Good afternoon.
1. For the record...Ethics Alarms passed 9 million views this week. That’s not a lot in a bit less than 9 years by the mega-blog standards, but their aren’t many ethics blogs that do better, and maybe none. Admittedly, this is a little like being the most popular fan site for Clint Howard…
2. Now this IS a frivolous lawsuit...tomorrow I finally go to Boston to argue my motion to dismiss the vexatious defamation lawsuit against me by an Ethics Alarms commenter whose feelings I hurt in the process of throwing him off the site. If a lawyer brought this suit, I would have a rare claim against him for breaching Rule 3.1, prohibiting frivolous suits. No lawyer, however, would bring such a suit. There has to be a good faith belief that you can prevail, or change the law, but there is literally no support in the law of defamation for calling insults (yup, I insulted him), opinions, and conclusions based on fully-revealed information and data libel. Non-lawyers, however, don’t have to obey legal ethics rules, and, as in this case, don’t know what they are anywhere. Maybe after I’m through with all of this, I’ll post the whole complaint. Among its claims is that I graduated from Hampshire College, and that the Massachusetts court has jurisdiction because I’m a fan of the Boston Red Sox. I also, it claims, defamed the plaintiff by erroneously referring to him as an academic. To deal with this spiteful action, I have already expended several thousand dollars. Yes, it goes with the territory. I know.
3. Imagine, impugning the professionalism and impunity of the FBI! A drunk and irresponsible FBI agent shot a man at a Denver bar over the weekend when his gun flew out of his pocket, hit the floor and discharged as he was executing an acrobatic maneuver on the dance floor. This, you will not be surprised to learn, is not compliant with FBI policy. Agents are considered on duty at all times. They can carry their weapon at all times too, but cannot endanger the public while doing so. They are also not permitted to act like clowns in public, or be drunk as proverbial skunks. The agent is Chase Bishop, 29, who works out of Washington D.C. No word yet if he is part of the Mueller investigation.
Conservative wag Glenn Reynold would headline this story, “Top. Men.” Maybe he already has. And if you don’t get the reference, your cultural literacy needs a tune-up.
4. Nah, the news media isn’t biased,Part I.
The New York Times last week corrected its published report that said President Trump’s rally in Nashville was attended by 1,000 people. Trump had complained that the paper vastly underestimated the size of the crowd, which it had. “An earlier version of this article cited an incorrect figure for the number of people attending President Trump’s rally,” the online version of the Times correction said. “While no exact figure is available, the fire marshal’s office estimated that approximately 5,500 people attended the rally, not about 1,000 people.”
On Twitter, the reporter responsible for the error tweeted, “President [Trump] is correct about his crowd last night,” she said. “My estimate was way off, and we have corrected our story to reflect the fire marshal’s estimate of 5,500 people. When we get it wrong, we say so.”
The question is, why were they wrong? It looks like typical confirmation bias to me: the Times wants the President’s crowds to be disappointing. It is also ironic, given the endless complaining by the news media over the President’s false claims about the size of his inauguration crowd. Was Trump’s estimate off by off 500%? Whose profession is communicating the facts, objectively and accurately, journalists, or politicians?
Outside of the Times, which issued the correction but didn’t see enough irony to publish a report about its gaffe, the only media outlets I can find that thought the public should know about it were Fox New and the conservative news media, plus the Washington Post, because it wants to embarrass its rival.
5. Nah, the news media isn’t biased, Part II.
April Ryan, American Urban Radio Networks anti-Trump White House correspondent (She’s a CNN political analyst too), tweeted today that “Reporters on the South Lawn have confirmed the @realDonaldTrump was heckled and booed when he came out to celebrate America.”
This was the planned White House event that replaced the Philadelphia Eagles’ cancelled visit to the White House, dubbed “Celebration of America” and featuring the U.S. Marine Band and the U.S. Army Chorus.
Again, fake news, and confirmation bias is the cause. When he stepped to the podium, a heckler in the crowd shouted, “Stop hiding behind the armed services and the National Anthem!” The audience then booed him.
“Thank you very much, everybody,” The President said. “Appreciate it.”
