Girl On The Right » Blog Archive

A Very Bad Day

For those of you who have wondered about the man who called me, my friends, a grandmother and others “cunt”, or who could be so despicable as to tell Wanda Watkins, the grieving mother of a dead Canadian soldier to “fuck you and your grief”, who refers to men and women he doesn’t agree with as “douchebags” and who has repeatedly referred to Kate McMillan as a Nazi (Warren Kinsella sues over less, you know)…

He is Robert PJ Day. Small business owner. Computer genius. Well-read book nerd. Anti-creationist debater. Canadian Cynic.

Outing bloggers isn’t usually my thing. I don’t see a point to it. But when you repeatedly abuse and demean people because they do not march in lockstep with you, I’m sorry but you deserve it. I am not a cunt, Robert. Nor a douchebag. Neither is Kathy Shaidle, Kate, Connie Fournier, Sandy Crux, Suzanne Fortin or anyone else on the web you don’t like.

I am not above strong language and hyperbole, Robert, but I am not beneath you. You are not special. I do not dispute that you are extremely smart and well-versed in your subjects of choice. But referring to to those you feel superior to as “cunts”, “wankers”, “douchebags”, “assholes” and more doesn’t make you sound brilliant at all. It makes you sound sad and lonely. It also makes you seem very cowardly, because I know you would never call me a cunt to my face. You would never wander into downtown Toronto and meet with half the people you have insulted - on a one-to-one or at a party - and insult them the way you do behind your chosen alias.

What would your mother say, Robert, if she knew that you referred to a woman older than she probably is as a douchebag? ( I assume that your mother is still with us. If not, I apologize, one orphan to the next. ) Is that how she raised you?

Robert Day’s writings on the subject he is most familiar with, Linux, are many. We have waded through hours, pages of his Linux advice columns and other web writings. One thing I noted was his style. Cynic - Robert - has a very engaging way of writing directly to someone. That comes through in all his work, including the website for his company, Crash Course. It’s a pity Robert Day didn’t temper his Cynic style as much as he does in his works under his own name. Not only would he have made his point, but he probably would have had a newspaper column or book deal by now.

I doubt very much that Robert PJ Day will be shamed now that he is connected to Canadian Cynic. There is a piece of him that’s clearly missing inside, though I’ll spare you all the pop psychology. Regardless, I expect a lot of trolling and backlash. So be it. Put your name where your mouth is Robert. Rumpelstiltskin took it very badly when the miller’s daughter guessed his name, but even he disappeared. I expect no such fairytale dissolution from Robert Peter John Day.

Good luck, Robert Day, in whatever you do next. Though I suggest you try to be less hurtful to others. You’re only going to hurt yourself, at the end of the Day.

This entry was posted on Monday, June 15th, 2009 at 9:00 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

131 Comments - Join in the conversation below

Poor CC… payback’s a bitch…

Comment by Richard Evans — June 15, 2009 @ 9:32 am
I don’t like what you did with Cynic’s home address, Richard.

I know he did some terrible things to you. But posting his home address was wrong, and two wrongs don’t make a right.

Comment by Patrick Ross — June 15, 2009 @ 11:17 am
Patrick, you’re a pussy. Man-up and fight back for once. Christ, Wendy has bigger balls than you!

Comment by Richard Evans — June 15, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
He’s a vile man, his personal unprovoked attacks against Conservative Female bloggers is not acceptable. He deserves to be hauled before the “Court of Public Opinion” for his hateful bigoted sexist personal attacks. It’s easy to hide behind a moniker and call women vile names, let’s see how brave it/she/he is when he has his name attached to his blog’s personal attacks. This guy is toe jam, I can honestly say I’ve never read such filth in my life as his blogs postings.

The left have been fighting dirty since the “Free Speech” battle began, it’s high time we stopped trying to play by their twisted set of rules. They’ve crossed many “ETHICAL” lines and it’s time for them to see that a level playing field is not something they can fight on. If the deck isn’t stacked in the left’s favour they run like cornered rats, the deck is now level bring it on abusive liberal male bloggers.

Comment by Rose — June 15, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
So much fuss over nothing.

All the rules work equally for and against all sides of an issue.

What is everybody’s problem?

Comment by Gorgon — June 15, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
I said it at Richard’s blog and I’ll say it again: anonymity is not a right, especially when you use it degrade people.

Comment by SUZANNE — June 15, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
I asked at your blog Suzie and I’ll ask it again, who’s degraded?

Comment by Gorgon — June 15, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
Well Gorgon, I’m not a conservative blogger but when I read CC personal attacks I’m horrified at the level of hatred and contempt he apparently feels towards women especially Conservative women. Thus I feel degraded by extension, he’s lucky we Conservative women are free speechers because he’s crossed the line between acceptable dialogue into pure unadultrated hate several times. He thinks he’s funny I think he’s a repulsive bigoted bully, he appears to view women as if we are garbage he’s a vile man in my opinion.

Comment by Rose — June 15, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
Well Rose I’m a woman and I don’t feel at all degraded or abused or humiliated or anything else by CC and unless you were specifically targeted by him I don’t know how you could either. If you feel degraded by extension then maybe you should unplug your extension.

Comment by Gorgon — June 15, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
I like people like Robert PJ Day. Psychologically weak, pathetic no-life, do-nothing, know-nothing pond scum like him are a waste of oxygen. I’ll debate him any day of the week, but why waste my breath? Robert, if you are reading this, I am an ex-soldier, a tenured college professor, a business owner, a published author, a documentary maker (I’m on the History Channel on June 24th)and, crime of crimes, a creationist. And I’ve been in newspapers, magazines and even made it on the Michael Coren show three times as well as countless other radio and TV shows in the UK and North America (both sides of the border).

More than you could ever dream of, old son. Not that I’m boasting. My point is, when you insist on being nasty, foul mouthed psychologically shallow loser, you don’t get anywhere in life. So my advice to you is simple:

Get a life! Because your wasting the one you have - for eternity.

Comment by The Lone Ranger — June 15, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
My goodness. I had no idea Buckaroo Banzai read this blog!

Comment by Dr.Dawg — June 15, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
Dawggie (AKA John Baglow), you seem upset for some reason… You weren’t upset when you helped out Skippy or BCF. Why all the fake moral outrage now?

Comment by Richard Evans — June 15, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
Richard, between the two of us I am the one who’s being a man about this.

If you can’t bring yourself to be a better person than Mr Day, all you ever had to do was say so. But at least be honest with yourself.

Comment by Patrick Ross — June 15, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
[...] Wendy Sullivan: “It also makes you seem very cowardly, because I know you would never call me a cunt to my face. You would never wander into downtown Toronto and meet with half the people you have insulted – on a one-to-one or at a party – and insult them the way you do behind your chosen alias.“ [...]

