Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Hiding behind anonymity

Sensible thoughts by Esther Dyson on the downside of anonymity on the internet:

Internet Evolution: You’ve had a front-row seat for the commercialization, regulation, and funding of the Internet. What’s been the biggest surprise for you about how the Internet has evolved? And what’s been your biggest disappointment?

Esther Dyson:
Well, surprise and disappointment are the same…There are two big things: First, I was a much bigger fan of anonymity then than I am now. I thought it was cool. And it is, but it turns out anonymity really encourages bad behavior...It’s like a lot of things. I’m pro choice, but I think abortion is an unfortunate thing. I think the same thing about anonymity: Everybody should have the right to it, but it’s not something one wants to encourage. And that’s not weasel words, that’s the reality of it. [Anonymity] should be allowed. People should be able to make that choice, and there are many reasons to make that choice. If you live in an oppressive regime, you may well want people to be able to remain anonymous or have secret communications. But at the same time, it should not be encouraged, and it should be acknowledged that it’s a response to a bad situation.

No one can seriously argue that we live in "an oppressive regime" that justifies all the anonymous political comment on local chatboards, blogs, and websites. Not many locals can justify remaining anonymous, though SF's political community is small and anonymity sometimes allows people to say things that need saying without making enemies. And I suspect that some of those who post anonymous comments to District 5 Diary work for the city and could be embarrassed by using their real names while slumming on this site.

When anonymous bloggers and posters insult others, however, they abuse their anonymity. A recent case in point is the casual insult doled out to yours truly by SF Citizen:

SF Citizen wrote:
The latest chapter in the long story of San Francisco’s Bicycle Plan began today with this filing from the office of San Francsico City Attorney Dennis Herrera. (Earlier chapters of this tale dealt with local social gadlfly and self-confessed JFK conspiracy theory crank Robert “Crazy Rob” Anderson and his successful efforts to get the city to do an environmental impact study.)

Rob wrote:
More insults? If I’m so crazy, why did two judges agree with us about the injunction against the city and Judge Busch’s final decision agreed on the merits of our case? You prefer to do the quick, chickenshit hit without really engaging with the specifics. Do you have anything substantive to say about the JFK assassination? I did and I put my thoughts into that book review. Overall, your approach is pretty lame intellectually.

SF Citizen wrote:
Pretty much the same old insult, which actually isn’t a insult. Your apellation in this town is “Crazy Rob,” whether you like it or not. I didn’t make that up, other people did. This is the second time I’ve explained to you what the quote marks mean. The reason why you won on the EIR issue is that you had a very strong case and, (apparently) at the very least, competent counsel. IMO, it wasn’t even close. Not sure what specifics you want to engage in. JFK (or Nicole Simpson for that matter) was killed by an unbalanced person acting alone. This is true whether Cased Closed has typos in it or not. What you call a magic bullet, I call a regular bullet, one that behaved as other bullets do.

Rob wrote:
What “other people” call me Crazy Rob? And who are you? Why are you hiding behind anonymity? Why aren’t there any bylines on the items on this blog? The obvious answer: because you’re chickenshit. And your opinion on the JFK assassination is worthless without some specifics, which I supplied a lot of in my review of Posner’s crappy book. My review in fact had nothing at all to do with “typos” in the book, an additional bit of fakery on your part.

SF Citizen wrote:
The way it goes is something like this generally---we can’t do such and such “because of that Crazy Rob Anderson.” See? The people who say this are irked by your efforts with the injunction. Are you the kind of person who gets all offended and curls up in the fetal position by this kind of thing? Really? I’d think you’d wear any criticism like a badge of honor. Your opinion about the JFK killing is wrong, simply. What do you want me to do about that? Can you live with my opinion being different than yours? Can you go on with life? I hope so. The problem with Case Closed is that really slowed the momentum that was building up after that ridiculous Oliver Stone movie. That’s why the conspiracy theorists spend their timing attacking this particular publication. Ever so briefly: “the Zapruder film, which shows the fatal head shot knocking President Kennedy violently backwards; and a clear exposition of the Single Bullet Theory, the heart of the Warren Commission’s explanation of the assassination.” In fact, JFK’s head went forward before it want backward, on the Zap film. In fact, the “magic bullet” behaved like a normal bullet. I wrote of the general beef against Case Closed: JFK (or Nicole Simpson for that matter) was killed by an unbalanced person acting alone. This is true whether Cased Closed has typos in it or not. You are in the same category as the people in the 9-11 truth squad IMO. Same idea, different generation.

