THIS link is very important for all bloggers. I can prove that libel has been committed against me. I was definitely misquoted in a blog topic as saying something I did not say and then called a racist for the fiction. It was not even a distortion of something I said. It was wholly fictional.
He has pulled that post finally, but I have a copy. Meanwhile he has posted my address in comments here and on his blog. The law says it is libel if it is damaging to my reputation and viewed by even ONE person as a published piece.
Some bloggers throw around the insult of "bigot" "homophobic" and "racist" --quite loosely --wanting to damage the reputation of conservative Christian bloggers and citizens--and if they attach these labels to your real identity and harrass you by posting your house photo, your church photo, your name and your address and threaten to post your unlisted phone number --and even write to your pastor --all as intimidation tactics against your views --that person is guilty of both libel and harrassment.
I have not been terribly secretive about my ID --I've even got old photos of me in 2 places --not with my name, however. But you'd think Mudrake thought he was announcing the access codes for Ft. Knox every time he announces my name. And I certainly am not in the phone book with my address and number and he has taken that private info of mine and blasted it about --although not the phone number --yet.
I can forgive most anything; but I want this guy to get over his obsession with me NOW. I would pay anyone for his identity --because I know that would stop him in his tracks --unless he's even more dangerous to me than already demonstrated to be. Respond here if you know who he is and I will establish and post a no-name blog email account to receive it. I don't have such an account now. I'm pretty sure I know him personally because of his obsession with me and his awareness of my past as a school board member, which he was writing about before I ever visited his blog. He's brave as long as he's anonymous. I'm not interested in revealing his identity on line as he likes to do --just in knowing who it is that I have to beware of if he shows up at my door or starts to park in front of my house.
I have never written to harrass him--but to honestly give my views on the outrageous things he says about believers --and his accusations of them. There is a defense to his frequent malicious charges, and it ought to be heard in a free country. I've tried to be good natured and teased him --but not with malice. I've tried to initiate better relationship with him, to no avail.
I finally told him in email that he was libelous and I would call a lawyer if he didn't remove the name --and he did do it. And tells of my threat in today's blog. By the law, he HAS committed libel and he has had a purpose of intimidation by harrassment.
As the article above said, it's not that hard to just "be nice" in our ideological disagreements, refrain from name-calling, insulting, lying, exaggerating, threatening and intimidating.
However, unfortunately, some people must be threatened and intimidated by the law to get them to QUIT!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
13 comments:
Hi Barb:
I do not condone any form of Internet harassment, and I am sorry to hear that an online disagreement is turning into a real-life source of fear.
That being said, I'd advise you to just ignore comments and blog posts. I was in a libelous situation with a certain neo-Nazi a few years ago who posted all sorts of vicious lies after I documented that he lied under oath on a court witness stand (horrible garbage like that I was a stalker, that I sexually harassed students, and that I downloaded porn at work, while unknown persons also filed a series of similar anonymous complaints with my employers), and all that I accomplished was forking over money to an attorney, while feeding the neo-Nazi's desire for atention.
Ultimately, the twit pulled the most scurrilous material while leaving up some thinly-veiled disclaimers, but I would have been much better off just letting go of my anger at being smeared. By engaging in a war of words, I just fed the attention needs of my opponent, and things kept escalating until I just walked away.
Of course, it took me many months to get a calmer perspective on this, and it is highly disturbing when you first feel threatened by someone on the Internet.
Ultimately, though, this too shall pass, as the saying goes.
However, if this escalates into crap like harassing phone calls or people showing up at your house, call the police. No one should have to live in fear.
Thanks for the wise advice. I do believe if I find out who he is --and Kooz claims to have found out --that would stop the use of private info to intimidate. because he is very protective of HIS identity.
I'm not trying to post on his blog anymore --but ironically, he is still coming to mine. What I deleted on this page, however, was Microdot's alleged Kooz quote.
I thought mudrake made a serious comment to you recently about Jesus as King or Messiah and I gave my two cents worth on the topic in an email to him as follows --since I can't post on his blog without making him go crazy on me.
He wrote:
Mike- Jesus claimed that he came not to be a king of the Jews, but rather as a spiritual king.