Pingback by Nothing Cynical About Outing This Canadian « Unambiguously Ambidextrous — June 15, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
NAMBLA-Dick:

I didn’t help out anyone, liar. I’d never even heard of skippy until the thing blew up over at WK’s, and I had nothing whatsoever to do with the outing of Arnie–who, ironically enough, thought he was outing *me* a mere four days before.

Do you *ever* tell the truth?

Comment by Dr.Dawg — June 15, 2009 @ 8:20 pm
*
wait a minute, dawg… isn’t this you ripping on suzanne at bigbluewave?

“I’m beginning to think, alas, that CC found exactly the right word to describe you, you Christian hypocrite.”
Dr.Dawg | Homepage | 06.15.09 - 9:11 pm

what “word” is that, puppydawg?

*

Comment by neo — June 15, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
I think this is just another example of the universal truth: what goes around, comes around. And since CC has been such a vile piece of work for such a long time, there’s a big ol’ shit tsunami coming back around for him.

That is going to hurt, I’d say. Probably in the pocketbook right away, because no -normal- employer is going to keep a freak like that around the office. Is any woman going to feel safe turning her back on that guy? I think not.

But is Robbie Day in danger of being hunted down and punched out by some enraged Conservative? No. Waste of perfectly good knuckle skin.

Hey Dawg should know this! Tell us, John Doggie Baglow, have you yet been searched out and set upon by one of us ragin’ SDA Nazi flying monkey types? You’re almost as irritating as Canadian Cynic, if a bit less profane. You’d be a perfect test case.

I’m betting not, because hunting people down and hitting them for their political beliefs is a Lefty thing, not a Conservative thing.

Comment by The Phantom — June 15, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
“Is any woman going to feel safe turning her back on that guy? I think not.”

And what would you know about it Phantom? Got the secret to how women think do you? I bet that will come as a big surprise to the women who know you.

Comment by Gorgon — June 15, 2009 @ 10:48 pm
Gorgon, you obviously don’t work. If you did, you’d know that every man in Canada who works anyplace where there are women walks on eggshells. Thanks to the feminazis and countless morons like YOURSELF, men don’t even say “good morning” in the office. Or even talk loud. They could be fired for creating an “abusive work environment”. Its all part of your PC utiopia that you progressives are working so hard to build, Gorgon.

All that shit that CC has said over the years? He’s so unemployable, he’s f-ing radioactive. Every chick in his office is going to raise hell, as well they should, given the poisonous material he’s got bubbling up under that funny looking hair cut.

I suggest looking into self employment, Bobby baby. Painting pays ok.

Comment by The Phantom — June 16, 2009 @ 12:53 am
Wowza Phantom, whatever did you do to women around you that they’d treat you like that? Believe me, real men don’t have to walk on anything but their own two feet around real women because real men don’t look to overpower women with their manliness any more than real women need to pussy whip the men in their lives. I’d offer to feel sorry for you but judging from your snarled response to me I think you bring it on yourself, chum. Enjoy.

Comment by Gorgon — June 16, 2009 @ 1:20 am
I’m betting not, because hunting people down and hitting them for their political beliefs is a Lefty thing, not a Conservative thing.

Yup. Just ask Dr. Tiller or Steven T. Johns.

Or ask NAMBLA-Dick, since he’s graced us with his presence–stalking a woman blogger in Calgary, then (knowing she is chronically depressed) counselling her to commit suicide.

When it comes to the character department, “Phantom,” you people are a seething mass of id-impulses–sick, disgusting obsessives. Take “neo” and NAMBLA-Dick…please.

But “Phantom” did ask me a question. In fact, a threat was left at my place just this morning. Par for the course–I have better things to write about. But, yes, I have been threatened by right-wingnuts in my time, and one or two even contacted my employer in the bad old days of Usenet. Typical loony-right behaviour.

Comment by Dr.Dawg — June 16, 2009 @ 5:22 am
[...] may read more if you wish here, here, here, here, here, and [...]

Pingback by Marginalized Action Dinosaur » Canadian Cynic = Robert Day — June 16, 2009 @ 7:10 am
So Dawg, aside from the obligatory snark I’m 100% correct eh? Zero beatings and zero personal danger generated by your constant baiting of the “seething mass of id-impulses–sick, disgusting obsessives.”

In short, we your target group are normal people, and you are completely safe being as big a prick online as you can manage. And so is Robbie the Robot Dick.

Bwahaha. Doofus.

Comment by The Phantom — June 16, 2009 @ 8:11 am
we your target group are normal people

Umm…no, you’re not.

Comment by Dr.Dawg — June 16, 2009 @ 8:14 am
Thanks for writing what I now can’t as I just deleted my blog Crux of the Matter yesterday — not because of Canadian Cynic and his ilk but because after 3 1/2 years it just wasn’t fun anymore.

However, if anyone does not think this man has been degrading women for a long time now, they obviously have never been a target.

However, like you, I had to put up with his misogyny on a regular basis. I spoke up once but it just made things worse so I ignored things as much as possible. He even trashed my book which sold world wide — but never as a critique but with sexually explicit and personal ridicule undertones. Strange that Robert Peter John Day did not realize that book is still sold by the University of Toronto Press — who has deeper pockets than I do when it comes to defamation.

For some reason my “Harper Government Accomplishments” list drove him over the edge — given the expletives he would use — and as usual, with sexually explicit connotations.

Now, we’ll see what this bully will do as he can no longer hide behind his anonymity.

Re publishing Mr. Day’s address and phone number. He had it coming as he and some of his readers tried to “out” me many times.

There is an old saying: What goes around comes around!

Comment by Sandy Crux — June 16, 2009 @ 8:54 am
What makes you think I’m talking about me, Gorgon? I don’t work in an office.

But have you been to a hospital lately? Take a look at how the male doctors and managers interact with the chicks, and then contrast how they interact with other men. Its freakin’ toxic, and you’d know that if you didn’t live in Mum’s basement. That’s why I don’t work in an office.

But Robbie Day -does- work in an office. So I’m thinking the girlie contingent at Uncle Robbie’s work there are going to be a mite “uncomfortable” with having such a… what’s the word here… devoted? demonstrative? well documented? demented? … I have it! Such an -industrious- misogynist working in the next cube. I mean lets face it, Robbie’s poison output is prodigious. He works at it.

Do you know, Gorgon, that there are entire departments in the provincial and federal government that can swing into action when the girlie contingent becomes “uncomfortable”? Probably the city government too? And all those busy little minions are actively looking for cases to pursue, so as to justify their existence and maintain their sinecure’s budget.

If you want to find out just how skinny the branch you’re standing on is at work (when you finally get work, kid), and how one secretary temp having a bad day can flush you down the dumper, just google up “sexual harassment”, or “workplace abuse”. Go ahead, it’ll be an education for you in unintended consequences. Take a look down the loooong list of outfits waiting to spring into action. Tell me you think C-word Robbie’s job is safe from Jennifer Lynch and Babs Hall. That’s progressive liberalism in its finest form, Gorgon. Those are your guys out there doing what you said you wanted, buddy.

