Controversial Filmmaker Of “The Innocence of Muslims” Sentenced to One Year In Jail

Mark Basseley Youssef (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the filmmaker connected to the controversial film “The Innocence of Muslims,” has been sentenced to a year in prison for violations of his probation for his 2010 bank fraud conviction. The arrest of Youssef raised immediate objections that, while the Obama Administration insisted that it would not punish such acts of free speech, it set out to arrest him on any possible grounds to satisfy the “Arab Street.”

U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder sentenced Youssef on four of the eight alleged violations that he admitted to, including obtaining a fraudulent California driver’s license (which can be based on any information deemed inaccurate or false). What is most problematic is the violation of denying his full role in the film. The Obama Administration wanted a two-year sentence for Youssef. He also was found to have used a different name without the approval of his probation officer. At least three names have been associated with Youssef since the film — Sam Bacile, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula and Youssef. However, documents show that Youssef legally changed his name from Nakoula in 2002 but continued to occasionally identify himself as Nakoula.

When the Administration arrested Youssef, it seemed to go out of its way to be sure that there were ample opportunities for filming him being dragged way in cuffs — an image that was immediately broadcast around the world. It sent a chilling message to some that the government can generally find some grounds to punish you when you cause a controversy — even if you are not prosecuted for the underlying speech itself. Violations of probation conditions are quite common and rarely result in re-incarceration. Probation terms tend to be sweeping and most such violations result in warnings or brief appearances before the court.

None of this excuses Youssef’s actions, particularly in his acquiring of the driver’s license. Yet, the speedy arrest (and now conviction) leaves many civil libertarians uneasy as to whether the Administration found a way to “hoist the wretch” by other means than blasphemy.

Source: Google

95 thoughts on “Controversial Filmmaker Of “The Innocence of Muslims” Sentenced to One Year In Jail

  1. Like I said early on….. They’d get him for something if they could…..all in all its about saving face….

  2. AY,

    Sounds a lot less like saving face than kissing the diametrically opposed spot. As much as I loathed what this clown had to say and how he said it, this is a ridiculous sidelong affront to the 1st Amendment. I would say certain people are spinning in their graves, but I suspect Zombie Madison and Zombie Jefferson are shambling toward the White House at this very moment.

  3. I am all for what they did to him. This guy was so blatant about his violations of his parole, he effectively SPIT in the face of the Justice Dept, and he thinks he should get a free pass! THAT alone is outrageous. That any person would take up for him on civil liberties grounds is just as bad. That ranks up there with the Chinese complaining about long lines for voting in the US.

    Give us all a break from this crook and his shenanigans. He needs to be where he is. Maybe he will learn and change his ways since he had no respect for our laws and conditions of parole.

  4. Well randyjet, when the Office of the President gets involved in your charges for “foreign policy reasons” involving something you’ve said that was unpopular, I’m sure you won’t want any legal defense then.

  5. This guy ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time. It plays well abroad for the administration – no one understands it was a parole violation. And in the US there is little sympathy for the guy. It does chill free speech but more realistically just a reminder not to cross the administration even by accident and especially not during an election.

    And comments like this from his lawyer don’t help in the sympathy campaign:

    “The one thing he wanted me to tell all of you is President Obama may have gotten Osama bin Laden, but he didn’t kill the ideology,” Seiden said.

  6. If you want to have a beer party on the steps of the police station and get drunk and rowdy, it is hardly a defense to say that cops don’t arrest people in their homes and/or clubs when they do that. This guy was running a con and did it in the most public way which also caused problems for the USA. So the moral is if you are doing a violation of your parole, DON”T make it so public. I think that if this guy got up in court and told the jiudge to go F**K himself, that you would complain if the judge revoked his parole and sent him back to the slammer.That is NOT a violation of his free speech rights.

  7. And I think you are entirely missing the point, randyjet.

    This is unusually harsh and swift punishment and it smacks of special treatment on political grounds. That special treatment is the result of a free speech issue. This is contextually offensive to the 1st Amendment and ostensibly punishment for something other than just the parole violations.

    And what Blouise said.

  8. I will try to sum it up in one sentence:

    What may be legitimate charges and penalties procedurally, violate substantive due process if the motivation for those charges and penalties stem from unconstitutional purposes.

  9. WHAAAAAAA! he is a criminal. He broke the law. He then violated his parole and did it in an outlandish way sure to draw a lot of attention to himself. That he gets the hammer dropped on him should not be a surprise. The only reason anyone is crying for him is because he wants to pretend this is about his free speech. Its not, its about his flagrant disregard for his parole stipulations.

  10. Frankly,

    No one is suggesting he should not face repercussions for violating his parole. Gary’s sentence fairly sums up the problem with the issue. The penalties (and the swiftness of the proceedings) give this the appearance of political and judicial impropriety. I think the Prof is right on this one. The punishment is not fitting the crime but smells of politics detrimental to the Constitution. We’ve got enough of that going on already. Is this a tragedy? No. Not compared to the Kill List or not prosecuting the Bush Administration or the Patriot Act, but it still wrong to indirectly and disproportionately punish this guy for his admittedly stupid exercise of his 1st Amendment rights for political purposes.

  11. USA Today reported: “Youssef admitted in open court that he had used several false names in violation of his probation order and obtained a driver’s license under a FALSE NAME [emphasis mine]. He was on probation for a bank fraud case.” http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/07/muslim-film-youssef-court/1688721/

    Huff Post, meanwhile,reported that, “Youssef served most of his [prior conviction’s] 21-month prison sentence for using more than a dozen aliases and opening about 60 bank accounts to conduct a check fraud scheme, prosecutors said.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/mark-basseley-youssef-prison-sentence_n_2090279.html

    Does any reasonable person here really believe Youssef’s probation violation of committing repeat FRAUD, which Turley implied was “based on any information deemed inaccurate or false” does not warrant a return to the pokey???

    Give me a break.

  12. Couple of comments. I question why the US Atty would be so interested in a state charge of a driver’s license application issue. The other is why was this man prosecuted for using a different name when authoring a particular story/writing. Is he not able to use a pen name? Throw Mark Twain in jail for misrepresenting himself.

    I don’t see where any financial fraud happened in making the movie or using the internet. I would have thought it would have been a necessary elemement of the parole violation.

    I will slightly disagree with our professor in that probation violations rarely result in re-incarceration. Serious violations can result in a rapid return to a multi year prison term. But he is exactly correct in what the powers to be determine to be “serious” (whether or not it is is failry subjective sometimes.)

    One example i experienced (briefly) was I stopped a guy for a minor traffic violation and he gave me a false identity. (his brother) I determined he was lying and hooked him up for false statement. I searched his car incident to arrest to find any true ID he might have hidden for evidentiary purposes and to ascertain his identity. In doing so I found a bullet resistant vest (body armor) When I got his real name I discovered he was on probation and recently released from prison for armed robbery and 1st degree assault.

    Possession of body armor by violent felons is not illegal under the Revised Code of Washington but is a federal crime so I booked him under the false statement and the arrest warrant he had outstanding. I telephoned our local ATF agent who took the case (the defendant was looking at a five year prison sentence for the federal charge) But that happened just after Arizona v. Gant came out. so the US attorney’s office declined to prosecute. After that the Washington Department of Corrections took over and revoked his probation. I heard they sent him back to prison for, guess what? 5 years.

