Both of you are assholes. I have hate speech? Do you even READ what your moronic followers post? Your absolute hatred and fear of females is almost laughable. Except that it’s so dangerous. You’re just like Robert Franklin. Never question or disagree with you! Someone might see another angle to the constant drone of woman-as-evil-liars-out-to-get-men threads. The good thing is that people who are so pussyish that they can’t ever be questioned know that their foundation is extremely shaky. I say nothing hateful. Your posters and you are the hateful ones.
Hey, will your "civility" policy include not calling women "cunts"? I bet it won't. It'll be like on Glenn Sacks' blog--MRAs can say anything they want, but no one can even use the word "stupid" in a post (no one that's female, that is). And wussy little MRAs can cry whenever a female they try to beat up throws it back in their faces.
Perhaps some of your followers were falsely accused; perhaps they were rightly accused but are pretending otherwise. He said/she said, right? Oh wait, no; we must ALWAYS believe the man.
You’re both pathetic. Actually, I believe MRAs are mentally ill, so I shouldn’t be too hard on you. Anyway, you’d fit in well in fascist countries. Maybe you should move to North Korea, China, or the Middle East. And if a female didn’t agree with you, you could have her killed! Get your passports!
Pierce, would you defend your mother’s rapist if he asked? I bet you would.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
71 comments:
Oops -- I forgot to print her email address. I will have to pull that out.
Re: the last line: Perhaps if Jeana knew my mother . . . .
Seriously, Jeana was banned because, on a far smaller scale, her presence here was akin to a Holocaust denier on a Holocaust survivor's support site. We have many readers who were falsely accused, and we dishonor their victimization by tolerating Jeana's hateful comments. Beyond that, her comments were so inflammatory that her every utterance generated inordinate reply comments. But just as a rape apologist would be banned from a rape support site, so, too, must Jeana be banned from our site.
Please note that Jeana was not banned because she disagreed with us. False rape claims are a significant problem. That's not my "opinion," it's a fact, as real as the Holocaust or the turning of the earth. Jeana was banned because she denied reality in a way that was hateful, distracting from important issues, and not enlightening. She had a nasty habit of highjacking posts to steer the comments down a misandric side alley. Example: the excerpt from the law review article from an expert in criminal law. The professor wrote about some of the themes we frequently write about. How did Jeana respond? By changing the subject, of course.
I have previously been involved in heated exchanges, and have deleted posts, when some staunch MRAs engaged in unfairly stereotyping all women. This is not a site that encourages anti-intellectualism or that touts extremist ideology in lieu of facts. I am certain that I have not been able to catch all the hateful comments that have ever been posted here by Jeana and others (the fact is, I can't even read all the comments posted on this site -- every day we get a multitude of new comments spread out across many, many posts), but I can't ignore them when I see them.
Jeana is similar to most rape feminists (and the feminists who make rape their primary issue are on the decided radical, misandric end) in that she unfairly paints this site with a broad brush. She and the others can't conceive that we could possibly have respect for the dignity of actual rape victims. She assumes that because our goal is to support those who were falsely accused of rape, by necessity we are opposed to rape victims. The gaps, or more accurately, the chasms, in that logic are breathtaking.
I have said it many times: if a major feminist site would partner with us to tell the entire rape story in an honest, straightforward manner, there would be no need for this site. None have ever taken me up on my offer. We admit that don't tell the entire rape story. We only tell the part that the feminist sites deny exists. The difference between our site and the feminst sites is that we admit we don't tell the entire rape story, they won't.
What a cunt. That's not a slur against women,by the way, just that thing.
Rather than move to North Korea myself, I'd like to send HER ass to North Korea, so she can get a feel for just how precious the MEN who founded the United States thought EVERYONE'S freedoms were. That is, if I didn't think she would ENJOY being treated like the property of the state.
Her actions are not the actions of someone railing against injustice,but the foot stamping of a petulant child, crying out for discipline.
While banning is the last resort, it is sometimes necessary.
Pierce did the right thing. Her ugly response pretty much proves her inability to cope intellectually with the nature of this website. She's better off in the echo chambers of feminist websites where she and the sisters can tout their strength and independence while at the same time bemoaning their victimhood. Let cognitive dissonance rule, Jeanna!