Rob wrote:
A grateful nation thanks SF Citizen for clearing up the JFK assassination. And he isn't, you understand, calling me crazy; he's simply passing on what other people---who also happen to be anonymous---call me. Not only am I crazy because of the successful litigation against the city on the Bicycle Plan, but I'm a "crank" on a par with the folks who think 9/11 was a US government conspiracy, even though my review of Gerald Posner's book didn't speculate about conspiracy at all. I simply pointed out some serious shortcomings of the Warren Commission's version of events, while noting how disingenuous Posner was in handling both the single bullet theory and witnesses who insisted on contradicting the offical version of the assassination.

I'm not particularly thin-skinned, but surely I'm not alone in finding this sort of thing contemptible. The anonymous SF Citizen insists on insulting me, and he has strong opinions on the JFK assassination. So why not simply write a bylined piece on SF Citizen about the assassination? Because he's afraid others will do to him what he's doing to me---call him a crank. Which makes him doubly chickenshit.

More on anonymity in city politics: Mayor Newsom's anonymous critics.

Labels: ,

25 Comments:

At 12:00 PM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

You're crazy

There.

 
At 9:16 AM, Anonymous Tim Fleming said...

For those interested in the Ultimate truth of the JFK assassination, I suggest reading James Douglass's book, "JFK And The Unspeakable."

Tim Fleming
author,"Murder of an American Nazi"
www.eloquentbooks.com
http://leftlooking.blogspot.com

 
At 10:07 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

As I've said before, Murph, wit isn't your strong suit. But what is?

 
At 11:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A grateful nation thanks SF Citizen for clearing up the JFK assassination.
NO IT DOESN'T

And he isn't, you understand, calling me crazy;
FINALLY, YOU GET IT.

he's simply passing on what other people---who also happen to be anonymous---call me.
BINGO

Not only am I crazy because of the successful litigation against the city on the Bicycle Plan,
NO. PEOPLE CALL YOU CRAZY BECAUSE OF THAT. JUST BECAUSE THEY CALL YOU THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE CRAZY.

but I'm a "crank"
THAT'S YOUR WORD USED TO DESCRIBE YOU. REMEMBER? PERHAPS NOT...

on a par with the folks who think 9/11 was a US government conspiracy,
EXACTLY, YOU ON JFK = 911 TRUTHERS.

even though my review
REVIEW, SCREED, WHATEVER.

of Gerald Posner's book didn't speculate about conspiracy at all.
YOU ARE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST, JUST ADMIT IT, IF YOU WANT.

I simply pointed out some shortcomings of the Warren Commission's version of events,
WHO PROMISED YOU THAT THE WARREN COMMISSION WOULD BE PERFECT? WHY DO YOU EXPECT IT TO BE SO?

while noting how disingenuous Posner was in handling both the single bullet theory
NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT THEORY.

and witnesses who insisted on contradicting the offical version of the assassination.
AS IS THEIR RIGHT. I'M SURE YOU CAN FIND WITNESSES TO CONTRADICT THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ROSWELL INCIDENT ("AND THEN THEM ALIENS PULLED DOWN MY PANTS...")

http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2008/11/assassination-of-jfk-case-not-closed.html


I'm not particularly thin-skinned,
EXACTLY WRONG.

YOU ARE THIN-SKINNED.

PARTICULARLY.

but surely I'm not alone in finding this sort of thing contemptible.
YOU'RE ALONE, SO FAR.

The anonymous SF Citizen insists on insulting me,
YOU'VE ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED IT'S NOT AN INSULT. IT'S A QUOTE.

and he has strong opinions on the JFK assassination.
SINGLE SHOOTER, SINGLE BULLET DID MOST OF THE DAMAGE. YEP.

