Not So Pleasant: Tennessee Water Officials Warn Citizens That Complaints About Water Quality Could Be Treated As Terroristic Threats

220px-Drinking_waterThe Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation deputy director Sherwin Smith is warning citizens to think before they start raising concerns about water quality because they could be charged with making terroristic threats. Smith told Maury County resident that unfounded complaints could be considered an “act of terrorism” and turned over the the police and the FBI. The meeting followed complaints about water quality in Mt. Pleasant, Tennessee where children have become ill drinking the water. That left residents with the sense that they were being given a Sophie’s Choice by the TDEC: live with sick children or face a possible charge of being a terrorist.


Smith warned residents “you need to make sure that when you make water quality complaints you have a basis, because federally, if there’s no water quality issues, that can be considered under homeland security an act of terrorism.” One audience member seemed to be in disbelief and asked “Can you say that again, please?” Smtih then repeated the warning.

The residents know something about terror. Joycelene Johns, 68, says that she has had no choice but to drink the cloudy, odd-tasting water for years. She added “I’ll drink it. but I pray before the first sip.”

The comments reflect a fear that the war on terror, like Saturn, inevitably devours its own. Criticism of the government is now viewed as a potentially terrorist act in our new society. The TDEC appears to be paraphrasing Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: “The fault, dear Joycelene, is not in our water, But in ourselves.”

Of course, the worse thing is if Johns is arrested and water-boarded with the same contaminated water. The least they could do is use some bottled water so not to add insult to injury.

Source: Tennessee

317 thoughts on “Not So Pleasant: Tennessee Water Officials Warn Citizens That Complaints About Water Quality Could Be Treated As Terroristic Threats

  1. The entire city should write complaints and send a copy to newspapers, that fabulously Nazi sounding Dept of homeland Security, AND president Obama. This suggestion is no more stupid than the original threat of terrorism.

  2. So when you’re forced to drink fracking waste-water, don’t complain. Welcome to a by-product of our police state. i’m sure it’ll continue in this vein, since there is little to no “push back” or action from the sheeple over the past at least three elections that have done anything to affect the detrimental corporate agenda and government take-over.

  3. Presumably the same would apply to concerns about airborne pollution, pollution of waterways, etc.

    If I were a resident there, I’d join with other residents to get an independent report on the water.

  4. I have never trusted our local water. There’s a chemical plant in town and they’re always drilling test wells. We’ve had bottled water used for drinking and ice cubes for 25 years. The city and state say in annual reports the water “Meets Federal standards.” On this I go w/ the X Files credo, “Trust no one.”

  5. Maybe Mr. Smith should be educated about the following federal statutes:
    Title 42 U.S. Code 14141 (Pattern & Practice of public corruption),
    Title 18 U.S. Code (sections 241-245).

    This is the best medicine for this particular ailment!

  6. Further proof that we need to restore sanity back into our government. Fascism is hijacking it at all levels

  7. Coop boards in NYC have been doing this for years.:). But seriously, the side of government that helps people and builds roads and schools has atrophied while the militaristic police power side has boomed, grown and expanded its powers with the full approval of our leaders. Any criticism of government is terrorism. Oh, America!

  8. the thing to do is to gather 2 or 3 gallon jugs of water and send them to an independent company outside of Tenn. for an evaluation of the chemical make-up.

    The following can be used:

    http://www.wtlmd.com/locations-water-testing-maryland-md-virginia-va.php

    Or:

    STATE CERTIFIED LABORATORIES FOR WATER TESTING

    LAB ADDRESS PHONE MISC.
    BLUE RIDGE WATER TESTING INC. 332 Pilot Mountain Ln Fancy Gap, VA 24328 540-398-3098 toll free – 888-882-3098
    CLEAR WATER TESTING, LLC P.O. Box 6122, 17B West Main St. Christiansburg, VA 24068 540-381-5700 web site: http://www.clear creekwater works.com
    ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES PO Box 704 Wytheville, VA 24382 276-228-6464
    ENVIRONMENTAL OPTIONS PO Box 879 Rocky Mount, VA 24151 540-483-3920
    ESS LABORATORY SERVICES 500 Stone Street Bedford, VA 24523 540-586-5413
    MID-ATLANTIC LABORATORIES (by mail) 224 Main St. Suite 1 Port Royal , VA 22535 804-742-5599 to order kits 1-800-928-3710
    PROCHEM, INC. 6040 North Fork Road Elliston, VA 24087 540-268-9884 540-268-2755 fax
    PROCHEM, INC. 1401 Municipal Rd Roanoke, VA 24012 540-265-7211
    SAFE WATER INC. 6580 Valley Center Drive, Box 16 Radford, VA 24141 540-633-6739 540-633-6768 fax web site : http://safewater.inc.com
    WATER CHEMISTRY 3404 Aerial Way Dr Roanoke, VA 24018 540-343-3618
    Labs listed above are a sample of local laboratories. The health department has a complete list of state certified labs or visit

    sorry about the formatting.

  9. If that man is a civil engineer he has violated ethical standards if the water is unsafe for human consumption.

    Sec 0120-2-.02 Proper Conduct of Practice

    (1) The registrant shall at all times recognize the primary obligation to protect the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of the registrants professional duties.

    http://www.state.tn.us/sos/rules/0120/0120-02.pdf

  10. the thing to do is to gather 2 or 3 gallon jugs of water and send them to an independent company outside of Tenn. for an evaluation of the chemical make-up.

    The following can be used:

    http://www.wtlmd.com/locations-water-testing-maryland-md-virginia-va.php

    Or:

    STATE CERTIFIED LABORATORIES FOR WATER TESTING

    LAB ADDRESS PHONE MISC.
    BLUE RIDGE WATER TESTING INC. 332 Pilot Mountain Ln Fancy Gap, VA 24328 540-398-3098 toll free – 888-882-3098

    CLEAR WATER TESTING, LLC P.O. Box 6122, 17B West Main St. Christiansburg, VA 24068 540-381-5700

    ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES PO Box 704 Wytheville, VA 24382 276-228-6464

    ENVIRONMENTAL OPTIONS PO Box 879 Rocky Mount, VA 24151 540-483-3920

    ESS LABORATORY SERVICES 500 Stone Street Bedford, VA 24523 540-586-5413

    MID-ATLANTIC LABORATORIES (by mail) 224 Main St. Suite 1 Port Royal , VA 22535 804-742-5599 to order kits 1-800-928-3710

    PROCHEM, INC. 6040 North Fork Road Elliston, VA 24087 540-268-9884 540-268-2755 fax

    PROCHEM, INC. 1401 Municipal Rd Roanoke, VA 24012 540-265-7211

    SAFE WATER INC. 6580 Valley Center Drive, Box 16 Radford, VA 24141 540-633-6739 540-633-6768 fax

    WATER CHEMISTRY 3404 Aerial Way Dr Roanoke, VA 24018 540-343-3618

    sorry about the formatting.

  11. First the animal enterprise protection act, then the AG-GAG legislation now complain about the water, go to prison. The fourth horse of the apocalypse should be along anytime now.

  12. This kind of abuse of the powers of the GWOT is an insidious cancer on our society (not just in the U.S.) and it better get nipped in the (already blooming) bud or we’re screwed (even worse than we already are).

    The Orwellian DHS will probably be utilized for all manner of suppression of the citizenry as this abuse continues. The new National Police Force. Wonderful.

  13. “The comments reflect a fear that the war on terror, like Saturn, inevitably devours its own. Criticism of the government is now viewed as a potentially terrorist act in our new society.”

    This is why those who would condone laws abrogating our rights in the name of safety from terrorism are themselves terrorists and traitors. Sherwin Smith is merely stretching the new paradigms a “little bit” further to stifle dissent and presumably cover up his own incompetence. When complaining to ones municipal authorities becomes a “terrorist threat” than citizenship means nothing except do as you are told by your “betters”.

    Please follow the link in the blog above to listen to a recording of this that I find chilling. The sound and texture of Mr. Smiths voice would be a bravura performance of a banally evil character in a film. The State Representative who organized the meeting:

    “Rep. Butt, who organized the meeting, also was shocked.

    “I think that we need to be very careful with how we use the words ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism,’ ” she said. “I thought it was out of context. That did not apply to anything that we were discussing at the meeting.”

    Butt said the water issue had been marred by “communication breakdowns” by both sides, which wouldn’t be made easier with such inflammatory comments being made.”

    Welcome to twenty-first Century America.

  14. So any criticism of the government can be viewed as a terrorist threat? The framers of the constitution never anticipated that this nation would be willing to curtail freedom of speech and the right to petition the government as a response to some vague fear of terrorism. The police state has arrived

  15. “By Marisa Taylor and Jonathan S. Landay
    McClatchy Washington Bureau

    WASHINGTON — Even before a former U.S. intelligence contractor exposed the secret collection of Americans’ phone records, the Obama administration was pressing a government-wide crackdown on security threats that requires federal employees to keep closer tabs on their co-workers and exhorts managers to punish those who fail to report their suspicions.

    President Barack Obama’s unprecedented initiative, known as the Insider Threat Program, is sweeping in its reach. It has received scant public attention even though it extends beyond the U.S. national security bureaucracies to most federal departments and agencies nationwide, including the Peace Corps, the Social Security Administration and the Education and Agriculture departments. It emphasizes leaks of classified material, but catchall definitions of “insider threat” give agencies latitude to pursue and penalize a range of other conduct.

    Government documents reviewed by McClatchy illustrate how some agencies are using that latitude to pursue unauthorized disclosures of any information, not just classified material. They also show how millions of federal employees and contractors must watch for “high-risk persons or behaviors” among co-workers and could face penalties, including criminal charges, for failing to report them. Leaks to the media are equated with espionage.

    “Hammer this fact home . . . leaking is tantamount to aiding the enemies of the United States,” says a June 1, 2012, Defense Department strategy for the program that was obtained by McClatchy.

    Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/20/3461821/obamas-crackdown-views-leaks-as.html#storylink=cpy

    This is a system wide crackdown. I have seen it in my city. It runs from the top of USGinc. Lower level power mongers are easy to find and being able to accuse people of something that could send them to jail feeds that kind of person.

    This period of history is incredibly dangerous. It’s clear that terrorism has/is been used by the govt. as a weapon to control the population. I’m so glad the one woman spoke up to say, “excuse me…”. At this time 1. that took courage and 2. that shows govt. propaganda has not been as successful as they wish.

    The repression of dissent has been systematic. Clearly the govt. intends to continue and double down on this path.

  16. I know what to do go to his building and burn it with him in it as he is breaking all laws as to the real US and he is the new breen of traitor all just little people with little minds just like Adolf Hitler. How very sick the all need to be exterminated

  17. FYI: “An online tutorial titled “Treason 101” teaches Department of Agriculture and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration employees to recognize the psychological profile of spies.

    A Defense Security Service online pamphlet lists a wide range of “reportable” suspicious behaviors, including working outside of normal duty hours. While conceding that not every behavior “represents a spy in our midst,” the pamphlet adds that “every situation needs to be examined to determine whether our nation’s secrets are at risk.”

    Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/20/3461821_p4/obamas-crackdown-views-leaks-as.html#storylink=cpy

  18. What rafflaw said. I have seen more offensive comments, but fortunately very seldom. I truly fail to see why some people are more comfortable wallowing in a verbal sewer than engage in civil conversation.

  19. Jill:

    “wide range of “reportable” suspicious behaviors, including working outside of normal duty hours.”

    I have to laugh at that. Now government employees have a reason to be sloughful; National Security.

    I can see the posters now: High Productivity Sinks Ships. Dont Work Late!

    I am going to retire and find a small island somewhere away from the insanity.

  20. It’s time for every citizen in that town to complain about their concerns for the water quality and dare the city to come after them for making a terrorist threat.

    Statements such as Sherwin’s make me 10 times more likely to suspect there is some coverup going on and the usual small town mantra of attacking the whistleblower is in pre-emptive mode.

  21. “Dissent will not be tolerated” is a prime indicator of fascism in particular and authoritarianism in general.

    However, the right to dissent was part and parcel at the heart of the Founders deploying the 1st Amendment.

    As a matter of logic, equating a complaint to terrorism is not just a false equivalence, it’s irrational gibberish.

    Water quality isn’t the only thing being eroded away here.

  22. My system has inadvertently collected Cholera and Dysentery which makes me a terrorist?

    Smith should go to work for NSA

  23. I don’t know where to post this, but I think it’s important info about your finances you/we all should be thinking about.

    Banks/Govt policies on seizing your assets/pensions/etc..
    ***

    Posted June 21st, 2013 at 7:05 AM (CST) by Jim Sinclair & filed under General Editorial.

    Dear CIGAs,

    Here is a comment on the Sentinel Decision. This is extremely important for you to read. It can affect your brokerage accounts as it was earth shaking as a decision against the client’s interests.

    Jim,

    I am a former lawyer, and I thought relating to your query you might find the email below that I sent to a potential custodian instructive.

    All best,
    CIGA Anonymous

    Dear Sam,

    As discussed, my investment thesis is based on the view that there is excess societal debt and as this debt level declines (as it must, through either inflation, default, or both) gold will increase in value. Part of this credit bubble exists as a natural by-product of the fractional reserve banking system, of which the hyper-hypothethication of assets by the brokerage industry is but one outgrowth. It is this latter phenomenon that, I believe, threatens the integrity of the fund’s ownership of its assets, as the recent “vaporization” of assets at various brokerage firms attests.

    I read with interest both the recent Federal Appeals Court decision in the Sentinel Case, available here:

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/32961642/SentinelRuling.pdf

    And this article discussing the implications:

    http://www.acting-man.com/?p=19030

    In brief, it seems that Sentinel improperly moved customer assets from segregated accounts to lienable accounts and then used its lien to pledge these assets as collateral against various repo positions in its proprietary trading accounts. When the repo market seized in the summer of 2007, Sentinel found itself having to place ever more collateral with its bank, the Bank of New York, to raise cash as the repo transactions matured, which it accomplished by raiding ever more customer accounts.

    When Sentinel collapsed, Bank of New York claimed that their secured claim to the pledged assets (formerly in segregated accounts) had priority over the unsecured claims of Sentinel’s customers. The court agreed, despite the facts that: a) Sentinel’s moving the assets from segregated accounts to lienable account was illegal and contrary to its customer agreement, b) Sentinel’s using segregated customer assets as collateral to the Bank of New York was expressly forbidden by the agreement between the two parties, and c) internal Bank of New York emails showed that bank officers knew that the collateral being posted was originating from segregated accounts.

    It seems, as a matter of law, that even though the CEO and head trader at Sentinel were convicted of fraud for the co-mingling of the clients’ segregated assets (proving this was fraud), the assets themselves nevertheless ended up at the Bank of New York. The customers can only look to the shell of Sentinel for recovery and, of course, there are little or no assets remaining in that entity. The Bank of New York was made whole, but the client assets were vaporized.

    It is the above situation that I wish to avoid, and I am curious you have or can construct what is, in effect, a legal lock-box whereby even if the assets were fraudulently moved to another entity, I would be able to recover them from that entity.

    Given the above, a few questions:

    1) Are assets held in a segregated manner?

    2) Please let me know what, if any, proprietary trading your firm engages in (that is, I would like to assess any motivation that might possibly arise to raid customer assets for collateral, or any other, purposes).

    3) Though I am not an expert in the area of law discussed above, it appears to me that the issue in the Sentinel case hinged on that fact that the Bank of New York was a secured creditor and the customers, albeit owed a duty, were unsecured. I wonder if your firm were to grant me a first priority lien over my assets, it would defeat the ability to use the assets for nefarious purposes or, if they were so used, I would have a superior claim to retrieve them. I understand that in paragraph 4 of your account agreement, customers grant you a continuing security interest in their assets to make sure they pay their bills. I would propose that this lien be limited to the amount of debts, if any, owed to you, and the balance of the assets be subject to a first priority lien back to the fund or an affiliated company. Please let me know if you have thoughts on this structure.

    5) My recollection is that JP Morgan is your main sub-custodian. Since JP Morgan is also the major player in the derivatives market and has been at the center of many of the recent scandals involving the vaporization of assets, this relationship makes me uneasy (especially given my understanding that the 2005 Bankruptcy Act specifically exempts claims involving derivatives from the automatic stay, meaning, like Bank of New York above, under certain conditions JPM can attach collateral with no legal process and without the possibility of claw-back, as the customers of MF Global are now discovering). Is your custodian agreement with JPM a matter of public record? I would be very interested to see it. And, I would want to understand the issues discussed above in terms of the potential vaporization of your firm’s assets at the JPM level, i.e., the possibility of assets disappearing to some other counter-party notwithstanding your presumed agreement with JPM that they not be used as collateral (as what happened to Sentinel’s customers).

