Robert McClelland, to me, in these comments: "I hope that type of sentiment comforts you the day you find yourself staring down the barrel of a 12 gauge shotgun, Mike."
Update: McClelland clarifies: "We live in a world where people go postal. If the Brocks of the world continue on their present course they will one day run into someone who goes postal on them. When that happens I seriously doubt they'll be able to save themselves with the type of gibberish Brock is spouting to justify going after Beemer's job."
Shorter: I am going to be killed, eventually, for posting under my real name.
But let's get to the point here. Pretty much everyone left-of-centre and some right-of-centre are angry as all hell that I "outed" Don Beemer.
The complaint amounts to this: That I, invited anonymous comments on this blog, and as such, Don Beemer should have felt there was a contract between me and him to protect that anonymity.
The basis for this complaint, is that above the comment forms on this blog, the previous message used to appear: "Sign in to comment, or comment anonymously".
Now, let me start off by saying that the real meaning of "comment anonymously" as it pertains to how MovableType (the blogging software I use) comment's work, is that any comment that is not connected to a TypeKey, OpenID, LiveJournal or Vox ID, is considered in the technical sense: anonymous.
I can assure you, that even if you "signed in" to comment, you'd still be allowed to post under a pseudonym.
I disagree that any implied contract existed between me and said commenter; that I was under some obligation to "respect" the anonymity of my commenters. Nor was it my intention by allowing "anonymous" comments, to imply that people who post here are somehow protected from potential investigation as to their true identity, especially in the cases where commenters are inappropriate.
There seems to be a great amount of sympathy for Don Beemer out there in the leftosphere. I'm guessing because so many can relate to Don Beemer's tactics of hiding behind the protection of their computer screen and firing off invectives to any and all people they disagree with.
Others seem to believe, as Mr. McClelland does apparently, that there are genuine safety issues involved with posting your real name online. In which case, the following bloggers are gambling with their lives: Kate McMillan, Ezra Levant, Jay Currie, Mark Steyn, Stephen Taylor, Mark Peters, Jerrett Plonka, [Update: and Kathy Shaidle] etc.
This seems to me, to be nothing but the classic stranger danger phenomenon. I'm not afraid of retribution. It is, after all, my human right to speak. I refuse to fear for my life to speak in my own name, given me by my parents, in my country and on my terms.
Some people have alternative explanations for posting anonymously. Like a guy who guys by the name of Balbulican at Stageleft. Apparently he just finds it fun to post under a pseudonym and take on a different persona on the internet. Good for him.
All of my detractors have a central theme: their fear for the livelihood of Liberal executive VP, fundraiser and organizer, Don Beemer. Aren't lefty's just so compassionate? I mean, he's just a victim in my sick little game. At least in their eyes.
Never does a simple concept, like maybe... responsibility come into the picture. That maybe Don should be responsible for his actions. Like perhaps: not using company resources for political use, and more worse, making unintelligent, vulgar attacks that one would not want publicly attributed back to them.
Then again, left-wingers are not really big on the whole responsibility thing, are they? You have a right to a job, you have right to be spared offensive discourse, you have right to be taken care of.
Don Beemer couldn't seem to take care of his own reputation, so all the lefties want to come help take care of it for him. Aren't they just a nice bunch?
Wow! I should kick my own ass for that. By the way, should I fetch that number for the authorities for you? I'd enjoy the company and I'm sure the cops and I would have a good laugh at your expense.
I agree that Robert is being deliberately confrontational and obtuse about this. But what Robert said is hardly any surprise to you. You already know the risks of using your real name while talking about sensitive topics. Robert's point is that you may want to be careful about who you "out". As I said, I was once threatened over the phone by someone who said he had a gun and knew where I lived because we were arguing about Nazi revisionism. Needless to say I don't discuss matters with Nazis anymore.
This is funny coming from a guy that said I was threatening Garth with a metaphorical horsewhipping.
To R.M.,
Try sucking your own ass.
I would assume you have more experience at that.
"But let's get to the point here. Pretty much everyone left-of-centre and some right-of-centre are angry as all hell that I "outed" Don Beemer."
Frankly I could care less that you "outed" Don Beemer. I just think you're a lowlife for including the reference and link to his job.
If you'd left this paragraph...
"He's also a vice president of Jory Capital Inc. His employment at the firm was one of the first things confirmed by this quick search on my server:"
...out of the original post I doubt anyone would have cared.