So why not simply write a bylined piece on SF Citizen about the assassination?
IF I HAD A PHOTO RELEVANT TO SAN FRANCISCO ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION OR THE JFK CONSPIRACY NUTS, MAYBE I WOULD. NOT LIKELY THO. WHO REALLY CARES ABOUT THIS ISSUE IN THE BAY AREA BUT A CONSPIRACY CRANK, AS YOU DESCRIBE YOURSELF?

Because he's afraid others will do to him what he's doing to me---call him a crank.
DUDE, THAT'S YOUR WORD YOU USED TO DESCRIBE YOURSELF. WEAR IT LIKE A BADGE OF HONOR.

Which makes him doubly chickenshit.
O.K., FINE. ANOTHER "CRANK" HEARD FROM. ("HIM"? REALLY?)

LET A HUNDRED FLOWERS BLOOM, LET A HUNDRED SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT CONTEND.

MERRY CHRISTMAS! (OH THAT'S RIGHT, YOU LIBERALS PREFER HAPPPY HOLIDAYS.)

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

 
At 9:52 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

"And he isn't, you understand, calling me crazy; FINALLY, YOU GET IT.he's simply passing on what other people---who also happen to be anonymous---call me.BINGO"

This is Mr. Chickenshit and-still-anonymous himself, SFCitizen. He's so subtle I of course didn't understand that he had no intention of calling me names; he was simply passing on what other anonymous folks call me. He was so busy being subtle he evidently didn't detect my irony. And he's still too chickenshit to own the insult. I insult people sometimes on this blog, but at least my name is upfront where everyone can see it.

"but I'm a 'crank'
THAT'S YOUR WORD USED TO DESCRIBE YOU. REMEMBER? PERHAPS NOT...on a par with the folks who think 9/11 was a US government conspiracy,
EXACTLY, YOU ON JFK = 911 TRUTHERS."

Again, SFCitizen isn't calling me a crank, because I first used the term ironically to describe myself. But I am on a par with the 9/11 conspiracy mongers, which makes me, well, a crank. SFCitizen gets to insult me twice while absolving himself of any responsibility for doing so.

"even though my review REVIEW, SCREED, WHATEVER."

It was a review of a specific book, "Case Closed," by Gerald Posner, neither of which you have read, which was revealed by your phony claim that I only found some "typos" in the book.

"[my review]of Gerald Posner's book didn't speculate about conspiracy at all. YOU ARE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST, JUST ADMIT IT, IF YOU WANT."

I'm not, unless your definition of the term is expansive, but making distinctions is not exactly your strong suit, is it?

"I simply pointed out some shortcomings of the Warren Commission's version of events,
WHO PROMISED YOU THAT THE WARREN COMMISSION WOULD BE PERFECT? WHY DO YOU EXPECT IT TO BE SO?"

The Warren Report wasn't a serious attempt to determine the truth; it was a political document that LBJ wanted done before the 1964 election.

"while noting how disingenuous Posner was in handling both the single bullet theory
NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT THEORY."

Some specifics, please? I pointed out exactly what was wrong with the theory, including the inexplicable bullet holes in Kennedy and his clothes. Posner didn't even include a plausible diagram of the shots, though he found room in his book for pictures of Oswald as a child.

"and witnesses who insisted on contradicting the offical version of the assassination.
AS IS THEIR RIGHT. I'M SURE YOU CAN FIND WITNESSES TO CONTRADICT THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE ROSWELL INCIDENT ('AND THEN THEM ALIENS PULLED DOWN MY PANTS...')"

You've now compared me to the the 9/11 theorists and believers in space aliens, but not with any intention of slurring me, right? Just historical analogies to illustrate your point? Posner himself wrote about how he tried to bully---he wouldn't use that term, of course---witnesses into admitting that they might be wrong: the woman who had an encounter with Oswald in Austin, Texas, when he was supposedly in Mexico at the time; and the four people in Clinton, Louisiana, who insisted that they saw Oswald and Clay Shaw together. Posner even tried to bully Governor Connally and his wife.