Ryan had to retract her report and take down the tweet. “Breaking: reporters are rewatching the event and found a heckler in the crowd started asking questions of @realDonaldTrump and the heckler was booed.” she tweeted. “The heckler was escorted out of the event. The boos were for the heckler…The original breaking boo tweet was deleted as reporters on the South Lawn who told of the booing and heckling did not see all of what happened on the other side of the lawn. After the tape was watched the heckler was booed not @realDonaldTrump.”
Got it. Reporters eager to see Trump embarrassed didn’t check the facts, then relayed their half-baked reporting to one reporter whom they knew would use it.
People have asked what the mainstream news media could do to begin showing me that it was re-dedicating itself to being professional, ethical, competent, fair, objective, trustworthy and non-partisan. Getting rid of reporters like April Ryan would be an excellent start.
Ethics Alarms 
Re: 3.
“Conservative wag Glenn Reynold would headline this story, “Top. Men.” Maybe he already has. And if you don’t get the reference, your cultural literacy needs a tune-up.”
I am torn between “Top Ten” as in the FBI’s list of 10 most wanted and the movie “Top Gun”. But maybe I am out of touch.
You’re gonna make me cry.
“Top. Men” is a reference to “Raiders of the Lost Ark”. At the end of the movie, Indiana Jones and his pal insist that the Ark of the Covenant has to be researched. The government stooge assures them they have top men working on it now. When asked who is working on it, the stooge reiterates, “Top. Men”. Shortly thereafter, we see the crated ark stuffed into a cavernous government warehouse to rot.
Thanks A.M., NOW I get it.
Actually the scene shows two government workers nailing the top of the crate. They were the “Top” men.
Oh dear.
Oh, dear indeed. I think I’d be more likely to miss a Star Wars reference or something from Star Trek ToS than anything from Raiders.
#3 “Top. Men.” I’m sorry Jack but I just have to post LOL because that literally made me laugh out loud; great reference. I loved that movie ending!!!
The FBI agent should be disciplined severely by the FBI and criminally charged by the authorities, his career in any kind of law enforcement is likely over.
“Awaiting toxicology reports.”
I’m not too popular on Twitter, but this guy got me 70 new followers and a tweet with 10k likes. I’m twitter-famous now! lol.
That WAS a great ending to that movie – still one of my favorites.
Calling someone an academic these days may be actionable!
#1 I think that 9,000,000 is decent in such a niche market of ethics. Unfortunately with the insanity of the anti-Trump resistance the ethics niche is getting smaller not larger, it just seems that there are so many people out there now that have flushed their ethics. I commend you for sticking with it!
I’d love to know the Post count as well as the Comment count (moderated of course, scrap the spam.)
#4 The propaganda model is to always put out something that doesn’t look favorable to Trump first and foremost then if by chance someone catches it and you have to retract it the retraction becomes irrelevant because the deception propaganda has already been properly delivered to the masses. Retractions never, ever equally offset the initial propaganda headline.
Propaganda is deceptive at every level.
The same thing can be said about #5.
#2 I know you really don’t need “luck”, but I wish you good luck anyway.
Re:#5
So, after actually watching the tape of the event, it turns out that the reporters who “confirmed” that Trump was heckled, had to un-confirm?
I fail to see why anyone would take the news media seriously anymore. Fortunately the source material is instantly available in many cases, (as in this one). I guess that reporters seek to frame the perception of the source material, and count on a percentage of the public never seeing it. This isn’t reporting, it’s propaganda.
Yup Joe, they figure they can be completely accurate a very small percentage of the time and that offsets in their mind the huge percentage of the time that they’re being paid political propaganda hacks – Progressive tools. Their sheep will follow regardless of the huge percentage of propaganda because they instantly believe anything that puts Trump in a negative light and they don’t really give a damn if it’s false.
I had lunch with a friend of mine who suffers from TDS and when we walked out to his car afterwards he had a flat tire. I said: “Shit! I bet that never happened when Obama was President!” He didn’t smile.
Trump=Bad and Bad=Trump is such a childlike perspective; yet I know many intelligent people who have adopted it like a religion.
”He didn’t smile.”
Of course he didn’t, they were playing for keeps and lost.
Cheating, lying and committing crimes for keeps… and lost.