And Pierce, there is absolutely no reason to justify yourself to that man-hating,misandric, hateful bigot.
Any more than there is call to justify the idea that all races should have equal opportunity in a just society.
Anyone who was interested could go back months into the archives and see her attempting to derail the conversations about victims of false rape accusations with the standard "What about victims of rape?" line.
That line works so well that I believe that is why they keep using it. There is nobody in this day and age stupid enough to ACTUALLY believe that there are people who don't care about actual rape victims.
They KNOW we care about rape victims and despise rapists, however, they couldn't give TWO SHITS about victims of false rape accusations and APPLAUD false rape accusers, that is why they are attempting to shut us up by sidetracking our discussions about false rape accusations.
"Except that it’s so dangerous."
These are the operative words, men.
"Dangerous to whom?",I ask. "Dangerous to false rape accusers",I answer.
I applaud your decision to ban that troll. And I would also applaud it if you decided that you no longer have to endlessly repeat "WE DESPISE RAPISTS" for the trolls,who don't care about your hatred of rapists or rape, that are attempting to stop you from doing your laudable work of helping the falsely accused.
She can throw her tantrums somewhere else.
Anon at 9:01: thanks for the comments. I continually repeat that we only tell part of the rape story because I don't want casual readers, who might only spend a short time here, to be misled about us by the likes of Jeana. I have no interest in persuading the trolls or the rape feminists or the sexual grievance industry to our position. They are hopeless. Our cachet is that we are truth peddlers, not ideology peddlers, as they are.
The world is far too complex to start believing that any group has a monopoly on privilege OR victimization. But to put it in language everyone can understand, for this particular issue, men and boys accused of rape are being screwed and they need someone to go to bat for them.
Why did you wait so long? There's other trolls that post here that should be banned as well.
The trouble is she'll be back. Guaranteed. She hates this website and the men who post here. A quick name change and a new account and she'll be back in business again.
As far as the derogatory names peoples called her, she earned
them.
them them.
Should be just one 'them'.
>>Perhaps some of your followers were falsely accused; perhaps they were rightly accused but are pretending otherwise.<<
Interesting choice of words.. She seems to be suggesting that they are either, *all* telling the truth or *all* lying. Where it is very possible you could have a mixture of both.
"Why did you wait so long?"
Policing the comments in a careful manner would be a chore that we just aren't equipped to handle. I'd prefer to let her hate speech collapse of its own weight in the free market place of ideas, but I doubt that many sites dedicated to the interests of one group would allow a hater of that very group to become such a dominant force in the comment section of the posts. The trouble with Jeana was that she became such a lightning rod that entire comment threads were detoured down whatver path she directed.
Beste, I doubt that many, if any, actual rapists would be seeking the electronic company of the falsely accused by visiting our site, emailing me, or commenting on the stories. This site is not designed to help a rapist "beat the rap." It's designed to allow the falsely accused and those allied with them to commiserate in a society of similarly situated victims -- to try to benefit from the experience of others and, most importantly, to try to raise awareness about the false rape epidemic to help others. The need to come to our site arises from the injustice actually suffered by being falsely accused, of for those who were not actually accused of rape, from the injustice that others are being so victimized with impunity. Our site really is of no benefit to actual rapists who are just trying to beat the rap. Lots of readers are guys who've never been accused but look at the ones who have been and think, "There but for the grace of God go I."
Archivist said..
Lots of readers are guys who've never been accused but look at the ones who have been and think, "There but for the grace of God go I."
exactly.
I havent been accused of rape, but if false accusations are allowed to continue then maybe one day it could be me. so its a type of self preservation as much as anything.
"Lots of readers are guys who've never been accused but look at the ones who have been and think, "There but for the grace of God go I."
Personally, I see this issue as only one facet of a much bigger machine that grinds anything with a penis into Soylent Green for "women and children".
Naturally, being in possession of said penis, and a propensity to study the classical foibles of humanity,I am concerned.
