Friday, February 16, 2007

Scott Tribe Attacked

Whooee! I seen a boog story this mornin' that set my blood a-boil. A feller who's been boogin' long enuff t' know better made an unfounded accusation against Scott Tribe. The irresponsible boog publisher made his accusation based soley on guesswork.

Yesterday, Scotty pointed a few people in my direction an' I went inta Scotty's comments an' sed sumpin' I sed before - Scott Tribe is a credit t' the Canajun boogeysphere. Boogers who make ad hominem attacks based on conjecture are a discredit t' the boogeysphere an' also t' the human race.

Definition of slander:
  • words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another
  • aspersion: an abusive attack on a person's character or good name
  • defame: charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone; "The journalists have defamed me!" "The article in the paper sullied my reputation"
    (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

Definition of libel:

  • a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person
  • print slanderous statements against; "The newspaper was accused of libeling him"
  • the written statement of a plaintiff explaining the cause of action (the defamation) and any relief he seeks
    (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

Definition of snake:

JimBobby

UPDATE: The slanderer just removed all comments critical of his unfounded accusations while leaving the accusations in his original post stand as well as leaving his own further comments. Any tiny doubts that I might have had about the ethics of this cretin have just been erased. He deserves only contempt. FYI, there were comments from me, BigCityLib, BCer in TO and maybe another (I can't remember.)

When readers take the time to compose and post comments, jump through the Captcha hoop, and take a writer to task for improper behaviour, they deserve to have those comments left intact. The comments were critical but did not use profanity. The comments deserved a response but all they got was censorship. So much for free speech. Another blow to the credibility of the Canajun boogeysphere, sez I.

SECOND UPDATE: The slanderer may have got legal counsel. He's modified his original post. I reckon that's what they call revisionism... or coverin' yer ass.

JB

16 comments:

Simon said...

What do you expect? The Weiner Werner has just been born again...or come out of the closet...as a ReformCon stooge.When they're in that state of rapture...and trying to impress their new friends...they do a lot of tongue talkin...and they don't make much sense.
Mr Tribe may drive me to despair sometimes...for being too nice and optimistic.But he's a credit to the blogosphere...and der Weiner is not....

JimBobby said...

What Simon Sez is on the money a hunnert percents worth, sez I. Anybuddy wants t' duke it out in my comments, come on in. I ain't like that chickenshit who just erased all the comments he didn't like.

JB

leftdog said...

The wernermeister has now deleted all comments from myself, JimBobby and others because in typical tory fashion he is too chickenshit to withstand any criticism.

This is the post that I have now been banned from posting on his pathetic little right wing site:

"And so in typical Tory fashion, when it gets too hot in the kitchen, just delete the comments of your critics.

All deleted comments and this post have been recorded and are going to make a nice post or two.

Not only are you a bully, sir, you are unable to withstand legit criticism."

He truly is a chicken shit. And not just a chicken shit, he is a slanderous libeling chicken shit!

JimBobby said...

LeftPooch, I like the idea that "All deleted comments and this post have been recorded and are going to make a nice post or two."

My way o' writin' ain't easy an' I spent sum time writin' comments an' thinkin' 'bout what t' say. If you post them comments up on yer boog, I'll be happy as Larry t' link-up with anuther update in my OP.

I sorta thought 'bout takin' a screenshot but I was givin' too much credit t' the idjit an' didn't think he'd pull such a numbnuts censorship trick. I'm glad sumbuddy saved 'em an' I'll be lookin' fer yer boog story.

JB

Balbulican said...

Guys, guys, guys.

I don't know Werner, but my limited acquaintance with his blog suggests that, like the late and unlamented Anonalogue, he goes through periodic fits where he will say just about anything to provoke a reaction.

No subtlety, no substance, and not wit to it, unfortunately - just the dumb aggression of a mean drunk at closing time looking to pick a fight.

Nothing infuriates that mean drunk like a person who stares at him for a moment in pity, then walks away shaking his head.

So infuriate Werner - ignore him. At least when he's in one of those moods.

eugene plawiuk said...

Looks like Werner is off his med's, again, and he was doing so well for a while there of appearing reasonable.

Anonymous said...

How ironic. When Werner was attacking Civitatensis and trying to get him fired from his job, Scott actually defended Werner's right to do so. I'll bet that he feels pretty stupid about that now that the shoe's on the other foot, eh?

Scott Tribe said...

I never defended Werner's right. I questioned the attacking of him at the time because I didnt know whether there was legitimate grounds to do so and whether he should be pilloried for it when we didnt know all the facts about why he was trying to get the guy fired supposedly.