Part of free speech is being responsible for what you say. If you want to insult the host don't be surprised if the host is offended and asks you to leave the party in front of all your friends. Just like the liberal MP who called for the summary execution of PMBM is being held to account so should commentators when they resort to vulgarities like Beemer.
It is amusing the bravery people display from behind a keyboard . Why would anyone say something about a person on a blog that they wouldn't say to that persons face. Ohh yea R.McClelland and Raphael Alexander Rob C= Robert Connon
You're at equal risk from getting shot by somebody who thinks you cut them off in traffic or jumped the line to buy the newest video game. Mcclelland's just trying to shut you up by threatening you vicariously. When he says "somebody with a shotgun", guess who stars in his fantasy?
Sorry, quotes not necessary on somebody with a shot gun.
I find it hilarious that the leftards are in a blather because Brock dealt with a personal slur against him and homosexuals by finding out the identity of the person. Hello isn't that what the left do using the HRC?? Bait and troll and sue and file complaints, yet when the Conservatives use the liberals method of bait and persecute via the "Court of Public Opinion" it's a problem. Dear me such hypocrites.
When he wrote: One wonders how Brock can bear to seperate Harper's dick from his mouth long enough to eat?
He's implying that Brock is a homosexual and that it is somehow offensive to be a homosexual. I thought the Liberal Party was supportive of Gays? I guess I was wrong because the above slur is offensive to homosexuals and hetrosexuals, frankly he deserves to suffer consequences (employment or otherwise) for posting slurs against Homosexuals. Does the Liberal Party of Canada want such people representing them? Making sexual slurs against an opponent is acceptable to the left? Again leftard hypocrisy at it's finest, do as I say not as I "POST". I'm going to send a link to this and other threads about the above comment, the left shouldn't be allowed to parade around as "Gay Sensitive" and then write hateful posts.
Who cares if the left-tards are angry that you "outed" someone? Fuck them.
As far as these bullshit arguements about intimidation, censorship, free speech ect. - again who cares?
Beemer got LESS than he deserved.
The only (so-called) conservative that I've seen complain is the little lefty asswipe Rapheal. Again, - Fuck him.
Outing is a weapon that should be used any time it can.
Does it really surprise you to see this kind of reaction from these guys?
Accepting responsibility for their own actions is not exactly a leftie strong point.
FYI Joe and joe are different people. I, Joe, don't use profanity as I believe that those who resort to profanity have nothing to say.
You know, I actually do have to admit that I agree with McClelland that publicly posting his place of employment was going a little too far.
For all the outrage regarding his "outing", however, yeah, I agree with Joe. Fuck 'em hard.
We're drawing a line in the sand here, and if these feebs, for whatever reason, want to stand on the wrong side of that line, it's entirely their choice. I just advise them not to cross it.
*
" Patrick Ross says... I actually do have to admit that I agree with McClelland"
hey, patrick... it sounds like you're mellowing out in your old age... remember this little rant?
"Dear Canadian Cynic... Bring it the fuck on. Apparently, you've taken exception to my recent noted suspicion that I may have tracked you down to your place of residence."
"You can rest assured that, when I ascertain your true identity (and I will), I will publish it here on the Nexus. Then I'll mail copies of your comments to your friends and family. Would I feel bad for destroying your "blogging livelihood"? Frankly, no. Not for a heartbeat."
i think i liked the old, less sanctimoniuous you much better.
*
Did it just get doughy and unstylish in here?
No, but now there's this gawdawful pong, smells like... WeeWee!
Mike, as a Canadian if there's some Big Kahuna of a Federal party making comments that disgusting on the internet, from his work computer to boot, I really, really want to know about it. That's the kind of stupid I really don't in high positions of public life.
Leftist morons of the world, if you want to make filthy anonymous comments use the right tools to do it. Your computer at work is not the right tool.
Which is why I'm buying a rifle. And getting my Restricted license later this year, too.
You have nothing to fear, Kathy. The demented wackos all adore you.
Don Beemer's a bit of a racist:
"The meeting in Mexico:
Commander Chimpy meets Commander Chubby meets Commander Chico?
http://centreofcanada.blogspot.com/"
http://jamesbowie.blogspot.com/2006/03/let-me-have-men-about-me-that-are-fat.html
Now, if a random jerk had called the President of Mexico "Chico", an ethnic slur, it's perhaps not a big deal. However, Don is a Liberal VP, and the Liberal party has made great sport of painting conservatives as bigots and themselves as defenders of minorities.