"I'm not particularly thin-skinned,EXACTLY WRONG.YOU ARE THIN-SKINNED.PARTICULARLY."

I'm thin-skinned even though you're the one who hides behind anonymity to slur others! Why not tell us who you are?

"but surely I'm not alone in finding this sort of thing contemptible.YOU'RE ALONE,SO FAR."

You must hope I am, since the opinion people have of your website has to be lower than before you slurred me. And you continue to deny it!

"The anonymous SF Citizen insists on insulting me YOU'VE ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED IT'S NOT AN INSULT. IT'S A QUOTE."

Hard to believe you're that stupid, but I'm beginning to think so.

"and he has strong opinions on the JFK assassination.SINGLE SHOOTER, SINGLE BULLET DID MOST OF THE DAMAGE.YEP."

If you're so confident, why not share your analysis of the single bullet theory with us and put your name on it?

"So why not simply write a bylined piece on SF Citizen about the assassination?IF I HAD A PHOTO RELEVANT TO SAN FRANCISCO ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION OR THE JFK CONSPIRACY NUTS, MAYBE I WOULD. NOT LIKELY THO. WHO REALLY CARES ABOUT THIS ISSUE IN THE BAY AREA BUT A CONSPIRACY CRANK,AS YOU DESCRIBE YOURSELF?"

Yes, not likely. You need an SF tag to share your thoughts with us? Bullshit. If no one cares, why are we having this exchange? Again, if you're so confident that you have the truth on the issue, why not share it with the public?

"Which makes him doubly chickenshit.O.K., FINE. ANOTHER 'CRANK' HEARD FROM. ('HIM'? REALLY?)LET A HUNDRED FLOWERS BLOOM, LET A HUNDRED SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT CONTEND.MERRY CHRISTMAS!(OH THAT'S RIGHT, YOU LIBERALS PREFER HAPPPY HOLIDAYS.)HAPPY HOLIDAYS!"

Thanks for not calling me a crank again. "Let a hundred flowers bloom..." That's what Chairman Mao said---before he arrested all those who disagreed with the party line. You understand that you are defending the offical party line on the JFK assassination, don't you? Is your gender an issue? You're still cowardly, whether you are man, woman, or transgendered. I'm the kind of liberal who's concerned about whether "Merry Christmas" is appropriate or not? That shows you don't read my blog and of course you didn't read either Posner's book or my review of it.

It's perfectly understandable why you want to remain anonymous. If you put your name on your posts at SFCitizen, everyone would know how lame you are, that you really have nothing much to say. That's why you---and a lot of the people who post on Junto and The Wall---insist on anonymity. If you put your name on your inanities and your insults, it would only show how nasty your are and how little you know or have to say.

 
At 6:54 PM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

Rob just hides behind moderation of comments on his blog, and won't leave his own territory.

 
At 10:46 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

I reject very few comments, and I would never reject your comments, Murph. I get out a lot online in SF, with comments to Fog City, SF Citizen, BeyondChron, Junto, the Wall, etc. And people know where to find me.

 
At 1:02 PM, Blogger murphstahoe said...

blame google then. Maybe I'll muster a couple of "missing comments" from the depths of my memory. Probably better to focus on my skiing this week.

 
At 1:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It appears your good buddy murphstahoe called you crazy without quotemarks before I called you "crazy," so find out who murph is, and you'll have your answer.

You are right that I don't read your blog all that much, but I know what it's about. I DID read Case Closed, however, I think it's still in my grandmother's garage or someplace.

Here was my reply, which should have ended this issue for you a while back. hey, remember when you called that sex writer a sex worker? Good times....

"sfcitizen Says:

October 17th, 2008 at 5:01 pm edit

Well you see, Rob, that adjective is in quote marks, meaning that you are oftentimes called that, primarily because people are mad at you about the EIR issue. I don’t think you’re crazy.

If you were crazy, you wouldn’t taken down your defamation per se (”per se” is Latin for “you lose”) post about a so-called “sex-worker” - see how I used those quote marks?

Anywho, modifer cheerfully withdrawn."

