Saturday, June 16, 2007

Dear Olaf: That's quite the crowd you're hanging with these days.


I'd like to think this kind of speaks for itself and doesn't need any editorializing from me, but it's not Richard Evans' jaw-dropping, childish immaturity that's so fascinating.

No, it's what you can read over on the left-hand side, in the "LFR Authors" list. I refer, of course, to "olaf." Yes, that would be this Olaf, he of "Prairie Wrangler" fame who has a general and well-deserved reputation as a thoughtful and fair-minded conservative in the Canadian blogosphere.

Until now.

A bit of unsolicited advice, Olaf -- you better decide really quickly how you want to play this, because you can either preserve your reputation, or you can keep hanging out with that sleazy sack of pus Richard Evans. You can't have both.

Time to choose.

IT'S CALLED "ACCOUNTABILITY"
. Obviously, everyone will have to make their own judgment call here, but if Olaf continues to associate with the likes of Richard Evans, I think it's only appropriate that any bloggers who care about a minimal standard of ethics in the blogosphere should drop Olaf from their blogroll, as well as no longer reading him or linking to him.

There's clearly no possibility of Mr. Evans ever changing his behaviour, so all that's left is to make associating with him as painful as possible. I think a couple of days is more than enough time for Olaf to make up his mind here, don't you?

APPARENTLY, THAT TOWEL SNAP TO THE NADS IS GOING TO LEAVE A MARK: Shorter Richard Evans from the comments section: "How dare you impugn my reputation while I'm busy trying to destroy someone else's!?"

Hey, Richard ... let me introduce you to this thing called "accountability." It's a bitch, isn't it?

BY THE WAY, in case you hadn't noticed, it's not just Richard we're talking about here. If you peruse the comments section at that no-libs article, you'll notice equally classless and infantile suggestions from commenters "Knight", "Gamil Gharbi", "pete in Midland", "Monty" and "Wonder Woman", all of them listed contributors there.

Yeah, I'd say Olaf has one fuck of a lot to answer for here.

48 comments:

Richard said...

You're correct. I probably won't change my behavior. You see, I'm not the type to let a bunch of socialists tell me how i should or should not behave...

I could go into a rant wondering just who the hell you think you are to limit one's freedom of association but I won't. I've given up on the thought that progressives may someday practice what they preach...

Olaf's a good man. Don't smear him in your childish attempt to get to me through some sort of back door. You want to throe stones, throw them at me. Not an innocent bystander...

You know where to find me if you decide to grow a pair...

Richard said...

oopsie... "throw"

Paladiea said...

I for one am willingly glad to kick Olaf off my blogroll if he doesn't denounce Richard Evans immeadiately.

canucklehead said...

As I see it, Richard, CC isn't impinging on Olaf's freedom of association. He's still free to associate himself with you, just as CC is free to DISassociate himself from Olaf.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding here.

Richard said...

We'd expect that from the likes of you paladiea.

Seriously... what do you expect to gain by having Olaf renounce his association with LFR? Do you expect he'll renounce his association with his conservative values as well? Will he be renouncing his ability to see both sides of an argument?

I can see it now... another Jedi is drawn to the dark side...

Richard said...

As I see it, Richard, CC isn't impinging on Olaf's freedom of association. He's still free to associate himself with you, just as CC is free to DISassociate himself from Olaf.

Yup, that looks accurate. Now I guess we'll have to wait and see... Does Olaf base his decision on what's right, in his mind, or what's popular with the lib-left half of the blogosphere...

CC said...

canucklehead: 1.
evans: 0.

Just when you thought someone couldn't possibly get any stupider ...

Paladiea said...

Is that the royal "we" Richard?

I expect Olaf to rightly marginalize the childish antics of you and your ilk.

He can be centrist all he wants, I just don't know how he can sleep at night knowing he's providing tacit support to the likes of you.

Anonymous said...

Hilarious! When you're done lecturing everyone, please call someone a stupid cunt again.

thwap said...

Who is this Richard Evans person? I went to that link where he was chortling about his recent coup, but what else has he done?

Where can one go to find his gems? (celebrating Santorum/anti-Semetism/war-mongering sadism)

Olaf used to show up here moaning about the lack of decorum you exhibit, ... which i always felt tiresome.

If Evans is on the same level as KKKate, or Shaidle, or that "Doctor" fellow, then it would be the height of hypocrisy for Olaf to maintain a formal association with him.

And I've always been able to differentiate between a right-wing buffoon who shouts "So-and-so is a 'shrieking moonbat'"! and CC's ability to say "So-and-so is a fucking moron because ..."