Looking forward to prison sentences. If not, I up the Apcon rating (from the ‘Torcon’ tornado rating at NOAA, but adapted for Apocalypse) from 6 to 8.5, with ‘Civil War’ being the chosen mode of destruction.
Fly Over country is PISSED at the two tiered justice system, and looking for confirmation that this will be corrected. Otherwise, why stay and play in the system?
”Cheating, lying and committing crimes for keeps… and lost.”
It gets worse.
Anyone see this?
Chris Matthews has left the Lefty Plantation and is in need of some SERIOUS[ reeducation.
The looks on the faces of the stunned MSLSD panel?
Priceless!
No KIDDING, Paul. That was FABULOUS! Thanks a million.
Chris “Obama Gives Me Tingles” Matthews, folks.
Much to the chagrin of career Lefties, Matthews seems to be singin’ a different tune:
#2 Will there be a Boston area Starbucks sit in?
#3 After viewing the video, the gun discharge did not occur because of the gun falling onto the ground, but when the agent was picking it up, meaning he must have put his finger on the trigger, violating one of the cardinal rules of gun safety: finger off the trigger unless you are ready to fire. Also, even as a civilian, he would probably be breaking local laws, by being drunk and carrying. If I recall, according to MA rules, you can’t be in the bar area if carrying, and of course can’t be under the influence. So this agent, besides violating agency rules, is violating common sense and regular rules right off the bat. I would bet this guy will get the book thrown at him for such embarrassing conduct to the agency, especially during times when people’s confidence in the agency is underwhelming. Keystone FBI (cops) much?
I’m sure that man wasn’t really shot. And if he was, it was to HELP him, and he should be thankful for it.
You owe me a keyboard.
I just saw Isaac’s comment – TWO keyboards!
Bob Pence, the former FBI Agent-in-Charge in Denver, told Denver7 Sunday that during his time at the post, agents were “considered on-duty 24 hours a day” and were permitted to carry their weapon everywhere. Pence also said that agents “should not drink excessively.”
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/crime/denver-police-fbi-agent-whose-gun-discharged-at-bar-could-face-charges-depending-on-lab-results
Those rules do not apply to the FBI, it seems.
Watch this guy quietly go back to work, once the heat is off.
That makes much more sense. Despite the movies, a mecanically-sound gun wouldn’t discharge if dropped. Something would have to catch the trigger on the way down.
No pistol I own would fire even then: they all have mechanical safeties such that pulling the trigger is irrelevant.
That whole Carry Condition 1 thing.
Re #2: As an academic, can I claim defamation because he said being called an academic is defamatory?
Interesting point! I’d say it’s worth a shot!
Not to revel in your misery, but your comments about your case have made me quite curious. Will you represent yourself?
Oh, sure. In a hearing? No problem. If the suit goes forward, I’d have to hire someone. Probably my sister.
5. [YAWN] Just another day for media to help TRUMP unwittingly.
Jack,
Nice job on the 9M views!
Thanks, Laurent.
Congrats on 9 Million views, Jack.
Can you sue this turd for your legal (and travel, and time) expenses once you get the case thrown out? How will he learn unless you deprive him of some ‘economic freedom?’
And he should be made an example ‘to encourage the others.’
I can request costs. And I have.
This sort of injustice really pisses me off, as it seems to do to you.
Abuse of the law results in a perversion of justice
3. When I watched the video, I was like… “Oh God… There better not be alcohol involved… This guy’s career may or may not be over, but if he was drunk… Wew lad….” Do we *know* that he was ‘toxed now? It was unclear in earlier reports, and I can’t find verification.
5. Hypothetically…. Let’s say it was true. Let’s say that Trump was actually boo’d at an event…. Who cares? Really. In a country as divided as America is, any politician could wade into a mall and find some asshole willing to harass them and a crowd willing to egg that asshole on. Ooh. Someone doesn’t like someone else?!? Stop the presses! Is anyone on Earth NOT aware that Trump has negative approval numbers and an entrenched, enthusiastic opposition? That’s not even news reporting, it’s…. visceral, bias-reinforcing fluff, like what you expect out of gossip rags.
#5 – Interesting thing is that Trump’s 500 day approval rating was actually better than Obama, Bush Sr and Reagan!
Appears that the cognitive dissonance scale is working.