 
At 3:13 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

What an asshole! You're still anonymous and retailing what some other anonymous assholes said. You don't think that's a little problematic?

 
At 4:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rob, your (that's the proper way to write it on the Net - "you're"? what's that?) taking the Internet way too seriously.

If you don't like the SF area political chat rooms then don't go there, right?

Is anybody "tailing" you how you should run you're website? Don't think so.

Take it easy on the defamation per se issue and you'll be fine.

Murph appears to be your online friend, so be nice.

 
At 5:06 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it isn't illiterate, stupid, and immoral. "Your" for "you're" is simply illiterate in my book, whether that book is electronic or on paper. I go to the chatrooms occasionally, but that doesn't make their unprincipled and timid anonymity acceptable. What all these anonymous folks are really afraid of: If people knew their names everyone would know they have nothing to say.

"Take it easy on the defamation per se issue and you'll be fine. Murph appears to be your online friend, so be nice."

I'm not going to sue anyone for defamation, but when people are this lame---and seem completely unaware of that fact---I can't resist pointing it out. The moron from SFCitizen seems to think that as long as he puts an insult in quotation marks, whether he's quoting someone else or not, it's okay to insult me---or anyone else, presumably.

Stupidity and cowardice don't become otherwise just because they are expressed on the internet. And shitty writing is still shitty writing even if done by high-tech means.

The point of this blog is not to be "nice"---nauseating concept!---but to say things that all the "progressive" lemmings here in Progressive Land---both in the mainstream media and the even lamer "alternative" media---can't or won't say. I'm obviously not looking for "friends" with this blog. If people don't like District 5 Diary, fuck them.

 
At 8:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Defamation per se is what happened when you called Violet Blue the writer a "sex worker," capiche?

 
At 11:35 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Yes, but I quickly corrected my mistake, while the SFCitizen jerk---you?---insists that it's not defamation as long as he puts it in quotation marks. In legal terms what he's doing is "republishing" the original slander, which makes him liable. Of course I don't believe that there really was an original slander, since SFCitizen is evidently a bike nut and the slur probably originates with him/you. As I said, I'm not going to sue anyone, but it has to be pointed out how dishonest SFCitizen is being---dishonest and cowardly.

 
At 4:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not defamation.
Ergo, it's not republishing defamation.
Slander is different than libel - you'll look less clownish in the future if you just use the umbrella term defamation.
If you want to believe that nobody in San Francisco refers to you as "Crazy Rob," it's your right.
Vaya con Dio

 
At 4:49 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Just as you have the right to be an asshole, and a gutless one at that.

 
At 12:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh I see! Just because i don't like something on the Net, doesn't mean it's actionable defamation. Wow!

Oh I see! I'm not a lawyer, so sometimes I bandy legal terms about without having a full understanding of their meanings.

Oh I see! Slander and libel aren't synonymous. I'm not a lawyer, so sometimes I bandy blah blah blah, you get the idea! I'll use defamation all the time in the future - it's easier and more correcter!

Oh I see! Sometimes my efforts at being SF's #1 Internet gadfly, the kind of activity that gets the Wall Street Journal to publish a little hedcut stipple line drawing of my visage, might make people get frustrated with me and therefore label me "crazy." It's actually a kind of compliment, in a way, I see know!

I once was lost, but now am found, Was blind, but now I see.

Seriously Rob, if that's your real name in these anonymous days, don't a massive coronary over anything you read in a newspaper or on the net. Not worth it.

Stay smooth.

 
At 9:13 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

You can't even bring yourself to put your name on the boring, innocuous items you post on SFCitizen. Good pictures, though. Technically adept but nothing of interest going on in your head. I'm not having "a massive coronary" over you; you're just another asshole to me. As I've pointed out, you're typical of the worst of the online community in SF; you want to pretend you're doing serious work but don't put your name on your posts. Another example: all the anonymous wimps on the chatboards, boldly punctuating their feeble, predictable opinions with insults. What are you people so afraid of? I know: if people knew who you are, they would see that you have nothing of interest to say.