    Sorry for that long story on one topic. But understand that where there is a will there is a way when it comes to putting “undesirables” in prison. How loose the definition of undesirable is is where the controversy lies.

    Lastly, the parading of the defendant as JT describes. It certainly calls into question the real motive of the matter. Maybe this is why French law prohibits that sort of spectacle.

  13. The more relevant inquiry here is WHO was behind the film. Did numnuts have the money to fund this endeavor? Was Iran behind it? Was the US government somehow behind it?
    This numnut might have been a convenient pawn, a James Earl Ray, to be used to put the movie together.
    His original criminal offenses were for fraud involving fake names. Usinng fake names on parole should get him locked upl
    What truly is the role of the Obama Administration, at what level?

    JT: The election is over. Lay to rest the “Obama the uncivil libertarian dogma”. Oh, I dare not use that word in my dog pack.
    Romney cant put you on the DC Court of Appeals now so lay off Obama.
    I drink at the bar in the Willard and I know whats going on in your small town. I may be a guide dog but I got big ears and can growl into the dogaloge machine and say my piece. Or peace.

  14. My wife is a former Federal PO. She concurs w/ the professor that this appears excessive, w/ the caveat she would like to read the case. It probably isn’t on Pacer, but if it is I’ll provide an expert opinion from her. My wife isn’t a “douchebag/idiot/stupid/moron” like her husband so you can trust what she says. She can’t help she married a douche.

  15. Nick,

    from the Article…..

    Federal authorities have said they believe Youssef is responsible for the film, but they haven’t said whether he was the person who posted it online. He also wasn’t supposed to use any name other than his true legal name without the prior written approval of his probation officer.

    At least three names have been associated with Youssef since the film trailer surfaced — Sam Bacile, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula and Youssef. Bacile was the name attached to the YouTube account that posted the video.

    “This is a defendant who has engaged in a long pattern of deception,” Dugdale said. “His dishonesty goes back years.”

    Court documents show Youssef legally changed his name from Nakoula in 2002, though when he was tried, he identified himself as Nakoula. He wanted the name change because he believed Nakoula sounded like a girl’s name, according to court documents.

    As has been pointed out….Where would we be without Mark Twain….Oh yeah….he used that “N” word….maybe his stuff should be banned…after he is a white male….and most likely a Republican…..at the time…I suppose that wasn’t so bad…..

  16. “…Maybe he will learn and change his ways since he had no respect for our laws and conditions of parole.”
    randyjet (above, here)

    BUT WHO COULD BE MORE LAWLESS, MORE CORRUPT, MOST HYPOCRITICAL THAN THE BOLD FACE LIES OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUSTICES???
    THEY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THE VERY LAWS THEY USHER IN!

    Check out the Winkleman decision: Jeff & sandy Winkleman of parma, Ohio…Why this United States Supreme Court of LIES & HYPOCRISY, said that parents have the right to take up their children’s cause under (“Special Education”) as their own and go into any Court asserting their rights (since these children are minors, and Goss v Lopez has already established their 14th Amendment Liberty & property rights in their education…not to mention the fact that the IDEA (2004 Individual Disability Education Act) gives them extensive rights!
    When I did just that, they provided the cover for the attoney Jeanne M. Kincaid of Drummond& Woodsum (Portsmouth, NH) to keep me (now permanently unemployed), send me porn and death threats, as well as my son) and deny my human rights.
    Today, I continue to live in shelters, i lived in NH, RI, MD, Niagara Falls, and Buffalo NY, and now I am living in Chicago in a shelter. Kincaid wants you to believe that I still live in baltimore, and that I am insane. Just remember this:
    9While Campbell has not cited all of the relevant regulations in support of her claims, the facts alleged show possible violations of a number of regulations, including: 34 C.F.R. § 300.101 (a) (requiring a “free appropriate public education” for all children, including those with disabilities); 34 C.F.R. § 300.107 (requiring school districts to provide special education students with nonacademic services to support implementation of an IEP; 34 C.F.R. § 300.121 (mandating procedural safeguards to protect the rights of parents and children under the IDEA); 34 C.F.R. § 300.123 (requiring procedures to maintain confidentiality of any personally identifiable information); 34 C.F.R. § 300.300 (generally requiring informed parental consent for evaluations of children, conducted to determine eligibility for special education services); 34 C.F.R. § 300.301 (requiring initial evaluation to occur within sixty days of referral by parent or school); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.304-300.306 (providing procedures and requirements for conducting evaluations of children and determining eligibility for special education services); 34 C.F.R. §§300.320-300.324 (defining an IEP, setting out required contents of IEP, identifying rights and responsibilities of all parties, including school, special education providers and parents, in creation of IEP, and describing procedures for developing, reviewing, and revising IEPs); 34 C.F.R. § 300.502 (establishing rights of parents to obtain independent evaluations of child); 34 C.F.R. § 300.504 (establishing procedural safeguards for parents and children); and; 34 C.F.R. § 300.511-300.519 (establishing procedures for conducting a due process hearing upon the filing of a due process complaint and explaining procedure for resolving complaints through hearing and appeal).
    (Magistrate Judge Muirhead’s Report & Recommendation 2007cv00276, pg.18).
    This is why Kincaid places “anonymous” postings here on Turley’s;
    http://jonathanturley.org/2012/08/28/new-york-judge-censured-after-accidental-discharge-of-weapon-in-chambers/
    pretending that I am delusional! When you’ve sent porn and death threats to a 10 yr old boy for a number of years, when you’ve denied him enrollment in school for 2 years; when you denied his father the right to be involved in his life FOR NO REASON AS THAN CORRUPTIONS (AS JUDGES AND JUSTICE BREYER [PROVIDES THE COVER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES) WHAT CAN YOU SAY?
    Is this not what we are told the former soviet union did/does to its citizens? ABUSE THEM AND THEN PRETEND THEY ARE CRAZY?
    AND WHAT ELSE IS THIS DEGENERATE WHORE TO DO? (Her name: >Jeanne M. Kincaid)?

  17. I think there is a rush to judgement here. Did the administration use this for reasons other then the legit reason for arresting and sentencing him? Honestly I don’t think anyone can know since he did violate, egregiously and publicly, his probation. There is something to be said fro a visible arrest and penalty as a warning for others who decide that probation is a farce and they need not obey the restrictions placed on them.

  18. You’re long gone when I arrive, but anyway…..

    I’m glad that CrateDog brought it up.
    There are at least two persons who realize that he was used. He was also picked for hie prior record, susceptibility to falling easily and fast so as to:
    !) make a quick bow to the islamic anti-blasphemists
    2) avoid detail attention by the press.

    3) and give a subtle but clear message to civil rights activists.

    This was clearly pointed out on a film on YouTube.
    Linked from here. This YouTube, film revealing the improbability, also made clear that he oould NOT produce a film with overdubbing etc. So how did this impossibility occur. Guess. Three letter and they are not ABC.

    And that the Justice Department was so quickly there is convincing as to the central control of it all.

    The ways of the devious are more devious than you can imagine.

  19. I don’t get it. “When the Administration arrested Youssef, it seemed to go out of its way to be sure that there were ample opportunities for filming him being dragged way in cuffs — ”

    How does the Administration arrest someone? Who did arrest him? What authority had him under probation? Was he arrested by the same authority that supervised his probation? These may be little details but I think they have to add up.