Congrats on the 9M Jack!
Re: the FBI guy… after watching the video, it’s even worse.
One of the few things I remember from my first gun safety class is that you do not reach for a falling weapon. You let it hit the ground (it won’t spontaneously fire) and then pick it up carefully. You don’t *grab* for it, because the ergonomics mean that you’re more likely to pull the trigger. This is safety 101, the guy should not have been handling a firearm, never mind a government issued one.
Probably shouldn’t be in the FBI, either. Whatever happened to “previous law enforcement experience”?
Congratulations on nine million views!
Kudos on the 9 million, Jack; heck that’s jes one fewer’n 10, am I right?
We live in interesting times, shouldn’t be long til you hit that.
If that gosh darn luckyesteeyoreman would just pick up the pace…
You’re right, as usual, Paul. I do need to check my burgeoning elitism, keep my mouth shut and my fingers off the keys, and just…do more VIEWING. (So many YouTubes of yoga pants, so little time…!)
ON the keys! Each comment counts counts as a view, doesn’t it?
It sure as heckfire should!
I might have already passed the 9M views mark (by me, and by me alone) of YouTubes of yoga pants…I owe Jack an apology. He and and his ethics blogging deserve so much more of my attention (than I give to YouTubes of yoga pants, at least). I keep telling myself that I’ll get bored eventually, and switch to YouTubes of “cleavage.” But, no change, so far.
Surely you are correct, Paul: A comment MUST count as “a view.” So now, all y’all are REALLY stuck with me! [chuckling sardonically]
Ahhhh! Now my day is complete! This marks the first time using Firefox while commenting on EA, when I had to log in anew for my SECOND comment – and now, will be logging in anew AGAIN to post THIS.
Do you have a WordPress account? If so; are you logging in using that?
If not; get one and use that to login.
I have two wordpress accounts that’ve stopped sending me new posts and follow-up comments, it’s even stopped asking if I want follow-ups to new posts.
Makes it a beyatch to follow….oh well.
Both aol and yahoo refuse to deliver EA mail of any sort. I doubt that it is policy, but rather incompetent coding. Aol particularly. Thus, I now use outlook.
lucky,
You have to know your limitations. In my case, I take a break from Road Rage videos to watch Pepper Spray videos (which include non road applications) with a slight leavening of Cute Kitten montages.
I am currently draining the Internet supply of Road Rage videos.
People are… amazing. This has a fringe benefit in that I am a more cautious driver these days.
And I carry pepper spray.
”And I carry pepper spray.”
Is it backed up by yer pals Smith-n-Wesson…?
Without disclosing specifics of make and model, I’ll just say, “Mine IS backed up…doubly so, when my wife is with me, since SHE has the CCL.”
But, I also am like slickwilly – a more cautious driver, these days – with MUCH more effective anger management than in days past (that is, management of mine, AND of others’), when I am in the driver’s seat.
I might even be coming down with a case of Road Courtesy Pride: that stuck-up, self-satisfied, hubris-confident feeling of being the nicest, most cooperative (i.e., “yielding”), least aggressive driver anywhere in the vicinity of the pavement at hand, despite being surrounded by the angriest, most aggressive drivers and the most intimidating vehicles.
“I might even be coming down with a case of Road Courtesy Pride: that stuck-up, self-satisfied, hubris-confident feeling of being the nicest, most cooperative (i.e., “yielding”), least aggressive driver anywhere in the vicinity of the pavement”
Oh yeah? The **** you are!! THAT’S my handle, why you…
Good for you, lucky! “Mind your manners”, a good thing to remember when you’re herding a 3-5,000 pound metal projectile along at 75 mph.
That is a distinct possibility.
One should carry an emergency kit in one’s car. If you define ’emergency’ correctly, this can include not only food, water, road flares and such, but ‘blunt instrument,’ ‘bear spray,’ and ‘handheld firearm.’
In Texas, all of the above are legal to the average citizen.
“One should carry an emergency kit in one’s car.”
The WESconsin emergency kit includes beer, curds, & brats. The back-up emergency kit has more beer.
And where I’m headed next weekend, Iron County, you NEED bear spray & bear bells.