Re: The "C" word. That was used and specifically targetted at right-wingers who referred to Status of Women Canada (SWC) as "SOWs." Most of the feminists I talk to on the 'net don't like that particular tactic, [me, i've never gotten the loathing of the "c" word over all the others, but I'm a dude, so, whatever] but CC's use of it isn't a casual insult towards all the women he disagrees with politically.

Ti-Guy said...

I've known for quite a long time that Olaf was associated with that Evans thing. I had mostly rationalised it as Olaf's appreciation for unbridled freedom of expression and a fatigue with political correctness (which have little to do with Evans's near-criminal dishonesty and the sociopathic sastifaction he gets from being an intrusive pest, but there you are), but that's always made me question Olaf's motives and wonder whether he's ever partipating in a dialogue in good faith.

That's why I'm not a such an Olaf fan...that and his dull verbosity, but that's not necessarily a crime.

cc said...

"..but that's always made me question Olaf's motives and wonder whether he's ever partipating in a dialogue in good faith." ...ti-guy today


"It just never occurs to me to go parsing language and inventing reasons to turn what people say into something else." ...ti-guy from June 8, this site


Can you say "lying hypocrite"?

thwap said...

Hunh? Besides the fact that you're a pathetic stalker, I'm having difficulty understanding your comparison there.

Either I'm dense, or you're insane. I'd appreciate some clarification here.

Ti-Guy said...

I'm not dense, and that's make no sense to me at all.

That "cc" is must be one of the more affordable escorts in Richard's stable.

Or maybe it's David MacLean?

Richard said...

How dare you impugn my reputation while I'm busy trying to destroy someone else's!?

Actually I was saying the exact opposite... Tear into me all you want but please leave Olaf alone. He's not involved.

Paladiea said...

Olaf is just as much a part of this because while he's on your blog list, and is therefore closely associated with you, he refuses to take your childishness into account while at the same time encouraging "civil and rational debate".

If you don't like what the consequences of your actions are Richard, then you should think harder before you do something stupid next time.

Ti-Guy said...

No one wants to tear into you...if you stay in your locked ward, no sensible person ever thinks of you.

But I (and others) think sensible conservatives should be working at marginalising certain baser elements among them if we are going to be able to have productive public discussions about politics.

I've never thought that's all that possible; regressives certainly don't have anything new or interesting to say to progressives, but I'm keeping an open mind.

CC said...

To commenter "cc":

I'd appreciate it if you picked a different handle to comment under rather than "cc".

Given that the topic of this thread relates to identity misrepresentation in the blogosphere, I'm sure you can appreciate my concern.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Anonymous said...

Hey Pal, do you still have that Jew hating my blahg listed as one of your favorites?

Richard said...

but you're not making me face the consequences of my actions Pal. You're making someone else face the consequences of my actions.

Doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

Paladiea said...

Hey anonymous, in case you haven't noticed, I did call Robert to account for his mistake. I wonder if Olaf will do the same.

Ti-Guy said...

That's a new "Godwin's Law" for the Canadian blogosphere, anony-clod at 1:26.

Paladiea said...

but you're not making me face the consequences of my actions Pal. You're making someone else face the consequences of my actions.

We're making Olaf face the consequence of associating with you without condemning you for the childish jerk you are. Your actions have brought this all to light.

So one of the consequences of your action was to bring Olaf's hypocrisy to light.

Can you follow that?

CC said...

richard evans writes:

"You're correct. I probably won't change my behavior. You see, I'm not the type to let a bunch of socialists tell me how i should or should not behave..."

And yet, for all that alleged bravado and contrived nonchalance, Richard seems to be spending an awful lot of time trying to convince us all that he doesn't care what we think.

How curious.

Ti-Guy said...

Seen it all before. Richard finds his own cretinousness amusing. He's probably also half-in-the-bag...it is 10:43 AM in Calgary, after all.

Richard said...

So you're using me as an excuse to attack Olaf? Do I understand that correctly?

And yet, for all that alleged bravado and contrived nonchalance, Richard seems to be spending an awful lot of time trying to convince us all that he doesn't care what we think.

only to the point that Olaf will be able to see who his friends are...

Anonymous said...

Paladiea, you may have called him out but he only apologized for causing any grief NOT for what he said. He still feels the same way and you still have him as one of your favorites.

CC said...

So much Richard Evans dumbassitude, it's hard to know where to start. How about here:

"Olaf's a good man. Don't smear him in your childish attempt to get to me through some sort of back door. You want to throe [sic] stones, throw them at me."