Now, as a hate-filled, rednecked, knuckle dragging, Earth destroying, beer swilling, popcorn eating Conservative type, I don’t agree with this. I think Robbie’s company should be safe from all these publicly funded harpies, and that he should be completely free to be every inch the malformed bigot that he obviously is, proudly and in public. That’s because I also think women should be issued a .38 and extensive self defense training at 16, so they don’t have to worry about perverts like Robbie bothering them.

See how much cheaper and easier that would be? No big huge government bureaucracy, just simple good manners and empowerment of the individual.

Comment by The Phantom — June 16, 2009 @ 9:45 am
John Doggie Baglow said: “Umm…no, you’re not.”

Yeah dawg, I’m a real terror I am. I’m going to totally drive up to Hogtown and get myself tossed in jail because you taunted me on the interweb. Uh huh. Then after they let me out I’ll head over to wherever CC lives and get tossed in jail again.

That’s why nobody has so much as left a bag of dog poo on your doorstep all these years. Because thousands of guys like The Phantom are all hair trigger time bombs waiting to go off.

Truth is Dawg, we just think you’re an idiot. One that is fun to mock in our spare time, too. If you were parked at the end of my driveway I -might- get up to go laugh at you, but not if my coffee was going to get cold.

Nope, my problem is the army of busy bureaucrats I just mentioned to Gorgon who cater to idiots like yourself. They bug me. I spend actual time and money fighting them in the arena of Canadian politics. Because as I’ve said on many occasions, if Robert Day is not free to be the rude, profane whatever-it-is that he is, and Dawgly is not free to be the idiot he is, then I’m going to have trouble too.

Sadly, you don’t seem to be able to grasp this. Probably because you’re an idiot.

Comment by The Phantom — June 16, 2009 @ 10:22 am
John Baglow sez: Or ask NAMBLA-Dick, since he’s graced us with his presence–stalking a woman blogger in Calgary, then (knowing she is chronically depressed) counselling her to commit suicide.

Stalking? Care to back that shit up?

Comment by Richard Evans — June 16, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
Sure, NAMBLER.

http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2008/12/criminal-blogging.html

Comment by Dr.Dawg — June 16, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
What makes you think I’m talking about me, Gorgon? I don’t work in an office.

Then why infer that you do with what you say? If you don’t inhabit an environment you don’t get to pretend to be an expert about is so buzz off you know-nothing creep, you’re a waste of time.

Comment by Gorgon — June 16, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
John, having a deranged woman call you up and leave threatening messages on your cell phone isn’t called stalking. It’s called being stalked. Please do try harder to get it right…

Comment by Richard Evans — June 16, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
There was much more to this, as you are well aware. And there was the other woman, in the comments, who mentioned your unhealthy and continued interest in her sexual orientation.

NAMBLER, I get the feeling that you’re not safe to be around. Particularly if you’re of the female persuasion–or very young.

Comment by Dr.Dawg — June 16, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
Hey Rob! How’s your contract with that digital company workin’ out? What’s that? You don’t work there anymore? And you never will, ever again? So sorry to hear that. Maybe you can go back to begging for jobs on internet message boards.

Comment by Richard Evans — June 16, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
Oh, as an aside, Rob, you linked to an article citing posts from you and the psycho stalker chick in question. What the hell is that? You couldn’t find an unbiased source?

Good Grief…

[The original comment to which you refer is gone. CC, Little Bill et al were never welcome here.]

Comment by Richard Evans — June 16, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
damn!

Comment by Richard Evans — June 16, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
“…interact with the chicks…”
“…psycho stalker chick in question.”

What is it with these knuckle dragging neanderthals?

“Harper Government Accomplishments” Sandy…they mostly didn’t exist…

Comment by southern quebec — June 16, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
“Did Gorgon actually just say the rape victim had it coming because she wore a short skirt?”

Really? She DID? Show us. Now.

I can show where you slagged an entire culture right here in your own little septic tank but I got a feeling I’d just be passing around old news. You have quite a reputation to live down. You, too, bring it on yourself.

Comment by Gorgon — June 16, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
So Gorgon, not up to a little google of “workplace abuse”? Figures.

RG, you got a pretty hefty troll infestation on this thread.

Comment by The Phantom — June 16, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
I do indeed Phantom. But I don’t consider Gorgonzola the Cheese Mistress to be a threat or even a real nuisance. I banned CC, Little Bill (Ti-Guy) and KEvron. Dr. Dawg is welcome as per emails between the two of us, because I consider him to be fully human. Though I wasn’t pleased with his insinuation over at Big Blue Wave that Suzanne was a cunt and/or douchebag.

Keep it mostly civil kids. I have a pretty thick skin, but even I have my limits.

RG

Comment by Right Girl — June 16, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
Folks, its nobody’s goddamn business who you are married to, what you do for a living, what you look like, where you live, or whatever. This is the INTERNET, a place where arguments occur in print and are meant to stay that way.

Gosh–am I quoting someone here?

Comment by Dr.Dawg — June 16, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
[...] OUTING A LIBERAL BLOGGER– A Very Bad Day.. for Canadian Cynic; Anonymity and the Internet …. [...]

Pingback by Steynian 364 « Free Canuckistan! — June 16, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
I’m very happy, as one of his many victims, that the Number One Psychopath in the blogosphere (and real world!) has finally been outed. Now we know where to send the police or serve our statements of claim.

Comment by Werner — June 16, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
Oh, good luck with that. I hope some of you folks are really silly enough to shell out the big bucks to a lawyer because your feelings have been hurt. When you can take time out from defending unfettered free speech against the EVULLL human rights commissions, that is.

What wind. Full of sound and fury, you are, but it signifies nothing.

Secoond safest bet I’ve ever made: no lawsuits. Safest bet: if lawsuits, no wins. Any takers?

Comment by Dr.Dawg — June 16, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
Yeah, I’ll take that bet for $100 Dawg. Lawsuits, no winners, Robert Day out of cash, no costs awarded. That $100 to be paid out by me traveling to Ottawa for the sole purpose of taking you out to dinner AND letting you talk the whole hour. If it goes over $100, it’s still worth it. Agreed?

Comment by Right Girl — June 16, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
You’re on.

Comment by Dr.Dawg — June 16, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
Cool. The downside is you & me over dinner. Works for me.

RG

Comment by Right Girl — June 16, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
Can any of you Robert Day/Canadian Cynic supporters please tell me why you thin the Richard NAMBLA thing is funny, or what purpose it serves other than to get you people slapped with a libel suit? Did I miss a memo somewhere?

RH

Comment by Right Girl — June 16, 2009 @ 11:43 pm
It’s not funny in the least, RG.

The entirely appropriate nick that Dick has earned came about because he bought a domain that sounded like CC’s, and pointed it to the NAMbLA site–thus increasing that site’s traffic considerably. That’s pedophile-enabling, no two ways about it. He can make any excuses he likes, but the fact remains–he sent substantial traffic to NAMBLA.