Iron county visitors are advised to wear little bells on their clothes so they make noise when hiking. The bell noise allows bears to hear them coming from a distance and not be startled by a hiker accidentally sneaking up on them. This might cause a bear to charge.
Visitors should also carry a pepper spray can just in case a bear is encountered. Spraying the pepper into the air will irritate the bear’s sensitive nose and it will run away.
It is also a good idea to keep an eye out for fresh bear scat so you have an idea if bears are in the area. People should be able to recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly bear scat.
Black bear droppings are smaller and often contain berries, leaves, and possibly bits of fur. Grizzly bear droppings tend to contain small bells and smell of pepper.
http://www.wisconline.com/counties/iron/map.html
FIFTH and final attempt:
“Black bear droppings are smaller and often contain berries, leaves, and possibly bits of fur. Grizzly bear droppings tend to contain small bells and smell of pepper.”
There went another keyboard!
But, that’s a “THANKS!” rather than a “DAMN you!” to Paul.
It does not sound like bear bells work as well for homo sapiens as “kitty bells” on the collars of domestic cats supposedly work for giving early warning to wild birds.
Confession: Of all the things one might encounter and be terrified by in the great outdoors-and-wild-country, bears terrify me even more than packs of wolves, large hungry wildcats, poisonous snakes, poisonous spiders, scorpions, ticks, or lightning. If I ever go camping again (highly unlikely, given all my “health” conditions), I will probably bring along the highest caliber rifle I can manage to carry and shoot, just so I can feel like I might have up to half a chance at surviving in case of a bear attack. The last time I was in wild country like that – in Montana, almost 20 years ago – I heard, but did not see, a bear nearby. (I quickly made sure the bear and I were NOT nearby one another.)
But of course, back to my imaginary future camping trip, in my Lucky Eeyore case, the gun barrel would more likely function as a lightning attractor, resulting in my electrocution (while blowing up all the ammo). Still, it is with a painful longing that I miss roasting marshmallows over a campfire on a cool night out in deep wilderness…
“FIFTH and final attempt:”
I don’t understand why this keeps happening to you.
It doesn’t matter which browser I use. Chrome, Firefox, and IE all have eventually required the same patience (something I don’t have – but what is often mistakenly inferred from my tenacity – which is just another, positivistic term for obsessiveness, which of course one would never know about unless I admitted it). I can’t wait to see what it’ll take to post THIS…
The 9:05 am comment posted on the first try! I am now convinced that it’s the firewall I work behind most of the day and night. Out here, in the Residential Wilderness, the “virus” has too much competition to succeed.
My workplace firewall consistently disallows my from viewing any of the Naked Teacher Principle or Nation of Assholes posts, probably because “naked” or “asshole” is in the title. I’m waiting for HR to have a discussion with me.
If things get too asinine in court, Jack, try not to laugh. At least, not until the judge does.
That there was funny, and I am not even a litigator.
The case is already online, at http://judicialmisconduct.us/CaseStudies/TUVELLvMARSHALL.
Is this supposed to be an objective analysis/description of the case?
If so, the word objective requires a new definition.
Uh, of course it’s an “objective fact” to point out that the case is online, at the URL given. I make no representations here concerning the merits of the case. What’s your point? Do you have one?
Sheesh, IMS: all Paul asked is if this web site was supposed to be an impartial review (analysis, description) of the case. He did not attack you in the slightest.
Since the web site is run by the plaintiff, the answer is NO, this is not an unbiased review of the case.
(Saying the case was ‘already online’ was misleading, though, implying that it was an open court document or some such. This is a partisan posting by one of the litigants)
ImJust Saying wrote, “Uh, of course it’s an “objective fact” to point out that the case is online, at the URL given.”
With all due respect, stop misrepresenting what Paul wrote. Paul did not ask if it was an “objective fact” as you just stated, he asked if it was an “objective analysis/description”, there is a major difference between those concepts. Read for comprehension next time.
IJS;
“What’s your point? Do you have one?”
I asked a question, you tap-danced around it.
I have another one; do you walk to school or do you carry your lunch?
IJS:
I beg your indulgence, but I have another query of paramount importance: what exactly is a “lawyer-in-all-but-degree”?
Thank you in advance!
“Someone who makes a total fool of himself in an actual court.”
You’re welcome.