Of course, this is the person who, only two paragraphs earlier wrote:

"You're correct. I probably won't change my behavior. You see, I'm not the type to let a bunch of socialists tell me how i should or should not behave..."

In that case, Richard, what would be the point of throwing stones at you when you've already made it clear it would do no good whatsoever? My, but you are a walking bag of inconsistency and self-contradiction, aren't you? And the lack of coherent thought continues:

"but you're not making me face the consequences of my actions Pal. You're making someone else face the consequences of my actions.

Doesn't make a lot of sense does it?
"

Wrong on both counts, Richard. In fact, I am trying to make you face the consequences of your actions, the consequences being that reasonable people will no longer associate with you for fear of being tainted by association. That's a consequence, whether you can comprehend it or not. (And if experience is any guide, I'm betting "not.")

And I am most certainly not making Olaf face the consequences -- unless, of course, he chooses extremely unwisely, at which point, he will be the architect of his own downfall. I'm simply telling him he has to make a choice here. What that choice is will be up to him, after which the consequences will fall where they may.

See how that works, Richard? No, I didn't think so.

Paladiea said...

This isn't really an attack on Olaf, it's a demand for accountability from him that was started by you Richard. The fact that you get to watch all this go down, and know that it was you that started all this and that it never would have happened had you acted like a normal human being is punishment enough for you in my eyes.

CC said...

Hee hee. Richard thinks that, based on this incident, "Olaf will be able to see who his friends are...".

You got that right, Richard. On the one hand, there are those of us in the progress-o-sphere who have always respected his writings, some of whom even have him on their blogrolls.

Then there are the screeching, classless, right-wing dingbats who are determined to drag his name through the mud and sully his reputation by association.

So, Richard ... exactly who are Olaf's friends here? Think hard, it'll come to you.

Or probably not.

Anonymous said...

LOL. I guess that when you have nothing better to do on a Friday night, this will do. Eh CC?

Richard said...

Then there are the screeching, classless, right-wing dingbats who are determined to drag his name through the mud and sully his reputation by association.

That should be re-worded:

Then there are the screeching, classless, left-wing MoonBats who are determined to drag his name through the mud and sully his reputation because of his associations.

I'm not sure how it works in Ontario but out this way, if someone we respect is in a questionable situation we take them aside and discuss it privately...

CC said...

Richard writes:

"... if someone we respect is in a questionable situation we take them aside and discuss it privately..."

As opposed to someone you don't respect, for which the recommended action is apparently to impersonate them online to ruin their reputation.

Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up. Dick.

CC said...

Traditionally, I don't like to comment copiously on my own postings, since I like to think that that space should be reserved for others. Put another way, a blogger gets the opportunity to post, after which it should be the readers' chance to respond. But there's just too much airheaditude happening here to let it go unchallenged.

Writes one "anonymous":

"Hey Pal, do you still have that Jew hating my blahg listed as one of your favorites?"

Yes, let's talk about Robert McClelland, shall we? Regardless of what you might think of Robert's writings, the fact is that he wrote them publicly so that the only person whose reputation was on the line was his. Period. Are we all clear on that? Because if you're not, you should go back and read that part again until it finally sinks in.

What Richard is doing is qualitatively different, and far worse. Because he has nothing in the way of a logical, coherent argument, he is resorting to stealing other bloggers' identities to try to embarrass them.

There is a huge difference there, which I hope you now appreciate. Robert was risking only his own reputation, while Richard is out to destroy someone else's.

And if you don't see the difference, well, you have a real problem.

CC said...

By the way, I'm not going to be accepting any more comments from Richard. Quite simply, I think I've been suitably generous with my comment space, and he's made his point and I don't feel like letting this turn into a flame war with Richard continuing to say stupid things that others feel compelled to respond to.

And before anyone idiotically accuses me of "censoring" poor Dick, he's more than welcome to have his say at his own blog, which shouldn't be hard to find since I've already linked to it a couple of times, so if you really want to hear his side, well, you know where to find him, where he's welcome to rant to his heart's delight.

I'm also not going to accept any more comments from anyone calling themselves "cc" because, well, that's just being an asshole, know what I mean?

canucklehead said...

So...has anyone actually notified Olaf about this?
Anyone?

Red Tory said...