However, doesn't the word Messiah indicate the king who would restore the Jews to their former glory?
Why, if Jesus denied this fact, did his closest friends, the apostles, think, after all of those years living with him, that he was the messiah?
That always confused me. How could you listen to what he said [or at least what the evangelists wrote and think he came as a king?"
I wrote:
Mud-rake –to speak to your confusion:
Jesus said “repent for the kingdom is at hand.” And He said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” so right there He is claiming to be the King. Yes, the Jews thought the Messiah would deliver them from earthly oppressors and restore their independence. But Jesus tells them He came to be the light of the world; John the Baptist called him the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Jesus says, “You have seen me; you have seen the Father.” “The Father and I are one.” “He who believes in me, though He were dead, yet shall He live.” He also said He would return for His Church. He said AFTER His resurrection that He was going to prepare a place for us that where He is, we may be also. He said He was the Living Bread and the Living Water –and that partaking of Him we would not hunger or thirst (spiritually speaking.) He said He would give us rest when our burdens are heavy—and that His burden is light and His yoke is easy.
Without studying and going to Bible Gateway –these are some verses off the top of my head that seem to speak to the issue.
Jesus also asks Peter, “Who do men say that I am?” Peter says some say you are Elijah…..etc. “But who do YOU say that I am.”
"Thou art the Christ, the son of the Living God." And Jesus says, to Peter, “On this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. “
I guess if this fires him up on his blog again, I'll have to ignore him. Which he claims to want. But does he really? Why does he come to my blog if he wants me to ignore him??? I think it's a very serious religious hang-up he has.
I'm glad that not everyone agrees with Microdot that this sort of blog behavior on Mudrake's part is justified by my views.
I'm sorry you experienced what you did --and wonder how you walked away without them following you. I guess some will quit if ignored.
By the way, before she deletes my post again, The deleted post was my submission of Kooz's obscene comments made in her behalf on Mudrakes page. Obviously the language did not meet with her approval, nor mine!
I also notice that she deleted Kooz's threats to Mudrake. Claiming that something bad would happen to him when he least expected it as well as my comment on the utter disgust I felt at the level of hypocritical behaviour shown here.
I told you Barb, that you were a fascinating woman, and from a purely psychological stand point, this is a case history that needs monitoring.
You can spin, you can lie, you can twist events to suit your own pathetic sense of self worth....
but you know, I know and anyone else who has followed this pathetic chain of events to it's stupid fruition....
As every bad corrupt politician learns, eventually you and only you are responsible for your words and actions.
You will do it to yourself.
barb:
1.) why did you delete the quote by Kooz? Did you not believe it to be true or was it X-rated?
2.) I hope that you are not blowing up your banning from my blog into something more than it actually was. FACT: I asked you to stop posting comments that I judged to be racist and anti-gay; your refused.
FACT: I demanded that you stop posting; you laughingly said, "Why don't you ban me?" and continued your comments.
FACT: I warned you that I would disclose your real name [that I guessed from your Blade letters] if you did not cease to post comments; you posted 6 more after that.
FACT: I posted your name
FACT: you blew up as if you doubted my word.
3.) regarding Mr. Kooz and his suggestion that he will supply you with info on me: Buckeye Cable System would be liable for a law suit if it would release personal information on one of its customers. Apparently you actually believed this kook.
Should he somehow blackmail a representative of BEX into finding that information, he, too, would be liable in a court of law.
Microd, There you go again, with the irrational hyperbole --I'll let it stand to speak for itself. I thought it would be beneath you, to think it's ok to post people's personal info as an intimidation tactic just because you don't like their views and don't want to see their views on your blog --or so he claims --so why did he visit my blog in the first place? --I never would have found his new blog if he hadn't come over to throw mudballs on mine.
Why don't you go post a new recipe somewhere? since you don't get it-- the finer points of distinction between libel and intimidation --vs. legitimate differences of opinion.
You are the only one I see defending mudrakes' specific method of rebuttal --even people who agree with his views aren't defending his latest over the edge attack on me for my views. Someone, not a fan of mine, suggested via email that I report him to blogger.