Add to that the NAMBLER’s reference to Internet gadfly Ti-Guy as “Thai-guy,” and his bogus, oft-exploded claim that CC favours sex between middle-aged men and 14 year old boys (talk about the libel suit potential there, by the way) and I think we have a picture of a very disturbed individual, one who is obsessed with child sex.

And I won’t even bring up the cyberstalking of two women bloggers by this miserable excuse for a human being.

I hope he sues–CC, or me, or whomever. Because discovery would be worth a few blogposts. Just sayin’.

Comment by Dr.Dawg — June 17, 2009 @ 12:01 am
As an internet gadfly, I am insulted at the thought of Little Bill being considered an internet gadfly.

That said, that whole Ti-Guy thing… I think it’s a lack of understanding of Canada’s other official language. I know you speak it. You thoughts?

RG

Comment by Right Girl — June 17, 2009 @ 12:06 am
Oh, also, here’s something I barely remember, but still: I do believe I brought the site “Pederastia” to Richard’s attention. Because it made me want to vomit. He. myself and several other bloggers worked to get the guy shut down. Many on the left thought that the author of Pederastia had the right to do his thing. BnR and CC were among them. When they came out in defense of Pederastia, Richard (and myself) believed them to be enablers of man-boy sex. Again, your thoughts?

RG

Comment by Right Girl — June 17, 2009 @ 12:10 am
I’m not aware that CC has ever said anything about this site, which (thank God) I’ve never heard of until this minute. He has an explanation of what caused the dispute, but you probably don’t want it linked. Nevertheless, if you want the gen-in, it can be found in a recent post at his place called “Yeah, that libel suit is looking better by the minute.” Check it out.

Perhaps you could send me, b/c, the links that you are referring to–CC and BnR. Neither supports pedophilia or hebephilia to my knowledge–indeed, I think they’d be some upset to learn that this allegation was being made.

Ti-Guy is completely fluent in English (and, I believe, German), and frequently witty and brilliant in his summing-up of a position. I can understand why he gets under some people’s skin; he’s annoyed me on occasion, too, and in fact he’s presently banned at my place. But at his best one should pay attention to him.

(My thoughts, at 3:45am. Night.)

Comment by Dr.Dawg — June 17, 2009 @ 2:46 am
I read that. But Richard didn’t wake up one morning and decide to do that at random, though I should probably not speak for him. Especially since I’m searching and searching through google and my own archives, and can’t find the articles in question, dammit. I hate having to go on memory alone!

RG

Comment by Right Girl — June 17, 2009 @ 4:49 am
Wow. Posting someone’s name, fine. I somehow think that’s the stuff of 2 year olds throwing sand at each other in the sandbox. But regular fare in bloggers, both sides of the deal.

But posting their business. If I were a partner in that business, I’d sue your pants off. That’s below pathetic.

Grow up.

Comment by skinny dude — June 17, 2009 @ 7:18 am
…and now that it’s been shown to have been a positive thing to “out” Canadian Cynic, as it’s not only increased his traffic but has shown the whole world that the “outers” are pathetic, petty and childish…

…now that you, Wendy, are going to have to tell the truth about the “Pederastia” website you’ve falsely accused CC of supporting…

…now that your fellow “Blogging Tories” have begun to decry the actions of the “outers”…

…now that this little “plan” has blown up so spectacularly in your face….

Whatcha gonna do, Wendy?

Are you going to do the adult thing, and stop making unfounded and false accusations? Are you going to admit that the actions of your “fellows” are, in fact, deplorable? Are you going to apologize for lying?

….I’m waiting, Wendy. Waiting for you to stop being an embarrassment to Canadians. Waiting for you to and your ilk to act in a responsible manner.

I’m waiting for the day that I get to actually be proud to share conservative ideals with you.

…because right now, I’m pretty embarrassed to be associated with anything to the right of center. You and your lot have tainted it, and made fools of anyone on “your” (and what was my) side who may have once agreed with you.

Stop lying. Stop it right now before you make the Conservative Blogoshpere in Canada a laughingstock. Stop making yourself and your fellow Blogging Tories look like raving lunatics. Stop being an embarrassment.

As Skinny Dude said: Grow up.

Comment by Kate — June 17, 2009 @ 7:48 am
Kate, how about some utilitarian analysis:

Is it likely that one less child will be subject to harrassment (or at least encouragement to be harrassed), or one less woman will be referred to as a c*nt for her beliefs?

I would say overwhelmingly, the answer is ‘yes’. Cowards like CC only operate because they are too chicken to stand behind their words.

A great public service has been done by outing PJ. The Wizard of Oz is really just a pathetic linux geek who will have to be accountable for what he says. Just. Like. Eveyone. Else.

Comment by Ha! — June 17, 2009 @ 10:14 am
Hmmm…. Well folks, as a lurker on the poli-blogs, I can truthfully say you’ve led me to come to some conclusions about the Canadian political scene, via bloggers.

You’re all idiots.

Both sides, and the supporters who rave them on. Short of grade school playground behavior, I don’t think I’ve seen a level of stupidity like this in years. And yes, if one of my children got into spats like these, there would be some serious consequences for them. Grow up, the lot of you. Can we cut the knee-jerk left/right flogging, and try to provide some actual forward thinking ideas and solutions? I’m not holding out hope.

Two items:

a) Using a similar name redirect puts you right up there with spammers and phishers. That’s approaching the only crime that I’d still support the death penalty for. Can you tell I work in IT?

b) Never, never bring up someones children or their employment in ANY discussion, online or not. It’s verging on behavior that even I would recommend to the police for investigation.

Please, try to keep it clean folks.

Comment by Gordon — June 17, 2009 @ 10:36 am
Oh, also, here’s something I barely remember, but still: I do believe I brought the site “Pederastia” to Richard’s attention. Because it made me want to vomit. He. myself and several other bloggers worked to get the guy shut down.

Correction: The site was called “The Puerist”. Here’s the archived post: http://4033337036.blogspot.com/2006/04/carnival-of-pedophiles.html
- haloscan is pulling the comments out of archive - will take 24-ish hours before they reappear

and now that it’s been shown to have been a positive thing to “out” Canadian Cynic, as it’s not only increased his traffic

How is shining the light of day on him a bad thing?

now that your fellow “Blogging Tories” have begun to decry the actions of the “outers”

Which ones? Please provide links.

I’m waiting for the day that I get to actually be proud to share conservative ideals with you.

…because right now, I’m pretty embarrassed to be associated with anything to the right of center. You and your lot have tainted it, and made fools of anyone on “your” (and what was my) side who may have once agreed with you.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to introduce you to a textbook example of a “concern troll”.

Wow!

Comment by Richard Evans — June 17, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Ha! Is there any actual documentation of children being harassed or is this still at the point of being solely verbal accusations? As for the whole c*nt thing, don’t you think it’s gone well beyond the point of anyone having a moral ground? Considering some of the things that have been said by both sides it comes across more as everyone is an equal amount of douche in how they have proceeded. Noone can claim to be the adult in this one.