    I appreciate your time in considering these issues, and I look forward to discussing.

    NB: the article enclosed above discusses the legal principle, which goes all the way back to Rome: nemo dat quod non habet (one cannot give what one does not have), in order words, the thief cannot pass good title. If A steals B’s watch and sells it to C, B recovers the watch free and clear from C (because title was never passed), and C can only look to A for restitution of this purchase price (good luck to C!). The author of the article thinks Sentinel was like A, stealing B’s assets to pledge to C.

    It appears the court in the Sentinel case ruled that broker-dealers are in the role of trustees. A trustee has the legal authority to alienate assets – i.e., he can pass title. The beneficiary of a trust, if defrauded by the trustee, cannot go after the recipient of the property, because the recipient has good title (unless part of a conspiracy). The beneficiary can only go after the assets of the trustee, which in this situation is always zero.

    I hope that clarifies the legal situation of brokerage firms as interpreted by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal.

  24. 1 of 2

    I don’t know where to post this, but I think it’s important info about your finances you/we all should be thinking about.

    Banks/Govt policies on seizing your assets/pensions/etc..
    ***

    Posted June 21st, 2013 at 7:05 AM (CST) by Jim Sinclair & filed under General Editorial.

    Dear CIGAs,

    Here is a comment on the Sentinel Decision. This is extremely important for you to read. It can affect your brokerage accounts as it was earth shaking as a decision against the client’s interests.

    Jim,

    I am a former lawyer, and I thought relating to your query you might find the email below that I sent to a potential custodian instructive.

    All best,
    CIGA Anonymous

    Dear Sam,

    As discussed, my investment thesis is based on the view that there is excess societal debt and as this debt level declines (as it must, through either inflation, default, or both) gold will increase in value. Part of this credit bubble exists as a natural by-product of the fractional reserve banking system, of which the hyper-hypothethication of assets by the brokerage industry is but one outgrowth. It is this latter phenomenon that, I believe, threatens the integrity of the fund’s ownership of its assets, as the recent “vaporization” of assets at various brokerage firms attests.

    I read with interest both the recent Federal Appeals Court decision in the Sentinel Case, available here:

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/32961642/SentinelRuling.pdf

  25. 2 of 2

    And this article discussing the implications:

    http://www.acting-man.com/?p=19030

    In brief, it seems that Sentinel improperly moved customer assets from segregated accounts to lienable accounts and then used its lien to pledge these assets as collateral against various repo positions in its proprietary trading accounts. When the repo market seized in the summer of 2007, Sentinel found itself having to place ever more collateral with its bank, the Bank of New York, to raise cash as the repo transactions matured, which it accomplished by raiding ever more customer accounts.

    When Sentinel collapsed, Bank of New York claimed that their secured claim to the pledged assets (formerly in segregated accounts) had priority over the unsecured claims of Sentinel’s customers. The court agreed, despite the facts that: a) Sentinel’s moving the assets from segregated accounts to lienable account was illegal and contrary to its customer agreement, b) Sentinel’s using segregated customer assets as collateral to the Bank of New York was expressly forbidden by the agreement between the two parties, and c) internal Bank of New York emails showed that bank officers knew that the collateral being posted was originating from segregated accounts.

    It seems, as a matter of law, that even though the CEO and head trader at Sentinel were convicted of fraud for the co-mingling of the clients’ segregated assets (proving this was fraud), the assets themselves nevertheless ended up at the Bank of New York. The customers can only look to the shell of Sentinel for recovery and, of course, there are little or no assets remaining in that entity. The Bank of New York was made whole, but the client assets were vaporized.

    It is the above situation that I wish to avoid, and I am curious you have or can construct what is, in effect, a legal lock-box whereby even if the assets were fraudulently moved to another entity, I would be able to recover them from that entity.

    Given the above, a few questions:

    1) Are assets held in a segregated manner?

    2) Please let me know what, if any, proprietary trading your firm engages in (that is, I would like to assess any motivation that might possibly arise to raid customer assets for collateral, or any other, purposes).

    3) Though I am not an expert in the area of law discussed above, it appears to me that the issue in the Sentinel case hinged on that fact that the Bank of New York was a secured creditor and the customers, albeit owed a duty, were unsecured. I wonder if your firm were to grant me a first priority lien over my assets, it would defeat the ability to use the assets for nefarious purposes or, if they were so used, I would have a superior claim to retrieve them. I understand that in paragraph 4 of your account agreement, customers grant you a continuing security interest in their assets to make sure they pay their bills. I would propose that this lien be limited to the amount of debts, if any, owed to you, and the balance of the assets be subject to a first priority lien back to the fund or an affiliated company. Please let me know if you have thoughts on this structure.

    5) My recollection is that JP Morgan is your main sub-custodian. Since JP Morgan is also the major player in the derivatives market and has been at the center of many of the recent scandals involving the vaporization of assets, this relationship makes me uneasy (especially given my understanding that the 2005 Bankruptcy Act specifically exempts claims involving derivatives from the automatic stay, meaning, like Bank of New York above, under certain conditions JPM can attach collateral with no legal process and without the possibility of claw-back, as the customers of MF Global are now discovering). Is your custodian agreement with JPM a matter of public record? I would be very interested to see it. And, I would want to understand the issues discussed above in terms of the potential vaporization of your firm’s assets at the JPM level, i.e., the possibility of assets disappearing to some other counter-party notwithstanding your presumed agreement with JPM that they not be used as collateral (as what happened to Sentinel’s customers).

    I appreciate your time in considering these issues, and I look forward to discussing.

    NB: the article enclosed above discusses the legal principle, which goes all the way back to Rome: nemo dat quod non habet (one cannot give what one does not have), in order words, the thief cannot pass good title. If A steals B’s watch and sells it to C, B recovers the watch free and clear from C (because title was never passed), and C can only look to A for restitution of this purchase price (good luck to C!). The author of the article thinks Sentinel was like A, stealing B’s assets to pledge to C.

    It appears the court in the Sentinel case ruled that broker-dealers are in the role of trustees. A trustee has the legal authority to alienate assets – i.e., he can pass title. The beneficiary of a trust, if defrauded by the trustee, cannot go after the recipient of the property, because the recipient has good title (unless part of a conspiracy). The beneficiary can only go after the assets of the trustee, which in this situation is always zero.

    I hope that clarifies the legal situation of brokerage firms as interpreted by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal.

  26. And this article discussing the implications:

    (Link removed here)

    In brief, it seems that Sentinel improperly moved customer assets from segregated accounts to lienable accounts and then used its lien to pledge these assets as collateral against various repo positions in its proprietary trading accounts. When the repo market seized in the summer of 2007, Sentinel found itself having to place ever more collateral with its bank, the Bank of New York, to raise cash as the repo transactions matured, which it accomplished by raiding ever more customer accounts.

    When Sentinel collapsed, Bank of New York claimed that their secured claim to the pledged assets (formerly in segregated accounts) had priority over the unsecured claims of Sentinel’s customers. The court agreed, despite the facts that: a) Sentinel’s moving the assets from segregated accounts to lienable account was illegal and contrary to its customer agreement, b) Sentinel’s using segregated customer assets as collateral to the Bank of New York was expressly forbidden by the agreement between the two parties, and c) internal Bank of New York emails showed that bank officers knew that the collateral being posted was originating from segregated accounts.

    It seems, as a matter of law, that even though the CEO and head trader at Sentinel were convicted of fraud for the co-mingling of the clients’ segregated assets (proving this was fraud), the assets themselves nevertheless ended up at the Bank of New York. The customers can only look to the shell of Sentinel for recovery and, of course, there are little or no assets remaining in that entity. The Bank of New York was made whole, but the client assets were vaporized.

    It is the above situation that I wish to avoid, and I am curious you have or can construct what is, in effect, a legal lock-box whereby even if the assets were fraudulently moved to another entity, I would be able to recover them from that entity.

    Given the above, a few questions:

    1) Are assets held in a segregated manner?

    2) Please let me know what, if any, proprietary trading your firm engages in (that is, I would like to assess any motivation that might possibly arise to raid customer assets for collateral, or any other, purposes).

    3) Though I am not an expert in the area of law discussed above, it appears to me that the issue in the Sentinel case hinged on that fact that the Bank of New York was a secured creditor and the customers, albeit owed a duty, were unsecured. I wonder if your firm were to grant me a first priority lien over my assets, it would defeat the ability to use the assets for nefarious purposes or, if they were so used, I would have a superior claim to retrieve them. I understand that in paragraph 4 of your account agreement, customers grant you a continuing security interest in their assets to make sure they pay their bills. I would propose that this lien be limited to the amount of debts, if any, owed to you, and the balance of the assets be subject to a first priority lien back to the fund or an affiliated company. Please let me know if you have thoughts on this structure.

    5) My recollection is that JP Morgan is your main sub-custodian. Since JP Morgan is also the major player in the derivatives market and has been at the center of many of the recent scandals involving the vaporization of assets, this relationship makes me uneasy (especially given my understanding that the 2005 Bankruptcy Act specifically exempts claims involving derivatives from the automatic stay, meaning, like Bank of New York above, under certain conditions JPM can attach collateral with no legal process and without the possibility of claw-back, as the customers of MF Global are now discovering). Is your custodian agreement with JPM a matter of public record? I would be very interested to see it. And, I would want to understand the issues discussed above in terms of the potential vaporization of your firm’s assets at the JPM level, i.e., the possibility of assets disappearing to some other counter-party notwithstanding your presumed agreement with JPM that they not be used as collateral (as what happened to Sentinel’s customers).

    I appreciate your time in considering these issues, and I look forward to discussing.

    NB: the article enclosed above discusses the legal principle, which goes all the way back to Rome: nemo dat quod non habet (one cannot give what one does not have), in order words, the thief cannot pass good title. If A steals B’s watch and sells it to C, B recovers the watch free and clear from C (because title was never passed), and C can only look to A for restitution of this purchase price (good luck to C!). The author of the article thinks Sentinel was like A, stealing B’s assets to pledge to C.

    It appears the court in the Sentinel case ruled that broker-dealers are in the role of trustees. A trustee has the legal authority to alienate assets – i.e., he can pass title. The beneficiary of a trust, if defrauded by the trustee, cannot go after the recipient of the property, because the recipient has good title (unless part of a conspiracy). The beneficiary can only go after the assets of the trustee, which in this situation is always zero.

    I hope that clarifies the legal situation of brokerage firms as interpreted by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal.

  27. In brief, it seems that Sentinel improperly moved customer assets from segregated accounts to lienable accounts and then used its lien to pledge these assets as collateral against various repo positions in its proprietary trading accounts. When the repo market seized in the summer of 2007, Sentinel found itself having to place ever more collateral with its bank, the Bank of New York, to raise cash as the repo transactions matured, which it accomplished by raiding ever more customer accounts.

    When Sentinel collapsed, Bank of New York claimed that their secured claim to the pledged assets (formerly in segregated accounts) had priority over the unsecured claims of Sentinel’s customers. The court agreed, despite the facts that: a) Sentinel’s moving the assets from segregated accounts to lienable account was illegal and contrary to its customer agreement, b) Sentinel’s using segregated customer assets as collateral to the Bank of New York was expressly forbidden by the agreement between the two parties, and c) internal Bank of New York emails showed that bank officers knew that the collateral being posted was originating from segregated accounts.

    It seems, as a matter of law, that even though the CEO and head trader at Sentinel were convicted of fraud for the co-mingling of the clients’ segregated assets (proving this was fraud), the assets themselves nevertheless ended up at the Bank of New York. The customers can only look to the shell of Sentinel for recovery and, of course, there are little or no assets remaining in that entity. The Bank of New York was made whole, but the client assets were vaporized.

    It is the above situation that I wish to avoid, and I am curious you have or can construct what is, in effect, a legal lock-box whereby even if the assets were fraudulently moved to another entity, I would be able to recover them from that entity.

    Given the above, a few questions:

    1) Are assets held in a segregated manner?

    2) Please let me know what, if any, proprietary trading your firm engages in (that is, I would like to assess any motivation that might possibly arise to raid customer assets for collateral, or any other, purposes).

    3) Though I am not an expert in the area of law discussed above, it appears to me that the issue in the Sentinel case hinged on that fact that the Bank of New York was a secured creditor and the customers, albeit owed a duty, were unsecured. I wonder if your firm were to grant me a first priority lien over my assets, it would defeat the ability to use the assets for nefarious purposes or, if they were so used, I would have a superior claim to retrieve them. I understand that in paragraph 4 of your account agreement, customers grant you a continuing security interest in their assets to make sure they pay their bills. I would propose that this lien be limited to the amount of debts, if any, owed to you, and the balance of the assets be subject to a first priority lien back to the fund or an affiliated company. Please let me know if you have thoughts on this structure.

    5) My recollection is that JP Morgan is your main sub-custodian. Since JP Morgan is also the major player in the derivatives market and has been at the center of many of the recent scandals involving the vaporization of assets, this relationship makes me uneasy (especially given my understanding that the 2005 Bankruptcy Act specifically exempts claims involving derivatives from the automatic stay, meaning, like Bank of New York above, under certain conditions JPM can attach collateral with no legal process and without the possibility of claw-back, as the customers of MF Global are now discovering). Is your custodian agreement with JPM a matter of public record? I would be very interested to see it. And, I would want to understand the issues discussed above in terms of the potential vaporization of your firm’s assets at the JPM level, i.e., the possibility of assets disappearing to some other counter-party notwithstanding your presumed agreement with JPM that they not be used as collateral (as what happened to Sentinel’s customers).

    I appreciate your time in considering these issues, and I look forward to discussing.

    NB: the article enclosed above discusses the legal principle, which goes all the way back to Rome: nemo dat quod non habet (one cannot give what one does not have), in order words, the thief cannot pass good title. If A steals B’s watch and sells it to C, B recovers the watch free and clear from C (because title was never passed), and C can only look to A for restitution of this purchase price (good luck to C!). The author of the article thinks Sentinel was like A, stealing B’s assets to pledge to C.

    It appears the court in the Sentinel case ruled that broker-dealers are in the role of trustees. A trustee has the legal authority to alienate assets – i.e., he can pass title. The beneficiary of a trust, if defrauded by the trustee, cannot go after the recipient of the property, because the recipient has good title (unless part of a conspiracy). The beneficiary can only go after the assets of the trustee, which in this situation is always zero.

    I hope that clarifies the legal situation of brokerage firms as interpreted by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal.

    2 of 2

  28. Meeting government standards does not mean that the water is safe.
    They don’t test for everything that is harmful, just the things the government has identified.

    I refused to drink the water at my mother’s house. All water used for drinking and cooking was distilled. Unfortunately, my distiller couldn’t handle the additional for washing dishes and people.

  29. Rafflaw, Os…What were slccobra’s comments? I looked for them but couldn’t find them. Guess WE’RE being censored, too. (Pardon, perhaps I should have said ‘moderated’. Same thing.)

  30. Kraaken,

    The comment was in the nature of a physical threat which is against the civility rule (which roughly comports to the legal exceptions to free speech – defamation, incitement, threats, etc. – plus ad hominem attacks on other posters is discouraged while any challenge/attack to assertions/statements is encouraged).

    In general, there is no moderation here but there is that rule and just a few others. There are four blacklisted words (thanks to trollery – b*tch, b@stard, a$$h*le and f**k), a rule against stealing another poster’s identity/impersonating another poster and a rule against revealing personal information about other posters absent consent/protection of the right to anonymous political free speech. All of which are geared toward encouraging the marketplace of ideas while keeping arguments from degenerating into a free for all worthy of 4Chan.

    The model encouraged for this community was recently described as “self-moderating” in out of camera discussions.

    I think that’s a fair appraisal.

  31. You are most welcome, Kraaken. Relaying the rules is the least I can do for a regular contributor who can pull entire ships full of sailors to their doom.:mrgreen: Just please ignore me next time I go fishing.

  32. I don’t know who is responsible for taking down the objectionable comment….. But Kraaken…. Looks like its gone…. And we are censored as well….

    It is kinda like porn…. If you don’t like it… Don’t watch it…. I only paid attention to it because something was said…..

  33. Kraaken,

    I maybe alone on this but, I think that removal of a posting should be left up to the professor who also happen to be the blog owner….that’s just my two cents worth….