I see he has removed much of the offensive material --but you are sure warming up with the ad hominem attacks here and in France with your "utter disgust...at the level of hypocritical behaviour shown here."
You, for one thing, are blaming me for Kooz's remarks. He's just calling it like he sees it and giving Mudrake back a bit of his own --implied threats to mudrake in exchange for his threatening behavior carried to its threatened conclusion by mudrake.
Hypocrisey is deleting others for their VIEWS while protesting when others delete you for whatever reasons. People delete Mudrake for good legit reasons --not his views --but his personal mudballs.
I don't delete people for their views --and rarely even for ad hominem attack. But if they want to go on and on with sexually explicit descriptions for no legitimate purpose or debate point --as Mudly did several months ago with his spam posts --I will delete that sort of thing --as I did Kooz's sexually explicit posts though he didn't post them here --YOU did. YOU were deleted, not Kooz.
Kooz, where is your blog?? What happened? Inquiring minds want to know! I suspect you got fearful of the mudrake style of rebuttal.
I think the both of you grossly over-react to one another. Which is just awesome in my book for the LOLz. But seriously, it's a microcosm of what's wrong with this country. People are so dedicated to their narrow world view and political / religious positions that they can't tolerate different points of view. We are truly a divided house and you know what Honest Abe said about that.
I wouldn't call it over-reacting on my part --to object to threats of intimidation with the posting of personal info as Mudrake has done --when he has a delete option and a moderating option. He delights in bullying.
Over-react? not me.
I agree, Steve, that Mudrake and Microdot's reaction to me is typical of the division and the intolerance that exists in our country.
I really have not been intolerant of them --I have disagreed rationally and out of my faith--I have not hated them --but they are continually bullying and provocative --though Microdot was better and funnier in France than here --until Mud-rake started up at the French blog --then Microdot started to channel the same mean spirit --and the same libelous style of loathing insults. You read their view of me and it's nobody I recognize.
We Bible-believers are NOT bigots just because we believe the Bible's stand on homosexuality, abortion, personal responsibility, etc. I believe in compassion and forgiveness for all, but they ignore that. they want me to appear as hateful as they do --since my posts don't really show that, they re-state and twist my views and make up stuff
like me calling Mudrake a pedophile 3 times --this isn't so. I may have asked him once if he was one a long time ago --as a jibe for something said on the topic. The way he suggests I'm a lesbian or a repressed homosexual.
I've never initiated the ugliness between us and I often good naturedly try to get him to lighten up --but he only lightens up at my expense. Never a gesture of friendliness. I've commended him at times for having an interesting blog with topics of interest to me --though his views deserve the balance of the other side which I enjoy bringing.
Barb said:
I'm not trying to post on his blog anymore --but ironically, he is still coming to mine.
barb- I will visit no longer if you just tell me not to. I will obey YOUR wishes.
Just say the word.
I have never told anyone they were unwelcome on my blog.
I have tolerance for all viewpoints --but not for libel and irrelevant spam that isn't even trying to tie into current conversation--like long posts on OCD, Aztec ritual sacrifice, and the mating habits of tropical birds, etc.which you posted before. bullying and taunting are so not constructive forms of conversation.
It's too bad we can't stick to the issues or at least just converse, tying into previous comments. For some it is a sport to be combative and insulting to those who don't share their views.
To squelch opposing views, you and Microdot try to misrepresent and mischaracterize, twisting the meaning of comments --to get other bloggers to side with you and to believe your misrepresentations.
If you think I'm doing the same to YOU --no, you bring any criticism on yourself for your style of blogging. Your comments speak for themselves which is why I would rarely delete you. Microdot talks about me bringing your and HIS bad blog behavior onto myself --but you really don't directly respond to my political and religious views--except to call them racism and bigotry and homophobia --and just to my persistence in expressing my views, calling it OCD.
And you count, obsessively, my posts relative to others who comment here. I've seen YOU comment 3 times in a row --yet, you always comment when I do it, calling it OCD.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones --people who are obsessive need not taunt others as though they were also.
...was that a 'yes' or 'no'?
You could not tell? Read the first paragraph. Read my blog statement --all views are welcome.
Post a Comment