 
At 7:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can't even bring yourself to put your name on the boring, innocuous items you post on SFCitizen.
I DON'T TELL YOU HOW TO RUN YOUR WEBSITE BUT YOU TELL ME HOW TO RUN MINE. IS THAT RIGHT?

Good pictures, though. Technically adept but nothing of interest going on in your head.
YOU'RE NOT INTERESTED IN PHOTOS OF FLIES AND SKUNKS? MOST PEOPLE AREN'T, SO YOU'RE NO DIFFERENT.

I'm not having "a massive coronary" over you;
NOT OVER ME, 0VER THE INTERNET. IT'S HARD TO TELL WHETHER YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND SIMPLE ENGLISH, OR WHETHER YOU TWIST THINGS AROUND LIKE THEY DO ON THE AM RADIO.

you're just another asshole to me.
THANKS ROB, KEEP ME POSTED ON THIS. HEY, YOU SOUND JUST THEY WAY THEY DO ON THE MESSAGE BOARDS YOU CLAIM TO HATE BUT GO TO ALL THE TIME.

As I've pointed out, you're typical of the worst of the online community in SF;
I'M TYPICAL OF THE WORST BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE CALL YOU CRAZY? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BASICALLY.

you want to pretend you're doing serious work
WHO SAID THAT? WHO SUGGESTED THAT? DISAGREE.

but don't put your name on your posts.
LOGICAL FALLACY - HOW DOES THE WORD "BUT" FIT IN THERE? WHAT'S CONTRARY TO EXPECTATION IN YOUR SENTENCE? TRY THIS: YOU'RE PRETENDING TO BE A POLICEMAN, BUT IT'S RAINING. DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, YOU SEE?

Another example: all the anonymous wimps on the chatboards, boldly punctuating their feeble, predictable opinions with insults.
YOU'RE THE ONE WITH THE INSULTS, ROB. EITHER SOME PEOPLE IN TOWN CALL YOU CRAZY OR NOT. THEY DO, SO YOU ARE WRONG. YOU DON'T LIKE THIS TIDBIT OF INFO, SO YOU GOT ALL UPSET.

What are you people so afraid of? I know: if people knew who you are, they would see that you have nothing of interest to say.
AGAIN, THERE'S A LOGICAL PROBLEM HERE. SO, YOU THINK PEOPLE READ SOMETHING AND THEN ARE BLIND TO THE FACT THAT THERE'S NOTHING INTERESTING ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T SEE THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO WROTE IT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

YOU'RE EQUATING ME WITH WITH THE CHAT ROOM PEOPLE YOU DESPISE. I DON'T LIKE THE CHAT ROOMS EITHER SO I DON'T READ THEM. YOU SHOULDN'T READ THEM EITHER.

IT'S HARD FOR PEOPLE TO ACCEPT THAT JFK COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED BY JUST ONE CRAZY GUY. SO THEY SEE THINGS THAT AREN'T THERE. JACKIE KENNEDY SAID _THEY_ KILLED HIM RIGHT AFTER THE ASSASSINATION. SHE WAS THINKING EMOTIONALLY. SHE WANTED TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING THAT WASN'T THERE.

 
At 9:34 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

"I'M TYPICAL OF THE WORST BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE CALL YOU CRAZY? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BASICALLY."

You anonymously tell your readers that other anonymous people allegedly call me crazy. Don't you see the problem here?

"YOU'RE THE ONE WITH THE INSULTS, ROB. EITHER SOME PEOPLE IN TOWN CALL YOU CRAZY OR NOT. THEY DO, SO YOU ARE WRONG. YOU DON'T LIKE THIS TIDBIT OF INFO, SO YOU GOT ALL UPSET."

Whether it's true or not is not the point, which is that you aren't taking any responsibility for the slur. When I call you an asshole, everyone knows who the author of the insult is.

"SO, YOU THINK PEOPLE READ SOMETHING AND THEN ARE BLIND TO THE FACT THAT THERE'S NOTHING INTERESTING ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T SEE THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO WROTE IT?"

Whether people find the slur interesting or not is not the point, which is that no one knows who the author/authors of the slur are.