As for your cowards theory, it can also be equally found on the side of the Blogging Tories. Really, it’s not something that is exclusive to one political ideology, it’s something that any human being is capable of. Either everyone gets the right to use a nom de plume, or noone does. You can’t set rules that one side gets the right of anonymity based upon what offends you personally. It usually ends up with accusations of hypocrisy and double standards.

Is this really a great public service? If you take the personal bias that does influence your view (everyone has bias, btw, we just call it opinion) it looks like someone putting their personal details on line to invite some sort of fallout. I’m not condoning CC’s behaviour by any chance but it doesn’t mean this was the right thing to do. We do have laws in the country and that means that individuals aren’t entitled to enact their own rules based on what they feel is right. I know that irks some, but that’s just society. You give a little to get more.

I want to keep this discussion as intelligent as possible and I know that people have gotten quite heated and partisan. I find it unfortunate that it does colour any type of discussion and when it gets heated up to the point it is: well we’re seeing the results of this now. Can we get back to actually discussing stuff on topic for a change instead of lobbing mudballs back and forth? Partisan outrage often does the opposite of what it intends to do. In this case you probably have spiked his traffic.

I think it’s long overdue for someone involved in this whole thing to be an adult and start acting like one. Wouldn’t that be a nice change.

Thank you for reading my bit Ha!

Comment by West Coast Grey — June 17, 2009 @ 11:19 am
Richard Evans, I believe that Patrick Ross isn’t overly impressed with this. Really, this isn’t the right way to proceed with things. I’m not a concern troll, I just don’t understand why you don’t just walk away from CC. It really isn’t worth having it affect your life.

I know lots of things have been said but the more the lot of you chatter about this (CC is included in this lot) the less interesting you all become. Yes there is a traffic spike right now but most people will lose interest in a Richard Day sucks blog quite quickly. I just thing energy is best applied to other places.

Thank you for listening Richard, I just want to reestablish intellectual discource again. I really do enjoy political discussion without the mudballs and Im just trying to get it back.

Comment by West Coast Grey — June 17, 2009 @ 11:23 am
Are you going to apologize for lying?

You’d better check the temperature in Hell first, Kate. Wendy “All Native Americans Are Coked-up Daughter-Fuckers” Sullivan will NEVER apologize for lying because that would require that she admits to not being an infallible deity simply by virtue of being to the right of Pinochet politically.

Comment by J. A. Baker — June 17, 2009 @ 11:31 am
Ha!,

No children were harassed, so you can stop it with your disingenuous pearl-clutching right here. Stop it with the lies. Seriously. They make you, and by extension other conservatives like me, look like idiots. I’m tired of the lies. Sick to death of them , really. I’m tired of having my politics associated with lies and obfuscation. If our principles and ethics are made to be as flexible as rubber sheets, they are worth the same treatment that rubber sheets get: Getting pissed all over. We can not, as conservatives, as people who stand for traditional values and the importance of honour and decency, discard those values because we find it convenient or are in a snit over some words on a screen.

There are plenty of valid, REAL and TRUE issues which you can bring to the table, but again I say:

NO. CHILDREN. WERE. HARASSED.

At no time did CC ever call for children to be harassed. He suggested that people write letters and contact the school board and parents in regards to Richard’s redirecting of a domain: canadiancynic.net to the NAMBLA website.

I’m going to be quite open and honest here about how I feel:

Richard did something disgusting and potentially harmful to HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS of children. NAMBLA promotes the exploitation of children for sexual gratification by adults. Directing even a single hit in their direction is irresponsible, crude, and vile. Attempting to smear someone by trying to create, out of whole cloth, an association with such an organization is dishonest at best and at worst it could be viewed as an attempt to destroy someone’s life.

I don’t want him anywhere near my children. I don’t want him to get it into his head that it’s okay, at any time, to associate anyone undeserving with such a vile, horrific organization. He has shown himself to be a liar and untrustworthy, and if I were a parent with a child in the same school, I’d want to know about it, so that I could ensure my children were not left alone with such a person, not because I feel he would harm them physically (I don’t. I don’t think he’s that type of man at all.), but because I would be very worried about what kind of lessons he would teach them, or what values he might attempt to instill in them.

As for calling someone a name?

It’s a name. A word. We’re supposed to be adults. As adults, we don’t throw hissy fits and have tantrums because someone says something we don’t like. We either address it politely, once, and move on or we ignore it and move on.

CC will continue to say what he thinks in the way he chooses to, because as a Canadian it is HIS RIGHT TO DO SO, whether I like what he says or not. He has broken no laws and as far as I can see has had to put up with more than his fair share of abuse from those who are trying, and failing, to claim to have the moral high ground.

Despite the fact that I do not agree with CC’s politics, despite the fact that I disagree with him on certain issues and despite the fact that I find his language to be salty and at times downright offensive, I do not feel that lies, disingenuous behavior or any type of dishonesty, whether intentional or accidental, is the correct way to deal with this type of situation.

If we want to claim a greater morality, a stronger set of ethics, we need to ACT IN THAT MANNER AT ALL TIMES.

If we’re only paying lip-service to our ideals, we’re not very ethical or moral, are we? If we do not agree with a liberal’s actions, we can not then turn around and do the very same thing. We should not be hypocrites.

As a Christian, Canadian Conservative I can not sit idly by and watch the very foundations of my faith and my politics undermined by those who claim the same associations.

So Ha!, in closing, I would like to ask you to retract your untrue statements, and after you have done so I ask that you examine your reaction to this situation, and your attitude towards the Charter Rights of Canadians.

I want you to think about whether or not you, yourself, could be called to task for your actions, and whether or not you would support or condone these “retaliatory” actions from someone of a different political stripe.

I don’t think you would, so I’d like you to take some time to evaluate why you feel justified in supporting people who do things you would normally decry, solely because you have a personal dislike for the target.

…and as for CC not being accountable? Are you not here under a pseudonym? If you truly believe that Rob does not deserve pseudonymity, you can not them claim it for yourself.

Comment by Kate — June 17, 2009 @ 11:42 am
It’s funny when lefties pretend to be conservatives because they do it so poorly…

Comment by Richard Evans — June 17, 2009 @ 11:47 am
It’s funny when Richard Evans posts anything because you know it’ll fit into the following categories–
1. Lies
2. Lies with obfuscations
3. Lies with threatening of lawsuits if you don’t believe his lies
4. All of the above

Comment by Sparky — June 17, 2009 @ 11:54 am
OK. I hacked my way through NAMBLA-Dick’s post, and I can see nary a mention of the “progressives” who allegedly support that crap. Not CC. Mot BnR. Nuffink.

Whoops! That was, if I may say so, RG, careless.

Comment by Dr.Dawg — June 17, 2009 @ 11:57 am
I read that. But Richard didn’t wake up one morning and decide to do that at random, though I should probably not speak for him. Especially since I’m searching and searching through google and my own archives, and can’t find the articles in question, dammit. I hate having to go on memory alone!