  34. Post by JT:

    jonathanturley commented on Guide Dog Trainee Saves Trainers.

    in response to Malisha:

    Notice: Idealist707 died in Stockholm, June 10. For those who knew him.

    I am very very saddened to hear of the passing of Idealist707. I would love to learn more about him if anyone has anything to share.

    As for ruffling feathers, I welcome it. This blog is strengthened with differing views. We do not need an echo chamber. While we are generally united in our love for civil liberties and free speech there is considerable variation of views on many subjects that are worth pursuing in a civil fashion. Obviously, I do not like the personal attacks or uncivil comments. Yet, this is a forum dedicated to free speech. We have only banned a couple of people in the history of this blog despite it being ranked as one of the most visited legal blogs in the world according to AVVO. What we ask is that people observe our rule of civility and avoid threats and personal asides. I am the only person who can ban an individual and it takes a demonstrated history of racist or hateful comments or a refusal to comply with our civility rule.

  35. Gotta love this:

    Obama program requires federal workers to inform on colleagues

    BY MARISA TAYLOR AND JONATHAN S. LANDAY
    Star-Telegram Washington Bureau

    WASHINGTON — Even before a former U.S. intelligence contractor exposed the secret collection of Americans’ phone records, the Obama administration was pressing a government-wide crackdown on security threats that requires federal employees to keep closer tabs on their co-workers and exhorts managers to punish those who fail to report their suspicions.

    President Barack Obama’s unprecedented initiative, known as the Insider Threat Program, is sweeping in its reach. It has received scant public attention even though it extends beyond the U.S. national security bureaucracies to most federal departments and agencies nationwide, including the Peace Corps, the Social Security Administration and the Education and Agriculture departments. It emphasizes leaks of classified material, but catchall definitions of “insider threat” give agencies latitude to pursue and penalize a range of other conduct.

    Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/06/21/4954032/obamas-crackdown-views-leaks-as.html#storylink=cpy

  36. Kraaken,
    No one is being “moderated” per se. Sometimes things get caught in the spam filter. The most common reason for the moderation filter to catch a comment is if one of the four forbidden words are in the comment. I have learned there are a few words in the English language which have one of the forbidden words embedded in the spelling and the moderation filter will snag those. Usually, with the author’s permission, those are edited with some judiciously placed asterisks; however some authors have declined to allow their comment to be edited.

    The spam filter seems to be the biggest problem. It has caught a number of my comments. When I click “Post Comment” and nothing happens, it is usually in the spam filter…..but not always. Last Sunday, almost my whole blog post on the Magna Carta simply disappeared when I tried to post. Photograph and all. If you “lose” a comment, please let someone know and they will try to salvage it if possible.

  37. AY,

    Your assumption is that it wasn’t the Prof who deleted that comment.

    Assumptions are not always aligned with fact and that is what makes them risky.

    The rules here are few, they comport with the jurisprudence surrounding the 1st Amendment and are reasonable to the stated goals of providing a free speech forum that fosters the exchange of ideas. Rights come with duties. As for the rest, as Vince Treacy was oft to note, Rule #1 is JT makes the rules. Physical threats are against the rules as promulgated. It’s an unambiguous standard. If you don’t think they should be, you know where to address the complaint. If your complaint is about how the blog is administered, you know where you address the complaint.

  38. OS,

    Even if you’re doing the sales job today…. I’m still not buying…. There was absolutely nothing in the delete post that warranted removal….. It’s pure censorship….. I found it offensive…. But… I don’t have to read it….. This is a free speech zone…. Even if you don’t like it… I don’t think you should (someone) remove it…..

  39. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation deputy director Sherwin Smith is a fraction of a human being.

    The folks in Tennessee who through taxes on their earnings and property are supporting the existence of the petty tyrant and cretin known as Sherwin Smith need to stand up and demand his resignation immediately.

    Sherwin Smith isn’t a public servant he is a public menace.

  40. AY:

    somebody deleted a post? who would do that?

    I guess since the post was about how the government was turning into Nazis and it would be good to kill them before they could reproduce, can we assume the government deleted the post?

    Although I thought that post was a bit over the top.

  41. Of course, the worse thing is if Johns is arrested and water-boarded with the same contaminated water. The least they could do is use some bottled water so not to add insult to injury.
    ————————————————–
    Use the same water. Where I live there is naturally occurring toothpaste chemical in the water. No need to import it from China.

  42. Bron,

    As I said it was over the top as well…. And this is not a site that generally censors posting….. I will do what I have to do in order to preserve the freedom of speech here…

    I was just reseeding the deleted post and if we lived in Nazi Germany or under the direction of NSA I could see doing such a thing…..

    For civil liberties to exist you have to know what you’re fighting…..

    There are alot of made up rules and people being placed in moderation based upon personality…. That’s suppression of speech at its finest…it’d make Goebbels’ proud….

  43. Bron,

    I’d suspect that as far as water quality issues go that fracking and other gas/oil production byproducts are a problem of a smaller magnitude than agricultural run off, other forms of industrial run off and improper treatment for waste water. I know the vast majority of water issues around here are agricultural run off. That being said, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t want a big ol’ glass of water used to frack.

  44. apparently, according to the link above, there were disposal wells drilled in Maury County in the 60’s/70’s or possibly earlier. Interesting.

    I wonder if the state of Tennessee and some other entities have some sort of exposure. I wonder what Mr. Smith knows?

    I smell a cover-up.

  45. As a warning for you to learn to follow the rules after months of openly flaunting the prohibition on ad hominem attack despite being informed of the rule repeatedly and warned you were in violation. For many months. It was a demonstration that tools exist to force compliance with the rules we’d rather you follow of your own volition. Which you seem to be following now, nick. Neither you nor anyone else is currently in moderation so OS’ statement is correct.

    The topic of how to deal with persistent rule breakers is an open topic among the GBs and the Prof right now.

    And it wouldn’t be if persistent rule breakers hadn’t become an active problem other posters were complaining about.

  46. Bron,

    I wouldn’t be surprised. Illegal dumping is not exactly a new problem nor are attempts to cover it up.

  47. Nick,

    Now you know why I have been defending your right and everyone else’s to post on here…..

  48. AY,

    There are not a lot of rules. Basically the three as they are as stated above. They are as JT made them. A comment was deleted because it contained a threat but that is not the same thing as moderation. slccobra is free to comment as he likes provided he follows the few rules there are here. Comments containing threats have been deleted before. I’m sure they will be again. Personality hasn’t got anything to do with it.

    Personally I’m puzzled why someone with your background would take issue with rules that mirror the jurisprudence surrounding free speech. Although you actually seem to have more of a problem in accepting that making those rules and blog administration aren’t yours to control and as you see fit. If you’d like to have more say in those matters, WordPress offers a solution for you.

  49. Mr. Sherwin Smith is an instant internet celebrity, although I dont think he is going to like his 15 minutes.

  50. Power corrupts …..and this is not the place for someone power hunger to have access with administrator rights… And yes I have no problem contacting the blog administrator when someone is being bullied…. I have no problem on that at all…. The rules get made up as it goes along….. Not all the GUEST Bloggers are bullies…. There are some that make mountains outta mole hills…..

  51. The true nature of your problem finally reveals itself.

    Well, on a personal note, I’m not crazy about you either, AY.

    But you’re still here.

    Maybe that’s because you follow the rules. Mostly. Not that you always have, Mr “Somebody Else Is Using My IP”.

    If I were truly “power hungry”, you wouldn’t be at all and you know why. So do the other people involved. If you recall, that behavior ended up with a real life legal threat to you by an aggrieved party. But please, continue to show you have an issue with people based on personality rather than the rules being applied.

    Again, it’s not about personality. It’s not about power. It’s about the rules, equal protection and equal application.

  52. I hear and obey Herr Gobbels…..and yes, you’re correct in whatever your mind tells you to say or to do…. But not all is a reality is as it is to others….. You’re still a bully…. But that’s besides the point…. And if I had my way…. You wouldn’t be guest blogging here… I am sorry I supported your request to do so….but, you did bring to light certain things I didn’t know….. So I guess it’s a wash…

    You see Gene, you have been very good in helping me focus, pay attention and realize not everything being said or done is personal…you on the other hand can’t distinguish …. And yes, I’m forwarding a copy of this to the professor……

  53. That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it, AY. You think I’m a bully – which is rich considering what got you that threat of action? Well I don’t care what you think about me personally. I might have when we were friends, but you lost that privilege all on your own. So I guess that too is a wash.

    However, the record shows that the current issue has always been about the rules. Not just the comments here, but many out of camera discussion to which you were not privy. Whether you like it or not, the rules apply to the benefit of everyone, not just when they benefit you. Which they have. So the double standard is writ large in your complaint. The ad hominem rule is just great when it protected you, but if someone you don’t like is protected by it? Well that’s just a tragedy for you, isn’t it?

    The hypocrisy is simply staggering.

  54. Gene,

    You love drama, you create drama and yes, you are at your best playing the hypocrite… I wish you the best now as someone used to say to you…. Does your mommy know your playing on her computer… I forget whom said it… But, quit bullying folks, and deleting threads just because you can…. Just learn to ignore what you don’t like….I mostly do you…

  55. A tortured response akin to “it depends on what the meaning of “is” is. Why don’t we let OS explain what he meant. I trust and respect him. Listen, I just had a cyst removed from my back this morning. I’m in pain, taking pain meds and freezing from ice packs. I have no intention to rehash the ugliness of that day. We’ll clash again so don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back for your demonstration of control. I’m not controlled easily, and never controlled by control freaks. Now, please for the love of God, lets end this parsing and let me go get a new ice pack, Vicodin, and some prune juice.

  56. You’re funny when you’re angry and projecting, AY. What’s even funnier is you think I had anything to do with slccobra’s comments. Here’s a hint: the first time I ever saw them was right before I asked via email why they were in the moderation and the trash. Watching assumptions bite people is the height of hilarity. You don’t like me so instantly everything you see that you don’t like you think is my fault. Well . . . isn’t that special. I suppose you need someone to blame for all the ills you perceive in the world since the fall of the Soviet Union.

  57. AY, I didn’t see the censored comment. But, you are righteous in your defense of free speech. Others have more caveats than a prenup.

  58. Clashing was never the problem, nick. The problem has been explained many times at this point. However, the last few days you have been following the rules and as I said, I don’t care why so long as you do. And congratulations on that, by the way. You’ve been a fine contributor when you’re within the guidelines.

    Easy with those Vicodin. They can be a bear. They make me horribly nauseous.

  59. Nick,

    As I made it clear this morning and it was forwarded to the appropriate person to make the decision….

    I did not see anything you posted as being outside the so called imaginary and subjective rules….

    That’s why I did what I did…. And will continue to do so until this unjustified censoring stops…. It’s purely personal….. If so,done was going to censor, let it be The Mikes, Mespo, Elaine, Raff or David….. They don’t make it personal, nor do they keep the banter up….

    Free speech comes with it the cost of hearing things you don’t like….and you’re free to ignore those as well….

    Good luck in your recovery….

  60. OT- but since we’re OT here it appears, I asked this elsewhere but can’t remember where: I don’t see a “Corrections” thread anymore, is it being repaired or discarded or ?????.

  61. Now it’s not censorship that bothers you so much, it’s just . . . me. Again, the only person I see making it personal at this point is you, AY. If you think I’m not going to defend myself, you’re sorrily mistaken.

    That you attack me over something I didn’t do (and the other relevant parties all know this) just goes to show there is a line between advocacy and meddling.

    You’re making a fool of yourself.

    It’s most entertaining.

  62. LK,

    Not sure. Not long ago the suggestion was made to split the Corrections thread into a Corrections and a Suggestions thread. Maybe that renovation is underway.

  63. I don’t see what some are getting upset about. Professor Turley does not have time to monitor every post on every thread on his blog so he delegates that to several others who he has given agency to do so. If he has chosen to assign that ability any particular individual they are then acting on our professor’s authority.

    Professor Turley is not an agent of government, nor is this blog the property of a gov’t agency. If he chooses, or delegates the choice to delete certain comments based upon whatever criteria he wills then it is his perogative.

    There have been few incidences, compared to what has been allowed through, of individual posts being removed. Considering what has been allowed here is much more objectionable than what other blogs’ rules might be considered cause for removal.

    I think this is beginning to sound more like others’ objecting to a particular individual than the subject of removing the post itself.

  64. You are correct Darren,

    I am objecting to the post being deleted …. As for the professor not having time…. I assure you he does make the time to read…. Some just do what they do….l

  65. Thanks for the info Gene. The “Corrections” thread was serving two purposes and was getting so long it was taking some of our old computers a long time to load. it needed to be re-worked. I don’t think an open thread would suit the Professor’s aims with his blawg but a suggestion thread might, as does a thread for corrections alone. I will await the reveal with interest.

  66. Since my arguments are totally rational, logical, consistent and rule based and yours as has been noted is simply an expression of your personal dislike for me, I’m pretty sure you’ve got that backwards, Watson.

  67. Breaking Headlines….Delusion sets in on the Northern Hemispheres Summer Solstice…. Must be something about the full moon arising….. Sherlock….

    Some just wanna make it all about them,… When it was all about the deleted post….civility is the decorum….but some take exception….Watson….

  68. No Gene,

    It’s not about my personal dislike for you…. You I could care less about… The blog, yes…. You bullying folks, yes…. Just since last fall….. With me included I have in mind 5 people that you have placed in moderation….. That’s being a bully… Call it rules if you wish…. You make it personal….. With out regards to the actual rules….. As you make up as you go along when you decide to harass someone…

  69. Really.

    The only person I’ve ever put in moderation was nick, so you go ahead and make up some crap if that suits your desires. It’s going to backfire miserably for you.

  70. Last fall I did, however, suggest that you be penalized for skirting the “don’t reveal personal information without consent” rule while using sockpuppets to terrorize another poster. You know. That situation that led to a meatspace threat of legal action against you.

    And let’s be honest. Me raining on your little parade then is what all your animosity is about now. And what ended our friendship.

    You really should just stop now.

    This is a fight you cannot win.

  71. AY, Thanks, it’s not a big deal, just painful. Even through my opiate haze I see your point completely and understand your anger. Lord knows I understand. Gene is beginning to implode. What is heartening is I am seeing fewer and fewer people enabling his increasing controlling and disturbing behavior. When Gene starts schmoozing me he knows he’s in stormy seas. As I’ve said previously, you’re righteous and honest, as is just about everyone here. We all have our imperfections, but we like this blog, and the people who are part of it. We put the blog before ourselves. Gene may very well believe he is also doing that. I’ve interviewed many people during my career who had convinced themselves that what they were doing was for the good of others, for noble reasons. However, the facts simply didn’t comport w/ that distorted reality. Time for more ice. My wife is being so helpful. I’m a very fortunate man. I just hope I’m able to drop a deuce sometime this weekend so I don’t explode. Thankfully, I like prune juice.

  72. You made a funny, nick.

    If you’d ever put this blog before yourself, one warning about the rules would have been sufficient.

    As for schmozing? I hardly see how being nice to two posters I’ve known a long time constitutes schmoozing. However and speaking of schmoozing, feel free to attach your rope to his sinking ship if you like.

    And that word, “implode” . . . I do not think it means what you think it means.

  73. Gene,

    You see I’m not fighting to win…. just expose injustices….nor am i revealing any personal information….. You on the other hand are doing and saying everything you say you’re against…. Tsk, tsk… I am Forwarding this as well to the blog administrator as well ….

  74. nick, You don’t know the history here like Gene, Blouise and and I do. It is much more complicated. Good luck in your recovery.

  75. You know, I don’t think anyone but the professor should censor or remove postings. For anyone else to do it casts the Professors ownership of the blawg into question and puts whichever guest blawger that pulls the switch on the spot. I have posted often that ‘it’s the Professors house’ and thats how I feel about it. he can make any decision about the blawg that he chooses.

    Consequently, I think that there are actions that are of such magnitude that only the Professor should exercise that authority. Considering the underlying theme of the blawg and the professional history and reputation that the Professor maintains, it’s his action in removing postings or moderating users that carries the maximum credibility and is beyond question or challenge. Anything less puts the guest blawgers on the firing line and is, in my opinion, a disservice to them.

    I read recently that the White House and the CIA had worked out an agreement whereby the CIA would assume the authority to direct certain kinds of drone strikes. This would serve two purposes one of which would be to allow the President plausible deniability should there be some blowback for particular strikes, the other encompassed that certain short term opportunities might be apparent to people collecting the intelligence that needed fast action. (I’m not sure that isn’t just a CYA position in this context.) The delegation of authority would last one year. Anybody else read that?