 
At 2:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You anonymously tell your readers that other anonymous people allegedly call me crazy. Don't you see the problem here?
NOT ALLEGEDLY, _ACTUALLY_. THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE CALL YOU. LOOK UP DOUGLAS CORRIGAN. PEOPLE CALLED HIM "WRONG WAY." IS THAT A "SLUR"? DID HE CRY LIKE A BABY ABOUT IT, OVER AND OVER? DID NEWSPAPERS WHO USED THAT TERM LATER ON GET SUED FOR "REPUBLISHING" THE "SLUR"? NO, NO AND NO. PEOPLE CALLED HIM CRAZY AS WELL. IT'S TOUGH TO PROVE WHO SAID WHAT WHEN, BUT WE KNOW THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE CALLED HIM.

AS ALREADY STATED, CALLING YOU CRAZY FOR YOUR GADFLY ACTIVITY IS SORT OF A COMPLIMENT FOR A "LEGALLY ACTIVE" PERSON SUCH AS YOURSELF. AS FOR ME, I SEE WINNABLE LAWSUITS EVERYWHERE AND YET I'VE NEVER SUED NOBODY NO HOW. I DON'T PROMOTE LAWSUITS. I DON'T TELL PEOPLE/ORGANIZATIONS ABOUT HOW I'M FIXING TO SUE THEM. SO WE'RE A BIT DIFFERENT ON THAT SCORE. IT'S YOUR RIGHT TO SUE WHOMEVER YOU WANT OF COURSE.

Whether it's true or not is not the point, which is that you aren't taking any responsibility for the slur. When I call you an asshole, everyone knows who the author of the insult is.
WHY WOULD I WRITE IT IF WEREN'T TRUE? PLEASE CHECK EVERYTHING ELSE OUT ON THE BLOG AS WELL. MAYBE THE SURF WATCH DOWN AT MAVERICKS _DOESN'T_ END ON MARCH 31. MAYBE PEOPLE _DON'T_ CALL SKUNKS "POLECATS."

[ROB ANDERSON: WHO CALLS SKUNKS POLECATS? THAT'S JUST AN ALLEGATION! THESE ANONYMOUS POLECAT REFERERS ARE SLANDERING THE GOOD NAME OF THE STRIPED SKUNK AND YOU ARE "LIBEL" FOR REPUBLISHING THIS SLUR!]

WHAT WAS THAT? ANYWAY, FIND SOMETHING ELSE ON THE BLOG THAT'S WRONG. WHY IS IT THAT THE ONLY THING YOU FIND FAULT WITH IS WHAT SOME PEOPLE CALL YOU AROUND YOUR NEW-FOUND HOME?

Whether people find the slur interesting or not is not the point,
IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN YOU PHRASED YOURSELF THE WRONG WAY. YOU USE BASIC WORDS LIKE "BUT" AND "IF" THE "WRONG WAY". YOU SAY STUFF YOU DON'T MEAN.

which is that no one knows who the author/authors of the slur are.
WHO CARES ABOUT THIS BUT YOU?

YOU SEEM TO CALL LOTS OF PEOPLE NAUGHTY WORDS. WORDS THAT DON'T APPEAR AT ALL AT SFCITIZEN. THAT'S FUNNY, HUH? A TYPICAL ENTRY:

"At 10:30 PM, Rob Anderson said...
If you're not interested in what the city's bike people are up to, why are you reading this blog, asshole?"

BUT YOU'RE MIGHTY "DON'T CALL ME CRAZY" ROB ANDERSON, SO YOU CAN "SLUR" WHOMEVER YOU PLEASE, IS THAT HOW IT WORKS?

 
At 2:55 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

So you evidently are as stupid as indicated by your earlier communications.

"NOT ALLEGEDLY, _ACTUALLY_. THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE CALL YOU. LOOK UP DOUGLAS CORRIGAN. PEOPLE CALLED HIM "WRONG WAY." IS THAT A "SLUR"? DID HE CRY LIKE A BABY ABOUT IT, OVER AND OVER? DID NEWSPAPERS WHO USED THAT TERM LATER ON GET SUED FOR "REPUBLISHING" THE "SLUR"? NO, NO AND NO. PEOPLE CALLED HIM CRAZY AS WELL. IT'S TOUGH TO PROVE WHO SAID WHAT WHEN, BUT WE KNOW THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE CALLED HIM."