As it turns out, according to himm it was all of his so-called plan to try and discredit Progressive Bloggers and the lefty blogosphere in general, so it obviously turned out he deserved the pillorying he got.

As for me, Mr Anonymous, I dont feel stupid at all. I've already said at my site that its not worth the traffic or the attention he craves, which is all that post is designed to do. I also dont have any present plans to sue him.

Unlike Werner (who's threatened to sue Prog Blog once), I have a tad thicker skin then him.

leftdog said...

I think that Wiener or Warner (or whatever that nutbar's name is) is getting a bit worried about possible law suit because he has crossed out some of his earlier slander and softened it up a bit.

I would love to have in on skates, full equipment, on the rink of his choosing, and then I would kick his sorry tory ass, and give him the few shots he needs to ensure a stitch or two.It would be worth 5 minutes in the penalty box, any day.

He is a cheezey rightwing scumbag. I have never been on his scurvy site before today and I had to go shower after being there.

JimBobby said...

I ain't too sure "ironic" fits. It ain't Scotty who took the Alberty Expectorator t' task. In fact, ScottFeller's holdin' his head high an' stayin' above the fray.

I reckon there ain't much of a fray anymore, though, now that the red-faced Expectorator revised, recanted, retitled the post and removed rebukin' comments. The slanderin' numbnuts mebbe realized he's a slanderin' numbnuts. Leastwise, he realized 'bout the slanderin' part.

JB

Jordan Alcock said...

"The slanderer may have got legal counsel. He's modified his original post. I reckon that's what they call revisionism... or coverin' yer ass.
"

If Scott didn't suffer a financial loss from his comments, then he really doesn't have to worry about saying them.. In fact, one could even go as far as to argue that his comments have served to make scott even more money.

Personal attacks like that are ridiculous no matter the source - Canadian Cynic is a perfect example of someone who participates in this childish behavior almost exclusively. There are some limits, and I think that Werner probably crossed the line here.

Of course, one must ask...

why do you care what he says? I certainly wouldn't...

JimBobby said...

I'll need to get a hypothetical.

When a person is named on a website, Google indexes and caches that page, eventually. Other search engines do so, as well.

When Scott goes looking for a new job (this is the hypothetical part), the prospective employer may in all likelihood Google his name. If he finds an accusation that Scott is the type of person who cheats his employer - as he will find - then, I would say that damages could be proven.

If Scott's current employer Google's Scott's name and sees this false accusation, he may start treating Scott differently and he may pass Scott over for future promotions.

Remember, the slanderous remarks were published online for the world to view. Just because we may not want to give the culprit any extra traffic and we boycott his site that does not mean Google will not index the page or that future or current employment prospects cannot be damaged.

Liars and slanderers need to be called to account. I took it on myself t' do that today an' I'm happy that the lyin' snake made some changes an' retracted some of what he said. Unfortunately, he did not retract it all and left the disparaging accusations regarding cheating the boss intact in his own comment to his own post.

Publishers have responsibilities and there are consequences when someone publishes false accusations.

JB

Anonymous said...

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/ajsomerset/113199281374067033/#129637

Scott said:

"Winderdog:

If Werner's point about this man is the correct one - [removed for libel reasons -- wonderdog] - I see no particular problem with writing the University and pointing that out to them. Academic freedom of opinion is 1 thing - bias is quite another."

So first, Scott's comment has to be edited because it is construed by the site owner as libellous toward Civitatensis. And second, Scott defends Werner's decision to write Civ's employer and attempt to get him fired. He has "no particular problem" with Werner having done so.

Oh! Incomprehensible equivocation time:

"I never defended Werner's right. I questioned the attacking of him at the time because I didnt know whether there was legitimate grounds to do so and whether he should be pilloried for it when we didnt know all the facts about why he was trying to get the guy fired supposedly."

Well, I suppose you had two choices. You could have gone and read the posts yourself and realized that defending Werner would have been incredibly stupid. Or you could have taken Werner's word for it because he was on your side (at the time) and defended his attempting to have someone fired for, gasp, having a political view ("Bias" is such an evil thing, after all). You chose the latter.

Werner is perhaps the biggest shithead that walks the earth. Scott's defending him at his lowest makes him just as big a shithead. The irony of Scott getting personally attacked by Werner now is just so.....righteous.

Scott Tribe said...

The (libellous remarks removed) were removed not because I libelled the guy, but I repeated what Werner had accused the guy of - and Wonderdog wanted any mention of the accusation off of his site - lets get that in context first.

I can tell anonymous friend, you have an ax to grind with me, which is fine. Too bad you feel you need to remain anonymous to do so.