I see men as sitting ducks in a shooting war between the sexes and come to sites like this to do reconnaissance so as to avoid becoming a casualty or allowing such to happen to male family members or friends.
Seeing how easy it is for a woman to make a false claim, how she is punished lightly if at all, and how other women will excuse their behavior until they're blue in the face has been a therapeutic exercise for me which has cleansed me of all sentimentality toward women.
Especially the part where other women excuse their behavior. After seeing that, it would be very hard for me to be romantically involved with a woman ever again. Their opinion of us must be so low that we don't even register as human to them.
That kind of disregard for human suffering is just utterly repulsive.
What's bizarre is that she accuses us being just like society in general -- only upside down! Instead of insisting that the woman must be believed every time a frivolous rape accusation is made, we insist that it must not be believed (according to her). Instead of letting women say and do whatever they want we let men express themselves freely while holding women to a higher standard.
Even if her childish allegations were true, that would just mean that we were no worse than the people who post in the comments sections of local newspapers every time a possibly innocent man is charged with rape.
And why is J-cunt so angry? Because she's no longer allowed to spend every waking moment with us horrible, biased MRAs! You'd think that she would stay away of her own free will if we're so awful, but she needs attention the way some people need heroine.
I counted 7 instances of ad hominem attacks in that email.
Kind of sad, really, when an "adult" cannot form a well articulated rebuttal for something he/she believes in.
That all said, I wonder if she has ever seen how fast male-oriented (anti-female?) posts are stopped at feminist websites.
"I believe MRAs are mentally ill...."
That says it all. I told you from the start that she never, ever supported this site or anyone here. I still feel sorry for her husband.
"I believe MRAs are mentally ill...."
And we will return the favor. Jeana has always struck me as one of the sickest people I have ever run across in my life.
"I still feel sorry for her husband."
I feel sorrier for her son. At least any fool who married her had a choice. Her poor son had none.
All in all, she is about the 10 best arguments for remaining single and not even dating that I have seen yet.
Jeana's views are 100% determined by her emotions and nothing else. She's a very frustrated person, because unlike most people she has no grasp of the difference between her internal world and the real one.
She can't understand that other people have their own values, beliefs and emotions, which aren't necessarily the same as her own. She thinks that everybody should feel the same way that she does and is filled with rage because reality doesn't function that way.
I'm a woman and want to call her a cunt after reading this!
The trouble is feminists like her are a dime a dozen. It's not about equality and justice, it's about hatred and hiding behind a large mask or banner called feminism. I met many like her in college.
"I'll bet you'd defend your mother's rapist!" Pouring on the charm, J-troll.
But I'm sure that Pierce would support a fair trial for his mother's rapist -- as if there's anything wrong with that!
Jeanna can just return to the protection of her "neo gender feminist Klan".
"Both of you are assholes"
"Your absolute hatred and fear of females is almost laughable"
"Your posters and you are the hateful ones"
"Oh wait, no; we must ALWAYS believe the man"
"woman-as-evil-liars-out-to-get-men"
"And if a female didn’t agree with you, you could have her killed!"
"You’re both pathetic"
"I believe MRAs are mentally ill"
"Pierce, would you defend your mother’s rapist if he asked? I bet you would"
Quotes from a departed "mentally ill" victim feminazi. That last one is absolutely a classic. LOL!
Oh and the term "c*nt"? She wears it.
Do bans work by IP address? If not, she'll be back again under a different account.
Gentlemen! This thread has all the ingredients of a mob or pack mentality, which some of you call jumping on the bandwagon.
Think for a moment, okay.
There is a leader, there are willing participants, there is a group mindset, and there is a defenseless victim.
Yes! ... "defenseless victim" because she has been banned and unable to counter the 26 negative posts.
Archivist, had the shoe been on my foot, I don't know that I would have divulged an email sent to me in confidence. God knows, I've been pissed enough to do something like that, but if I'm ever in a position of authority, I would hope my sense of judgement prevails over my ire.
"Yes! ... "defenseless victim" because she has been banned and unable to counter the 26 negative posts."
