Monday, April 21, 2008


Say what?

[Kate McMillan] believes those who put their real names on their online writings are more accountable and trustworthy.

"That's the best protection that anybody has when dealing with a blogger," said McMillan. "It's the ones that hide behind anonymity that will, so call, cross the line most often."

And yet, Kate, here we are, just the two of us -- me legal-problem free after 7000+ posts, and you having to beg for donations for your legal defense. Ironic, wouldn't you say?

P.S. Oh, and you having been exposed as pathologically dishonest about ... well, just about everything. Go on -- ask me to prove that. I dare you. Make my day.


LuLu said...

I have a few questions about this part of the article:

Donations are being solicited online by those named as defendants in Warman's statement of claim to help pay for the legal costs. McMillan said the donations have been "overwhelming", coming from as far away as the U.S., Australia and Britain. She won't reveal the total she has received, but says she has enough to defend herself.

"I'm surprised how many lawyers have sent donations -- some of them pretty significant," said McMillan. "Obviously, the case has raised some concern in some quarters -- at least my aspect of it or maybe all of us -- have a principle worth fighting for."

Does Kate have to pay taxes on these donations? Are they considered income? Shouldn't Revenue Canada perhaps, maybe, sort of be paying attention to this little online "woe is me" fest?

Any accountants in the crowd wanna take a stab at this?

Lindsay Stewart said...

Shorter Kate: our fibs and slurs are signed and that gives them extra sincerity!

E in MD said...

Right... because we're supposed to trust douchebags like her not to mail us antrax or pipe bombs or something.

Fuck her, the horse she rode in on and all her little drooling wingnut fanbois.

Ti-Guy said...

those who put their real names on their online writings are more accountable and trustworthy.

This is how propagandists like to explain accountability and trustworthiness. Fortunately, sensible people have other means at their disposal, such as evidence, authority, credibility, etc.

She keeps claiming this has something to do with her commenters. In the Warman suit, it does tangentially, but it's principally the issue of who she gave the keys to her blog to. And the issue of character-assassination and ruining reputations is something only a liar would deny.

Should have thought about responsibility long ago, Catherine dear. Like the time you posted Belinda Stronach's cellphone number.

Can you imagine what Kate's (largely anonymous) minions would do with the identities of her detractors?

liberal supporter said...

[Kate McMillan] believes those who put their real names on their online writings are more accountable and trustworthy.

She's half right. Accountability is about being able to hold someone to account. For some, their definition of "holding to account" includes hang up phone calls, parked cars on your street at all hours, being accosted on the street by thugs with dark glasses, repeated "visits" at your home or workplace, and of course the NRA's favourite method of ensuring government accountability.

However, posting under what is supposedly your own name does not enhance trustworthiness in any way.

Catherine, trust has to be earned.

I'm embarrassed to have to point that out to you..

greeneggsandtam said...

About your tax query, from the accountant on my soccer team;
"Generally speaking:
I'll assume this is an individual vs. a non-profit organization or a company.
If an individual is receiving "donations" - these would likely be gifts for the purposes of tax act.

One individual can "gift" to another individual without significant tax consequence provided the donor does not try to claim a deduction or credit for the "gift".

ie - I can give you $100 out of the goodness of my heart without tax consequences to you or me. This is based upon the theory that I've already paid taxes on the $100 when I received it from my employer so it is "after-tax" money. HOWEVER, what you do with that gift may have additional consequences. If you subsequently earn income on that money, attribution rules kick in which may result in tax consequences to me depending on our relationship.

All very complicated, therefore each specific set of circumstances generates specific tax consequences."

Ti-Guy said...

Good to know. KKKate can spend anything she's got left over on more Wild Turkey and trips through militia-land, I suppose.

LuLu said...

Thanks for the info, Green.

liberal supporter said...

these would likely be gifts for the purposes of tax act.
Only as long as it is an unusual situation. But if it becomes an ongoing activity, then it is business income.

I would think the rules that eventually cause house speculation gains to be treated as capital gains would apply.

KEvron said...

"Kate's (largely anonymous) minions"

heh. i had a run in with one "lookout" over at sda. after i had summarized, to her dissatisfaction, a discussion she and i had, she said my summary was "in fact, libel." yeah, lookout v. KEvron will definitely set some precedence.

fuck me, but they're dumb....