[ONGOING ENTERTAINMENT: I suggest keeping up with the accumulating comments here to watch site administrator Joel Johannesen being too stupid to realize that he's just digging himself a deeper and deeper hole.]
Well, isn't this interesting? Suddenly, there are a slew of additional comments at Barbara Kay's article, including mine, but the most amusing one is from site manager Joel Johannessen, who writes:
Why do you “banned” and “blacklisted” folks (or are you the same people?) insist that you are “banned” and “blacklisted”? Upon what facts do you base that?
That’s a gross misrepresentation of the facts, and leads to some very bad feelings amongst the administration of this site because it can damage the reputation of a web site such as this. Perhaps you already know that.
We reserve the right to post what we see fit at our property, and we reserve the right to screen posts from unknown individuals such as yourself, and to do so when we wake up in the morning and when we get around to it, not the moment you choose to post comments. We do hope that’s OK with you all.
Please reconsider your words and be more careful in characterizing the nature of this web site.
Thank you.
Dear Joel: Fuck you. I make my claim of being "blacklisted" based on the clear and unambiguous dialog box that was presented to me when I first tried to comment on that article. For you to take sputtering umbrage with my accusation is the height of arrogance and dishonesty. As you can read in the comments section of my earlier piece, I'm not the only person who suffered exactly the same fate, so don't you get all self-righteous and uppity with me.
As for your right to screen posts, you know as well as I do that that wasn't the issue. The issue was that I was prevented from even submitting a comment that made any reference to my blog or registering as a commenter, so let's not change the subject, shall we?
Here's hoping you can come up with a better explanation of your web site's behaviour than that lame-ass excuse above. I'm waiting.
BY THE WAY, do I really need to mention that I just tried to register again as a commenter at that site and, once again, received:
Action Denied: Blacklisted Item Found
http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com
You keep using that phrase "relatively open forum," Joel. I do not think it means what you think it means.
5 comments:
See top o'my blog this morning for a screen capture of the blacklisting.
Joel is such a whiny-ass-titty baby. And I love how whines about the possible damage to his integrity and reputation. You have to have it to lose it Joel.
He's a pathological liar. He has not once addressed what could be explained by some technical issue and is just being shrill and evasive.
That loony site has always been ridiculous. It used to allow commenting without registration but I guess it got to be too much for Joel.
Wingnuts are melting down all over the place. It's astounding.
I couldn't post my blogspot URL either. I suspect all blogspot URLs are banned, as a preventitive measure.
Thanks for the opportunity to respond here.
Interestingly, I believe you'll find that if you type "canadiancynic.blogspot.com", it isn't "blacklisted" at all. When you type "www.canadiancynic.blogspot.com", it is. Fancy how I did that huh?! I will get around to fixing the problem at some point. For now though, I changed the message that you get when it happens, so as to calm your nerves a little. Apparently you take things more personally than even I do.
cc as your friend mattt ens pointed out to you and admitted in comments here (here and only here -- not at my blog even after I think I semi-helped him to semi-understand the actual facts of the matter after he alleged malfeasance at my blog) there has been no specific blacklisting of your web site, as you'd apparently love to believe despite the facts. I think I made that pretty clear from the start when, obviously ticked by your allegation (the type which I routinely get for no reason other than to bother me or try to wreck the site), I asked you to tell me what facts you based that allegation on, and telling you that I thought it was a mischaracterization of facts. Clearly I didn't agree! At that point you might have said "here's what happened". That would have been that.
Of course I know for a fact that exactly no blogs or web sites are "blacklisted" specifically, by me or anyone working for me, nor is anyone "preemptively banned" from typing their URL at my web site in the comments section, so checking for that is a mute point. You knew nothing other than an error message, and rather than seeking answers, made egregious allegations based on that solid stack of evidence.
You simply took personally what is in reality a technical matter -- something literally done by a robot. Then you turned it into an issue when really it's a illusion.
You assumed the worst, made it even worse, then you've spun it out of control with the help of your friends.
You jumped to a conclusion without regard to any sense of inquiry about the matter. Could this be a mistake? Could this be a technical glitch?
When confronted by you as I was with your real nice accusatory entree into my site's comments section rather than a simple note asking what might be up, I wasn't particularly inclined to work for you in your interests, as I believe most reasonable people would appreciate.
I've already tried to explain this in my comments at my site, but you simply refer to it as "bullshit" here in a blog entry. As I think you can see, it's really an honest technical happenstance, not really as you've described it at all here. in fact your blog entries and comments are a gross mischaracterization of the facts.
You insinuate that you were prevented from registering at my web site. That's completely untrue, as I'm sure in all honesty you would be happy to clarify for the folks here. You were prevented only from entering your URL for the reasons explained above -- but a URL isn't required for registration. So you weren't prevented from registering. I believe you know that. So perhaps you should just come clean about that too.
You ended one blog entry here by explaining to the folks how I might admit that I'm a "lying dumbass". I think you might see fit to retract that as well. I don't lie, and I think it's clear that you aren't telling the whole truth here, and it seems you set out with malicious intent and a blatant disregard for possible facts or explanations right from the get-go. Your remarks here at your blog speak to that.
Thanks again for the opportunity to clarify what really could have been clarified by you in a normal way in a very few minutes, cordially and with respect, had you only inquired rather than choosing to mischaracterize my intentions and in the long process defame my good character.
Post a Comment