That billable or pro bono?
Last year I tried to make some sense of this guy’s web site. I gave up after wading through a bunch of …… stuff.
His stuff on this lawsuit is similarly difficult to impossible to read through. I am amazed that Jack had to put as much effort into defending himself as he did.
It’s a sad situation, all the way around.
Diego Garcia wrote, “Last year I tried to make some sense of this guy’s web site. I gave up after wading through a bunch of …… stuff.”, “His stuff on this lawsuit is similarly difficult to impossible to read through.”
Yup, there’s some pretty messy stuff on there.
I did find this pompous self validating virtue statement, “lawyer-in-all-but-degree”, from him an extremely enlightening view into his personal character.
I got the impression from what I read on his website that he’s a bit like an ideological mercenary in search of anything he can twist into a target to continue feeding his faux lawyer’in “need” for a fight. He re-aimed his twisted cross-hairs at Jack and figuratively squeezed the trigger.
P.S. I think that website is also using what could very well be considered a copyrighted photo that he stripped from Jacks ProEthics, Ltd. https://proethics.com/ website and literally reproduced the photo on his own website.
Notice the website address of this photo:
I know this practice is done a LOT across the web, but that doesn’t make it right or ethical.
Rats, two links in my last comment put it in moderation and Jack is out of town. 😦
Too bad ImJust Saying turned tail and skeedaddled.
I seem to recall the last time she was here being quite fun.
Perhaps she saw it differently?
Wonder if that is actually the plaintiff? He seems to be an attention seeker, reading his site.
Whoa! That was a trip down memory lane, haha.
The best part is that the complaint puts in evidence the one post that converted me into an EA follower (the April Fools apology), and that I can’t think of any way it could reflect badly on Jack.
Fascinating. For informative purposes, all I wrote was the objectively true statement, “The case is already online, at http://judicialmisconduct.us/CaseStudies/TUVELLvMARSHALL.” And for that I get a shitload of flak from brainless people?
Beginning with Paul Schlect (then piled-on by others, apparently none of whom can read, such as Slickwilly, Diego Garcia and Zoltar Speaks!), who asked and “objective analysis/description.” That’s a stupid/nonsensical question, because the concept of “the case” is not susceptible of the concepts of “objective analysis/description.” “The case” is just “the case,” period. Namely, it consists of the court docs in the section of the cited webpage entitled “End (So Far …)”. Sure, there is other verbiage on that page discussing the case, but that’s not “the case,” which is what I explicit said I was pointing to, now, is it?
Even dumber, though is Paul Schlect’s “turned tail and skeedaddled.” This because I had an appointment and wasn’t available online for a few hours? Really?
As for “lawyer-in-all-but-degree” (even though I didn’t write that), it’s obviously a play on the well-known phrase “A.B.D. (All But Dissertation),” describing PhD students (though sometimes also applied to lesser degrees) in all graduate schools (in all fields) around the world who have finished all requirements for their doctorate except the dissertation. See e.g. https://www.gtfeducation.org/academics/all-but-dissertation.cfm. So, “lawyer-in-all-but-degree” obviously means somebody who knows as much about law as lawyers, but just doesn’t happen to have a law degree (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_degree). Everybody, but everybody, knows that. Except, maybe, hmmm, somebody forgot to tell the very stupidest people on the Internet? Oh, OK, ever mind, now I see the problem …
Your thin skin and lack of reading comprehension speak for themselves. You misconstrued a comment for an attack.
Your later mischaracterization of the commentary that followed is obvious trolling, and not worthy of further response.
You are dismissed
If there was any doubt that “ImJust_Saying” is a sock puppet account, you can see here where he forgot which account he was signed into when posting to his Google group:
https://tinyurl.com/y7af33ol
Thanks!!!!
For anyone that can’t view the link that Cotswold posted, here it is in a picture format…
I think this could very well be a fact that has legal ramifications for Mr. Tuvell.
slickwilly wrote, “Your thin skin and lack of reading comprehension speak for themselves. You misconstrued a comment for an attack.”, “Your later mischaracterization of the commentary that followed is obvious trolling, and not worthy of further response.”
I think a two word phrase that might very well best describe what you’re seeing ImJust Saying put in “his” comments is narcissistic snowflake.