She's not a victim, nor defenseless. Here's a few reasons:
1. She's never been interested in intellectual debate.
2. She's thrown around more slurs and insults than anyone else here.
3. Her vitriol has been put up with for a very long time.
Personally, she pissed me off no end, and I'm glad this site is shot of her.
"Gentlemen! This thread has all the ingredients of a mob or pack mentality, which some of you call jumping on the bandwagon."
More like a shaming corridor, and a thorough shaming is what she deserves. Her total contempt for people who have suffered gross misfortune earns her contempt in kind.
But one needs quite an imagination to call up associations with packs and mobs. Anything we might have to say about her can have no effect on her if she just chooses to stay away and not bother reading it - how hard is that?
It's not like she's stuck in a cell for months with a mob baying for her blood, her job and reputation ruined and DAs out visiting everyone she might have ever known, searching for some incident in her distant past that might just bring a reluctant jury around to a 20 year sentence.
"Archivist, had the shoe been on my foot, I don't know that I would have divulged an email sent to me in confidence. God knows, I've been pissed enough to do something like that, but if I'm ever in a position of authority, I would hope my sense of judgement prevails over my ire."
You're right. A chivalrous man wouldn't have done that. Well, see, I always figure chivalrous men are feminist's useful idiots.
Since Jeana was addressing the whole group of readers, I thought it was appropriate.
Sad part is, I always thought Jeana was clever -- don't jump down my throat -- I did. I don't understand why she apparently assumed that I was making up this stuff about the prevalence of false rape claims.
Stuffed if I know how ANYONE could think you were making it all up, given the number of news articles you link to.
My manager Michael Claymore once had an online argument at Glennsacks.com during which Jeana, with not the slightest bit of evidence, accused a boy who had just committed suicide of forcibly raping his girlfriend! That's the kind of vile animal we are dealing with here - Jeana is a poor excuse for a human being and the Internet is a better place without her.
I wonder if jeana will file a lawsuit against us and the board? Georgatom-Gurl is a witness to her victimization, and resultant deteriorating mental health.
When women protest and call men as a class 'male chauvinist pigs', it's a liberating movement.
When men protest, and go at a single antagonistic woman, we're an unruly 'mob'.
gg please tell me you didn't really graduate from Tech - Usually engineers have better things to do than be whining victims. ..or did they have basket-weaving back when you attended?
I always wonder about the inherent mental stability of someone who only shows the top half of their head. Maybe she didn't want us to see how big her mouth was physically. Or just maybe her hairy girlfriend can't hold a camera right.
@Mr. M.
"Kind of sad, really, when an "adult" cannot form a well articulated rebuttal for something he/she believes in. "
Re: my above posts, is it okay that I made a couple of a.h. attacks since most of my other comments to her were articulated rebuttals?
referring to jeana, someone said "She's never been interested in intellectual debate."
Oh contraire ... I find some of her comments fascinating when debating issues with MRAs.
Norm, are you inferring that jeana is a lesbian? (the hairy friend remark). You might wanna rethink that ... because she's in new orleans as we speak. What if she buys a voodoo doll and calls it "norm". *auk*
What about New Orleans? Perhaps I am missing something, but just becasue someone lives in the old South does not mean they cannot be gay, it just means they have to hide it better. Then again N.O. is kind of a raucous, party town and undoubedly there are weirdly-dressed lesbians walking around during Mardi Gras (and pretending they are on the same side as gay males).
As far as voodoo, I think that maybe someone had a jeana doll when the real jeana was very young, and dropped it under a 1000-degree hot steam roller such that all but the top half of the head was flattened. And since her brains are in her ass, not much of import was preserved.
Boy, do I ever hope jeana is reading these comments!! Yee-haa!!
Yes! ... "defenseless victim" because she has been banned and unable to counter the 26 negative posts.
Bullshit. She can still post here anonymously at anytime. Speaking of other members who should be banned, I vote Atom to be next.
As long as you're cleaning house Archivist, do it right. Get rid of Jeana's sister Atom.
Sorry, but "anons" do not get to vote. Neither do felons ;-)
"She can still post here anonymously at anytime."