No one's going to sue anyone here, as I've said several times. Nor am I "crying like a baby." I guess I'm supposed to take the insult and like it? The point is no one---except you, of course---knows whether anyone called me anything at all, since we don't know who you are or your equally anonymous alleged sources.

"AS ALREADY STATED, CALLING YOU CRAZY FOR YOUR GADFLY ACTIVITY IS SORT OF A COMPLIMENT FOR A 'LEGALLY ACTIVE' PERSON SUCH AS YOURSELF. AS FOR ME, I SEE WINNABLE LAWSUITS EVERYWHERE AND YET I'VE NEVER SUED NOBODY NO HOW. I DON'T PROMOTE LAWSUITS. I DON'T TELL PEOPLE/ORGANIZATIONS ABOUT HOW I'M FIXING TO SUE THEM. SO WE'RE A BIT DIFFERENT ON THAT SCORE. IT'S YOUR RIGHT TO SUE WHOMEVER YOU WANT OF COURSE."

One of your many intellectual deficiencies is apparently an inability to read plain English, since I've said several times that I have no intention of suing you.

"WHY WOULD I WRITE IT IF WEREN'T TRUE?"

The obvious answer: because you're a chickenshit asshole who assumed he could get away with it, which of course you have.

"ANYWAY, FIND SOMETHING ELSE ON THE BLOG THAT'S WRONG. WHY IS IT THAT THE ONLY THING YOU FIND FAULT WITH IS WHAT SOME PEOPLE CALL YOU AROUND YOUR NEW-FOUND HOME?"

Yes, I'm such a fuss-budget. Some anonymous asshole calls me crazy on his blog and I'm supposed to like it.

"WHO CARES ABOUT THIS BUT YOU?"

Well, gee, why do you think that is?

"YOU SEEM TO CALL LOTS OF PEOPLE NAUGHTY WORDS. WORDS THAT DON'T APPEAR AT ALL AT SFCITIZEN. THAT'S FUNNY, HUH?...BUT YOU'RE MIGHTY 'DON'T CALL ME CRAZY' ROB ANDERSON, SO YOU CAN 'SLUR' WHOMEVER YOU PLEASE, IS THAT HOW IT WORKS?

Yes, though I don't do that very often, as a matter of fact. And the crucial distinction you're apparently too dishonest to acknowledge: I put my name on my insults, and you get your knickers in a big twist when I point it out to you.

 
At 3:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not suing ME, Rob. What makes you litigious is your threats of sueing other people/organizations.

Rob, you so crazy!

Vaya con Gaia...

 
At 3:43 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

You have your facts wrong, Anon, and why am I not surprised? The only litigation I've ever been a party to is the successful suit against the city for rushing the Bicycle Plan through the process without any environmental review. Nor have I ever threatened to sue any individual, organization, or institution.

 
At 5:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My understanding was that you mulling over another lawsuit based upon some recent activity the past few months, but you know your litigation history better than I do. Perhaps all in the same ball of wax. "Lead plaintiff"? You could have done it yourself in pro per.

Why do you have one of the four options for commenters as "Anonymous"? Get rid of that and all your gripes would melt away like rich creamery butter...

Hey, it turns out that all the "K" murders in the 1960s were related. JFK, RFK, and MLK:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jlo_yPktDmPD96_5f7fgdVh6xssA

You know who might buy that? Crazy Rob Kennedy, who had all sorts of crazy ideas about the JFK assassination. Perhaps understandably so.

You can read all about it in a gossipy book about bobby
http://www.amazon.com/Brothers-Hidden-History-Kennedy-Years/dp/B0012F9VY8/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Mind you, it's "not a conspiracy book" as Talbot says.

(Actually it is yet another conspiracy book but...)

Oh well, I'm off to basketball practice. Man, we're going to cream the Lady Lions of Galileo High (OJ's Alma mater) so bad next Tuesday!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home