    Nick S, you say your wife couldn’t help marrying [fill in blank] — you forced her? Say it ain’t so, Nick!

  20. Malisha, It was an arranged marriage. Neither of us had any say. I won in the deal. She was stuck w/ a [fill in the blank].

    Actually, we’ve been married since 1977 and we love each other dearly. I just hope I don’t get a “Hitler loved his dog” comment on this one.

  21. Malisha, In a Federal Probation violation usually a Federal Marshall take the person into custody. The probation officer notifies the Federal Judge/magistrate of the violation and the offendor is ordered to be detained. It is also not unusual for the probation officer to take violators into custody. In many offices probation officers are issued weapons, handcuffs and flak jackets. My wife decided to only have a flak jacket issued to her. She didn’t do supervision much. She mostly wrote presentence investigations which give the judge a complete history of the offendor and a reccomendation for sentence. She liked doing those and was very good @ it. They’re a lot of work so in a bureaucracy she was a hero of the office. Supervision is a cake walk in comparison, but presentence investigations are interesting and challenging. My wife is stupid smart and needs challenges.

  22. nick, you seem to be suffering a bit from the challenges here. buck up. you’re still welcome. keep the comments coming. even if i don’t always agree, i enjoy reading. i even agree sometimes : )

  23. bettykath, I just like to express my emotions. It’s something many men aren’t good at doing. My wife has helped me in this regard. Too many men are emotional cripples, so I’m a work in progress. Thanks for the good natured ball bust, I appreciate it. The truth is however, whether I’m welcome or not is almost irrelevant for this blue collar, willful, b@stard. I’ve seen people w/ independent or contrary views driven off by supposed intellects and progressives. My ethnic, blue collar work ethic makes that unacceptable.

    I got my flu shot this week, bettykath. I haven’t died yet. Good natured ball bust!

  24. Nick S, so the “Administration” that arrested him was just the Administration of whatever federal court had convicted him? OK, I get that. I thought the “Administration” meant Obama! That would be super-weird. Like Obama sending out his guys to arrest a guy, like in the movies. (And I don’t even watch the movies.) I pretty much don’t study these cases in depth (there was one exception of course) so I just read quickly and then think I know what went down. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing (other times, too much knowledge is much more dangerous).

    Spinelli Deli Bo-Belli
    Banana Fana Fo-Felli
    Mee Mai Mo-Melli,
    Spinelli!

    By the way, that film-maker gave me a brilliant idea and within the next couple of months I’m going to put it into action. I’m making a series of short idiotic films with names like, “The Innocence of [fill in blank].” It’s gonna start with “The Innocence of George Zimmerman” and then progress to my personal enemies. Right now I have an ambitious list: a partner in a big DC law firm; a law professor in San Diego; a mediator in Virginia; a retired Chair of the Parole Commission in an Eastern Seacoast State (I don’t want anybody to tip her off before it hits YouTube so I won’t name the state), and a half dozen other public figures. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! I’m going to make those movies WORSE than “The innocence of Muslims!” They’re gonna make “The Innocence of Muslims” look like the Academy winner for 2012! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

  25. nick,

    I’m going to ask you a question. It’s not a trick question. I’m trying to help you understand.

    Do you have any idea why you get the stick some times? From both me and people like Elaine and Mike (although admittedly I use a really pointed stick)? The key lies in your behavior, nick. That’s not an insult. It’s simply a fact and supported by a pattern easily discernible in your behavior. You think you have people skills but in reality you have a habit that pisses other people off or, as in my case, simply causes them to thrash you on principle.

    I’ll be glad to explain it to you in clear terms and using examples from your own interchanges with others to illustrate the point I am trying to make. I make this offer because you seem wounded.

    Consider our first exchange where I disagreed with you and what your subsequent responses were.
    —————————-
    nick spinelli 1, August 10, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    This is a superb legal website. I’m amazed @ how intelligent folks, interested or employed in the justice system, can jump to such conclusions. What is provided to us is THE COMPLAINT, THE PLAINTIFF’S VERSION OF WHAT OCCURED. Now, I agree w/ Mr. Turley that if just some of this is true, the key being the alleged strip search, then this is bad and Citrus County had better set aside a big reserve for damages.

    A cursory check by myself, who has worked civil litigation cases as a PI for decades, shows the plainiff is not mother of the year. I will leave it @ that. The Citrus County Court records are available online for free. You can do your own research.

    Having worked both criminal and civil cases I could tell stories that would make you hair stand up about police abuses. Conversely, I could tell you stories about civil complaints that were pure fiction. This looks bad. Things are however not always what they first appear.
    —————————-
    Gene H. 1, August 10, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    nick,

    Mother of the year or not isn’t the issue here.
    ——————————
    nick spinelli 1, August 10, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    Gene H, Your reaction is emotional. I concede the point that the ALLEGED ABUSE OF AUTHORITY IS UNNACCEPTABLE. My God, I’m just saying we don’t have any facts..JUST HER COMPLAINT. Did you read everything I said??
    ______________________

    Gene H. 1, August 10, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    nick,

    No. My reaction is rational and focused on the salient issue (which is not the victim’s fitness as a parent). Your shouting response and reflexive defense of authority figures is irrational. And there is nothing alleged about a road side strip search being an abuse of authority unless you’re an idiot. It’s an abuse of authority.

    But please feel free to shout some more. It makes your objections seem that much more credible. And by credible I mean ridiculous.
    ———————————-

    nick spinelli 1, August 10, 2012 at 1:40 pm

    Gene H, Unless some extreme circumstances exist, I agree w/ you a roadside strip search is an abuse of authority. And, if you would read what I said about my knowing quite well about police abuse, you would understand I don’t have an agenda; except patience and waiting for the facts to evolve. You’re picking a winner after the opening kickoff just occurred. You must be psychic and know that’s what occurred. Or maybe you just hate cops? Do you have any experience in the law?
    —————————————
    My statement was simple and to the point. It was a statement about the relevance of your “evidence” which is both a fair legal and logical criticism of your argument. It was even handed and there was no jab at you in it whatsoever.

    Yours, in contrast, was highly emotional and based upon a statement that in itself was an appeal to emotion – not the mother of the year – that had nothing to do with her being strip searched. No evidence or counter logic from you, just straw men, insults and bluster. However, your response was not only emotional, it was shouting to the point of raving and you went out of your way to “bust some balls”. Too bad for you some people are simply a lot better at that game than you are. Then you go on to conflate something I never said – namely that you had an agenda – when what I said was your “evidence” was irrelevant before you just went on to be an insulting douche bag.

    This is a pattern I see over and over again whenever anyone challenges what you say not being gospel, nick. You don’t just do it to me. You do it to everyone (with the possible exception of id707, but I’m not going to address that dynamic).

    This behavior of yours is precisely why you keep getting kicked in the balls for your efforts.

    And you wonder why people react poorly to you?

    You is why people react poorly to you. You talk a lot of shit you can’t back up when challenged without resorting to histrionics. You say you are an emotional cripple? Well this is a perfect example of you acting exactly like an emotional cripple and you can’t apparently see it. Everyone else can though.

    If you can’t make a cogent counterargument? Don’t resort to bluster and ball busting. Just say you disagree and move on. If you don’t understand an argument? Ask questions. No one here is unwilling to clarify their positions. If people challenge what you say? Learn to present a counterargument that is both logically sound and built on relevant evidence.