    That’s no way to run a railroad IMO.

    Some jobs only the guy running the railroad should do. It doesn’t matter if others are willing to do it or if it is an inconvenience in an otherwise busy day. That’s the nature of the job.

    That’s just the way I see it. I’m not looking to start a debate or have already stated reasons reiterated, I’m just expressing my opinion.

  76. LK,

    FWIW, I agree with most of that. That’s one of the reasons a policy on how to deal with persistent rule breakers is an open topic between the GBs and the Prof. As his time is limited and as the blog grows, it’s an issue that needs definition.

  77. LK,

    I agree with you and if a post is removed it should be labeled why and whom removed the same.

    As I’ve stated I did not think the post was that offensive. I disagreed with the posting but did not comment on it.

  78. “I agree with you and if a post is removed it should be labeled why and whom removed the same. ”

    And that is, I’m sure, an issue that will be addressed in the currently open dialog on the matter. Had such a policy been in place today, you might realize how utterly and precisely baseless your attack on me was, AY. In case you haven’t noticed, which obviously you haven’t, I tell people why I do things simply as a matter of due course.

  79. Really now Gene….

    This last response did not feel like an attack…. It was informative and to the point. But I still think someone else should be making the decisions in what’s in violation of the rules….

    My Sand Castles pretty cool….thank you for you concern….

  80. Now Gene,

    That’s an unwarranted and uncalled for personal attack…. You should have just left it alone. But you can’t and you make everything personal….yet call others out as violating the terms and rules of the blawg…mild for you, I must say…. That’s one of the reasons I don’t think you should have administrator privileges any longer…. You make it too personal…. Though I think you should still be able to guest blog….

    Forwarded:

  81. Not at all. It’s a critique of your stance. My, but you’ve got an active imagination.

    Forward away.

  82. Gene,

    A critique is an personal opinion and in this case you made it personal…. Can’t you see what you’re doing…. There is a difference…

  83. Gene,

    Do you think you might be a blog bully? Transparent… I’ve stated it clearly I think….

  84. Really. And how is essentially stating your argument is built on a faulty foundation a personal attack? Exactly.

  85. Now who’s making it personal?

    Well. In all fairness, it has apparently been personal all along and by your own admission.

  86. Sure Gene…. I’m in agreement with you…. Whatever you say has to be right….you are implementing the rules as you see fit… And someone calls you on it… You take it personal…. Sorry, I’ll try and be a little less obvious next time….. Ok doh ka..

  87. I’ll take your mockery as a sign of weakness.

    You also keep missing the salient point – I had nothing to do with slccobra’s comment other than explaining the seeming reason for its removal.

    Everyone with administrative access and emails about that post knows this as a factual matter.

    So who exactly are you claiming is “implementing the rules as [they] see fit” if it wasn’t me?

    That’s really a question you should be asking yourself.

  88. And I’m still waiting for your explanation of how is essentially stating your argument is built on a faulty foundation a personal attack? Exactly.

  89. SWM, Thanks, But it’s small potatoes. I do much better w/ physical pain than w/ emotional pain.

  90. Well Gene,

    I suppose you need a new target and I’m it….. And yes, you know what I’m saying…. Now, if you can just get your anger issues under control and duplicity in balance you might be ok….. But until then, I do not think you should have administrator privileges….

  91. Gene,

    No one is mocking you… A posting was deleted and you inferred the professor did it… How’s that…

  92. No, you attacked me and expected I’d be an easy target and you’re not finding that to be the case, but thanks for making the 8:18 comment personal again and thus proving my point about this being a personal attack by you based on purely personal motives.

    And I didn’t say you were mocking me. You answered questions in a mocking manner which indicates your argument is weak.

    Also, learn the difference between “imply” and “infer”.

    I said “Your assumption is that it wasn’t the Prof who deleted that comment.” The statement I made was direct and about your assumption.

    And that is still your assumption to make based on your statement that you “know for a fact that the prof didn’t remove it gene”.

    I made a direct statement about your assumption that “somebody” removed the comment. Your previous statement implied that it wasn’t the Prof who removed the comment (OS or “someone”).

    At which point I said what I said about your assumption. A statement which you then proceeded to follow with a direct assertion of “I know for a fact that the prof didn’t remove it gene”.

    A statement for which you provided no proof.

    Really.

    And how do you know this as a factual matter? Or did you in fact assume the he didn’t remove the comment as indicated by your OS or “someone” language?

    Also, I’m still waiting for your explanation of how is essentially stating your argument is built on a faulty foundation a personal attack? Exactly.

  93. FYI, I won’t be waiting forever though. I’m going out for dinner and a movie so you’ll have some free time to make all the faulty arguments you wish and I’ll just have to be amused by them later.

  94. Gene,

    You have made everything that you disagree with personal and in an attacking manner. No one can disagree with you or call you on your BS without risk of being personally attacked.

    As soon as you get over your anger issues and deal with your duplicity in handling matter for the Jonathan Turkey Blawg, you might see why some think you are unreasonable.

    Now, if you like someone and they are breaking the rules you do not confront them…. On the other hand, if you disapprove of someone or someone is new you make it your mission to drive them off… And say it in what you say that you don’t really care if they stay around or not…. You can be extremely rude and crass with people…

    Do you need to be reminded that you do not own this blawg…. It is not yours to do with as you please… What is funny, you talk about these important decisions that are being made off the blawg, in camera… Is this the FISA court? Are you authorizing wiretaps for the NSA…. Do you understand how really ridiculous that sounds…. Isn’t an in camera review some a judge does?

    Think about that….

    Now think about this… Since you have indicated that you cannot be unbiased and you tend to rip people to shreds that you disagree with and/or place them in moderation and/or delete posts just because you can is not an example that this thread needs. If the principles of free speech are to exist….. It’s not my call but the professors…. But based upon past actions you are unfit to continue this position…..

  95. Gene,

    Proof is not something you’ve ever really needed…. a hunch will do you…right…. but its in an in camera review… You know what what I mean, right?

  96. Blah blah blah and almost entirely irrelevant blah. I see a lot of opinion there and no evidence whatsoever. You don’t like me. Boo hoo. So what? 20% of all people aren’t going to like you no matter what. I know why you don’t like me. I just don’t care. Why? It’s irrelevant.

    Can’t answer the above questions, can you? So you respond with more ad hominem. Awww. It’d be adorable if it wasn’t so sad.

    Well, I attack arguments and assertions. If you’ve got a problem with that, it’s entirely your problem. If someone accosts me verbally? Sure, I’ll defend myself, but I’m as nice to people as they let me be. However, if some can’t handle when their arguments and assertions are challenged? Say . . . when you bring up that their evidence is immaterial or their logic is faulty? Well that’s not my problem either. People stand or fall in the marketplace of ideas by their own proclivity and the merits of their arguments. If they want an echo chamber, there are plenty of places to find that sort of thing on the Web.

    Bad ideas and weak evidence get challenged.

    It’s part of the marketplace of ideas.

    Put on your big boy pants.

    Free speech isn’t for the weak of heart.

    Everyone’s entitled to their opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts and logic.

    And again, your assumption about who deleted the post on this thread is really going to return to bite you.

    It’s a wrong assumption that you’re still making.

    I never stand in the way of an opponent making a mistake, especially when it’s in pursuit of a mindless personal vendetta.

  97. Very professional Gene…. Very…. And it does not really matter who deleted the post…. The fact is… It’s a suppression of speech to have removed it….you complain about Obama…. But, someone decided to delete it…. Its pure hypocrisy….. Quit trying to make this personal…. Its not about me unless you wanna continue it….

    It’s about you abusing your Guest Blogging status and admin privileges…. Yes gene, you placed a number of my posts in moderation…. I saved the pages…. Where it states that its being held in moderation…. You did it to nick until something was said to you….. You did it to three others that I’m aware of this year alone….so that’s five…..

    I have registered my complaints as you suggested…. I have no issue with you guest blogging…… But…. To act as the owner…. Yep…. Unless you have something new to say…. Don’t bother responding….thank you for respecting this request…. Enjoy the movie….

  98. I believe there is something that is not being addressed here. Some are asserting that only the blog’s owner, JT, has the authority to sanction a user and that the guest bloggers do not have the authority to do so. Here is the fault in that line of thinking. The assertion that guest bloggers should not have the authority is contradictory to the position.

    AY by you saying that Gene (or some other guest blogger who, if they were, the ones who removed the post) cannot have the authority because he is not the owner of this blog, you are contradicting your position because you, who are also not the owner of this blog, are dictating that Gene shouldn’t be allowed to delete posts, an authority that is delegated by the blog’s owner. In fact, your position is one where you expect an owner’s right to choose what is and what is not deleted, but you don’t have such right and you are making a criticism of a person who has expressly granted that right by the owner.

    You might find it difficult to successfully convince JT that it is not proper to delegate editing rights to those other than himself. That would be the equivalent of me allowing a customer to dictate what my managers buy from vendors. If I delegate my manager to approve widgets on the store that is my right and choice. I don’t let the customers decide what I buy or what I discontinue. I could but I choose not to. The admin rigths that JT delegates are the same as this.

    The same is true of this blog with JT. Any one of us here are guests who post here are At Will with JT. I don’t think it is too much to ask of us to play by his house rules and not make up ones that we think he should adopt.

  99. Bingo Darren,

    Such as arbitrary and capricious enforcement….. You are absolutely correct…. However, I’ve been around here long enough as well as communicated with JT through the years….. He would not…. And I repeat would NOT sanction removal of that post based upon the things that were in it….

    You have seen Gene in action with Nick…. What did Nick say that was against blog policy? It was purely gene making a unilateral decision to place him in moderation….Unil and When Gene starts acting according to the rules he says he supports… And then violates each and everyone of them he should not be allowed the enforcement powers or administrator privileges….

    JT can allow people to act in his stead…. Agreed…this is his blawg….. You were or are a cop….you know rogue when you see it…. And this has become a rogue issue….

    Now place yourself on the receiving end of someone in powers nastiness…. Would you stay around? I expect you to defend gene…. From what I have seen… You will….that’s your position…and you should be commended for it… Loyalty is a lost moral code today…

    That’s my peace…. And I live with it…. I have been the target before…. And I took up for Nick when he was being the target this last week….so now, I’m the target again…. Because of my complaining of the deletion of the post…..

    To not raise the issue of suppression is to join in the camps of congress…. We did it for your own good….I’m not a follower…. I don’t need validation…..I am ok with myself…. Thank you for your input….

  100. The GBs are at war with the Spambots. We delete spam comments all day long. We also check the spam folder to see if anyone got put there inadvertently and move them out. I like to keep the spam folder empty, by deleting those comments, so I can more easily distinguish when someone’s comment is there incorrectly. If the GBs couldn’t delete comments, the spam that does get through would ruin the blog for everyone. As long as a regular doesn’t use one of the four words, their comments shouldn’t be deleted.

  101. Nal,

    I have no problem with GBs that don’t have an agenda and follow the rules…. I do have issues with GBs that then call others out for the same conduct that they themselves are guilty of…. And place folks in moderation….. Nal, You have always been fair and equal….

    Too bad, you can’t stream anymore…. I do miss that….and per chance did you see searching for sugar man….

  102. The blog doesn’t let me upload MP3s anymore, that requires additional features that cost more. It’s just as well, the RIAA goons are everywhere. In the meantime, I’ve obtained some really nice additions to my stereo collection.

    I may have seen a TV program about Sugar Man. What a terrific story.

  103. Darren, I think there is a difficulty with terms at work here also. The proper term utilized universally on blawgs for persons that have the authority to police a blawg are called “moderators”. I think this needs to be cleared up as a matter of form. People know what to expect regarding moderators. The standard concept of “guest bloggers” and “moderators” are not the same. If the guest bloggers (or some guest bloggers) have been ‘promoted’ to moderators that’s cool, it’s the Professor’s call but the Professor needs to make that changed status clear. If it’s not clear, well, see above. There’s no need for that, it’s unfair, and it’s easy to remedy.

    Darren, I’m one of those people that think that only the blog owner should police it for the purpose of censoring postings (other than spam) and ban, or ‘time out’ posters- IN THE ABSENCE OF DESIGNATED MODERATORS. Otherwise people get paranoid about who is in charge and the possibility of variable standards starts to become an issue. It’s just group dynamics. I have seen it before and it don’t want to see it again here. I don’t care what the Professor does with his blog, it’s not my business because it’s not my blog, I’m a guest here. But it’s helpful for his guests to know what he’s doing with his blog.

    BTW guys, being up all night I see the comment queue fill up with spam, fill ALL THE WAY UP, and in one of the threads (during the day) I ran across some spam that if you clicked the link it took you to a very graphic NSFW splash page on a porn site. I do appreciate all of the work being done to keep the site spam free and from what I see in the middle of the night I’m sure that it’s a constant job. Thanks a bunch for making sure I don’t have to wade through all that dreck.

  104. Nal,

    Thanks…

    About sugar man…. He didn’t realize he was famous…. He was introduced by Motown but kinda abandoned … So he bummed around went to work in the car plant… Until he found out he was still in demand… He didn’t really do anything with his music…. I heard from Eric Nadel the announcer for the Rangers… That the man donates all of the proceeds from his concerts to charities ….. Stardom has not affected his ego… He knew who he was and still does… A musician….. A class act… I would contribute towards you being able to stream on this blog if the professors saw fit…. That’s the only way ill get exposed to some great tunes….

  105. Well here it is at the end of the day and I see a controversy about slcobras comment being deleted and others being accused for my action. Here is what occurred and those can judge me, or not for my actions. Part of what we guest bloggers do is moderste the spam and modrration filters since many comments get stuck there wrongly. slcobra made a rather long comment and in the course of which used one of the forbidden words so was autoaticcally put in moderation by WordPress. I saw the comment in moderation. Since there were no other banned words in it my first inclination was to edit the banned word and approve it. However, when I read the comment again it was quite crude and has a violent subtext. Since if I hadn’t intervened the remark would have remaied in mediation forever. We are under no obligation to edit your material too pass muster, Considering the nature of the comment and given that it would have remained in moderation I deleted it. Please fee free to comment.

  106. Mike,

    I think the outrage is over the second comment (which I never saw until it was in the trash). If it’s still there, you can see it’s basically a threat. I don’t know who yanked that one.

    ___________________

    AY,

    Of course it’s about you. It’s about something you said I didn’t do, namely go after rule violators if I liked them. I used to like you, but I did advocate for action to be taken about your previous rule violation. Which in turn pissed you off and is the root of your current vendetta which is entirely personal. Which brings us to the standards for dealing with persistent rule breakers again, which is – as I said – an open subject. You loved the rules when they protected you from Patty and yet when the rules protect someone else – in particular someone you don’t like personally – you get your knickers all twisted. Why is that exactly? That you want inconsistent rules in one breath and consistent rules in the next? Your argument is from not just a position of inherent contradiction as Darren pointed out, but multiple points of inherent contradictions. Personally, I prefer equal protection.

    I’m certain policies will be worked out to deal with persistent rule breakers that fall shy of traditional moderation. As I said, in out of camera discussions – which try to stretch your mind to grasp this simply means conversations not held in open on the blog – the model as promulgated here is essentially self-moderating. By in large, it works very well. The rules are simple. There are only a scant few of them. If I or other GBs tell people when they are running afoul of the rules (and then usually only after they’ve displayed a pattern of behavior), for 99.9% of them, that’s all it takes.

    However, rules without consequence are suggestions. The very limited force used to make a point to your new buddy came after many months of behavior that had be been attacking other posters and not GBs would have most certainly meant him meeting the nuclear option long ago. It was made because of his very vocal and very open refusal to follow the civility rule. No other reason. Not personalities. Not because of his choice in targets. Because he was not just breaking the rules, he was taking a whiz on them.

    You wanted to bring pols into this? Well . . . isn’t that the exact basis of many of the complaints made about Washington? That they aren’t just breaking the rules but doing so brazenly? Free speech is a critical value and with the very few constraints the rules create (all of which comply with the established jurisprudence surrounding free speech), it is protected here more than any place on the Internet I can think of. People can advocate an position on any topic and are only subject to the scrutiny of other posters, not any predisposition of the blog owner or some corporate or partisan interest. People can have all the anonymous political free speech they want. We even let someone ramble on about bestiality without sanction. Why? Because he’s not attacking other posters, he’s not defaming other posters, he’s not threatening anyone with physical violence and he’s not inciting people to violence or panic.

    Sounds reasonable to me.