I'm pretty sure the only way to ban someone is by I.P. address, in other words she would have to use a different computer to post again. I may be wrong as far as how Blogger does things, but I don't think we've heard from anyone new lately, who sounds like her, have we?
okay, I just checked Blogger help (I have a blog) and apparently there is no way to block by IP address by using blogger. Here is what someone's forum comment said:
"If you want certain comments (from specific people, or containing specific URLs, key words, whatever) blocked, you either implement a third party commenting service, move your blog to a different platform, or moderate comments. As noted, JS-Kit seems to be popular. Or WordPress."
I think one of the third party things is called 'Disqus'. All the comments get re-routed through disqus instead of blogger though, so I'm not sure what unintended effects using it might have.
I'm not a networking genius, but it is my understanding that ultimately, each computer has only one IP address. The reason is that it is partly based on the serial or identification number of a piece of hardware in your computer (the 'NIC', or network identification card.) Obviously no two computers can have the same NIC>
However, the person who made the comment I quoted considers him/her self an expert on networking, and says it is easy to get around IP blocking. So they must be referring to an IP address generated by your computer networking software (included in Windows) which is presented by the network to users, not the actual computer IP address. Perhaps it has something to do with your modem/gateway address too, though that also ultimately has only one IP address. And, whatever remote router(s) you are connected to in your geographical area.
Anyone who has a blog and uses something like 'statcounter' or 'sitemeter 'to log his site visits may have noticed that when someone viewing the site uses AOL browser (instead of Firefox or etc.), each page view gets logged as a separate visit because the IP address changes each time the user clicks on a link on the blog. So, this is actual proof that the computer IP is not being used.
I would list here the one way I know of that would change the I.P. presented by the network, but jeana might be reading so I would rather not:)
Norm: Technically, no, you can have several IP addresses for a single computer, and they can be re-used. How exactly it works for the internet, I'm a little fuzzy on.
Some addresses are reserved for special use, like anything starting with 127, which is used as a loopback address, or 169, which Windows automatically assigns when it recognises it is on a network, but can't be assigned an IP address for whatever reason.
Norm and Sonja, after you resolve the IP problem, could you please research the over-the-counter "reservatrol" anti-aging pill. I need your advice. Should I drink 4 glasses of wine every night or take a pill?
*hic*
Sonja,
that is what I meant by the computer networking software "generating" addresses. I think the one I am talking about is the 'static' i.p. address. If you want to ping your own computer using the command line, then type in your computer name after the word 'ping' and a space. I believe that the single address returned can never be changed for a given computer, but then again, that's not necessarily the one people who connect to your network see.
The fact is that there must probably be a way to identify unique computers, no matter if someone changes settings, becaause, for example, the FBI has been able to track down unique individuals (computers) by i.p. address alone, haven't they? It takes them a while to find hackers, but I assume that's because their techies have to dig through the network layers.
No, you can change your IP if you want.
What should be unique to each network device is what is called a MAC or Physical address. It's unique to each network card installed, noted in Hex, and the first couple of sets indicate the manufacturer.
While on the internet, my computer will have two IP Addresses, one Public (the one published on the internet) and one private (which is used by my home network). They can track me by the Public address, which will link them back to my ISP, who can then provide them with further information. It is further narrowed by NAT/PAT (Network Address Translation/Port Address Translation).
But it is possible for a Public IP to change, for a number of reasons, such as the IP Lease being renewed.
I'm probably making a hash of it, but have a read of sites which talk about how DHCP works.
I think jeana works for the FBI, or even worse ... the CIA. Afterall, she IS sporting a black wig and fake eyelashes in New Orleans for Halloween. I bet she's involved in some kind of espionage!!!
Please keep me up to date on the IP dilemma. I'll do what I can to expose her.
You can trust me on that *lol
Sonja, be careful, I think gg-atom girl is seeing if we give information here that will allow jeana to get around a blocked address.
Pierce, please delete Atom. She serves no useful purpose here.
I've been chucking down Mai Tais in Kauai this past week.
Sorry to see Jeana was banned.
This is the first site I respect that's resorted to censorship.
Jeana said stuff that pissed me off, too - it took me several days to think of a good rebuttal to one of her comments, but I came up with a good one.