RG

And since cc’s not allowed to correct the record, I’ll do the community some service and post this from cc’s site–

http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2009/06/its-because-they-lie-etc-etc-etc.html

In which cc demonstrates that there is no connection between his site and this website that RG is going on about.

And Rchards ‘correction’–

UM … HUH? “NAMBLA” Dick Evans to the rescue. First, Dick has to correct Wendy, who pooched the site name, after which we notice that, curiously, the linked-to post that Dick provides has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone here at CC HQ, but I’m guessing details like that are for losers.

In short, Wendy defames CC HQ as supporting pederasty, while the NAMBLA-obsessed Dick Evans (unintentionally, I’m sure) explains how Wendy is full of crap, making the situation even worse. And your humble scribe (that would be me) is still banned from commenting over there and so is unable to correct the record.

If I were the proprietor of this website, I’d either let cc post here or just stop posting about him.

‘Cause not letting him post here whilst still posting about him is disingenuous–it’s just not cricket

Comment by Sparky — June 17, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
Richard, you can doubt all you like. If I could be assured that the information wouldn’t be misused, I could quite easily post a lovely set of pictures of myself at the local Conservative Riding Association Barbecue, making a lovely speech in support of the gentleman who was, at that time, the conservative candidate, as well as the photos from the bit where I presented a donation of some equipment to the Riding Association’s President for his office.

I don’t, however, feel I could trust you with those details, as you have shown yourself to be vindictive and petty when it comes to those who do not agree with your tactics.

If anyone else out there can assure me they will use the information wisely and without malice, and who doubt my statements here in regards to my politics, I will gladly make those pieces of media available.

Comment by Kate — June 17, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
Kate; There are “conservatives” and then there are the “Conservatives”. The two aren’t the same.

Comment by Richard Evans — June 17, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Richard, I can barely hear you over the sound of your goalposts moving.

My work with the riding association, my very proud support for an excellent candidate, and my admiration for the work done in my riding by the riding association is a fact. No one there doubts my commitment to either my community or the Conservative Party.

Just because I don’t fall into lock-step with your despicable tactics and fall all over myself to excuse your behaviour when you act in a manner not befitting a Conservative Canadian, or rational, adult human being does not make me “Not Conservative” or “Not Conservative enough”.

It just makes me the kind of person who really believes that our actions speak much louder than our words, the kind of person who has embraced the idea that all people, no matter who they vote for, are deserving of the very same treatment I expect from them.

…and if it happens that those with whom I disagree politically participate in distasteful actions, I will speak up about it, but I will refuse to compromise my principles and stoop to that level.

You, on the other hand, have shown that you have no guiding principles, as you are willing to discard them at a moments notice for personal gain, that you are ready and willing to lie for personal gain and that you are willing to act in a disingenuous and rather trashy manner when you are, quite rightfully, criticized for your distasteful actions.

I will be bringing up this incident the next time I meet with the Riding Association President, so that we may bring this type of behaviour to light, and find ways to prevent such actions from damaging the Conservative Party of Canada further.

Comment by Kate — June 17, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
*applause*

Comment by Dr.Dawg — June 17, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
Richard, I can barely hear you over the sound of your goalposts moving.

Nope, not moving any goal posts. Simply stating fact. Conservative party hacks and “Blogging Tories” are more lib-left than anything else. They have no “conservative” policies left. In case you still don’t get it: You’re a freakin’ Liberal pretending to be “conservative”

I will be bringing up this incident the next time I meet with the Riding Association President, so that we may bring this type of behaviour to light, and find ways to prevent such actions from damaging the Conservative Party of Canada further.

What exactly is it, pray tell, that makes you think that either Wendy or I are somehow attached to the CPC? Hell, as far as that goes, what makes you think that we have anything to do with the “Blogging Tories”?

Comment by Richard Evans — June 17, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
I resigned my CPC position in 2007, if you want to check. I decided I couldn’t blog comfortably AND keep the old biddies happy. Clearly I was right. I’m cool with that.

RG

Comment by Right Girl — June 17, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
Interestingly, though, despite the claim about The Peurist and CC,http://www.google.com/search?q=canadian+cynic+the+peurist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.debian:en-US:unofficial&client=iceweasel-a turns up nothing.

What was the site called again? The pederast? The peurist? The pluralist? The pleurisy… yeah, that’s it! A blog about lung disease!

Though I do agree that people should resign from the CPC; clearly they hold Canadian citizenship in very low regard if you’re not the Right Kind of People, and are working as hard as they can given their minority status to turn our justice system into that model of fairness and decorum found South of the Border.

Comment by polyorchnid octopunch — June 17, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
Erk, see if this helps: http://www.google.com/search?q=canadian+cynic+the+peurist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.debian:en-US:unofficial&client=iceweasel-a

Comment by polyorchnid octopunch — June 17, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
[...] Given: Canadian fetus fetishist SUZANNE has erected a hermetic seal on her comments section to keep liberal voices out in the wake of Canadian Cynic’s outing. [...]

Pingback by JABbering Stooge :: Riddle me this: :: June :: 2009 — June 17, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
Give this a read and then think about these comments and especially R Evans one about detaching themselves from the CPC party itself, their behaviour, values and conduct towards others with a differing opinion.

All you have to do is switch ‘movement republicans’ with Reform party/fundamentalists and viola, seems eerly similar.

http://www.stiftungleostrauss.com/bunker/?p=1113

Comment by acer — June 17, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
Kate,

It really does appear to me you are being disingenuous. Lets review the facts here as I see them pertinent:

(1) Richard and Robert Day argue over CC’s resistance to increasing the age of consent.
(2) After much blog flaming, Richard redirects a URL similar to CC’s to NAMBLA
(3) CC posts Richards personal information, including his childrens names, and counsels his readers to tell everyone and anyone involved in these childrens lives that their father has a “disturbing predilection for online child rape and promotion of child sex”

So could you please explain to me how following these actions would not incite harrassment of these children? The actions called for by Mr. Day?

He has similarly called for other Bloggers to be ‘victims’ of random acts, supposedly terrorists, alongside their home addresses.

So you can claim I am being dishonest all you like. But hiding behind a pseudonym while making such statements and encouraging harassment, remains to me utterly cowardly and completely unacceptable.

I would have thought, as a self proclaimed Conservative, you might have as well.

Comment by Ha! — June 17, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
“So could you please explain to me how following these actions would not incite harrassment of these children?”

Are you stupid or something? CC called for no such thing–he suggested reporting the NAMBLER’s predilictions to the proper authorities. Can’t you read?

Comment by Dr.Dawg — June 17, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Dawg, you lying sack of shit! He was calling on folks to get a hold of my kids teachers and tell them that I’m some kind of pedophile. Get a fucking grip you fucking moron!