I’ve never been much of a fan of the “guilt by association” school of thought or the idea of judging people by the company they keep although it’s hard not to fall into these traps, I’ll admit. I’d be quite curious to know why a sensible fellow like Olaf would want to associate with someone like Mr. Evans who seems like rather a nasty piece of work (and quite proud of the fact, I might add) in terms of his malicious hijinks when he’s not busy denouncing the perfidy of liberals for all of society’s ills. I’d like to presume that Olaf has some fairly good reasons for doing so, but I’m not altogether certain that it’s anybody’s business but his own. If the idea here is to shame him into dissociating from LFR, I suspect the effort will backfire. I know that if it was me, I’d probably remain where I was just out of sheer bloody-minded obstinacy.

Ti-Guy said...

Well, guilt by association is something the Right indulges in with unconstrained exuberance; in fact, it quite often takes the repugnant form of ritual shaming and too often bears little resemblance to reality. So it's not much of a descent to the Right's level to suggest that there's something odd going on here, at the very least.

Olaf can do what he wants; so can CC.

The Seer said...

Guys, help me with this cuz I've never votesd in a Canadian election.

Duz the party name appear on the balliot? or just the candidate's name?

How do we rig things so we can get a few good-faith Canadians baptised "Stephen Harper" or even "Steven Harper" to register to run in a certain person's riding? Cuz that wud be no different from registering a valid email account with someone else's blog name and then using it on the web. And in our defense, it wouldl likely improve things in Canada.

So what do youse guys think?

Meaghan Champion said...

There is a difference between the logical fallacy of "guilt by association" and people who promote, endorse or sanction the behavior of others.

I personally have not had a chance to review Olaf's comments on this -- but if he is endorsing, sanctioning, promoting Evan's behavior, I'd say I'd agree with the concept that you can be judged by the quality of company you keep.

For example -- If on the blogworld it was discovered that somebody was participating in a cheerful fashion on say "StormFront's" discussion boards, and promoting Stormfront by linking to it, or discussing it in such a fashion as to promote the ideology of Stormfront (i.e. White Supremacy) then it's no longer just "association" it's a whole different thing. And anybody has the right, nay the duty to loudly bitch about it as much as possible.

But as I said -- I don't see Olaf do that -- and if he is, then I'd like to see proof of this before judging him as inane and insane as his buddy Richard.

The standard is simple -- is he promoting Richard with webposts linking to Richard and his antics suggesting this is a "good thing" that Richard is doing?

I would also say that posting as part of Richard's crew would put him at the level of promoting, sanctioning, and endorsing Evans.

That is all.

Richard said...

Censoring comments? Why? You've got to face the facts CC... You're using me as an excuse to fire shots at a sincere centrist who makes logical arguments and serves as a bridge between right and left...

CC said...

Jesus, even when you use short, easy words, some of them just don't clue in. I write:

"And before anyone idiotically accuses me of "censoring" poor Dick, he's more than welcome to have his say at his own blog, which shouldn't be hard to find since I've already linked to it a couple of times, so if you really want to hear his side, well, you know where to find him, where he's welcome to rant to his heart's delight."

To which Dick not surprisingly responds:

"Censoring comments? Why?"

Honestly, it's like smacking a puppy on the nose for piddling on the rug -- you know there's no point since it's just too stupid to know what you're trying to say.

Now please, Dick, go away. Seriously. You've had your say, and now the grown-ups would like to chat without the constant screaming from the childrens' table.

Monty said...

See, I had stayed out of this whole thing, but am being drug into it apparently, so now I'll have to go read it all to see what my character is being accused of.

-- Monty

Richard said...

Fair enough... Your house, your rules and you've made the point I wanted you to make... I don't need to comment here any further.

richerd said...

Your house, your rules (logic).
You have thoroughly made your point and I stand corrected as the simple-minded duddlehead that I are

Olaf said...

CC,

How'd all this turn out? Am I being link-boycotted by the forces of progressivism as per your exhortation?

Olaf said...

In any case, I appreciate your noble and selfless concern for my modest reputation. If you have not been yet satisfied in your quest to ensure my continued good standing in progressive circles, please don't hesitate to email me directly.

Best wishes.

Knight said...

you'll notice equally classless and infantile suggestions from commenters "Knight",
what the fuck did I do?
Oh, yea. This:
I have been using the handle cycles2k in political and other chat rooms and discussion threads for approximately three years. I also have a political blog which I post to occasionally cycles2k.blogspot.com. It was there that Richard Evans posted the comment indicating his intent to register cycles2k.com for the purpose of embarrasing me.
It’s nice being reminded there’s always a much bigger loser than me.
I’m guessing cycles2k is pissed he can’t obtain cycles2k.com for free, like every other socialist…

I'm with Rich on this one all the way. If ya got something to say about me, fuckin' out with it. Trying to smear a complete stranger using my name makes you look like a bigger loser than that hilarious email did...