Narcissistic snowFLAKE!
I’m left to ponder if ImJust Saying was chosen because the FAR more accurate ImJust a DIPSHIT was unavailable.
The following are my personal opinions based on my perception of available facts and they do not reflect the opinions of the blog host or other individuals that comment at Ethics Alarms.
ImJust Saying,
It’s my opinion that you are one of the following;
1. Mr. Tuvell using a pseudonym to troll¹ the Ethics Alarms website being intentionally adversarial and hostile to incite people and harass the host Jack.
2. You are intentionally shilling² for Mr. Tuvell doing the exact same thing as mentioned in #1.
3. You’re anonymously advocating for Mr. Tuvell doing the exact same thing as mentioned in #1 without Mr. Tuvell’s knowledge.
It doesn’t matter which of the above three choices is factually true, but surely one of them is. My opinions doesn’t change based on which is true.
It’s my opinion that a true man of integrity³ is honest and stands by their own words. You very publicly banned yourself with your very arrogantly adversarial and hostile comment on September 24, 2017 at 9:18 am that began with these words “Jack, this is my final note to you.” and ended with these words; I quote, “No more of your shit for me.”, “Goodbye.”, “Phil”. A man with true integrity would stand by his own words and stay away, especially after that arrogant soapbox proclamation that was posted for the entire world to see; but no “Phil”, your chosen actions shows me that you are not a man with integrity, you’re just a damn fool.
You, who ever you really are behind this facade, should be served with a legal restraining order to stop your internet stalking and harassment of the blog host.
It’s my personal opinion that you might need some professional help to address your obsession with Jack and what appears to be Histrionic Malevolence Syndrome.
If you care to have an adult conversation about what I stated in this personal opinion comment or my other personal opinion comments above, you can find me regularly on this website reading and commenting on things I find interesting or things that I think require my unique personal opinion.
You have a nice day, “Phil” henceforth to be known by me as Umgwana.
¹ Troll: Those that post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.
² Shill: Also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.
³ Integrity: The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
DISCLAIMER: I shall depart from my usual style of respectfully reserved decorum
ImJust Saying; you have, not to put too fine a point on it, removed all doubt, you feebly flaccid fopdoodle!
“And for that I get a shitload of flak from brainless people?”
Oh my gunny sacks (H/T GOOD DOG HAPPY MAN), I believe your laughably ludicrous delusions of grandeur have gravely undermined a cognitive ability so severely compromised to begin with that it defies a fact-based reality.
“I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am.” ― Cormac McCarth
“Beginning with Paul SchlecHt”
Learn how to spell, you needle-dicked, bespawling cumberworld.
“Even dumber, though is Paul Schlect’s (sp_again_dipshit!) ‘turned tail and skeedaddled.’ ”
Mercy me Doctor, it’s worse than we thought!
“‘This because I had an appointment and wasn’t available online for a few hours? Really?”
By “appointment” I take you to mean the daily meeting with your team, TEAM!!!, of psychotherapists, who are sending their children to the finest schools in the land based on the exorbitant fees they collect as they try, fruitlessly I might add, to unravel your monumentally twisted existence.
“Except, maybe, hmmm, somebody forgot to tell the very stupidest people on the Internet?”
Dr. Martha Beck (a Doctor-in-all-INCLUDING-degree!) had just you in mind when she posited that “What you spot is what you got.”
While you to pound your delicate little fists on that soon-to-be-repossessed desk and those little veins will pop out on that empty brainless pan, try to channel your inner George Costanza (a perfect analogy: hysterically misplaced-n-unsupported arrogance masking crushingly non-existent self-esteem):
“It’s not a lie if you believe it.”
I now find it necessary to take my leave; it’s been real and it’s been fun, but it hasn’t been real fun.
Especially not for you, am I right?
Remind me to never piss you off, Paul. Well done!
ImJust Saying wrote, “As for “lawyer-in-all-but-degree” (even though I didn’t write that)…”
Based on new information posted in this sub-thread, I think it’s now fair to call you an outright liar. Why should anyone here trust anything you say?
Do you care to make more claims that show off your Foot-In-Mouth Syndrome?
What’s wrong, Mr. Tuvell; cat got your lying unethical tongue?