Comment by Richard Evans — June 17, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
If what Ha says is true, and personal information has been given out with the call for random acts next to bloggers addresses, would that not be a crime? And I don’t mean the lame hrc hurt feelings kind. I mean the incite to violence criminal code kind. If this is true, is there any excuse for defending this kind of behaviour? Can any of this be verified?

Comment by Leanne — June 17, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
Do any of you expect to “win”? Please define “winning” for me as it pertains to this little flame war so I know when to cheer.

“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject. Winston Churchill

Comment by northbaytrapper — June 17, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
I see the NAMBLER isn’t wonderful in the reading comprehension department either.

Comment by Dr.Dawg — June 17, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
I have no dog in this fight. However, I am a parent. I don’t know or care who Dr Dawg and CC’s other supporters are or what their political and ideological beliefs consist of (although it’s not a stretch to figure out). I’d hope that they don’t have children of their own because they are either too obtuse to see CC’s post as an obvious and readily apparent incitement to harass Richard Evan’s children or they literally don’t care because he is an ideological opponent.

All of this picayune dissembling and shot-taking is meaningless and inconsequential when considered next to the despicable post by CC whereby he maliciously and cravenly brings Richard Evan’s children and family into the fray.

Anyone, and I could give a rat’s ass what their ideological leanings are, who can even remotely defend CC’s actions should take a hard look in the mirror and re-assess their priorities. And spare me the ” He said / She said.”

Comment by BoomNoZoom — June 17, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
Wow, you deleted my post! What a hypocrite you are, and you fit the mold in that article perfectly…

http://www.stiftungleostrauss.com/bunker/?p=1113

Swap movement republicans for Reform/fundamentalists and voila, pretty disturbing.

Comment by Acer — June 17, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
musta scared ya a bit, since it fit your persona so well eh

why not leave it up and let others decide for themselves, mmmm?

Comment by Acer — June 17, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
Acer, you clever fellow! You really don’t understand that as a first time commenter, you go into comment moderation until such time as I get to you? Take off the tinfoil hat, sweetie, it’s not a conspiracy.

RG

Comment by Right Girl — June 17, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
RG:

If I may say so, this is dirty pool. First you allow illiterate hacks to insist that CC’s concern for Dick’s kids is an attack on the kids–when we both know he was stating, clearly, that people might want to contact the school–not the kids, the school.

And, in this instance, your general rule–and it’s your blog, your rules, agreed–isn’t fair. You’re allowing this nonsense without giving CC a chance to respond.

And finally, you have yet to retract your earlier claim that CC was fighting for the right of some vile pedophile website to exist. Again, you know it’s not the truth, but you’re letting it ride.

Sad.

Comment by Dr.Dawg — June 17, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
Dawg, you fucking pinhead! Can you please explain just how contacting my kids school and telling them that I’m a pedophile WON’T have an adverse effect on my kids? Are you really that completely fucking dense? Seriously, how fucking stupid are you?

Comment by Richard Evans — June 17, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
Lol Richard,

Just get a room with Newt, Limbaugh, Cheney, Craig, OReilly, Boner & have a circle jerk while admiring one another. Oh yeah, invite Harper. Not conservative enough? The party self destructed in the U.S. & it’s doing the same in Canada. Jesus, you people are lost.

Comment by ameicanadian — June 17, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
Richard,

Shoulda thought about that before you linked someones website to nambla. Toughshit. Do the crime, pay the time. It’s all on you.

Comment by americanadian — June 17, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
Interestingly enough, Dawg, Cynic even stated in the same post that it didn’t really matter whether or not the allegations he was encouraging people to make were actually true.

“But, technically speaking, does that really prove that Dick is into child sex? To which the proper response would be, of course, who cares!?!? Normally, I’d be terribly concerned about accuracy but, given that Dick seems willing to publish defamatory accusations that come only from his demented imagination, I figure I should get to play by the same rules.”

Now, I’d be interested in the nature of the conversation Mr Evans and Mr Day had on this topic.

But Mr Day’s post speaks for itself.

And Dawg clearly speaks for himself. He is either hopelessly naive — and suffering from excessively poor reading comprehension — or is just falling into his good friend’s habit of being hopelessly dishonest.

Why are you pretending that Mr Day actually cares about Richard Evans’ kids, Robert? You know full well that isn’t true.

Comment by Patrick Ross — June 17, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
Patrick, you talk about knowing things.

How many sides on a triangle again?

Comment by Cameron — June 18, 2009 @ 2:01 am
Patrick,
On the surface, the information on these here intertoobs implies that Richard doesn’t care about his kids. I’m sure that real life is completely different on this topic but–
It was Richard that posted his kids name on-line, on a very public website
It was Richard that purchased domain names and directed them to NAMBLA
It’s Richard that’s adamantly stating that there’s no problem with either of those two points.
Those are the facts that we know about…
It’s not up to cc to care about Richards kids here on the internet, it’s up to Richard. And, as shown, it appears that he isn’t doing well on that point

Comment by Sparky — June 18, 2009 @ 3:57 am
Amen to that, Sparky.

Here’s a post from the NAMBLER worth reading:

http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2008/03/i-am-vindicated-booyah.html?showComment=1204765800000#c5186928567449411995

He freely admits to posting his kids’ details on the Internet. But note this egregious falsehood, repeated here by his minions and/or socks::

“Where I do have a problem is when he threatens to track my kids down and cause them harm.”

CC did not do this, and the statement on its face is libelous. What he did do–for the last time, folks–is suggest alerting the school in question about a fairly dodgy character. A character, in fact, who has publicly accused CC of pro-pedophile activity (repeated here, carelessly, by RG), and yet has pointed traffic to NAMBLA.

CC had the right to be worried about that well-known phenomenon, the “reaction formation.” We know that the NAMBLER has made life miserable for at least two women bloggers. There’s something definitely creepy about him. I have no idea, though, if CC was being entirely serious–perhaps he was responding in his way to the NAMBLER’s libelous accusations, which the latter is still making against Ti-Guy to this day.

Comment by Dr.Dawg — June 18, 2009 @ 6:26 am
Dawg, you really are pathetic…

Comment by Richard Evans — June 18, 2009 @ 7:37 am
Perhaps the line of rational logic and debate has been crossed. Humans are complex creatures. A strange combination of logic, feelings, and instinct. Instinct has a strange logic of it’s own, and rational people can debate till the cows come home, but if someone feels that a predetory person has put their children in danger,you might as well try debating with a mother bear. And anyone with children who have experienced that instict within them selves know that there are some lines you don’t cross. The potential of triggering a violent response from even the most gentle academic of souls can occur. Instinctively we know this deep down. That’s why posting information about home, spouse, and children makes so many uneasy. We might be able to supress instinct on a perceived threat to our home. We might be able to supress instinct with a perceived threat to our mate. But a perceived threat to our children? You’re dealing with something primal and volitile.

