Having mocked us here at CC HQ for our amusement at how often we get links from the New York Times "Blogrunner" service, Canada's wankers notice that some of them are now getting links and, suddenly, they're all pants-wettingly excited about it:
So, yes, CC HQ really is the standard by which Canada's Idiot-sphere now measures its success. Is that cool or what?
12 comments:
I believe the word in "gloatiness" like "truthiness"...
The "i" is important.
Well, fine.
Someone let Twatsy out of its cage
You know, Patrick, I've tried to ignore you lately. Really, I have. I've gone about my blogging, all the while making it clear that you're not welcome here. I've deleted your countless comments, and you refuse to take the hint.
What's strangest, Mr. Ross, is you've made a career out of running around the Intertoobz, acting as a moral arbiter and tut-tutting everyone else who you think falls short of moral perfection. I find that peculiar given your rather unsavoury history, so let's talk about that, shall we?
Let's start with the comment you left in someone else's comments section some months back -- a disturbingly enthusiastic graphic description of anally violating a four-year-old with a pickle of all things, followed by your equally animated dicussion of (disgustingly) removing said pickle and consuming it. You know exactly what I'm talking about, Patrick. Is that your idea of moral Christian behaviour?
And then there's your far more recent comment elsewhere where you gleefully described the act of being "balls deep" inside a two-year-old. Once again, Patrick, you know exactly of what I speak.
Top that all of with your relentless and ongoing defense of a man who impersonated my web site to promote NAMBLA and direct readers to a site that extolled the virtues of child rape and, my oh my, Patrick, you do present quite a picture of moral turpitude, don't you?
The amusing thing here, Patrick, is that you know full well that every word of what I've written above is true, so there's absolutely no point in your getting all huffy and blustering on about libel or defamation. I've written not a single word that isn't accurate, and you know it.
So, in closing, Patrick, I've tried to ignore you. I've asked you over and over to piss off. And you've refused. So be it. I think the way forward is obvious.
I (and, I'm sure, some of my blogging colleagues, once I explain the situation to them) will be more than happy to start leaving droppings all over the Intertoobz, referring to you and your creepy obsession with graphic descriptions of infant sodomy and anal violation.
I really, really wanted to ignore you, Patrick, and I thought I'd made that clear but, sadly, you were just too stupid and obsessive to take the hint. So this is on your head. And when, after a couple months, your name is synonymous in the Canadian blogosphere with disgusting fantasies of anal violation of children, you'll know that you have only yourself to blame.
Bye, Patrick ... waste your threats of legal action on someone else.
By the way, Patrick, I appreciate your confirming my first claim in that last comment of yours. That saves me whatever time I might have invested having to provide the evidence for it myself.
Feel free to openly admit to the rest of it as well. That would be a real time-saver.
Good Christ, that mullet is a psychopath.
Okay, now you're going to have to pony up CC... I'm all agog.
Not that the idea that some of the authoritarians out there might take it all the way to the logical conclusion when it comes to the uses of the powerless, but that you've got the goods on Ross there. So... cough it up! Inquiring minds want to know (and confirm for ourselves).
PO:
I will pony up nothing, save my assurances that every word of what I wrote above is absolutely accurate, and that Patrick Ross has, on two occasions that I personally know of, left comments in other blogs' comments sections, gleefully and enthusiastically describing the act of anally violating infants.
Patrick has already (in recently-deleted comments) started to whine and bluster about libel and defamation, which he knows full well he will never follow through on since he knows that what I've written is true.
Once again, let me emphasize that I had no overwhelming interest in dragging this out. I tried every which way I could to tell Patrick Ross to take a hike and knock it off with his creepy stalking and harassment, and he refused. So I'm simply educating the rest of the blogosphere as to what kind of disturbing psychopath they're dealing with in Mr. Ross.
It's also why I will no longer link to any progressive sites that still allow Patrick commenting privileges. If those blogs want to provide a public forum for someone who is that obsessed with infant sodomy, that is entirely their choice, but they won't be getting any more traffic from me. They can run their blogs their way, and I'll run mine my way. And my way doesn't include giving a stage to someone who thinks anally violating two-year-olds is howlingly amusing.
Movin' on ...
By the way, PO, in one of Patrick's recent deleted comments, he is dumb enough to openly admit to my first accusation above, only because he then desperately goes on to try to defend what he wrote and why he wrote it.
That's an incredibly stupid move -- threatening legal action over something you've just openly admitted to.
And once again (and I can't stress this enough), I had no interest in dragging any of this up, but it was clear that Mr. Ross simply wasn't going to stop his ongoing program of stalking and harassment, so now he can explain to his readers his disturbing obsession with sodomizing children, knowing that there's no point in denying it.
And, once again, other Canadian bloggers are welcome to let him set up shop in their comments sections and spew rubbish, but they won't be getting any more traffic from me. If they prefer to hang out with Patrick Ross, that's their choice, and they're welcome to it.
Post a Comment