    Many people don’t react well to aggression that comes out of the clear blue like yours does, nick. They often respond to aggression with aggression. In the above exchange, I was calm and even tempered and I remained so until it became apparent you were just going to persist in acting like an aggressive intimidated putz. And it has been that way ever since.

    In a fit of classic projection, you keep claiming I’m angry when it you who are angry. I don’t get angry arguing. I spent years learning how to and practicing just that very skill. Trying to anger me (which is what you are doing with your bluster and ad hominem and insults) is truly an exercise in futility. Ask your buddy Bron if you doubt this. He only recently gave up that habit himself after realizing it just wasn’t going to happen.

    But if you can’t take it when others respond to your aggression with aggression? To your ad hominem and insult with the same? Don’t dish it out. Because puffing out your chest instead of offering a rational reasoned evidence based counterargument is going to get you pushed down to the ground every time. There are people here trained in the rhetorical equivalent of judo. The harder you attack? The worse the results for you. The pattern above repeats over and over. Both Elaine and I were perfectly nice to you several times this week until you gave us reason not to be nice by your freaking out whenever someone has the nerve not to take what you say as gospel or not allow you to put words in their mouth. I just play a lot rougher than she does.

    The bottom line is this: no one cares about your opinion here, nick. You are free to express them however you like as is your right just like anyone else. No one is going to ban you for having unpopular opinions. While you are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to have them go unchallenged, you are not entitled to have your logic go unchallenged and you most certainly are not entitled to you own facts. Logic and evidence are king and challenging the ideas of others is the cornerstone of the marketplace of ideas that results from free speech.

    However, you are going to continue to have problems getting along with people (and not just me) as long as you act like you did in the above conversation (and pretty much almost every subsequent exchange we’ve had since then).

    The above was offered as friendly advice.

    Learn the lesson or don’t.

  26. nick, what’s the point of your ball bust comment?

    My comment wasn’t intended as a snark of any kind. You’ve been the recipient of some serious criticism from others and I thought you’d appreciate seeing something that wasn’t criticism. You see it as a ball buster. And then you send one back at me. If that’s your idea of humor, I don’t get it.

    Ball busting is something I’ve done on a couple of occasions. The last time was a few years ago in a GED test in a jail with a rather rambunctious group of 16-20 year old males. I was so accused (under his breath) and I admitted that “I can and will so settle down or you’re out of here.” His balls got busted more with a look than the words. From that point on a very well behaved group.

    That isn’t needed here.

  27. Malisha

    just find some foreign films that have roughly the scenes you want and overdub with english.

    just don’t put your name in the credits. use the names of people you don’t like.

  28. Seems like the issue here is did the Obama Administration somehow cause the probation revocation proceedings and did the guy get treated worse than he otherwise would have because of what he said. The professor suggests that probation violations such as occurred here would usually result in a slap on the wrist or go unpunished even if noticed. For a different perspective I suggest people read Popehat’s latest. http://www.popehat.com/2012/11/08/nakoula-basselley-nakoula-sentenced-for-supervised-release-violations/ Between a law professor in Virginia and a former prosecutor/criminal defense attorney in California, I’ll go with the guy with actual experience every time.

  29. NickS,

    Written directly after reading your comment on HItler, etc.

    1) Consider the source of Hitler loved his dog…..
    2) Such seling of logical proofs seldom are NOT worth the
    turd that they are written with.

    This is simple minded speech suppression. Same as when the gov practices it.

  30. Wow, I’m being lectured to about people skills by a person w/ none. And. I’m told I “piss people off” by the person who compared me to Hitler when I spoke of my deceased sister and who does this to many..driving them off and then gloating. Here’s something we have in common Gene, we both piss people off sometimes. However, I have the ability to assess what I said and when appropriate apologize. You’re oversized ego precludes that as an option. As I said previously, I was raised in a ballbusting culture and it serves me well. That was reinforced by my being a baseball player and coach. You can’t make it in baseball unless you can give it and take it, which I can. You sir, can give it but are incapable of taking it. My lament earlier was just how I felt. As stated, I understand and express my emotions. That’s a strength, not a weakness. I speak often about love, I’ve not seen you do so. However, I understand clearly that having emotions is foreign to Spock, the emotionless logical man from another planet. And, as stated previously, if a ballbust is taken wrong I will apolgize. In that regard, bettykath, we obviously didn’t connect on that. So, I apologize..NO harm was intended. I swear to that.

    Gene, when the grammar school teacher gave the “go along to get along” lesson I threw up and was excused. They kept trying to give me that lecture and the same thing would occur. I think it’s part of my permanent record. Then I read Thoreau in high school and it all made sense. This is, of course a parable, except for the Thoreau part. Gene, I respect you intellect which is immensely important to you. Other than that, I see you as an angry, emotional cripple. I know you feel pain when it is about you, I harken back to your poignant meth post a couple months back. But the emotion that comes to the surface quickly and viciously is anger. And, as I’ve stated many times, I’ve lived a very diverse and interesting life. That’s my threat to your fiefdom here. The irony being I have NO desire to be the alpha male here, or anywhere. I’m an introvert who doesn’t like the limelight. I just find this an interesting blog and like to contribute my experiences to offer perspectives many here don’t have. The fact that this is a threat to some people says everything about them and nothing about me. Gene, your first paragraph is telling. You ask me a question to help ME understand. I guess when you are all knowing you never ask a question to help YOU understand. Hopefully, you’ll say your piece, dissecting what I said and “beating me” which you like to often declare unilaterally, and we can move on to more substantive issues. I don’t like you and you don’t like me, when you break down all these words that’s what it’s all about. With rare instances, I’m civil. And when I’m not, I apologize. I’ve not seen you apologize for ANYTHING yet.

  31. Oooo.

    Straight to the ad hominem instead of responding with reason and evidence.

    As demonstrated again here (http://jonathanturley.org/2012/11/06/russians-pass-ban-on-anti-gay-propaganda-while-banning-gay-pride-parades-in-capitol-for-100-years/#comment-444880), your upset over your sister is entirely manufactured. As in “made up”. Fake. Faux. Now to be clear, your emotional state may be real but your reasons for having it are fictional. This is not the reaction of a well-balanced mind.

    Like I said, learn the lesson or don’t. Apparently you chose don’t. Or your emotional problems rather seem to have chosen “don’t” for you.

    But you aren’t at threat to anything at all, nick, let alone me. In any way shape or form. But if that helps you rationalize your bad behavior and inability to understand that you argue like an overemotional child instead of a reasoned adult? You knock yourself out, sport.

    The next time you respond to challenge of your statements with the same irrational pattern of behavior you’ve exhibited up to now (and continue to exhibit in the preceding post)? You’re going to get the pointy stick again. Cause and effect.

    Carry on.

  32. Having read Betty Kath’s inquiry I feel her’s was a question worth comtemplating, and answering.

    Having read GeneH’s extensive take, I would like to add a comment.

    What immediately stuck in my craw is GeneH’s contention that he speaks for all here. Prove it.
    And don’t come with the crappy reply that everybody does except me. An exceptional contention needs exceptional proof, I have learned here.

    I have had no problem with Nick Spinelli as he was recognizable as a faulty human searching humbly (initially) but clumsily. He asked me, don’t know why, and I gave him advice. Cautioning against speaking too loudly and taking up too much space—two things which have been a disservice to me.