Within this context, and the rest of the crap Don has spewed, you're darn tootin' right to expose his ass, especially if he is spewing hate and very un-Liberal ethnic slurs on his employer's\partners's dime and IP address. Hence, pwned.
it's perhaps not a big deal.
Not like Kathy Shaidle's "Arabs are violent retards" and some comments she's made about black Torontonians, if I recall correctly.
And of course, we have Kate McMillan's lavishly-documented record, over at Dawg's Blawg and other venues.
1) Don was a volunteer. No one forced him to come to Mike's blog and demonstrate what passes for wit at the higher levels of the Manitoba Liberal Party.
2) As I understand it he posted his comment from his work computer. To trace him meant looking at where he was posting from. Again, nobody forced him to misuse his company computer but, as he did, that computer and the company it belongs to becomes part of the story.
It would be too bad if he lost his job over it but that is something he should have thought of before volunteering his pithy little comment or writing his now shut down blog.
Rule #1: Write, act, and speak anonymously exactly as you would in person;
Rule #2: If you chose to use or broadcast vulgarities, don't be surprised if you are shunned;
Rule #3: Consequences are the fault of the offender, not the offended;
Rule #4: Ignore the trolls [Trolls, you know who you are].
This is rich. WeeWee is coming off all righteous about Shaidle and McMillan on a thread about Robert "F-the Joos!" McClelland threatening somebody with a 12 gauge haircut.
You've gotten stupider, WeeWee. I didn't think that was possible, but... wow! You made it happen! Way to kill those neurons, baby!
If that "thing" above is not an indication of what is truly wrong with conservatives and Conservatives, I have no idea what else could be provided as evidence.
How odd. I don't remember similar outrage from the leftosphere when the right-leaning Don of "All Things Canadian" was outed by Kinsella back in 2005. Ah, well, I'm sure that upon discovery of this Saskboy will publish some equally juvenile screed on his blog about how Kinsella "can't", either. I won't stay up waiting for that, however.
Someone above said
"Part of free speech is being responsible for what you say."
which I think is all that needs to be said
Well, this is all pretty groan-worthy. I have to agree with Robert that had the reference to Beemer’s employment been omitted, mostly likely nobody would have given much of a toss about this. After all, the remark in question, while vulgar and possibly uncalled for, wasn’t really all that egregious or extraordinary in my opinion.
By the way, I like the way you invented the concept of there being a “contract” (something nobody suggested) and then deemed it to be an “implied contract” thereby ingeniously shifting the onus onto the commenter for having misinterpreted your “offer” of anonymity. Oh, and all the technical obfuscation about how MoveableType handles comments was a terribly clever means of muddying the waters and rendering the otherwise plain offer to comment anonymously virtually meaningless. Way to move the goalposts and evade responsibility for your own oversight and negligence! Also, kind of cute how you never considered (or at least bothered to address) the possibility of simply deleting the comment, ignoring it, or responding with a comeback of your own.
As I said over at my place, you swatted a mosquito with a howitzer. Get a little perspective, try accepting some responsibility yourself for having wildly overreacted, and remember the venerable old axiom that two wrongs don’t make a right.
No biggie, Mike.
You know as well as anyone that all this feigned outrage is to deflect from the fact that Don is an ignorant, immature potty-mouth. It also looks like he is perhaps a little Homophobic and a Racist, too!
When people choose a life of politics - or - to serve the public, i think it is fair to assume that they should behave accordingly.
Aren't all these critics on here the same people who despise Ezra Levant for fighting for free speech. They don't support free speech but DEMAND the right for high ranking political pundits to ANONYMOUSLY insinuate Homosexual acts of sex between our Honorable Prime Minister and a stranger?!?! If some lowlife anonymously posted at Rabble, some disgusting drivel about Layton having man-boy sex, and he was outed as a Baptist Minister - do you think they would defend him so vigorously? Not very likely.
These folks are wacked - just let them write you off. You have many readers and will continue to as long as you choose to submit your thoughts for consideration.
On another note, history has shown Robert McClelland to be a tad "unsound" - that one i would be wary of...