Which is rendered moot now.
It's back to preaching to the choir.
Holocaust deniers are few and far between.
Jeana and her ilk are not. She pretty much voices what a LOT of those who have politicians by the ear are saying and thinking.
You may hate what she said, but she was saying things that those who hold sway over our lives are listening to.
"Know your enemy" has never been bad advice.
She is not a person who would ever concede or aknowledge any truth other than her own, so learning from her, not trying to change her mind, was the value of her input.
When she said a prior false accusation should be inadmissible or a prior rape conviction admissible I about choked.
But there is a valid rebuttal to her remarks I wouldn't have thought through if she hadn't put it out there.
I would have liked to flesh it out with her as an antagonist.
As far as I'm concerned, once a liar, always a liar - it's a HUGE moral breach to LIE to the courts and police in order to get another person in trouble - especially when 'trouble' is prison/prison rape/prison beatings/prison murder.
Once a rapist always a rapist? Maybe if the person was truly a rapist it may be so, I don't know.
I DO know once accused, always guilty. My own son has experienced a young lady threatening him with a false accusation knowing he had been accused before.
They tried to use that to convict Michael Jackson - although aquitted, his past accusations were used as 'proof' SOMEthing MUST have happened! Where's there's smoke there's fire, if it quacks like a duck...if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth...
But we'll never know her reply...
Pierce: We have many readers who were falsely accused, and we dishonor their victimization by tolerating Jeana's hateful comments.
My son was falsely accused by someone seeking vengeance against me.
I have been 'dishonored' countless times.
As someone who is devoted to exposing this injustice, and dedicated to doing something to stop it, I refuse to be shut down - not by 'feminists' who support my son's false accuser by claiming false rape is minimal and not that harmful, and not by men who support my son's false accuser by trying to heckle me into silence.
SgtMom,
If you are for real, bless you.
"This is the first site I respect that's resorted to censorship. "
No, you are wrong. It is not 'censorship' to delete comments or ban someone - This is a blog, it is not a TV station, newspaper, or any other type of influential media outlet as such. Pierce has absolutely no requirement to be 'open' to anything -he can put whatever the fuck he wants on here, and ban whoever the fuck he wants.
This is a blog, it is his blog, and he can run it any way he wants. If you don't like it go to feministing where they ban guys regularly just for being guys.
Those are just a couple of old canards that are easily disproven:
"Where there's smoke there's fire"? Sure - there might be.
"It it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..." - then it is something that looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
Norm, for cripes sake, SgtMom is "agreeing" with you! Sometimes I'd like to smack some sense into that head of yours.
And for those of you without an ounce of humor, my 6:40 was pure BS.
Further, if you think Jeana's posts are hateful, I think some of you should reflect on the horrible names you have called her (and me)in the past.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
SgtMom,
If you are for real, bless you.
Nov 1, 2009 5:10:00 PM
I'm for real.
Nobody could - or would - make something like this up...
Anonymous Norm said...
"This is the first site I respect that's resorted to censorship. "
No, you are wrong. It is not 'censorship' to delete comments or ban someone - This is a blog, it is not a TV station, newspaper, or any other type of influential media outlet as such. Pierce has absolutely no requirement to be 'open' to anything -he can put whatever the fuck he wants on here, and ban whoever the fuck he wants.
This is a blog, it is his blog, and he can run it any way he wants. If you don't like it go to feministing where they ban guys regularly just for being guys.
Norm. I've been banned from Feministing and other such sites. I wasn't disrespectful in any way shape or form - I just honestly broached the topic of false rape accusations as a fellow 'victim' and got censored immediately - with the gals cackling over my dead body with remarks I couldn't respond to.
I've been banned from America's Most Wanted site - John Walsh groupies only are welcome.
I picked up a VERY NASTY cyber bully on another law and order site I'm still too afraid to mention - she posted PERSONAL stuff.
I feel when you are in the right you don't resort to those tactics.
You don't call women ugly names - especially when they haven't resorted to ugly name calling.
You don't censor those who say stuff you don't want to hear.
You don't have to resort to stuff like that because ---you've got truth on your side.