    Now the problem with many, many of the folks here is that they are not tolerant of folks who deviate from their norms: they expect us to respect their feebly but gentily forwarded arguments, but don’t accept those forwarded more in summary form (a la Nick), or with emphasis. Having had the displeasure of being not addressed with the usual etiquette or courtesy expected, this offending person automatically is suspect and subject to nit-picking examination whenever he opens his mouth.

    It is odd, and I want Nick to notice this, the swings of popularity here at this blog. Just days ago, Nick was popular with serveral who have not said anything in this discussion (the case of NickS). Two outstanding names were quite happy with him and sought his company: Blouise and Swarthmore Mom, to name a couple. Other’s are free to raise their hands too. There were several. I even mentioned it with envy in private communications.

    So, don’t know what has given NickS the blues, but it is a blues that I am well acquainted with.
    You, NickS, have an outgoing, warm, opinionated and giving personality. And you have been a good influence here on many occasions and threads, as witnessed in the comments which then result.

    You have contributed, along with others, to a general loosening up and beginning to talk on personal grounds which is going on here. Not only buddies should have that privilege, and they speak in code only and hardly exert good influence, on the contrary. That is their privilege, but I support the other way.

    Willingness to show emotions and problems are traits we share. And I salute you for that. I don’t believe that men have to be handicapped, it cripples both directions of communication.

    And I hope MikeS does not mind if I cite him as my chief inspirer here on that matter. Who of us has not had their lives enriched by his tales.

    As for GeneH. all know what he is and can do, both positively and otherwise.

    I myself see no reason to meet him on his terrain of logic and the formalities of argument. In fact, I am satisfied to have a truce with him, if it is that, as I believe that he is less inclined to bully when he is not challenged so often.

    Right now, he is just glowing in that he sees a weakening in his currently worst enemy and has pounced for just that reason. Carpe diem.

    So lick wounds and rest easy, Nick. Do not engage GeneH with a reply. He is charged up for battle and wouldn’t accept an apology at all, being as he is.

    Go charge your battery. We await with pleasure your return in your usual form. Your experiences are unique, but so are those of some others here, and sharing is most encouraged by a quiter demeanor—would that I could do so all the time. ;-)

  33. SWM, This is a classic misunderstanding for which I have just taken total responsibility. I understaand profoundly 80-90% of all communication is nonverbal. That’s why I hated having to interview people over the phone. However, even the phone was better than a venue like this. I can’t even hear the voice, only read the words.

    ID, Thanks for you very thoughtful and heartfelt words. You, like myself, have a good heart. And, I think you know you don’t need to worry about my wounds. I’ve been shot @ twice. This is a walk in the f@ckn’ park.

  34. 1) Straw man. I never claimed to speak for all here. I speak for myself although several have expressed out of camera thoughts compatible with mine on this issue – some even stronger.

    2) Your inability to harness logic and formal argumentation are your problems, id707. And at the core of why I mostly choose to ignore you which is different from a truce. Unless you say something egregiously factually incorrect, I just ignore you because your illogic is usually self-evident.

    3) I’m not glowing. I take no particular satisfaction in nick’s inability to operate rationally. I offered nick advice that was meant as offered: friendly. I even gave examples to go along with my logic. Despite what you think, nick is not my enemy. He may be in opposition, but he is not my enemy. You aren’t my enemy for that matter. I can count my true enemies on less than one hand – more if I count those in the political realm who are my enemies by nature of their very existence and bad actions toward society but that is a different issue.

    Although not my enemies, I do think you’re both emotionally unstable (and in your case, id, not to mince words – outright nuts). In that light, I weigh what you say accordingly. That does not make me an enemy unless you categorized someone who sees you both as you are based on the evidence of your behaviors instead of your proclamations of what you are as an enemy. nick’s issues could be mitigated if he only took responsibility for his actions as illustrated by the evidence of his own words. But he’s clearly more interested in painting himself as victim instead of learning why his arguments fail and why his methods garner such mixed results (trending to negative).

    That being said, if either of you take issue with having your statements challenged and dissected using logic, reason and evidence?

    That’s your problem.

    Challenging the statements of others is critical to the marketplace of ideas that free speech creates. That I often challenge what you both say on logical and factual grounds and you are both unable to respond any way but emotionally is your failing, not mine. But the challenges will continue. ” If any man is able to convince me and show me that I do not think or act right, I will gladly change; for I seek the truth by which no man was ever injured. ” The truth, however, is a matter for logic and evidence. “But he is injured who abides in his error and ignorance. I do my duty: other things trouble me not; for they are either things without life, or things without reason, or things that have rambled and know not the way.” And there is no greater civic duty than not letting manifest untruths stand unchallenged. You think I’m wrong? Convince me I am. Others have changed my mind here in the past. If you are unable to defeat my arguments, that failure falls to you. That I am, as Bron says, “maddeningly good at argumentation” should not present a trip stone, but a goal. A challenge. I don’t fear your challenges. And in that statement I mean you as in all of you – anyone. I welcome them. All it takes for you to change my mind is for you to convince me and show me that I do not think or act right. You will never do this based upon “what you feel”. Evidence and logic are king.

    If you don’t like having your statements challenged? If you just want people to agree with you because you said it? Then a free speech forum is maybe not the forum you are looking for. I don’t say this to “run you off”. I say it because it’s a fact. There will always be someone like me there utilizing the various razors of logic to weed through poor logic, lacks of evidence and arguments from emotion (which is inherently irrational).

    Carry on.

  35. GeneH,

    I won’t bother repeating my portrait of you and your ways here. Repeating is so ho-hum.
    But your proofs are just as hollow as your head. And sound as bad as nny false tuned drum.

    Your diagnostic assertion that I am clinically insane fall of the lack of proof, a serious demerit in your logical world. Your assertions that your take on whatever is better than mine, based on your logic and argumentation, is also defective. Reality is far more complex than the silly logic discovered and perfected over the years. A road map is also, but it says nothing more about the true nature of the surrounings than your logic does. Ergo sum, does not say very much, to quickly grab an example.

    You have your value in pointing out approaching storms, about as much as a barometer—-but you never offer advice as to what way to run, except generalities, like keep low.

    Is such matters, I find MikeS, TonyC and SonofThunder more valuable. And it is my privilege to praise them.

    Your insistence on your disregard of me is ridiculous.
    Who cares? Not I a fig. And I never even mention you except in positive terms as why beat up on an emotional cripple who needs to be álpha hound.
    We others are happy to be humans.

  36. NickS.

    Best regards. Don’t you just love people who wish you well with the back of the left hand while trying to stab you with the right one.

    Forgot that you are far more experienced and competent in the real world than I. My reasoning was simple, that if I am sagging then that’s when encouragement helps. No obligations entailed.

  37. GeneH is so sweet.

    He offers NickS the chance to go to the bottom of the pack and work his way up, in GeneH’s image and estimation.

    The man is out of touch with his own absurdity. Is he serious? Or possibly insane.
    He thinks that he is serious, but most schizophrenics do also.