"i think i liked the old, less sanctimoniuous you much better."
And I've told you before that I liked you better when I thought you weren't an incredibly shallow hypocrite.
I still fully intend to reveal Canadian Cynic's identity to the public. I'm just going to draw the line at revealing his home address, place of employment and phone number.
Recall that he didn't afford Richard Evans the same courtesy.
You call it sanctimony. I call it honesty. Remember the difference?
what i can NEVER forgive Don Beemer is his outing of his goldfish...AND giving out the goldfish's name....(Petey)....why that makes him a snitch informer and a PETA betrayer for trying to deflect the aim of the inevitable CPC hitman towards Petey's aquarium.(TELL MIKE I"M SORRY..PETEY MADE ME DO IT!)
...is it asking too much of the leftwing commentators to spare a thought for what kind of callous bastard would sink so low ?
"I still fully intend to reveal Canadian Cynic's identity to the public. I'm just going to draw the line at revealing his home address, place of employment and phone number."
Why the hell not? This is the same person who has invited others to do me harm, and posted a link to my address. Like Meaghan Walker Williams, showing up in my comments and threatening me with a visit from the Indian Posse, or in an earlier incarnation, setting up a blog, writing under my name, and posting my address along with a statement that I "hate Indians".
When people pull these stunts, they deserve to be hunted down and exposed for the cowards they are. So yeah, if someone verifies CC's identity, I'll be the first one to post his street address and home phone number on the front page of SDA.
He can take that to the bank.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree entirely. You may be angry about that particular (very real) attack on you, but the idea shouldn't be to sink to his level. It should be to either make him live up to ours, or prove that he can't.
Would it really comfort you to be as scummy as Canadian Cynic?
Would it really comfort you to be as scummy as Canadian Cynic?
Well, I'm not hiding behind a wall of anonymity and sniping attacks at people. So I'm not sure what you're talking about.
This shouldn't be so hard to figure out.
He posts the home address of political opponents on his blog, which is undeniably scummy. If you post his home address online, is that any less scummy?
Think about this. Do you really want to be that much like Canadian Cynic? Come on. Think about it.
If you post his home address online, is that any less scummy?
Who said I was going to post his home address?
You didn't, Mike. That was Kate. But seeing as how you asked, I explained.
hell...petey never asked for much...he didn't want the Canadian Mint gig....he didn't ask for Canada Post or Public Works...he never dreamed of snagging that Ambassadorship in Denmark...petey knew his place...and that place was to support don beemer when he needed someone to listen...someone to listen to him getting it all off his chest...and i happen to know petey was a patriot....he volunteered to recce Hans island a while back when we had a spot of bovver with the Danes......i also know he volunteered because of his love for don beemer......
...and this is the thanks he gets from mr bigshot Manitoba LLLiber al C.F.A. don beemer ?..becoming a target for every crackpot conservative with an itchy finger....i tell you...there oughta be a law.
If you post his home address online, is that any less scummy
Never make the mistake of confusing me with someone who cares about your opinion.
As Voltaire once wrote:
"To hold a pen is to be at war. We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard."
well, as wf buckley jr. said twenty-five years after his contretemps with Vidal(that malevolent fantasist..(rkimball))...
"we were both irresponsible...and while i am still NOT a crypto-nazi...HE is still , i understand, a faggot."
"Never make the mistake of confusing me with someone who cares about your opinion."
Awwwwwwwww, Kate. Sweetheart. Could you still be stinging from all the criticism over your little Holocaust tattoo photo?
Live with it. You were just as wrong then as you would be if you sank to Cynic's level and published his address. I'm not obligated to be another one of your sycophants.
Why the hell not? This is the same person who has invited others to do me harm, and posted a link to my address. Like Meaghan Walker Williams, showing up in my comments and threatening me with a visit from the Indian Posse, or in an earlier incarnation, setting up a blog, writing under my name, and posting my address along with a statement that I "hate Indians".
Timely reminder. Most of us tend to forget the exact nature of Kate McMillan's depravity and degeneracy with the passing of time.
Check out the lavishly-documented exposés of Ms. McMillan's commentary over at Dawg's Blawg. It preserves the comments Kate deletes from her blog.
Just to clear up a misunderstanding cited elsewhere - I am explicity encouraging anyone who has the opportunity, to expose the identity of the individual who writes under the pseudonym "CC" at the blog site Canadian Cynic.
http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2005/07/situational-logic-right-wing-style.html
Okay, I can no longer bear it.