Truth is a mighty sword.
Nothing Jeana presented couldn't be countered with truth - plain, simple truth.
To Jeana's "do you still beat your wife" style question about defending a mother's rapist, the answer is simple - any person, man or woman, would want the person who harmed their loved one prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
IF for whatever reason he was not satisfied the person was prosecuted to an appropriate degree, it is unlikely he would respond by campaigning for unconstitutional laws that would result in the conviction of innocent people. He would not produce a flurry of unverifiable facts and figures in order to support the conviction of innocent people. He would not lead a gender-hate program proclaiming ALL men are rapists - just as he has not resorted to decreeing all women are false accusers.
The minute he made such a claim, you would know you dealing with a liar/perpetrator or wanna be.
It's bitter to live with seeing someone get away with a terrible crime - but far, far worse that innocent people pay for crimes they didn't commit.
SgtMom, you are right, but for one thing.
Jeana never listened to the truth. She continued to repeat the same lies and vicious comments over and over.
In short, she had a closed mind on the issue.
Yes, at times she raised some good points, but they were FAR outweighed by the lies. Eventually you get sick of repeating the same arguments and truths.
Atom should go.
Sonja Newcombe, in your last post, what is your point?
What "truth" did Jeana not listen to?
What "lies" did she repeat over and over again?
What "good points" did she raise?
You are being extremely vague, and how convenient to bash the banned, right?
SgtMom says, "I'm for real. Nobody could - or would - make something like this up."
I don't doubt your story for one minute, nor should you doubt mine.
When all is said and done, put gender aside. Victims (men or women) are our concern.
"You don't censor those who say stuff you don't want to hear. "
Again, it's not censorship.
We spent months answering jeana with the truth and facts, but that is not really the point as far as her getting banned - she continued to be a disruptive force outside of this; for example using extreme hyperbole, attempting to derail the discussions, and worst of all, making statements that were actually risible and offensive to anyone with a shred of sensibility.
I would rather she'd have said things like "all men are assholes" or "Norm you're a shithead" than some of the statements she actually did make, like say, about the victims of false rape accusations not really being victims.
Atom,
what are you talking about?
Sonja Newcombe, in your last post, what is your point?
What "truth" did Jeana not listen to?
What "lies" did she repeat over and over again?
What "good points" did she raise?
You are being extremely vague, and how convenient to bash the banned, right?
Nov 1, 2009 8:24:00 PM
Anonymous Atom said...
SgtMom says, "I'm for real. Nobody could - or would - make something like this up."
I don't doubt your story for one minute, nor should you doubt mine.
When all is said and done, put gender aside. Victims (men or women) are our concern.
Nov 1, 2009 8:33:00 PM
Actually, Atom, "victims" are not my concern.
After all these years of victim appeasement I've been forced to endure, I have developed an abhorrence toward those who wrap themselves in the mantle of 'victimhood'.
You don't know my 'story' and I really don't know yours.
It doesn't matter if anyone 'believes' my personal story - or yours, for that matter.
This isn't about "stories" or "gender" or "who's a worthy victim" or who's not.
It's about justice. It's about innocent people being convicted on no evidence. It's about presumption of guilt. It's about the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's it.
That's all.
It's what we, as United States Citizens were promised.
It's what I, as a military service member, swore to uphold and defend.
Norm said...
"You don't censor those who say stuff you don't want to hear. "
Again, it's not censorship.
We spent months answering jeana with the truth and facts, but that is not really the point as far as her getting banned - she continued to be a disruptive force outside of this; for example using extreme hyperbole, attempting to derail the discussions, and worst of all, making statements that were actually risible and offensive to anyone with a shred of sensibility.
I would rather she'd have said things like "all men are assholes" or "Norm you're a shithead" than some of the statements she actually did make, like say, about the victims of false rape accusations not really being victims.
Nov 1, 2009 10:57:00 PM
The sad truth is, Norman, calling people names really isn't constructive. It's to someone's credit that they DON'T resort to name calling - not the other way around.
Jeana is not alone in believing false rape accusations are harmless.
Apparently a great deal of people believe that to be true.