  38. Jeez, RHETORICAL QUESTION: What is wrong with you guys? Srsly.

    My take on form- not agreement or disagreement, just form and just for the hell of it:

    Nick, you have made a number of pointed and generally insulting statements on this blag that were so unpleasant that I just put them out of my mind so don’t ask for cites- got none and ain’t searching. For some time I didn’t even read your postings because of them. You seem to be more reasonable, more thoughtful and less insulting lately.

    Gene, you are way too quick with personally insulting name calling, way, it doesn’t look good on you and is entirely unnecessary. This from the gal that coined “vagina-boy” as a pet name for one of the posters here. Yea, we know our own. You weaken your arguments with obvious anger. It stops being effective, when real anger and outrage is appropriate it is not unusual enough to be effective.

    ID707, You are quick to use the same tactics as Gene but usually as a carom shot, see the above posts of yours. You are becoming a ‘lets you and him fight’ kind of poster. It adds nothing. It’s passive-aggressive. You asked about that once in response to that statement about your postings, yea, it was a valid statement.

    You guys just suck the oxygen out of a thread, srsly, measure ’em and post the length/diameter. It’s easier and won’t impair any threads. That may well not be what’s going on but it’s starting to feel like the same class of dispute. My scroll-finger is becoming cramped on too many threads once you guys start. Gimme’ a break. Scheech.

  39. LK,

    Apparently you mistake harsh words for anger. Am I harsh? Yep. Not always, but fairly often. Do I like winding up opponents? Sure do. Because angry people make mistakes. Personally, I find that entertaining. Some people may not, but I sure do. See: cats, feeding habits. Can I be insulting? You bet. Have you noticed that I save it for those who are insulting themselves? I realize it is an unconventional application of the Golden Rule, but still it is reciprocity. I also do know the difference between insult and ad hominem. Do I adopt the appearance of anger? Why yes I do from time to time. But the appearance of something and the reality are quite different. I’m very good at pushing others buttons. It is part of the skill of argumentation. Admittedly, I am not for the faint of heart, but I am honest about it. Would you rather deal with someone who is honest about not liking you or someone who puts on a smile and pretty words until they stab you in the back? The person who says “yes” when they mean “no”? Which is the greater disservice: the possibly ugly truth or the gloriously beautiful lie? I’ll go with honesty every time. Just as you have with your post above. Which was direct, clear, relatively unemotional and yet expressive of your concerns. I appreciate that.

    But really, if you think I’m actually angry, then you really don’t know me as well as you might think you do. I realize the Internet has certain limitations on reading others (lack of body language, tone of voice, etc.), but I am a bit disappointed you (of all people) have misread me thus. You are one of the better people readers here and I really thought you knew me better than that. Next time you think I’m speaking in actual anger, please ask if I am. I have always answered you honestly. I’ll do so then as well. You’ll be surprised though. I’ve only actually gotten angry in online discussion with others three times. Ever. In twenty plus years. The appearance of anger, however, does have utility in argumentation. If my using the appearance of anger has misled you, I do apologize. It was not intentional. When I speak in actual anger, you’ll note that I usually preface it with something like “Now this really makes me angry.”

    However, if you expect me to suffer fools gladly, you are simply going to be disappointed. Like the scorpion, it is simply not within my nature. My disagreement with nick is not based on the fact that I don’t like him. I don’t, but that’s immaterial even though I am honest about it. It’s based on the fact that he argues poorly and from emotion with a shockingly casual disregard for logic and facts and he acts poorly when his statements are challenged. If you think you can disprove any of the valid criticisms I’ve made of his past statements, please feel free to do so. He certainly hasn’t. And as I said, logic and evidence are king.

    Other parties? Are another story. As I said, I generally ignore him unless he says something egregiously factually false. Others (many actually) adopt the same tactic. The reasons for this should be quite clear by now.

    If any of this troubles you, I apologize for any inconvenience. I am pretty sure you are in contact with people here out of camera who do know how to get in touch with me directly. If you wish to discuss this (or anything else) privately, my door is always open to you and they have my permission to give you my email address.

    Free speech is a messy business.

    Again, all apologies for any discomfort this has caused you.

    Ditto leejcaroll.

  40. “vagina-boy” (lotta)

    One of my all time favorites which morphed into v-boy, v-word-boy, and VB … we can be an amazingly lazy bunch.

    ———————————————————————————

    Gene knows how to handle constructive criticism though, to tell you the truth, I think the anger tactic is completely feigned for effect.

  41. “Is that a utility belt or are you just glad to see me?” – The Arch-enemy Maximum Gluteus Taint

    S3/E4 of “A$$man” starring Sir Laurence Olivier as A$$man and Sal Mineo as his sidekick VB, Warner Bros. Television, 1968.

  42. Gene, I’m not in touch with anyone on this blawg outside of this blawgspace, I don’t participate in social media. Thanks though for the invitation, I would enjoy the scrabble games with you guys.

    No apology to me is necessary. I like you (and many others here) as much as one can like or know or respect virtual persons. We have had, over the years, many lovely and weird conversations. I enjoy my time spent here and our conversations, always have.

    “You are one of the better people readers here and I really thought you knew me better than that.”

    Here’s the nut of it: anger may have been the wrong word, A restructured sentence using the word “overbearing” may have been appropriate. In either case some of your debates become painful to watch due to the form I noted. If it were a schoolyard or a job-site I would be compelled (as I have been in 3space) to say, “knock it off- don’t be a bully” instead of just scrolling past and/or shaking my head. The form of the argument, or it’s tone if that is more descriptive, becomes abusive. I simply expect better of you. Also, as a guest blogger, part of the public face of this blawg, literally a representative of the Professors public face, well, you get the drift….. Right, I know I have no right to expect anything from you or from anyone on this blawg. I realize that expectations are presumptuous, as in “failing to observe the limits of what is permitted or appropriate”.

    But still, I visit this blawg daily and you guys are getting on my last nerve :-)

  43. LK,

    So in essence, it’s not the stick, it’s the size and the shape of the stick that bothers you? Duly noted. I shall endeavor to add more equity to my ethic of reciprocity. In truth, pummeling nick did leave me with the feeling I had kicked the puppy when my intent was to shove him with my foot given his wounded responses earlier. That is what evoked my consequential friendly suggestion/constructive criticism (which he again handled poorly but that is beside the point). I will not, however, abandon the ethic of reciprocity. Treating others as they treat me is fundamentally fair. You’d do better asking me to change my eye color. That’s only genetic. :D

    ************

    nick,

    Did my ball busting go too far with you earlier? I apologize. However, I do suggest you keep this exchange in mind going forward.

    If you offer no evidence or counter logic, just straw men, insults and bluster (or ball busting to use your term) in response to a challenge to your statements, you will get the same in return. Also, it is never a good good idea to try to put words in others mouths, but especially lawyers.

    If you offer evidence and/or logic that a challenge is wrong, you’ll get reasoned argument in response. No one is going to call you a douche bag if you say, “Yeah, but this evidence here shows why what I said was right and this is why . . .”

    That is the nature of reciprocity. You get what you give. That is the essence of what I was telling you. You give people a lot of crap, but you really have a problem taking it. Don’t start none, won’t be none. Reciprocity is a substantive component of equity. You claim to be for justice, then you should have no problem understanding the importance of equity.

    I will, however, never apologize for your outrage over a slight to your sister than never happened except in your mind. It is based in argument by non-sequitur. You’ll just have to live with that.