    Who knows? What rules we have may be disposed with altogether. Then posters can run amok 4Chan style and this place will quickly become as much fun and have as much utility. Much the same thing will happen as the blog continues to grow if you really expect one already busy man to deal with every administrative task required. However it works out though, it will work out.

    Banning is a power JT has specifically reserved and all the GBs respect that reservation. No one has been banned in a very long time. However, until policies are in place to deal with persistent problem rule breakers, the terrain is being assembled piecemeal.

    Your rather obvious personal vendetta notwithstanding.

  107. LottaKatz

    I understand what you are saying about not having proper designations for those who have administrative authority on a blog and that can cause some issues. Some blogs denote rankings on each user, such as guest; moderator; super-user; and owner. Those designations are often posted besides each person’s username. That might help but sometimes I think it creates issues where if users become infatuated with rankings it causes politics and intrigue in games people play when they effectively jocky for position.

    You have a good point in some of the crowd psych about what can go on. But I experienced a situation that might offer some form of example. Sorry for using analogy, but it might be more clear in this case.

    Back in the late 1980’s and probably until the mid 1990’s several friends and I would often go to this natural hot springs area near Steven’s Pass in WA. The property was owned by some doctors who essentially kept it open for anyone who wanted to make use of it. Fortunately it was not easy to get to, requiring a 45 minute hike up a steep hill to get to it and even then you had to know how to get there. It kept a lot of riff-raff out. Anyway, various people went up there and eventually constructed hot-tub like decks and pools for it. It was really a nice place to go.

    The rules were pretty much DBAD, pack out what you bring in, and be cool and friendly to others. and clothing was optional. One nice aspect of it was once everyone was in the buff, everyone was equal in the sense that clothing and other social status issues didn’t matter. It was just people visiting.

    A few years went by and for various reasons some people who were there more frequently decided to self-appoint themselves to be keepers of the ponds. Some minor incidents happened; minor such as trash and stupid stuff, and posted rules started to show up at the ponds, along with the self designated person who went by the name “crowbar”. I met him a couple times and he was an alright guy, but a bit let’s just say different. Soon much ado about nothing happened. I heard some talk there were some differences of opinion going on and things started getting more complicated and I suspect a power struggle started.

    Then, something snapped. People were going up there and causing problems and being jackarses. The sheriff’s office got called up there a few times, then the politicians got a hold of it and went out to paint these hot springs as being some kind of dope infested orgy, and even made outlandish claims that the effluent from the water going past peoples’ bodies would pollute the water 30 miles downstream.

    Around that time, some people decided to take revenge against the hot springs and went up there and totally trashed all the decks and the ponds themselves. When I saw the photos of that it must made my heart sink. But it didn’t surprise me. It seemed like just another example of something that was really good, free and special getting ruined by a few rotten eggs that can only make a mark by destroying something worthwhile.

    Finally the property owners had enough and shut it down. That was a long time ago and I haven’t been back. Maybe it changed since but I don’t know.

    So Lotta, I can see where you are coming from with some self-appointed irregulars can often lead to strife, but so can the laisez-faire behavior of an owner of in this case the property, this blog, or any other organization. That is why it is essential to a good organization to have persons who are delegated authority by the owner to act to prevent problems from turning into a meltdown and ruining it for everyone, including the owners. Because if there were no “moderators” or such this blog could really degenerate like many others do. I believe it is a good balance here. We don’t have the self-appointed police here as you are concerned with and we don’t have the authoritarian “ban all offenders” type of drama that goes with IRC or other places on the internet.

    But the power-struggle issues need to stop because that can bring down an otherwise enjoyable organization. Any action taken must be definate and effective but it also must be legitimate and under the owner’s or the owner’s agent’s discretion.

  108. LottaKatz

    You have a good point in some of the crowd psych about what can go on. But I experienced a situation that might offer some form of example. Sorry for using analogy, but it might be more clear in this case.

    Back in the late 1980’s and probably until the mid 1990’s several friends and I would often go to this natural hot springs area near Steven’s Pass in WA. The property was owned by some doctors who essentially kept it open for anyone who wanted to make use of it. Fortunately it was not easy to get to, requiring a 45 minute hike up a steep hill to get to it and even then you had to know how to get there. It kept a lot of riff-raff out. Anyway, various people went up there and eventually constructed hot-tub like decks and pools for it. It was really a nice place to go.

    The rules were pretty much DBAD, pack out what you bring in, and be cool and friendly to others. and clothing was optional. One nice aspect of it was once everyone was in the buff, everyone was equal in the sense that clothing and other social status issues didn’t matter. It was just people visiting.

    A few years went by and for various reasons some people who were there more frequently decided to self-appoint themselves to be keepers of the ponds. Some minor incidents happened; minor such as trash and stupid stuff, and posted rules started to show up at the ponds, along with the self designated person who went by the name “crowbar”. I met him a couple times and he was an alright guy, but a bit let’s just say different. Soon much ado about nothing happened. I heard some talk there were some differences of opinion going on and things started getting more complicated and I suspect a power struggle started.

    Then, something snapped. People were going up there and causing problems and being jackarses. The sheriff’s office got called up there a few times, then the politicians got a hold of it and went out to paint these hot springs as being some kind of dope infested orgy, and even made outlandish claims that the effluent from the water going past peoples’ bodies would pollute the water 30 miles downstream.

    Around that time, some people decided to take revenge against the hot springs and went up there and totally trashed all the decks and the ponds themselves. When I saw the photos of that it must made my heart sink. But it didn’t surprise me. It seemed like just another example of something that was really good, free and special getting ruined by a few rotten eggs that can only make a mark by destroying something worthwhile.

    Finally the property owners had enough and shut it down. That was a long time ago and I haven’t been back. Maybe it changed since but I don’t know.

    So Lotta, I can see where you are coming from with some self-appointed irregulars can often lead to strife, but so can the laisez-faire behavior of an owner of in this case the property, this blog, or any other organization. That is why it is essential to a good organization to have persons who are delegated authority by the owner to act to prevent problems from turning into a meltdown and ruining it for everyone, including the owners. Because if there were no “moderators” or such this blog could really degenerate like many others do. I believe it is a good balance here. We don’t have the self-appointed police here as you are concerned with and we don’t have the authoritarian “ban all offenders” type of drama that goes with IRC or other places on the internet.

    But the power-struggle issues need to stop because that can bring down an otherwise enjoyable organization. Any action taken must be definate and effective but it also must be legitimate and under the owner’s or the owner’s agent’s discretion.

  109. AY, I’m iced down, a bit less medicated, and ready to be your ally today. We have some superb Guest Bloggers but a “chain is only as strong as its weakest link.” And if you’re scatological AY, I’ll be happy to report on any bowel movements. Those opiates make your a$$hole tighter than a clam’s ass, and that’s water tight.

  110. Mike s.,

    Thank you…. But, I will again say I didn’t think it deserved deletion…. It was not in moderation…. It was posted… Thank you for you honesty….

    LK,

    You have many valid points….

    Nick,

    Yep…

    Gene,

    An inconvienced truth…. Whatever you determine in the truth is your truth….you have no other truth…. As soon as you get over your anger issues you might amount to something good here…..

    I stand by my original stance… You don’t possess the requisite character to have the power at this time because you can’t separate feelings from personalities…. And punish both that you don’t like…

    Whatever else you wrote I didn’t read… Just being honest…. I don’t care what you have to say….. You are not to be trusted…. Base only upon your actions demonstrated here…as recently indicated…

    You threaten banning and its not your call…. Didn’t you read the post by JT are don’t rules apply to you?

  111. Darren,

    Bingo… And when you have rules being enforced irregular based upon personality… You have issues brewing…. That’s what’s happening here and I object…. Nothing more nothing less… You believe what you do and I’ll believe based upon history of this blawg what I know… We can agree to disagree…..

  112. Darren:

    “I don’t let the customers decide what I buy or what I discontinue. I could but I choose not to.”

    So then how do you make any money? You dont try to figure out what your customers want?

    Dont you discontinue the items which arent selling? Isnt that directly related to what your customers want and dont want?

  113. I will also repeat what I’ve said, this blog needs 2 more Guest Bloggers, and they DESPERATELY need to be female.

  114. nick:

    we need some minority GB’s as well.

    I am getting board with liberal, white males. They are so predictable.:)

  115. I don’t care what color, sex, male, female or religion so long as they are fair and equitable….I agree we need some balance…. And someone to appeal to directly… Even the FISA court has an appeal process…. But then again, too many rules may happier the exercise of free speech. It’s a tricky balance…..

  116. Hamper the exercise of free speech……

    What we don’t need is another blog bully….especially with admin powers… You see that’s what I’m really complaining about..

  117. AY:

    honestly, there are more important things to worry about and to do something about. A failed president who looks like a clown to the rest of the world, rising utility bills from a mandated carbon tax, a possible war in Syria which could expand into a world war, domestic spying, a piss poor economy, out of control IRS, etc.

    Hopefully the people will rise up in 2014 and remove all of the existing congress and 1/3 of the senators and put in independents who are serious about the Constitution.

  118. AY,

    You seem to forget that I not only know you outside this place, I know people who know you outside this place. I’m fairly certain your commenting on anyone’s character or trustworthiness is just the height of hilarity. And the irony of you calling anyone a bully after you got threatened with actual IRL legal action for bullying another poster is just oh so rich. But thanks for keeping your argument ad hominem and thus proving my point your original stance has no substance beyond your petty personal vendetta.

    And to be clear, I didn’t threaten to personally ban anyone. I reminded them that the consequences of their actions could include banning and encouraged them to change their behavior before it got to that point. To wit:

    You mistakenly attribute anger where this is none, nick. I’m incredibly slow to anger. Just so, the wasps weren’t angry either. They were wasps doing what come naturally when you attacked them. If you didn’t like the result of your actions, stop making them. I can’t state it any simpler than you reap what you sow. You violate the rules of this forum? Then you will face consequences. That your choice of violating the rules is to perpetually engage in gratuitous ad hominem attacks against two guest bloggers is ultimately immaterial. What is material is your unwillingness/inability to follow the few rules we do have.

    Believe it or not, I’m trying to get you to take a path that doesn’t end in your getting banned. We’ve only ever had to ban one person here. I’d really prefer it stays that way. But if you can’t function within the parameters of the community? In the end, you have no one to blame but yourself if you don’t like the consequences.

    It’s about the rules, AY. A loss of reading comprehension can be a terrible thing. Speaking of which . . .

    As the Prof said, “I am the only person who can ban an individual and it takes a demonstrated history of racist or hateful comments or a refusal to comply with our civility rule.” Which, as has been explained, is precisely the behavior your buddy was being cautioned against: a refusal to comply with our civility rule. Or we could have simply let him march merrily headlong into a situation where he was banned without ever warning him at all that his behavior was running afoul of the rules. I don’t know about you, but when someone says “you’re about to step on that rattlesnake”, I usually avoid stepping on the rattlesnake. Not only that, but I’m usually appreciative of the heads up. I guess some like to go wave their foot in front of it instead. Natural selection is a harsh mistress. I would have thought you learned that by now. Some lessons are never learned.

    BTW, your making an ad hominem argument in support of someone who ran afoul of the rules for persistently making ad hominem arguments in contravention of the civility rule is also pretty funny in itself.

    I know it’s probably often hard to see through your ice cream induced sugar haze and the ice cream headaches can be murder, but do try to keep up.

    Thanks for the laugh though.

  119. Bron,

    “Hopefully the people will rise up in 2014 and remove all of the existing congress and 1/3 of the senators and put in independents who are serious about the Constitution.”

    We as a nation should be so fortunate.

  120. AY,

    And thank you for your perfectly expected and consistently immaterial response. BTW, any pain you’re experiencing is entirely your own. I stipulated that those ice cream headaches can be murder. C’est la vie.
    _________________

    RTC,
    😀

    Yeah! What about that guy?

    Seriously though, what about that guy? He just vanished. Moved to solitary?

  121. Bron, I have lamented often of the lack of black folk here and I have tried to recruit some. Two guys I know have read this blog for awhile and said, “No f@cking way.” This blog is insular and cliquey, but I see some of the cliques breaking up, which is good.

  122. Gene,

    You’re welcome….. The rest are your issues…. Grandiosity must be hard to live down… That’s the bully in you though …. But that’s what I’ve been saying all along…. You fail to grasp that that’s who you are….and that’s what this blawg does not need…. If you could make a point without being personal I’d have no issues… But you take it further than it needs to be by making it personal and then exercising your position to place for in moderation … Or threat of banning them….

    And yes I still eat mass qualities of ice cream…. Thank you for asking….

  123. AY, I think we need to be persistent yet patient. The true colors of some are becoming clear, and I trust and respect Mr. Turley. I am patient by nature. I have some natural persistence but that was improved by my chosen profession. Unfortunately, we have an impatient and quitter culture. However, if you don’t fall prey to that negativity, you are rewarded. Not today, tomorrow, next month or sometimes next year; but eventually you are rewarded. In the meantime stay positive and laugh. Be grateful for the small things. I just dropped a great deuce[quart of prune juice helped], and I’m happier than a pig in shit.

  124. AY,

    Next time you offer a personal opinion on someone else, especially in the form of ad hominem gibberish, perhaps you should try doing it to someone who doesn’t actually know you.

    For those of us who do, it only makes us laugh.

  125. Nick,

    I used to respond to negativity with negativity…. I kept loosing focus…. Today…. I’m not playing that game…. Gene is a bully…. And abuses the privilege of being a guest blogger….. When he gets upset with something he can’t control or run off… He feels threatened and resorts to personal attacks… And threatens banning and or places one in moderation… This is abusive…it’s time for it to stop….

  126. Too bad you have no say in the matter, AY.

    But it is funny you say you’re “not playing that game” is followed immediately by an ad hominem attack.

    At least you’re consistent.

  127. You’re so right gene…. I have no say in the matter…. Now! Play nice and run along….and quit being a bully… It may be your style…. But stop it… Oh, that’s right… I have now say in that matter either….as John Prine sang… You are what you are and you ain’t what you ain’t….. Now move along….

  128. Seriously, I can keep poking holes in your stance all day long. It’s riddled with contradiction and bad logic. If you’ve learned anything about me over the years, it should be that I can argue a boulder into gravel. And will.

    Then again, some people just never learn.

    Just like some people never learn that its usually bullies who scream the loudest about bullies when they run across someone who isn’t going to take any crap off of them.

    So please, call me a bully again.

    It’s funny.

  129. nick:

    I like Gene but he is pretty tough and has run off more than one person. Although if they cant handle the heat stay out of the kitchen.

    When he doesnt comment for periods of time, more and different people post. I am amazed that there are so many woosies in the world.

    “Oooh Gene H. told me my logic sucked, I am so insulted.” “Wawawa, Gene H. said dont poke the bear.” “(tears running down their face) Gene H. said I argue like a moron.”

    When I was a kid, my grandfather told me to take a baseball bat to a bully. If people think Gene H is a bully? Then take a figurative baseball bat to him and thrash him. Just do it within the boundaries and if he steps outside them? Then copy and send to the Prof., I imagine if he gets enough of them from enough different people he will take appropriate action.

    All this he said, she said stuff is getting on my nerves. If Gene H. has this much power over people, then the American public must be full of cowards. And we deserve to be wire tapped, taxed, intimidated and otherwise be made miserable by those in power.

    People used to make fun of slogans like “better dead than red” and “live free or die”. I say who wants to live in a country full of cowards who are afraid to comment on a blog because one individual tells them their logic sucks.

    No wonder America has serious problems with our government. If people cannot stand up to one lone individual on a blog dedicated to civil liberties how do they hope to curtail the massive abuse by a burgeoning totalitarian state?

  130. Gene,

    Being a bully and being able to argue well are separate and distinct concepts….. Most people can tell the difference….then some can’t…. But I have no say in the matter…..so you say….

  131. Bron,

    The only power I have is the power of logic, rhetoric, a knowledge of how to evaluate evidence and evidentiary standards, and a thorough understanding of the psychology of argumentation.

    I’ve consistently said, “If you think I’m wrong, prove it.” Some do, many do not. Just like men, all arguments are created equal – everyone has one just like opinions, but not all arguments are equally created. Such is the way of things.

    However, you’re right about one thing. Our country is doomed if people can’t exercise logic, rhetoric and evidence to substantiate their claims. No right was ever retained that wasn’t fought for.

    If you think your logic (and evidence) is strong?

    You should be willing to prove it.

    Your ability to prove it will only improve with practice.