The person who writes under the pseudonym "CC" is actually Canadian Cynic himself.
Think about it for even a moment. It's an acronym!
I'm embarrassed to have had to point that out to you.
Like Meaghan Walker Williams, showing up in my comments and threatening me with a visit from the Indian Posse, or in an earlier incarnation, setting up a blog, writing under my name, and posting my address along with a statement that I "hate Indians".
CC has a long history of such crap. He should retire now, but I don't think he will.
He's mocked the mom of a dead soldier, he's done the usual with Werner Patel's also.
He's threatened the children of Richard Evans.
I had the Indian Posse break into my garage. They wrote their name on it to say they were there.
As you are aware that statement is false Mike.
You are partisan, and you admitted publicly that your decision was "primarily" a partisan one. Your statement here is also partisan and is trying to indicate that you are being persecuted by Liberal defenders.
Partisanship is political a condition that not all of us are afflicted with, as such not all of our comments and opinions are tainted by party considerations, affiliations, or dogma.
I have no doubt in the world that there are a bunch of Liberals with their knickers in an uproar because 'one of theirs' has been outed by 'one of them'.... my opinion/comment regarding your decision is not based on who the individual was, what his political leanings are, who his employer is, or what his position is, so lets be a bit more honest and by doing so not lump me in with a bunch of disgruntled political partisans I share little on common with - OK?
You are partisan, and you admitted publicly that your decision was "primarily" a partisan one. Your statement here is also partisan and is trying to indicate that you are being persecuted by Liberal defenders.
Your statement is also false. I said the first reason was "political". Political does not equal partisan.
6 of one 1/2 a dozen of the other Mike. If you were non-partisan your statement would be believable however you are asking us to believe that a Conservative is taking public political potshots at a Liberal with non-partisan motives.
How credible would that sound coming from a Liberal?
you are asking us to believe that a Conservative is taking public political potshots at a Liberal with non-partisan motives.
If a conservative had done it this would have been a lot higher priority in the news.
Like front page of the Winnipeg free press.
Probably would have gone nation wide, how credible is that?
Glad you posted this, Mike.
The decision to post/blog using my real name as opposed to a pseudonym essentially came down to courage. As I stacked up the reasons why I might justify a pseudonym I realized the vast majority were borne of fear. Fear of some Islamist nutbar blowing up my car, mainly. :)
This isn't to say all persons who use a pseudonym are cowards; everyone has their own reasons to use/not use their real name, and some are quite valid. But I challenge any blogger out there who isn't using their real name to introspect and truly question the reasons behind their drive for anonymity.
If it's based on fear then I think people should re-evaluate whether they're half as strong as they perceive themselves to be. I mean, it would seem to me that a person of modest courage should be willing to identify him- or herself in public and stand by what s/he writes. If we're collapsing our identities because of the repercussions of expressing our thoughts then haven't we already capitulated to the forces of political correctness and thought control? If we are afraid to identify ourselves in criticism of Islam then have not the terrorist fear mongers won the battle?
Nobody wants to get hurt for expressing thoughts. Nobody wants to put life and limb on the line to ensure society remains free. But as I tell my children quite often: there are many things in life that we must do even though we might not want to do them. I, like Mike, don't want to be faced with some crank with a shotgun. But neither am I going to buckle under to the threat of violence in the face of free speech.
Another main driver away from anonymity, for me, was the increased potential for malevolence. It is much easier to launch ad hominems, call for physical harm to others, and otherwise launch drive-by smears when posting under a fictitious identity. Again, it's not to say that all anonymous bloggers assume a fictitious name with malice aforethought. But it is another one of those personal evaluation points.
Anyway, there's some cannon fodder for you. :)
is properly a bounty. The bounty, for example, upon refined sugar http://idisk.mac.com/dukebluedevilsfreewe/Public/0/friendster-layouts-resources-sites.html >friendster layouts resources sites those metals. They are to be bought for a certain price, like all jevbuaumpp
do it so exactly as he, this most important operation of commerce http://idisk.mac.com/dukebluedevilsfreewe/Public/0/love-me-or-hate-me-myspace-layouts.html >love me or hate me myspace layouts those laws might have brought upon the people, would probably pkkqjxvgcf