    Concurrently I neither expect nor desire an apology for your previous and documented generally boorish behavior to me and others when your statements are challenged on factual and logical grounds. I’ll settle for you making an effort to remedy that bad behavior though as you say you are a work in progress. I’m not asking you to like me, but this is the only way you will ever reach a state of detente. Challenging what you say on a factual or logical basis is not an attack on you. You’ll get a lot further with others once you quit responding as if it was. Do you understand this position as stated? If not, just ask for a clarification. No straw men, insults or bluster required.

    If you think this advice unreasonable, I suggest you ask your buddy Bron about the futility of attacking the person instead of the argument around here. He used to do a lot of that too. Until he realized the futility of it and the value of addressing challenges to arguments based on evidence and logic.

    A situation that does not work out is only a failure if you don’t learn from it.

    Learning is the hardest thing humans ever do next to losing loved ones.

    I think you can do it.

    If I didn’t, I wouldn’t have bothered with my previous advice or with this advice.

    Progress or not. The choice is yours.

  44. Oh Pete/Gene, OMG, You did not do that. Man, there is a porno movie to be built around those characters, LOL. Out of that loop as I am, there probably already is one.
    ***

    Blouise, I have attempted to become a more congenial poster after that, or at least tone down the viciousness of my replies. Between realizing Tootie was actually mentally ill while in the middle of typing an unkind posting to her (I refrained until she just made me nuts with a depraved comment of hers) and “vagina-boy” (which felt was appropriate and good at the time) I just said ‘I’ve gotta’ be less reactionary, I can do better than that.’ I suspect that I’m much less of an entertaining poster because I don’t respond to things with as much passion or fiery rhetoric. Maybe I’m not trying to change my style, maybe it’s a symptom of something or those dammed microbes- maybe I just need to start taking vitamins! :-)

    (Disclaimer: No offense meant to Dredd, I like Dredd and wish I could comment on his site. I have every respect for our microbial overlords and some theories of my own about them. Srsly.)

    LOL, I didn’t want to become this guy which is very easy to do if it’s just you, a stupid posting you just have to respond to and your keyboard in the middle of the night:

    I’m not being like a reformed drinker with Gene though, complaining to him about something I am trying to refrain from- as I recall we went down this path once before. But that may have been someone else.

  45. LK,

    I didn’t take that like the reformed drinker thing at all. I sometimes bite harder than I mean to. Argumentation, like any martial art, comes with the hazard that occasionally the uke gets hit. That doesn’t mean I’m going to stop though. I think the above again illustrates that when I do, I mitigate and remediate when I think it appropriate. :mrgreen:

  46. Gene: “So in essence, it’s not the stick, it’s the size and the shape of the stick that bothers you?”
    *
    And I have always found that finesse can overcome such concerns.
    :-)

  47. LottaKatz,

    Are you a girl, I never knew, and find it immaterial,but old fashioned gender oriented thinking has to be fed,
    And what is a vagina-boy? And who also?
    If it was meant for me then I would hope for why you think it applies to me.

    Thank for the comment to GeneH, NickS and I. It was needed. As for my conflictw with GeneH, I have said the same as you to him several times. He loses respect when he rages. But it is also a fact now that I see the defects in his bases for arguing and
    techiques used, and thus now delight in showing him that
    I can rebut him on my grounds. And can rebut his insults (insanity for ex) and can give it back with the loose change in reply.

    Does the “let’s you and fight” apply other than my tendency to break into ongoing fights? Yhis a loog established habit and controlling is tough. Have got to learn to eimply observe that they are fighting and go on until the fight is over and then possibly conribute with my views. Replace bad habits with good ones, as they say.

    What’s a carom shot, never played it?

    And this left me confused:

    “You asked about that once in response to that statement about your postings, yea, it was a valid statement.”

    So, if you can help me understand better what you said about me it would be appreciated.

    Short sentences are fine.

  48. LK,

    Gene seems to feel that he will cling to his self-assumed pose as policeman here. He says that he simulates rage/anger. And the policeman says he simulates unnedcessary violence.

    Both contribute negatively to the general ambiance of our society, on the street and here.

    The best thing that could happen here at JYs would be if Gene would only oomment facts and leave other people alone. People do not come here to be attacked for their argument techniques by someone who is alway lurking to watch and who has dedicated their life to proving his worth as a debater and ego deflater.

    That is a very sick purpose. And I don’t need OS to confirm that.

    His game of inviting lotta katz into joining into the gangs private world was a very obvious bribe and recruitment effort on his side.

    They have learned the necessity from him of being bullies.
    They have learned his techniques, to a degree. and thus are puerile copies.
    Each of them must pay homage and the tax of agreening with him often, or their position as a member will be at risk.
    It is indeed pitiful when talent of high class can be so misused due to one man’s obvious illness.

    I wonder if we could trade him for two more TonyCs and two more SonofThunders?

    And to dissenters and free thinkers, whatever your favo rant, welcome to this blog. I won’t bow to him or tolerate GeneH’s machinations.

  49. Idealist, Vagina boy is not you. He was a guy named anon. He and another guy criticized me because I kept emphasizing how important women’s issues would prove to be in the election. They were wrong, and I am very happy about the outcome of the election.

  50. Nor was it I…. But being myopic is not a gender issue…..then again…. I probably should not have defended your right to be abusive when folks disagreed with you….

  51. Then don’t rehash old issues…. Understood…. I could and would say more…don’t start none and none will be started….

  52. interestng sequence to follow.
    No comments, other than I do know who thought that I was a sock puppet. That he/she supported me I doubt. So why regret the support now. I have noted your anti-ID activism of late. So pretending a recent decsion is, as someone taught call it, disengenious to say the least.
    I also am tired of conflicts. Reality has enough, we don’t need to make our on.

    Peace on all, even GeneH. Pronounce the word carefully.

  53. Being on probation is really an opportunity to show that you can successfully reintegrate and become a productive member of society. Youssef has clearly demonstrated that he is struggling with this process; thus, regardless of the optics of the situation, his probation revocation was appropriate.

    In 2002 he violated his first round of probation and was sentenced to an additional year in jail. His sentencing this year was in line with that prior incident and thus it can’t be argued that its length or severity were in any manner retaliatory because his film generated controversy. Additionally, I think that, perhaps, the two year sentence advocated by the prosecutor would have been more appropriate given that Youssef is a repeat offender and has proven he struggles to comply with the terms of probation.

    Thus, looking at the details I think it’s a hard sell that there was anything overtly authoritarian about the government’s actions. Youssef’s long history of civil and criminal legal problems have shown that he clearly has a distain for civil society and the law and his incarceration for further violations is appropriate. While I do have concerns about broader problems of retaliatory prosecution and civil liberties, it’s a stretch to contend that this man is a victim of such miscarriages of justice.

  54. “If any man is able to convince me and show me that I do not think or act right, I will gladly change; for I seek the truth by which no man was ever injured. But he is injured who abides in his error and ignorance.

    I do my duty: other things trouble me not; for they are either things without life, or things without reason, or things that have rambled and know not the way.”

    Again, the issue is people arguing poorly and from emotion with a shockingly casual disregard for logic and facts and he acts poorly when his statements are challenged – at its heart factual and logical errors some people try to hide behind the facade of or excuse with their emotionalism and fragile egos. Arguing from emotion is not only a logical fallacy but a problem with technique. However, ego deflation is irrelevant to the search for the truth. “Don’t say I’m wrong or why I’m wrong! It hurts my feelings! And don’t treat me like an ass, but I can treat others however I want without repercussion! I don’t like criticism!” is the response of children and the mentally unstable.