    Your own personal improvement at argumentation has made leaps and bounds over the years. Do you really think that it would have done so absent the presence of challenge? Probably not.

  132. AY,

    Yes, they are distinct, but the one with the problem discerning that difference is you. If you aren’t winning an argument, it’s because yours is weaker either substantively or rhetorically, not that the other person is a bully. That’s a common misunderstanding usually carried by amateurs at argumentation. But instead of learning from that, you choose more ad hominem. Like I said, at least you’re consistent.

  133. Gene,

    Sure it is…it is as you say or you wouldn’t say it…that’s the fact… And if someone disagrees with you…. You call them idiots or something else…. Don’t you see the delusion in your contradictory self…. I think Bron hit it square on…. You run otherwise good people off…

  134. The marketplace of ideas is a Darwinian process.

    Good ideas and arguments survive, bad one don’t, and the thin skinned take it personally when their ideas and arguments don’t survive.

    Big boy pants. Get some. Like Bron says, what chance do you have standing against a government if you can’t stand against one guy arguing? Not much.

    And I don’t have to call people idiots nor do I, AY. Those that are often make that bed themselves. That’s why I attack their arguments. Just like I’m attacking your argument – which is still a weak form of “you’re just a big meanie”. Just because someone makes an idiotic argument does not mean they themselves are idiotic. Do I call arguments idiotic? It has been known to happen. I’ve certainly called them irrational, illogical and said they lacked evidence. I’ve seen me do it before. I’ll probably do so again.

    See again what Bron said about heat and kitchens.

    Free speech isn’t for the faint of heart.

  135. Gene H:

    pretty much my point.

    Many people will shrink if you just tell them they are wrong without even having to make an argument. They have such little confidence in their beliefs or their intellect, they shrink without so much as a snivel.

    I say if you are a wall flower then dont post here if you dont want your ideas examined and criticized.

    I enjoy it. The only way to get better at fighting is to have your a$$ whipped a few times.

  136. “Many people will shrink if you just tell them they are wrong without even having to make an argument. They have such little confidence in their beliefs or their intellect, they shrink without so much as a snivel.”

    Yep.

    Or they go straight for the ol’ “you’re a dooty head”.

  137. Gene,

    Your postings speak for themselves…. Though you deny…. It is still true…. You know me well enough to know, I won’t back down when you’re being a bully….. That’s really the only time you get engaged….. Quit being a bully and move on…. Oh yeah…. I have no say in the matter….

  138. Gene,

    No whining…. I promise… Just because you don’t like the truth when its served on a bamboo plate doesn’t mean it’s still not the truth…. I get it… I have no say in the matter…. You’ll still be a bully….

  139. Again, your opinion doesn’t qualify as fact, AY.

    You think I’m a bully?

    No one cares. Least of all me. But if you’d like to keep adding to the chain of your already manifest ad hominem argument that you admitted was in fact personal for you, I really don’t mind. It proves my point your argument isn’t substantive and based in personal animus.

    I don’t care if you beat your head against the wall until it’s a bloody mess, but, hey! There’s a wall over there. You might not want to beat your head against it. Don’t mistake my caution as concern for your well being.

    Not knowing when to give up is just as bad as not knowing how to argue in the first place.

  140. However, since you’re into offering opinions from behind your wall of anonymity, would you like my honest opinion of you?

    I’ll be glad to give it.

    You won’t like it, but I’ll be glad to give it.

    And you’ll be nice and cozy hiding under your blankie.

  141. Nah! On second thought, I won’t kick you when you’re down, AY. You’ll just have to use your imagination if you want to know my honest opinion of you.

  142. Stated like a true bully Gene… Who would expect anything different from a bully….. I don’t…. Now, knowing when to shut up is a matter you have no comprehension…. I presume you didn’t break the concrete wall?

  143. I think Bron stated you were a bully…..as well….or can logically be inferred….but, as you say I have no say in the matter…

    I think you are a bully as well…. What you think is no concern of mine… I can’t control the demons that make you say and do the things you do…. I absolutely love my blankie…. You should get one…. Maybe it might help you feel more secure in the real world….

  144. Bron asked
    “So then how do you make any money? You dont try to figure out what your customers want?”
    ~+~
    What I meant to convey was I don’t have the individual customers dictate orders to my suppliers. If I let customers do this, the business would be in disarray because the customer does not know the business well enough. If one customer decided he wanted to see a case of a particular product on the shelf just because he “might” buy it someday I lose money. It could be stagant on the shelf for a year because nobody else wanted to have it. The products I carry can range in price from (wholesale) $44.00 a case to $44,000.00. If I had customers placing wholesale orders for the latter I would be out of business in a week.

    And yes it is entirely market driven as to what I put on the shelf. But the decision to do so ultimately rests with me or by delegation my managers.

  145. You see Gene, you’re trying to provoke me into saying some contrary to blog policy…. Reread your post about what gets someone banned…. You have proven by your own statements…. You will break them…. Get a real life… Go fishing…. Cool down…. Go for a boat ride…. Do something rather than be passive aggressive.. Though it fits your dysfunctional personality… It’s not what the blawg stands for….

  146. Awwww. Did snuggums get his nose pinched under his blankie?

    If you think I’m going to let you continue calling me whatever name you please without defending myself, that’s a really interesting mistake you’re making. “This guy is a bully for not letting me bully him!” How’s that strategy working out for, sport?

    You do know that Einstein once defined insanity as repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different result?

    That kind of strategy has worked out so well for you in other areas.

    But like I said, at least you’re consistent.

    Did it ever occur to you that maybe I don’t run afoul of the rules is that I both know them and understand their limits?

    Maybe you should consider that.

  147. I’m not trying to provoke into anything. From word one from you on this thread to me, the provocation has come from you. Your ad hominem argument is manifest. It’s only at the point of a failing argument at this point, but if you’d like to drag it out for months like some people have, I’m sure you’ll run afoul of the rules eventually.

  148. You know Gene… Some people don’t know you… But you are a bully…. Fully replete with plenty of demonstrable posts by you…. You made this personal…. I’ve tried to take the higher road…. You still use and say whatever is available to you at the moment…. I feel your pain…. Those demons but be awful….

  149. Now, Gene… Go away… Take a break…. Learn breathing exercises…. Cool down… Go fishing… Relax…. I’m concerned about your health…

  150. AY:

    “There is a fundamental conviction which some people never acquire, some hold only in their youth, and a few hold to the end of their days—the conviction that ideas matter . . . . That ideas matter means that knowledge matters, that truth matters, that one’s mind matters . . . .

    Its consequence is the inability to believe in the power or the triumph of evil. No matter what corruption one observes in one’s immediate background, one is unable to accept it as normal, permanent or metaphysically right. One feels: “This injustice (or terror or falsehood or frustration or pain or agony) is the exception in life, not the rule.” One feels certain that somewhere on earth—even if not anywhere in one’s surroundings or within one’s reach—a proper, human way of life is possible to human beings, and justice matters.”

  151. Bron and AY, Good work. Take note Gene is solo on this. There was a time, not long ago, when there would be a posse chasing you two free thinkers back into the herd, or banished from the herd. I’ve been “moderated” and deleted w/o righteousness. So, I know how you feel. My opiate haze only allows me to offer moral support. But, as I learned over my career, listen for what people don’t say. Take note of who doesn’t appear. And find some laughs as you joust. Time for some prune juice.

  152. Ay:

    “There are Romanticists whose basic premise, in effect, is that man possesses volition in regard to consciousness, but not to existence, i.e., in regard to his own character and choice of values, but not in regard to the possibility of achieving his goals in the physical world. The distinguishing characteristics of such writers are grand-scale themes and characters, no plots and an overwhelming sense of tragedy, the sense of a “malevolent universe.” The chief exponents of this category were poets. The leading one is Byron, whose name has been attached to this particular, “Byronic,” view of existence: its essence is the belief that man must lead a heroic life and fight for his values even though he is doomed to defeat by a malevolent fate over which he has no control.”

  153. Well it’s interesting that you acknowledge your projection and yet don’t do anything about it. What kind of person knows they have a problem and won’t/can’t fix it but instead caters to the repetitive pattern? Someone hopeful the outcome will change? Someone who wants to see their problems in other people? To what end? Feel less bad about their own failings? To have someone to look down upon for that which they look down upon most in themselves? That’s an interesting form of magical thinking.

  154. Take note, I don’t require assistance.

    As for Bron’s Byron quote, who is the one portraying themselves as “a heroic life [fighting] for his values even though he is doomed to defeat by a malevolent fate over which he has no control.”?

  155. nick:

    I am neutral in this fight. I like you, AY and Gene. I see Gene’s flaws but then he has some very good qualities as well. As we all do.

    He is tough and thinks he is right, I admire that. Just like you think you are right. Gene isnt going to roll over and put 4 limbs in the air and expose his neck even if he is wrong. Not in his nature. Oh he may if the evidence is overwhelming but not because 1, 2 or even a dozen tell him he is wrong. He trusts his own judgment above all others, you have to admire that.

    The only other people who do that are Objectivists.

  156. Thanks, Bron.

    I think.:mrgreen:

    But in the end, all one has is one’s own judgement. And to be precise, the principle is “If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed.” It’s Stoicism, not Objectivism.

  157. Gene, gene, gene….

    This all stated because you threaten to ban or place folks in moderation…. And then say…. How’s that working out for you….. Such simplicity is illusive to you…. It what you do, how you treat other posters that I’m defending…. It’s your right to be here or not…. But… Don’t you think your threats to people are a little over the edge…. Don’t you think you try an chill free speech of other people by keeping others in line…. It’s so simple you miss the connection…. And then if someone challenges you..again….you threaten to ban them or place them in moderation….. Which is wrong….

  158. My mind can be changed, but it requires logic and evidence that can pass critical scrutiny and be persuasive. That’s just called having standards of judgement.

  159. “Mike s.,
    Thank you…. But, I will again say I didn’t think it deserved deletion…. It was not in moderation…. It was posted… Thank you for you honesty….”

    AY,

    The comment I referred to was not posted it was in moderation so we could be talking apples and oranges. I responded because there was discussion among the “guest bloggers” as to who put it into the trash. I was busy and didn’t see it until late last night and I responded both on and off blog.

    Now I must say that I think your attacks upon Gene are unfair and stirring the pot. You know that I’m also quite aware of the history here to which Gene alludes and that we have discussed a good deal of it offline. In the first instance of Patty C’s attacks on you for defending another regular, Gene came to your defense and I remember that you were the one requesting that she be banned. She was. There was later another incident with another regular where you wrote me offline also requesting that something “be done” about that person and at that point I declined explaining to you that there was no way for me to determine who was right or wrong. Were you being a “bully” in trying to get those two people banned?

    There are some here, both new and old who simply do not like some of the “Guest Bloggers” including mostly me and Gene. I can speak for Gene when I say that neither of us gives a damn about our popularity here. We serve at JT’s pleasure, or displeasure alone. His blog, his choices. My entire life has been about openly expressing myself despite the personal cost. I’d certainly be a lot wealthier today if I was less honest in my opinions. To reiterate the Guest Bloggers were chosen by Jonathan Turley at his request. As for diversity JT has asked a few others to Guest Blog but they either declined, or are still pondering it.

    The fact that the readership of this blog continues to expand gives lie to the idea that people are being chased off by either me or Gene. I find it amusing that this is brought up as an issue specifically by people with a personal axe to grind.

    Bron, as for you we all know that you delight in stirring the pot. So much so that through the years you’ve adopted other identities to stir the pot with, as has AY incidentally. I would wonder if your jumping on Gene and me at times, is the result of the fact that we have taken issue with your “Aynish” views, as has Tony C., but he is not a Guest Blogger, while Gene and I are. We are therefore seen as part of the “in crowd” oppressing those who comment here when they disagree with us. Really? If one can express their views over and again through a period of time who is being “oppressed” and “bullied”? My arguments with Nick devolved around his constant ad hominem attacks on me, but through all that time I defended his right to make them and I have the “E” mails to prove it. Indeed I save all the “E” mails that connect to this blog.

    I’ve never “whined” or played “victim” on this blog, except for once when I was personally threatened by a commenter who had asserted that he had “hacked” my home computer and had information about where my children lived as if to threaten them. He was banned. Other than that there has been no-one on this site, save for JT, who has been more about free speech and open expression. Nick has admitted he doesn’t like me. I believe he is angry because he made an attack on the entire website in his first comment here and I strongly disagreed, but no doubt he sees it differently. He can attack my views all he wants, but I return fire, which he sees as victimization. Where I feel he is out of line is when he makes personal attacks on me, sometimes in a sneaky manner, then again he sees it differently. There is a difference though between even ad hominem attacks and purposeful disruption of a thread and there are a few instances where he has skirted the line and been called on it. Curiously though, Nick is still here. That he and others might think that is because Gene made empty threats, is merely false wish fulfillment and as they say we have the evidence to prove it. He is here because this particular blog is the least intrusive on the Internet in terms of allowing those who comment a free rein of views.

    Free speech, like many other rights is a funny thing though. There are always those who need to test the limits. I liken it to childhood, where all children test the limits of those they see as parental figures. I did it at home and I did it in School. Once I learned the boundaries I knew how to give myself the ultimate in free expression, without it coming back to harm me.
    I even openly attacked my high school administration to the point where a school assembly was called to chastise me, so I know a bit about testing limits and that is but one incident in a lifetime of testing limits. But just as the famous limiting of the right to shout fire in a theater explores those limits, we have seen here certain extremely broad limits imposed to the point that only two people have ever been banned in the blogs history. Personally, I’d like to keep it that way. Again though, you attack me personally I will respond
    in kind. You attack my ideas and I will respond in civil debate, without ad hominem. It’s not my problem if you lack the forensic ability to keep up with me.

  160. “There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” . . . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.

    In today’s epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as “The Argument from Intimidation.”

    The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.””

  161. Well…. I suppose a busy body is also known as a whistleblower …. And I thank you…. As far as false allegations… Nah… I think they are true…. Read the many posting on the blawg….. Yeah…. I know hey are…..

  162. Again, see what was said about the marketplace of ideas.

    Also, if reminding people we have rules and that those rules have consequences is chilling? Then so are the reasonable restrictions those rules are based upon. Do you really want argue that the exceptions recognized to free speech in jurisprudence are chilling?

    Good luck with that.

    Your argument is simply based in your personal dislike for me and that is manifest, AY.

    You haven’t even been able to address the previously pointed out contradictions and bad logic. Why? Because you got nothing other than “you’re a bad person and I don’t like you”.

    So what.

  163. “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.””

    Well that sure sounds familiar. I’m a bad person for thinking the rules should be followed! How could I have been so blind!

    That was sarcasm in case it wasn’t obvious.

  164. Mike,

    Heard and understood…. But sometimes threatening to ban and placing in moderation are not needed…. And not by someone who has a grind….

    With respect about the deleted comment…. Funny thing about it…. Why would someone have stated on the blog they find it offensive….. If it wasn’t posted…. Help me on that one…. I do have it in my delete folder….

  165. “once when I was personally threatened by a commenter who had asserted that he had “hacked” my home computer and had information about where my children lived as if to threaten them. He was banned.”

    I had almost completely forgotten about that. I’m not sure how I did considering a computer forensics expert was brought in, but I did.

  166. Mike S:

    I havent stirred the pot for a long time.

    And I agree with you, follow the rules.

    If you think I care about Tony C and you calling me one of the Aynish, I did at first, but now I think it is funny. I am Aynish to a point.

    Embrace your Aynish.:)

  167. Well Mike,

    You tried to help…. Seems Gene can’t help himself…. And if you will check Sept 08′ you might find Gene threatening to leave if Patty C was not banned….granted he did defend me at the time… I wasn’t going to bring it up…. Just sayin…

  168. And Gene, obviously…. I don’t really care what you think about me….I care how you treat others on this blog with threats ….. That I do care about…. That’s why I call you the blog bully…. Simple logic…try it…

  169. Well it seems you think that your opinion matters to me, AY. The truth is, it doesn’t, nor does it inform my judgement, although you seem to think it should. If you have a problem with me reserving the right to make my own judgements? That is entirely your problem. Speaking of problems . . .

    Wow. I won’t even mention the anonymity violation you just committed to JT because of your lack of self-control in pursing your vendetta. I could – and probably should – do something about it. You capping off a string of ad hominem arguments with that?

    You really don’t know when to shut up, do you?

  170. Again, you mistake yourself for having a say in how this place is run. You made your complaints. Nothing came of them. Perhaps that should teach you something.