Discussion sites like this exist to educate the ignorant and closed minded.
Censoring - and it IS censoring - cuts off debate, closes off ideas, and keeps YOU in the dark about what's going on in the 'outside'.
I've invited my hecklers to simply IGNORE my comments. Ignored people eventually go away.
Censored people become martyrs.
Anonymous Norm said...
"This is the first site I respect that's resorted to censorship. "
No, you are wrong. It is not 'censorship' to delete comments or ban someone - This is a blog, it is not a TV station, newspaper, or any other type of influential media outlet as such. Pierce has absolutely no requirement to be 'open' to anything -he can put whatever the fuck he wants on here, and ban whoever the fuck he wants.
This is a blog, it is his blog, and he can run it any way he wants. If you don't like it go to feministing where they ban guys regularly just for being guys.
Norm. I've been banned from Feministing and other such sites. I wasn't disrespectful in any way shape or form - I just honestly broached the topic of false rape accusations as a fellow 'victim' and got censored immediately - with the gals cackling over my dead body with remarks I couldn't respond to.
I've been banned from America's Most Wanted site - John Walsh groupies only are welcome.
I picked up a VERY NASTY cyber bully on another law and order site I'm still too afraid to mention - she posted PERSONAL stuff.
I feel when you are in the right you don't resort to those tactics.
You don't call women ugly names - especially when they haven't resorted to ugly name calling.
You don't censor those who say stuff you don't want to hear.
You don't have to resort to stuff like that because ---you've got truth on your side.
Truth is a mighty sword.
Nothing Jeana presented couldn't be countered with truth - plain, simple truth.
To Jeana's "do you still beat your wife" style question about defending a mother's rapist, the answer is simple - any person, man or woman, would want the person who harmed their loved one prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
IF for whatever reason he was not satisfied the person was prosecuted to an appropriate degree, it is unlikely he would respond by campaigning for unconstitutional laws that would result in the conviction of innocent people. He would not produce a flurry of unverifiable facts and figures in order to support the conviction of innocent people. He would not lead a gender-hate program proclaiming ALL men are rapists - just as he has not resorted to decreeing all women are false accusers.
The minute he made such a claim, you would know you dealing with a liar/perpetrator or wanna be.
It's bitter to live with seeing someone get away with a terrible crime - but far, far worse that innocent people pay for crimes they didn't commit.
Nov 1, 2009 7:45:00 PM
Blogger Sonja Newcombe said...
SgtMom, you are right, but for one thing.
Jeana never listened to the truth. She continued to repeat the same lies and vicious comments over and over.
In short, she had a closed mind on the issue.
Yes, at times she raised some good points, but they were FAR outweighed by the lies. Eventually you get sick of repeating the same arguments and truths.
Nov 1, 2009 7:56:00 PM
I saw it as the opportunity to speak to those who WILL listen.
Jeana may never be convinced, but those reading our replies to her - our patient, well thought out and respectfully presented replies - will be.
Sgt Mom (jeana?),
thank you for expending so much wind telling everyone how the blog should be run, what should and should not have been done to a given commenter, redifining the meaning of censorhsip, etc.
Now, do you have anything important to say?
Norm, stop acting like an idiot, and go look up the word "censorship". Report to me later!
Anonymous Norm said...
Sgt Mom (jeana?),
thank you for expending so much wind telling everyone how the blog should be run, what should and should not have been done to a given commenter, redifining the meaning of censorhsip, etc.
Now, do you have anything important to say?
Nov 2, 2009 3:34:00 PM
censor - To remove erroneous, vulgar, obscene, or otherwise objectionable material from a medium (such as the web) before publication.
www.actewagl.com.au/Education/Glossary/default.aspx
What part of censored have I "redefined", Norman?
Why don't YOU teach by example and offer something of importance?
"I would rather she'd have said things like "all men are assholes" or "Norm you're a shithead".
...
I read her posts about the Hofstra boys. She stated, in a roundabout way so she could deny that she made the statement, that they should be euthanized.
I don't think ANYONE should be executed. And, they were innocent.
She is hateful.
I am glad that you banned her.
cliff
Nairobi
Post a Comment