    If one’s ego is so fragile that one cannot have one’s statements subjected to critical scrutiny then perhaps a free speech forum isn’t the place for that person who seems to be seeking ego massage instead of the exchange of ideas. This is a marketplace of ideas.

    Critical scrutiny happens.

    If your ego can’t take that, then maybe you should do something else to assuage your ego. There is a whole wide world out there on the Web. If you want ego massage over the marketplace of ideas? I’m sure you can find it. You just won’t find it here.

  55. Nick Spinelli,

    It is tough to play tennis with a garage door. The ball always comes back, in this case with horrendous spin.
    There is no judge who dares call foul in this match.

    Björn Borg learned by doing it, and won Wimbledon five times in succession. Don’t count on winning here.

    Just ignore the ball on its return and walk away. Let it play with itself if it wants to do so.
    Talking to yourself usually quietens most folks, except the potty heads. Interesting to see what happens here.

    Best regards from the less pompous court.

  56. ID, When none of the sycophants chime in, the polemics will eventually stop. I truly do not look upon this as “winning” or “lolsing”. I have worked in the real world on thousands of criminal and civil cases. There are wins and losses in the real world. In this faux world, there are pathetic men who declare victory and pour themselves another vodka. The sycophants seem to be abandoning the angry, lonely man. I think the Hitler comment lost many of them. But, narcissist keep doubling down. I don’t care about winning or losing. As stated previously, I won and lost in the real world, winning much more than losing, which is how I made my living. It’s really getting pathetic, don’t you think, ID? Hopefully this will end soon and we all can just converse civilly. As I’ve said many times, I find these petty battles tedious. In some way I wish it could be established that the man who so needs to be Emporer could just be annoited so and be secure. But, as you know, narcisssists need constant reinforcement. I fear there is no reasonable solution. C’est la vie.

  57. lotta,

    Just got in from a great party with old friends and took a moment to read this thread.

    This blog experience is really something. Personally, I have never met any of the posters I communicate with … wouldn’t recognize any of them on the street yet many of them are like dear, old friends.

    I too have kept myself from responding to certain posters over the years for the very reason you stated in your Tootie reference. And, in my opinion, the blog has become more civil over the last few years. Or perhaps I have just become accustomed to lawyers’ love of argument. This is where I think many make a mistake about Gene. He loves to argue and he’s very, very good at it. He really does try to teach others how to do it well. The only real blind spot I have found is his refusal to admit that Pelosi is a superior legislator. ;)

    At any rate, Vagina-boy was and is one of my favorite call-outs … a sophisticated ridicule of a nasty poster that still makes me chuckle when I remember how clueless he was as to the nature of the ridicule. My favorite lotta discussion however was the one you had with Slarti about fractals. Do you remember that? Man, it was beautiful, figuratively and literally and the joy you two shared in that discussion was infectious. So, a combination of V-boy and fractals … in my opinion a perfect poster who needs no reform. :)

  58. Ah Gene … loved you then, love you now and I pay absolutely no attention to the new kids on the block who try to spin that affection into something ugly. Power to the :mrgreen:

  59. Blouise: “The only real blind spot I have found is his refusal to admit that Pelosi is a superior legislator.”

    That IS a serious flaw and one that will have to be addressed at some point. I’m sure ample opportunity for that will come up in the next four years should she decide to stay on as Democratic leader. I think the job is hers unless she indicates she no longer wants it but she’s in her seventies and contending with Republican dominance isn’t going to be easy no matter how conciliatory Bohner may sound now.

    I do recall that conversation with Slarti and it was great fun. He hardly used any maths on me at all! and I could pretty well keep up. :-)

    I do appreciate your kind thoughts and I’m happy you get a chuckle when you think about him being called out and clueless. He was a coward and so far over the line I’m still amazed. “Vagina” was not the word he wanted to use and made constructing his insults difficult and clumsy to the ear, but perfect to use as a retort. LOL, That was a strange interlude on this blawg.

  60. ID707: “What’s a carom shot, never played it?”
    *

    http://www.easypooltutor.com/articles/38-advanced-shotmaking/280-carom-shot.html

    Srsly, just look at your 2nd posting to me. You use a posting directed to one person as a vehicle (even to the point of changing from 1st to 3rd person voice) to rail about another party. It uses the party you are addressing. It is usury of a sort and acts to spur on an argument while cloaking your own argument or simple personal attacks as support. It is really bad form. Most folks when commenting (here and generally in comment sections/blawgs) when in agreement with someone will make a general statement like ” I agree with [some poster] because blah, bah, blah.”

    BTW, Gene and I and several other posters here are old science/fiction fans, he would not use a bribe to put me under his sway, he would use a pod, a big giant-ass pod:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_the_Body_Snatchers

  61. LottaKatz,

    You give me greater skills than I ever possessed.
    Depending on which comment you are talking about (your pointing at second comment to you was not much help, but I
    tried) I see some point that adding my criticisms of XXX after praising you for your commetns on XXX can be regarded as using you as a tool. I will keep that it mind, and try to keep my stuff properly separated. Praise in one comment and critcism in another.

    I was just so happy that YUU would criticíse GeneH on the same grounds as I have before several times.

    It would fall natural to me to re-state those grounds with my elucidative addition, but as you point out—that would be a carom shot.

    I have offered several SF vs reality comments but got no return comments. Am I excluded from the club, or out my readings too dated?
    ========================0
    “ID707, You are quick to use the same tactics as Gene but usually as a carom shot, see the above posts of yours. You are becoming a ‘lets you and him fight’ kind of poster. It adds nothing. It’s passive-aggressive. You asked about that once in response to that statement about your postings, yea, it was a valid statement.”
    =========================

    To my knowledge I have of late begun to use GeneH’s tactics only as I now have learned from him to use them to my advantage, and certainly only spiced with irony, no rage at all, rather laughter at him instead.

    The “you and him fight” was a misinterpretation which I, while referring to your mentioning it, tried to correct in an explanation to NickS and SwM, whose argument I had intruded in. Try to find it. It is hopefully helpful.
    Whatever my true motives (which are of the nature of wanting to come to the rescue of the one whose argument I support for the occasion) it remains a stupid thing to do.

    It does not help in any way, is ignored by those arguing (shoould be of course), and contributes onlu noise.

    An entrenched bad habit. Thanks for your reminder.

    Your last sentence does not ring a bell, so no comment.

    I trust your judgement, even if it is not often sweet.

  62. LK,

    “BTW, Gene and I and several other posters here are old science/fiction fans, he would not use a bribe to put me under his sway, he would use a pod, a big giant-ass pod:”
    ===========

    I don’t think they have your model pod in stock, if they ever had.

  63. And we know who has and is and will always misuse the tactic.

    Myself, it was just for laughs, at you. I am not dependent on using it. Just as I am not dependent on
    either synchophants, buttering up daily, or pompous phrases.

    Watching you and your circus of non-alpha hounds is good for a laugh each day.

    Being subtle is not your metier. Nor an achieveable avocation.

    Carry on, James.

  64. And we both know why your opinion of me (or anything else) doesn’t matter to me, id707. But thanks for proving my point.

Comments are closed.