  171. Bron,

    Sounds wonderful. But as I can no longer eat pecan anything, that may the cruelest and most meaniest thing said to me today. I miss pecan pie. I’ve had it with maple syrup before but not with whiskey. I bet that plays well off each other.

  172. Darren:

    The Aynish are not opposed to phones, cars, sex, money, fun, booze, cigars, etc. Plus any body can join. And we treat women as equals and are fundamentally opposed to racism, fiat money and anyone who disagrees with us.:)

  173. “And if you will check Sept 08′ you might find Gene threatening to leave if Patty C was not banned….granted he did defend me at the time”

    Yes he did AY and if I remember it correctly you wanted action against her as well. Your argument against Gene on this thread so far is to just call him a bully and then call him a bully again. Yet you certainly didn’t mind in the Patty C., instance and if you remember she was given many warnings ban which she refused to heed. Incidentally she wasn’t banned because Gene threatened to leave, JT doesn’t operate like that. Do you really think that if I threatened to leave if JT didn’t ban someone that he would ban them to appease me? You’ve been here too long to think that he would.

    Remember again AY that you also wanted something done about another regular and appealed to me directly offline. Had I acted then would you have called me a bully? The beauty of all this it that the entire interaction that occurs in the blog remains. I have made countless long comments, with supporting material to back up my arguments, they’re there for the reading with the search function. I stand by my statements and defy anyone to show me how they were bullying in the context they were made. I think Gene feels the same. AY as a lawyer you know that if you want to argue your case you need evidence. Show me the money.

  174. Really Gene,

    You should go fishing…. Really…. You quit picking on Nick and quit putting him in moderation…. So nothing came about that…. Should I remind you when hat happened….oh yeah…. The professor said something….

  175. Really? When I get admonished for doing something, I get email. I don’t have any email to that effect.

    nick isn’t in moderation and the only person I see starting crap here is you.

    Even Bron isn’t stirring the pot today.

    Hmmmm.

    And endless string of ad hominem, which even when Mike addresses it, you refuse to acknowledge.

    It’s sadly transparent.

  176. Sadly…. Sadly… Sadly…. Now go fishing…nothing to see here… The shows over…. You know I’m correct but you can’t get yourself to admit it…. And yes, I thanked mike…. Keep up your fine display of flagrantly throwing the rules of the blog up when they solely benefit you….

  177. Your blatant hypocrisy grow tedious and yet despite having your contradictions, inconsistency and poor logic pointed out by more than one party at this point, you persist as if telling the same lies both to others and to yourself will somehow make them become true.

    Magical thinking strikes again. And to think, it has served you so well.

    I know you’re something alright.

    But it’s nowhere in the same ZIP Code as correct.

  178. Ok… Now that you’ve made another personal attack…. And should feel real good about it….go fishing…. Really, relax…take a break….

  179. Geeze,

    You can not make a comment without making it personal…. Why do you suppose….. Now go fishing…. You need to relax….

  180. Saying you are incorrect is not a personal attack. Then again, you thought saying your argument had a weak foundation above was something you considered a personal attack and yet never bothered to explain why.

    Exactly.

    Didn’t anyone ever read you the story about “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”?

    Apparently not.

  181. Like I said Gene….. You just don’t get it… You make it all personal…. Go fishing, relax… HoPe you get a lucky strike….

  182. Let me commend all but one for being brief in their comments. The self imposed “one paragraph” rule was, and is, laughable; and showed incredibly poor self awareness. Ironically, it’s William F Buckley or Bill O’Reilly stylistically.

  183. Rhubarb or blueberry. It’s rhubarb season and my former secretary will come over and pick my rhubarb. She’ll then return w/ rhubarb oatmeal crisp. Make you slap yo’ mama.

  184. Yes please continue …. I really enjoy watching folks say what they do… Then watch them do…. Then I really know who they are… Proof positive…. That you are continuing to bait and attach…. What rules are you in violation of? Oh… Trying to stay under the radar… But you know only a true psychopath would not know…..

    Now like what was recommended go fishing… Quit the personal attack…. Relax…

  185. nick, I love rhubarb pie although is not my very favorite. You can buy a strawberry rhubarb one at Whole Foods, though. Rhubarb doesn’t grow in Texas but blueberries do and it is blueberry season.

  186. I’ve never had rhubarb pie. Never could get over it looking like celery with a dye job. But the blueberries are rockin’ this year.

  187. Never cared much for rhubarb pie. My grandmother would make it, but it was one of the few things she cooked I simply didn’t care for. The pies that get me going are blackberry cobbler and deep dish apple pie.

    When we have apple pie, I always slather the top with butter, then sprinkle sugar and cinnamon on it. If anyone tells my cardiologist what I just wrote, I will hunt you down and throw rotten tomatoes at your house.

  188. I like about any kind of cobbler. Deep dish apple is good, used to be my favorite as a kid. Now I think my favorites are tart cherry and real key lime pie (not that neon green crap in your grocery story freezer). Real key lime pie is sublime, pardon the pun.

  189. everybody already seems ot so I’ll jump with something that is ot of the ot.

    http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/314-18/18050-you-can-be-fired-for-being-a-victim-of-domestic-violence

    There are links in the article such that it would go to moderation.

    btw,

    Some needs to explain to me what wanting clean drinking water makes you an activist, and why proposing to destroy water with chemical warfare doesn’t make you a terrorist. – Winona LaDuke Anishinaabe

  190. Rhubarb and asparagus are the two perennial vegetables which I inherited from the previous owner of our house. My mother-in-law makes great pies, but rhubarb is her specialty. And, she’s a purist, even though both rhubarb and strawberries are in season @ the same time, she never mixes them. Of course the main reason all of her pies are great is the use of lard.

  191. Gene, I ate key lime pie every night for a week when we vacationed in the Keys a few years back. All were as great as the next.

  192. “The self imposed “one paragraph” rule was, and is, laughable; and showed incredibly poor self awareness. Ironically, it’s William F Buckley or Bill O’Reilly stylistically.”

    Ah Nicky,

    Another sneaky attack and a silly one. The “one paragraph rule” was irony Nick, but apparently it went over your head. Lessons in self awareness, from you Nick? Laughable. Your medication is apparently wearing off.

  193. AY,

    It’s all in the archives, which obviously people thinking Nick the victim never read in the first place. I’ve fully, in great detail, explained my problems with Nick including quotations from his as citations, but some never bothered to read them and like yourself find him a charmer because he kisses their behinds. I imagine like Nick, some people have difficulty in both writing and reading more than one paragraph, so in dealing with him I limited myself to it. It was never a “rule” but the Nick seems to lack reading comprehension skills when it suits him.

  194. A curmudgeon would see a good natured, blue collar, Italian guy who likes to engage people on positives notes, w/ humor, anecdotes, recipes, banter, etc. as “an ass kisser.” Says everything about you Mikey, and nothing about me. You are in a downward spiral and virtually all are seeing it. Look on the bright side of life. Laugh. Pick one f@ckn’ day of trying to save the world and just have some goofy fun. Do you have an inner child? And yeah everything goes over my head. You know, us PI’s never pick up on anything.

  195. Mike,

    Fair enough…. I like deleting on my phone…. I see the name and some just get deleted with only reading the name…. I do understand….

  196. Bettykath, I saw that story; I read that she has already been offered a new job elsewhere. I hope she does well, being stalked does not generally end well.

  197. Mike Spindell:

    just remember the a$$ you want to kiss always tastes better than the a$$ you have to kiss.:)

  198. Perhaps the fine folks from Tennessee doubt the science of human evolution because their public officials are such neanderthals.

  199. “A curmudgeon would see a good natured, blue collar, Italian guy who likes to engage people on positives notes” . . . like persistent ad hominem attacks despite being warned many times it is against the rules.

    You’ve made steps toward remediation, nick. Why backtrack? You can be those other things. You’ve proven that over the last week. Was there any reason for the above swipe at Mike that started this exchange other than simple provocation?

    None that is apparent.

    It certainly didn’t fall under “engag[ing] people on positives notes, w/ humor, anecdotes, recipes, banter, etc.” You take a gratuitous swipe at someone, from out of the blue, and think it’s somehow unusual that they respond to your hostility with hostility? How’s that been working out?

    If you really want people to think you’re “a good natured, blue collar, Italian guy who likes to engage people on positives notes, w/ humor, anecdotes, recipes, banter, etc.”?

    Then be that.

  200. I engage positively w/ positive people. that’s my default position. That’s the real Nick Spinelli, and that’s how the real Nick Spinelli treats over 96% of the folks here. Mike called it “ass kissing,” not true and certainly not nice. But, I don’t whine about it. I gave positive suggestions to help an obviously unhappy man find some bit of pleasure in his life. It’s on the record. I never give an inch..not one inch, to negative people who speak in condescending polemics and think they’re better than others, or due more respect, because they are Guest Bloggers or superior intellects. They get the Nick “Go shit in your hat” Spinelli. This seems pretty clear to virtually everyone, but you guys. You’ll never consider me good natured unless you stop being Gene, and Mike stops being Mike. That’s not likely to happen. C’est la vie. But, people can change. It just doesn’t happen very often. You guys stay out of my way and I will effort the same. But, I will not give up my right to jabbing, sarcasm, ballbusting, etc. when I deem it appropriate. And, being a libertarian, I would never ask or expect you gents to either. God have mercy, when does this endless loop end w/ you two control freaks?

  201. Bron,

    I ‘ve never kissed ass in the sense you used it, so I ‘ve never had to kiss ass. People generally like me for who I am so I never feel the need to work for their approval. And yes I do admit to being skeptical about people who try so hard to portray themselves as lovable, while acting out passive aggressively. But you know I’m on a downward spiral as some private dick just told me. I ‘m not tending my inner child says the “lovable blue collar Italian who lives in Madison and San Diego and perhaps Idaho”. I should take advice from him since he’s been to every restaurant that anyone here has ever been to and has his own anecdote to top anyone else’s, but only relates them in a lovable manner. Yes he is quite a positive guy except when he deals with “bullies” like me and then squeals like a stuck pig. Anyway all this attention he gets helps to sell his wife’s book.

  202. When you learn you have to follow the rules and that you get back what you give.

    I’ll consider you good natured when you act good natured.

    When you start following the rules – especially now that you know refusing to follow the civility policy can get you banned and you heard it clearly from the owner’s own words – I’ll quit reminding you about what the rules are.

    Simple lesson really.

    And if you don’t like people pointing out when your assertions are baseless or your logic is crap and feel that’s condescending? I’m really sorry that if you feel challenged it makes you feel so inadequate that you have to lash out.

    And the issue here is you attacked Mike with ZERO provocation on his part.

    That’s simply against the rules.

    What part of the rules are unclear to you at this point?

    Even your buddy AY has admonished you not to start shit with people.

    You’ll give up the ad hominem attacks one way or another, nick. You just apparently don’t understand that yet. The rules control this blog. The rules are set by the owner. The control you chafe against is parameters he set up. People have been banned for precisely your current behavior in the past. The warnings and cautions are not going to be infinite despite what you think.

    You’ve been shown the path to avoid that bad end. The choice to walk it or not is yours. You reap what you sow.

    Carry on.

  203. Nick,

    The simple fact is that when it comes to expressing your opinions you make assertions which you never back up, If I ‘m wrong in that estimation please provide just one example where you have done anything more that making an accusation or an assertion politically since you’ve commented here. You do innuendo, not argument and when that is pointed out you feel attacked and either go ad hominem, or pretend someone is attacking you. Then you do your “Aw shucks their just elitist snobs picking on poor little me”. That’s the simple truth Nick. The other truth is I don’t back down either. So I will demolish every little game you want to start simply because I don’t suffer passive aggressive egotists gladly. Now do your little ten years old trick of putting my words back upon me by projection.

  204. Nick,

    Here’s the deal…. Quit attacking folks …. I defended you and you being placed in moderation…. If you are going to play passive aggressive…. With folks you’re gonna get burned…. A request can be made to the professor to ban you…. You have some good things to contribute… Do so…. Quit the BS….

  205. You blamed Reagan for making SS part of the general budget and I called you on it since I knew it was LBJ. Now, I didn’t attribute any motives for that fundamental factual inaccuracy, I merely pointed it out w/o any ballbusting. There’s an example.

  206. I am not sure I understand how Nick telling us a restaurant is good is being passive aggressive, or how his anecdotes are construed as something other than anecdotes.

    I just take him at his word the restaurants are good, I dont know how good his taste buds are. I know some people who have lousy taste in food and I stay away from any place they recommend unless I have been there and tasted the food.

    Nick doesnt seem like an egotist to me, he seems like a guy who enjoys his life, his children, his wife, his dog, his food and San Diego (which is a wonderful place).

    If my wife wrote a book, I would be very proud of her and plug it every chance I got. People write to have other people read what they have written and to make money of course. But I imagine many writers dont start out thinking they are going to make a pile of money, they start out having something to say.

    I hope his wife sells a million copies and ends up on the NY Times book list.

  207. Bron, You have me nailed. And the reason is you have no agenda. You are sharp, you have people skills, and we look upon each others as equals. Just 2 dudes enjoying life and sharing our experiences. The latter being the most important dynamic. As you have picked up on, some of the rants against me of late[restaurants for chrissake] have become quite bizarre. Regarding my wife’s book, I love her dearly and I’m just trying to help her overcome her anxiety[part of plot line in the book], to come out of her comfort zone, and promote herself. She worked hard on a sequel, but her fear now is if the first book is not well received then all of that hard work on the sequel will have been wasted. She’s currently researching a third book, about Gypsies. However, the new pc term is now Roma’s. But, she’ll call them Gypsies. I guess the charge is I love my wife and I am shamelessly promoting her based on that deep love. To that I plead guilty. Your support and wisdom has been very helpful to me. And, we dagos never forget that..NEVER!

  208. “You blamed Reagan for making SS part of the general budget and I called you on it since I knew it was LBJ.”

    You quoted me out of context to the point I was making at the time and triumphantly gave the response above. I replied to you then, but you ignored the reply. Here is a more detailed version of the point I was making, with a link. It’s a long read but I’m sure you are up to it.

    “David Leonhardt’s article, “Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer,” in Tuesday’s New York Times was excellent, but it just scratches the tip of the iceberg of how the rich have gained at the expense of the working class during the past three decades. When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981, he abandoned the traditional economic policies, under which the United States had operated for the previous 40 years, and launched the nation in a dangerous new direction. As Newsweek magazine put it in its March 2, 1981 issue, “Reagan thus gambled the future — his own, his party’s, and in some measure the nation’s—on a perilous and largely untested new course called supply-side economics.”

    Essentially, Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

    Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people in the history of this great nation, and the underlying scam is still alive and well, more than a quarter century later. It represents the very foundation upon which the economic malpractice that led the nation to the great economic collapse of 2008 was built. Ronald Reagan was a cunning politician, but he didn’t know much about economics. Alan Greenspan was an economist, who had no reluctance to work with a politician on a plan that would further the cause of the right-wing goals that both he and President Reagan shared.

    Both Reagan and Greenspan saw big government as an evil, and they saw big business as a virtue. They both had despised the progressive policies of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson, and they wanted to turn back the pages of time. They came up with the perfect strategy for the redistribution of income and wealth from the working class to the rich. Since we don’t know the nature of the private conversations that took place between Reagan and Greenspan, as well as between their aides, we cannot be sure whether the events that would follow over the next three decades were specifically planned by Reagan and Greenspan, or whether they were just the natural result of the actions the two men played such a big role in. Either way, both Reagan and Greenspan are revered by most conservatives and hated by most liberals.

    If Reagan had campaigned for the presidency by promising big tax cuts for the rich and pledging to make up for the lost revenue by imposing substantial tax increases on the working class, he would probably not have been elected. But that is exactly what Reagan did, with the help of Alan Greenspan. Consider the following sequence of events:

    1) President Reagan appointed Greenspan as chairman of the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka The Greenspan Commission)

    2) The Greenspan Commission recommended a major payroll tax hike to generate Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could be drawn down during the years after Social Security began running deficits.

    3) The 1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses.

    4) As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs. None of the surplus was saved or invested in anything. The surplus Social Security revenue, that was paid by working Americans, was used to replace the lost revenue from Reagan’s big income tax cuts that went primarily to the rich.

    5) In 1987, President Reagan nominated Greenspan as the successor to Paul Volker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Greenspan continued as Fed Chairman until January 31, 2006. (One can only speculate on whether the coveted Fed Chairmanship represented, at least in part, a payback for Greenspan’s role in initiating the Social Security surplus revenue.)

