the post, rather than their reason for posting it, that's important) Fact # 5 is a non-starter...
And, Robert, just one more thing to consider:
 |
| Screen capture of The Independent Realist blog, showing Tuttle's re-posting of Dr. Douglas's personal information |
Whoops.
Fact #6, while overwrought and hyperbolic, has a few truths, but none that apply to the case at hand.
While I spend a whole lot more time responding to Dr. Douglas' crazy conspiratorial charges, of late, I did and still do enjoy pulling Dr. Douglas' chain. Just the threat that I might submit a comment to his moderated blog sends him into fits of apoplexy and full page ALL CAPS, inappropriately. punctuated. spittle-flecked. rants. (often with those
WHOO HOO!!'s and
ROTFLMFAO!!'s that you found so
"insightful and elucidating" when you took note of them in
your first post--back when you thought I authored them, of course.)
You're also correct that I don't often ignore what Dr. Douglas posts... Given your vehemence about me in your first post--to the point that you were--though hopefully not still are--threatening to underhandedly sabotage my commenting, by getting a mob together to flag my comments as offensive (again, for ideological content and partisan gain, rather than because they actually deserve to be flagged), in the hopes that I will be banned from commenting on as many sites as possible--I would think you'd understand that just ignoring a problem and hoping it will go away generally isn't the answer. (Of course, neither is underhanded bullshit like the tactic you threatened.) I do challenge Dr. Douglas' posts whenever I have the time and the wherewithal to do so... Not because I'm offended by him, but because I believe he is lying, or overlooking an important perspective or set of facts, and because it's important to stand up for one's point of view.
It'd take too long to explain the birth of the blog American Nihilist... Suffice to say, it started off as a parody, but because I got comfortable with American Power--unlike most folks, I prefer to stay in one place and kind of "adopt" one blogger at a time, rather than taking on a different rightwing blog and blogger everyday--and because Donald's reaction to it has been so over-the-top absurd, AmNi has kept chuggin' along...
We've already done the "several blogs" bit... I explained that I have different blogs for different purposes, including one where I discuss Dr. Douglas, and another where I repost pretty much every blog post and comment I make on the internet--and yes, by definition, those two blogs will contain some of the same posts and comments about things Dr. Douglas has said, won't they?... As many times as you bring it up, the answer will stay the same... Several blogs, including one that regularly discusses Donald Douglas and the posts at American Power.
All well and good, so far, and we're actually discussing me, in this fact... But up to now, we've been focusing on the claim that I am somehow involved with (if not actually responsible for) attacks on Dr. Douglas' livelihood... But Robert, those claims are nowhere to be found here in Fact # 6... Now it's about pulling Donald's chain, and how many blogs I have and how often I use Donald's name on one of 'em... ...and that ain't going to cut the mustard, bro... Fact # 6, too, fails inspection.
The conclusion is just a bad remix of #5, id'nit? #'s 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 barely play into it, at all...
And as I said in reply to Fact # 5 proper, to convict me over the fact that I repeated a post containing Don's workplace info, without regard for WHY I repeated the post containing Don's workplace info, is to convict every conservative blogger (or for that matter, newspaper writer, talking head, radio personality, ...) who quotes a liberal argument (or posts examples of racism, anti-semitism, hypocrisy, anti-christian bigotry, ..., ...) of in effect supporting and propagating those liberal or bigoted ideas via their quotes and reposts--because according to what you're saying in Fact 5 and in this conclusion, it doesn't matter WHY they (re)posted or re-aired them, only THAT they did so.
Stop and look around the conservative blogosphere, Robert... Flip through your blogroll... Check your own archives... Hell, check this very post, where you indict me for quoting a particular post with particular info, AND THEN QUOTE THE VERY SAME POST AND INFO...
...and then think about this, Robert...
Given the circumstances, "Fact" # 5/conclusion-wise... Are you sure this is really the argument you want to go with?
I await your reasoned reply... ...whenever you have the time.
---
UPDATE: I neglected to include the 4th part of my 3 part response, submitted to Robert's Independent Realist blog a few hours after the first three (at approximately 6:05, AM, Eastern). (I was having technical issues that night, and e-mailed all this stuff from my iPad to my home computer in separate bites (bytes?). I misplaced this one, the first time through...)
Part 4:
In all your tromping around looking for evidence of my "chief instigator" ways, you entirely missed what is Dr Douglas' crown jewel argument against me...
Around the same time that Octo--
(Sorry... I only ever knew the guy as Octopus, and I'm not altogether certain that "David Hillman" isn't an alias, as well, for what it's worth)
--posted his piece on The Swash Zone, he also authored
a similar post at American Nihilist...
...
AND, though I spoke out against it, I didn't demand that he remove it or delete the thing myself, preferring instead to treat Octo as the adult he was, and allowing him to do the right thing--or face the consequences of not doing the right thing-- on his own. (Little did I know that three years later, I'd still have people blaming and haranguing me for what Octo wrote... Yeesh!!!)
AND, when Octo suddenly and silently bailed out of his authorship at American Nihilist, and then removed my authorship privileges at the Swash Zone, I STILL didn't delete the post, which at this point had several links and references to it, mostly from Donald's blog posts and comment sections. Instead, I cut out the names, titles, and phone numbers of the people to contact, and left the post, well, posted, believing that it was worth keeping it up as an everlasting record of what was (and wasn't) said in the post and comments and by who, but that the tools to commit any harassment (the actual info) had no place on the blog, unless there was anyone left willing to defend it... ...which there wasn't.
There you have it. Donald believes that my actions constitute endorsement, and I wouldn't be surprised if you take that line, as well... But regardless, that's what I did and why... ...and even knowing what I know now, I believe I'd handle the situation the same way, if I had it to do over, again. -- My reasons were sound, and in keeping with my philosophy of individual, personal responsibility for individual acts--not crediting or blaming others for what one party says or does*... ...even if some of the folks I was and am still dealing with were (are) less adult than I thought...
*The guy or gal with the bigoted sign at the protest doesn't speak for EVERYONE in the protest, and the whole group or movement is not responsible for every individual attendee, no matter whether that protest is a Tea Party event or Occupy Wall Street, for instance... ...And the guy who posts another blogger's workplace info and tries to get others to harass the guy... ... (you see where I'm goin' with this?)
---
Previously (in reverse order):
Thomas Paine Had More Balls Than This Pretender, Didn'e?
Thom Paine Gets It Really, Really Wrong...
.gif)