I'll say that Werner fooled a lot of people with his prank/experiment. I was one of them.

Personally, I could care less if he attacks me or not.. and if you get personal satisfaction out of that.. different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

Jordan Alcock said...

Jim - you make a fine point, but consider this for one moment....

Any employer that googles his name is most likely to come upon his blog before they ever come across these comments on someone else's blog.

Anyone with half a brain could tell that this attack was a childish act on behalf of the person who wrote it.

That being said - In Canada, it is perfectly legal to discriminate based on political leanings. So, the likelihood that he would be denied a job simply because of his political beliefs is significantly greater than him losing a job due to this.

I find it kind of ironic that someone who leans to the left is so fast to shoot from the hip - I thought you people stood for more of a pacifist stance. I've often(correctly) suggested that the people to condemn the war(s) would be the first to throw a punch in a bar because someone looked at their girlfriend(I've actually had these same types try to fight me simply because of my political leanings). Your reaction to this further illustrates my point. Granted - it is not to the same extent, but the point remains.

I came under attack by Canadian Cynic recently. Did I make a big deal about it? I constructed a strongly worded rebuttal, added a bit of humour and a shrug of the shoulders and i let it be. I wasn't screaming slander - The way I see it, someone like him dislikes me; it's a compliment.

The Canadian way is hardly to whine and cry about someone "talkin' trash"... or, that is, it shouldn't be. And if it is - you had better think twice about ever mentioning any politician's, journalist's, or activist's names on your blog(even more specifically, avoid using the Blogging Tories name, or mine, or any other blog for that matter). When you put yourself out in the public eye - you will be criticized; fair or not, it happens...

I'm in full agreement that the man went too far in his comments - but your reaction is just as childish.
You said it yourself...
Every word you say is out in the open, on the public internet... how do you think a potential employer would look at this kind of hissy fit you're throwing??

Please note that I don't mean any of this as an attack against you or Scott- simply saying that a little restraint can be a good thing...

JimBobby said...

Jordan, yer makin' a lotta generalizations --
"you people" "the left".
There is not a vast left-wing conspiracy roamin' the honky-tonks an' bars lookin' fer trouble.

First off, I'm a Green party guy. If you knew anythin' 'bout the Greens, you'd know we ain't lefties. Jest ask any NDPer. Or Judy Rebbick. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Friends t' the bizness community. Don't lump me inta yer bigass generalizations. I don't like bein' crammed in a box.

I don't get out t' the bars much, these days. I did when I was younger an' from the time I was 30 to' 35, I was a regular with my own bar stool. I spent a fair bit o' time with a beer glass in front o' me an' I seen a few bar fights. Polyticks weren't behind any of 'em. An' even though I drank with the same fellers an' gals ferr years, I'd be hard-pressed t' tell who's left an' who's right.

I was never in a bar fight in my life. I'm 6', 180 lbs, fit now an' even more fit then. Sumtimes sumbuddy's wanna mix things up. I talked down a few hotheads who either wanted t' take a poke at me or at each other.

As in polyticks, I believe in negotiation before violence an' I put that inta practice in them situations. Is that a lefty thing? I don't think so. I think it's human thing -- jest like defendin' sumbuddy against libel is a human thing. I think right-wingers dislike lyin' slanderers jest as much as lefties do because it ain't got squat t' do with left-right. It has t' do with human decency an' obeyin' the rule of law.

Yer generalization that lefties is violent loose cannons who get inta bar fights is so ridiculous that it's comical. Really. Laffable. It's like sayin' right-wingers don't cut their grass or shovel their snow. It's like when Harpoon got asked what he plans t' do t' help the autoworkers an' his answer is "Dion's soft on terror." Yer makin' zero sense. Get outta the box yer puttin' yerself in an' look around. Lefties an' righties an' Greens an' apathetic non-voters is all human beings. They have human traits an' they ain't all painted with thesame brush.

Slander is wrong. Sayin' sumbuddy is stealin' from their employer is slander -- unless it happens t' be true an' you can prove it. I am an employer an' I do Google names of prospective employees an' I don't stop at page one of the results. I ain't unusual in that regard.

Lies are lies an' callin' a lyin' sumbitch a lyin' sumbitch is sumpin' that needs doin' when them lies stand t' damage the victim's reputation an' quite possible hurt their employment prospects.

It ain't a left-right thing. Not everything is a left-right thing. The slanderer did a hatchet job. If he'd written it in the Trawna Star or the NatPost, the lawyers for them papers wouldn't have let it get printed. Bloggers are publishers an' are subject to the same laws as newspapers.

JB