    6) In 1990, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a member of the Greenspan Commission, and one of the strongest advocates the the 1983 legislation, became outraged when he learned that first Reagan, and then President George H.W. Bush used the surplus Social Security revenue to pay for other government programs instead of saving and investing it for the baby boomers. Moynihan locked horns with President Bush and proposed repealing the 1983 payroll tax hike. Moynihan’s view was that if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the cookie jar should be emptied, so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue for the government to loot. President Bush would have no part of repealing the payroll tax hike. The “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” president was not about to give up his huge slush fund.

    The practice of using every dollar of the surplus Social Security revenue for general government spending continues to this day. The 1983 payroll tax hike has generated approximately $2.5 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue which is supposed to be in the trust fund for use in paying for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers. But the trust fund is empty! It contains no real assets. As a result, the government will soon be unable to pay full benefits without a tax increase. Money can be spent or it can be saved. But you can’t do both. Absolutely none of the $2.5 trillion was saved or invested in anything. I have been laboring for more than a decade to expose the great Social Security scam. For more information, please visit my website or contact me.

    Dr. Allen W. Smith is a Professor of Economics, Emeritus, at Eastern Illinois University. He is the author of seven books and has been researching and writing about Social Security financing for the past ten years. His latest book is The Impending Social Security Crisis: The Government’s Big Dirty Secret. Read other articles by Allen, or visit Allen’s website.
    – See more at: http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/04/how-ronald-reagan-and-alan-greenspan-pulled-off-the-greatest-fraud-ever-perpetrated-against-the-american-people/#sthash.DJ0UnXgg.dpuf
    http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/04/how-ronald-reagan-and-alan-greenspan-pulled-off-the-greatest-fraud-ever-perpetrated-against-the-american-peopl

  209. “If you are going to play passive aggressive…. With folks you’re gonna get burned…. A request can be made to the professor to ban you”

    And you don’t think he was told that hundreds of times before he got put in moderation after saying, explicitly, “This is your 47th threat w/ no consequences. You would be a horrible parent.” Which is essentially pissing on the rules (again) combined with another ad hominem attack?

    Putting him in moderation was a demonstration that the tools do indeed exist to force his compliance with the rules and in the face of his open defiance of the rules.

    It was a last ditch attempt to illustrate that his actions can have consequences without going to the final stage and requesting he be banned altogether.

    You seem to think it was personal. I don’t give a damn what you think of me personally, so what makes you think I ever gave a damn what nick thinks of me personally? I’m notoriously thick skinned. The only people whose opinion of me that matters are family and friends (and sometimes, but not always, employers – what they think of my work is more important in general). It was never personal on my part. I’m also notorious capable of detachment of personal emotion from action. Something nick has even used to attack me with in his ad hominem manner by calling me “Spock” (not realizing perhaps that I consider that a most flattering comparison). Read my lips: It. Is. Not. Personal.

    It was about the rules. It still is. It always will be.

    Rules he clearly flaunted again – this time after hearing what can get you banned directly from the Prof – in his unprovoked attack on Mike above.

    An unprovoked attack that conforms with the pattern present in his postings.

    You don’t want nick banned? As noted above from previous statements, I don’t want nick banned. However, the request for the nuclear option will be made if he continues to flaunt the rules.

    Everything to this point has been seeking to change his behavior to avoid that consequence. The moderation was the equivalent of when a bully is poking you in the chest, taking his finger and bending it into an unnatural and painful position and giving him an opportunity to stop poking you before matters get escalated. It was calculated. It was reasoned. It was limited. It gave him a way out (one that saved face even). And it had a positive effect on his behavior albeit briefly. The true measure of a mistake is, if knowing what you know now, would you take the same action again? Yep.

    Not a one of the GBs was selected because they are capricious. None of the GBs would make a request to ban someone for personal reasons (for one but not the only or even primary reason – it wouldn’t work), no matter what you may think. We will make such request – and have – based on the rules though. And we will do so in the future as the need may arise and regardless of who is the target of a rules violation. As I’ve said before, had nick been going after a regular poster instead of GBs? We’d have requested the nuclear option long, long before now.

    It still may come to that in the instant case.

    Even you realize that.

  210. Forget yesterday – it has already forgotten you. Don’t sweat tomorrow – you haven’t even met. Instead, open your eyes and your heart to a truly precious gift – today.
    — Steve Maraboli

  211. Bron,

    Thanks.
    _______________

    AY,

    “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” – George Santayana

    “Just because you’ve forgotten doesn’t mean you’re forgiven.” – The Arcade Fire

  212. “I am not sure I understand how Nick telling us a restaurant is good is being passive aggressive, or how his anecdotes are construed as something other than anecdotes.”

    Bron,

    Just from this thread alone and certain not his most egregious:

    Example 1

    Nick:
    “AY, I’m iced down, a bit less medicated, and ready to be your ally today. We have some superb Guest Bloggers but a “chain is only as strong as its weakest link.”

    Now the following characterizes passive aggressive behavior:

    “When a person has a passive-aggressive behavior pattern, he may appear to comply or act appropriately, but actually behave negatively and passively resist.” http://www.med.nyu.edu/content?ChunkIID=96685

    Look at Nick’s two sentences. In the first he uses his condition to elicit sympathy and allies himself with AY as if they are both together struggling against Gene, which I don’t quite think AY is stating. AY is arguing against Gene’s actions, but is not saying he approves of Nicks actions. In Nick’s second sentence he praises most guest bloggers, but in context is denigrating Gene as a weak link. This is a type of technique where a person will usually directly remember the praise and sub-consciously remember the opprobrium.
    It is also done to try to drive a wedge between the guest bloggers. The two sentences constitute classic passive aggressive behavior and this is especially so because his target is implied, rather than named, the better for plausible deniability purposes.

    Example 2

    From Nick:

    “Bron, I have lamented often of the lack of black folk here and I have tried to recruit some. Two guys I know have read this blog for awhile and said, “No f@cking way.” This blog is insular and cliquey, but I see some of the cliques breaking up, which is good.”

    In his first sentence he is accusing the blog of being lacking in having black people comment, which with it implies a hostility to Black people. The fact that we have commenters like RWL and Po escapes him as does the fact that there has been no hostility here to people of color by the bloggers. The second sentence is Nick’s proof by anecdote “two guys I know”. It’s like my saying two guys I know have said Nick is a……..take your pick. Finally his last sentence criticizes the blog, Professor Turley’s running of the blog and those superb guest bloggers that Nick praised above for being “insular and cliquey”, but heartens us all by ending that things are changing, The change implied is coming because of Nick’s fearless stand and his winning personality triumphing over those “evildoers” Mike and Gene. Nick really imagines himself in a heroic struggle for the “hearts and minds” of this blog. Nick sees himself as a General in this struggle and currently you and AY are the foot soldiers he is marshaling as in the following:

    Example 3

    From Nick:

    “Bron and AY, Good work. Take note Gene is solo on this. There was a time, not long ago, when there would be a posse chasing you two free thinkers back into the herd, or banished from the herd. I’ve been “moderated” and deleted w/o righteousness. So, I know how you feel. My opiate haze only allows me to offer moral support. But, as I learned over my career, listen for what people don’t say. Take note of who doesn’t appear. And find some laughs as you joust. Time for some prune juice.”

    Yep, you two are Nick’s troops fighting his cause under his generalship and guidance. Does it matter to him that both you and AY stated you were neutral in the argument between him and me and Gene? Apparently in the musings of his overlarge ego he just see you as two guides to be manipulated.

    Example 4

    From Nick at 11:26pm yesterday:

    “I gave positive suggestions to help an obviously unhappy man find some bit of pleasure in his life.”

    I am of course the unhappy man he’s speaking about trying to “help”.
    However, what preceded that at 6:26pm:

    “A curmudgeon would see a good natured, blue collar, Italian guy who likes to engage people on positives notes, w/ humor, anecdotes, recipes, banter, etc. as “an ass kisser.” Says everything about you Mikey, and nothing about me. You are in a downward spiral and virtually all are seeing it. Look on the bright side of life. Laugh. Pick one f@ckn’ day of trying to save the world and just have some goofy fun. Do you have an inner child? And yeah everything goes over my head. You know, us PI’s never pick up on anything.”

    First, looking at his characterizing the 6:26 comments as “positive suggestions”, do you think that’s what they were? Second, you may notice his calling me “Mikey”, something he started weeks ago in an attempt to diminish me, not realizing I like to be called Mikey and many of my friends have done it for many years, though without the malicious intent. Finally, ask yourself Bron, having interacted with me for many years do you see me as a curmudgeon? Do you see me as unhappy? Think I’m on a downward spiral? The “inner child” incidentally was an attempt to tweek me on being a Gestalt Therapist, since we work a lot with what we see as the “inner child”.

    Anyway, you can act as you please. Nick feels he’s already recruited you two despite your declarations of neutrality. I don’t need defenders because unlike Nick I’m not in a war for blog popularity, or status. Many people here like me, some people don’t. C’est la vie

  213. AY, Merely do a rough count of the words on this, and other threads, where you have been trying to “enjoy the blog.” My complaint is often the same as yours, these spats get repetitive and tedious. It’s all on the record. It’s not even close, AY. They hijack their own threads. I would often be complimented by clients for the directness and brevity of my communications, both written and verbal. No bullshit, no polemics. We must always direct our complaints and anger in the correct direction. I have been prepared to give this up since yesterday. Ciao.

  214. Mike Spindell:

    Ok, I see your point.

    But I see Nick’s point too.

    It is hard to post here as a non-progressive/liberal if you are new. You guys can be pretty harsh on new people if you dont agree with them.

    But then some new people come in here talking sh*t about your views so I understand why you put them down. And if they cant take the heat, then stay out of the kitchen.

    The above comment [who gives a ……..] was in response to Gene and Ay posting their quotes. Just to be clear.

  215. Speaking of passive aggressive.

    “I have been prepared to give this up since yesterday.”

    Then why did you take a swipe at Mike yesterday? Being prepared to do something and actually doing something are not the same thing. I bet you don’t even see the blatant passive-aggressive nature of what you just said even. Anosongosia is a terrible thing.

    You seem to fail to understand that we can pull up the entirety of your posting history, nick. We are also more than capable of analyzing it and detecting pattern evidence and presenting said evidence. We wouldn’t say we were willing to request the nuclear option unless we thought there was more than sufficient evidence to merit it. Such requests do require the Prof’s direct intervention and as the model promulgated here is one of community self-moderation, involving him directly is something we generally try to avoid when possible. Doesn’t mean we won’t do it.

    But you keep playing to those you perceive as being in your thrall and to your purpose instead of substantively addressing and correcting your behavior.

    I know how this story ends.

  216. Bron, Amen. And the end can be this evening. That’s why I choose to enjoy every day. I thank God every night for the day just ending, but never ask for tomorrow. That would be presumptuous. I embrace the serendipity of life.

  217. BTW, for all of you trying to channel Buddha in your attempts to understand “living in the moment”, nowhere does he say you are supposed to live as if you have neither memory nor forethought. Just that you should be happy and content with the right now, for you cannot change the past and it is the past not the now and the future does not exist in the now so it is unknown.

  218. Bron,

    There are very few folks here that are progressive liberals….that’s my opinion…. Most voted for Obama as the lesser of two evils…. Me… I voted for Jill and before at Ralph…I think you have it wrong… But I may be wrong… Have been before…l

  219. Nick,

    Swipes are for folks you wanna tool with…. Are you tooling with Mike…. If so cut it out….. If you’re tooling with Gene, do so at your own risk….. But for the civility of the blog…. Quit taking swipes at people….

  220. “pizza in my belly, I like apple jelly.”

    knockrates

    written on the stall wall in the MU engineering building’s bathroom.

  221. “It is hard to post here as a non-progressive/liberal if you are new. You guys can be pretty harsh on new people if you dont agree with them.”

    Bron,

    Not really true. Ask Gary T, who is a total libertarian about our initial discussions and there are many others. Seriously Bron don’t you think Professor Turley is more libertarian than liberal? You and I have definitely different political views but I think we’ve both enjoyed each other through the years. People who can logically defend their positions have thrived here through the years, no matter where they are on the political spectrum. This is not and never has been a liberal blog. Where people make that mistake is in the fact that many conservatives see the broad range of constitutional rights issues in a narrow focus when it come to individual acts between consenting adults. You can’t even call the ACLU a liberal organization because they have defended free speech for conservatives and even fascists for years.

    As far as being harsh on new people I am only harsh on those who come on with accusations about the blog, as Nick did originally. I also tend not to ignore those who are passive aggressive in attitude. to me such behavior is dishonest and ?I call people on it.

  222. Bron,

    What AY says is correct. Many, if not most, of the posters here have a fairly syncretic view of politics. They’re liberal on some things, conservative on others. I myself would say I’m without question a social liberal but a fiscal conservative and my identification with progressivism goes not to any past usage of the term but to the more modern usage that simply means “someone who wants changes to create a more responsive, responsible and accountable form of government” in general. But what you are seeing is a reflection of the unusual aggregation of critical thinkers present in this forum. Bad ideas and weak arguments get shredded in here, no matter who makes them. Some people take this personally. But as you note, heat meet kitchen, kitchen meet heat.

  223. The amount of words are unfortunately necessary to respond to passive aggressive behavior which by its nature is deceptive. The passive aggressive MO works by appearing to say one thing, when really saying another. The MO also depends upon people forgetting what has come before and in their restating what they’ve said as they go along. That is why I pointed out clearly what was being done with direct quotes and explanations. For the PA personality being reminded of their past quotes is taken as aggression, since they are being called to account for their behavior. What I’ve been doing is using the only surefire way to counter PA behavior and no doubt being re-quoted pisses Nick off because it exposes his methods. Then again Nick is merely a “blue collar, lovable Italian guy, who spreads love and joy to everyone”. Touching, but to use his own terminology provably “Bullshit”.

  224. I do my thing and you do your thing.
    I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
    And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
    You are you, and I am I, and if by chance we find each other, it’s beautiful.
    If not, it can’t be helped.

    (Fritz Perls, 1969)

  225. Mike Spindell:

    Very Aynish of you.:)

    Was Fritz an Objectivist?

    we also like this one as well:

    God, grant me the serenity
    To accept the things I cannot change,
    Courage to change the things I can,
    and wisdom to know the difference.

    Although Objectivists would replace or exclude God.

  226. Did anyone send a water samples to an independent lab, far away from TN?
    I would have to say you should start there.

    A group of people did that in NJ years ago, and they did find things that should not have been there, and the company responsible is still working on the problem almost done.

  227. Maybe every citizen in the US should call and complain about their water! How many FBI agents do we have?

  228. “I told you to get ready for the hunt! Take another turd bath!”

    Thanks for making me snort coffee, Bron, although I fall on the fisherman side of the whole hunter/gatherer thing.😀

  229. Seems to me forcing people to drink poison is an act of terror. So instead of complaining, these people should just call up the Dept. of Homeland Security and file charges against their water company of terrorism.

  230. Agustin Goba
    I agree with you they should call Homeland Security and file charges with them against the water company. Or if they might direct them to where to sign the complaint.
    Go for it, it couldn’t hurt.

  231. its a public water supply so fire them and hire someone among you that will do the job better and respectfully and put them in prison and force feed them the same water till they get out.

  232. Everyone should have a sample of water tested and send the results to the NSA so it can be classified and then leaked to the press.

  233. […] The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation deputy director Sherwin Smith is warning citizens to think before they start raising concerns about water quality because they could be charged with making terroristic threats. Smith told Maury County resident that unfounded complaints could be considered an “act of terrorism” and turned over the the police and the FBI. The meeting followed complaints about water quality in Mt. Pleasant, Tennessee where children have become ill drinking the water. That left residents with the sense that they were being given a Sophie’s Choice by the TDEC: live with sick children or face a possible charge of being a terrorist.  Read The Full Story […]

  234. Great site you have here but I was curious about if you knew of any discussion boards
    that cover the same topics discussed here?
    I’d really love to be a part of group where I can get feedback from other knowledgeable people that share the same interest. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. Thanks!

  235. Yes, I can afford going out of state. I just want to know which is more pleasant to live in.
    ***************************************
    Welcome To Our Tradition!

    The Sovereign Order Of O.C.A.N.A. is a worldwide, lay, diplomatic religious order which seeks to glorify the Creator by promoting the sanctification of each member through his or her work with the sick the poor and witness of the faith and to protect The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    His Eminence The Patriarch Sir. Dr. Archbishop Michael
    ***************************************

Comments are closed.