Richard’s temper tantrum with the Nambla link was not his best moment. But C.C. upped the ante if he named children,posted pictures and asked for people to find their schools and speak with teachers. It most definately would impact the children as well as the parents. Yes, you can say that there were pictures of the children on the web and that all’s fair. But is it? What was Richard’s intent and what was cc’s intent in regard to those names and images? See, I suspect that there are a lot of people out there , who for the most part are logical and rational. Except when the protective instinct of their children kicks in. At that point, you’ve lost the arguement. Society may frown when other instincts take over, but it celebrates instinct when it comes to protecting children. When we see that instinct over riden by cowardice or twisted in harming children, we feel revulsion.

Comment by Leanne — June 18, 2009 @ 7:55 am
Leanne-

Here is the section in specific where PJ Day suggests he would not be upset if violence happened to another blogger, linking to her personal information:

“those nasty, homicidal Islamofascists take time out of their busy days to check in on what we on the left have said or written lately, and adjust their plans accordingly.

I wasn’t aware I had such power. What a thrill. Under the circumstances, then, a quick note to all those radical, dark-skinned terrorists: this woman really doesn’t like Muslims. Not at all. Not even a little bit. In fact, she thinks Gitmo is a real hoot.

It’s not like I’m suggesting you do anything about it. But if you really are checking out my blog on a regular basis, well, she’s not hard to find.”

Most of this is outright lies of course, as CC usually posts. But I would wager, that if harm had come to this blogger, most courts would have found quite a problem with that post. Fortunately for us all, nothing ever did happen. If the laws of the useless HRC applied, I think that statement easily fits the test of “likely to incite someone to violence”.

And all of this as a coward, hiding behind a pseudonym and protected and encouraged by people like John Baglow.

Comment by Ha! — June 18, 2009 @ 9:17 am
Leanne,
I was thinking about intent last night with regards to this very issue.
Richard states that his intentions were clear when he purchased domain names and redirected them to NAMBLA sites–he did it because he came away with the idea from posts a long time ago that cc was good with 14 year olds and adults having sex.
As everyone else has shown, that’s not what was actually said–cc has adamantly stated the exact opposite.
However, the websites and redirects remained.
A few things–
If we are to take into consideration Richard’s intent–that his redirecting of websites that he owns to NAMBLA sites was to bring his perceived interpretation of cc’s comments to light, then we must take cc’s intent into consideration–that cc was pointing out that there was a huge problem with legislation. That was cc’s intent. It’s been stated over and over again.
However, as we have seen since this bruhaha started, Richard couldn’t care less about anyone elses intent–only his matters.
Moreover, I’m all about what people intended instead of what was actually stated or done. However, when someone accidentally shoots someone, “I only intended to scare them” isn’t a legitimate response.
Richard paid money for websites and directed them to NAMBLA sites. It doesn’t matter what his intent was, the reality is Richard, by his actions and his money, increased traffic to NAMBLA sites.

Comment by Sparky — June 18, 2009 @ 9:21 am
Dawg is an outright liar. Here are CC’s own words, and you can see for yourself that they do not match what John Baglow claims they do. Why do you want to protect this guy so much, John?

“it shouldn’t be hard to figure out where his children go to school (again, most likely public information based on residence). And from that, it should be relatively easy to get a list of relevant local teachers and school board members (again, openly public information). And once that’s in hand, it should be a piece of cake to make sure all of those responsible individuals are educated as to Dick’s disturbing predilection for online child rape and promotion of child sex.

I’m thinking maybe a mass e-mailing to school board members. Perhaps notes to the teachers. Or, heck, why stop there? How about a mass delivery of eye-opening flyers in local mailboxes? Yup, I bet that would get someone’s attention.”

Yup, that definately wouldn’t harm Richards children at all.

Your dishonesty is absolutely PATHETIC. Innocent children Baglow, hope you feel like a big man too.

Comment by Ha! — June 18, 2009 @ 9:22 am
Ha!–Like not allowing cc to rebutt any of your crap here??
Coward?
Whatever

Comment by Sparky — June 18, 2009 @ 9:23 am
Sparky, tell them about the disclaimer and statement that was attached to the redirect. Dipshit!

Comment by Richard Evans — June 18, 2009 @ 9:25 am
Dawg, you remember up above when I called you an idiot? You’re proving my point here in spades. Going with the “depends what the definition of “is” is” defense? Come on.

Admit it. You hate Richard Evans’ guts, and you will say -anything- and support -anybody-, no matter how disgusting, if it makes Richard look bad.

The facts of this “case” are not in question. The only uncertainty is when you will get tired of the subject and go on to lying about something else. So far, your stamina is awe inspiring. Too bad you can’t apply that energy to something that matters a damn.

Comment by The Phantom — June 18, 2009 @ 9:26 am
And since cc can’t post here…
http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2009/06/post-i-didnt-want-to-have-to-write.html
In which he responds to the various accusations from people who should know better–

“A post I didn’t want to have to write.

I really and truly wanted to ignore this but I’ve finally had enough and I’m going to address it, once and for all, and move on.

At the moment, in festering, right-wing pig lagoons like Wendy “Right Girl” Sullivan’s, the current meme is, “CC threatened Dick Evans’ kids! He threatened to harm them! He’s a monster!!!” So let’s get to the bottom of this, shall we?

Long story short: for no reason that he has ever provided (and can’t provide), Richard Evans claims that I support or enable pedophilia and, as an attempt at what passes for clever wit in his household, he once registered a lookalike domain name to this one, and redirected it to NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association), thereby driving readers to a web site that promotes sex with children and child rape. That was Dick’s idea of intellectual discourse in the blogosphere.

Not surprisingly, I was seriously unhappy at that creepy misrepresentation, and what followed was a period of increasingly acriminous blogging, culminating in me (very unwisely, I will admit) tossing out the following threat:

So here’s the deal — as long as Dick insists on redirecting that look-alike domain to NAMBLA, I will continue to post increasingly personal information about his family. See how that works? In short, what happens from here on out is entirely in Dick’s hands. All that remains to be seen is whether it’s more important for Dick to protect his family’s privacy, or for him to score points being an irresponsible dipshit.

(You don’t need a link for that, since I’m admitting I wrote it and you’re about to see it again soon, anyway.)

So, out of a sense of absolute frustration, I snapped and wrote something stupid, but I have never acted on that and my motivation was that, if I just sounded dangerous, Dick Evans might finally back off and do the right thing. I was bluffing, and hoping he fell for it. And it’s not even like I was demanding anything unreasonable — take down that dishonest web site, stop lying about me, and it’ll be over and we can move on. Not such an unreasonable demand, yes?

You won’t believe what happened next. A normal person, “threatened” thusly, might have cared about their kids’ safety and done the right thing. A “normal” person might have immediately reported said “threats” to the authorities. A “normal” person might have put their children’s safety above the freedom to continue a stupid, crass, tasteless (and defamatory) practical joke. Dick Evans is not a normal person. This is his response, a screenshot from here, in case Dick ever tries to go back and erase the evidence:

Go back and read that again. And again. Slowly. And really and truly appreciate what happened there.

While currently running around the Intertoobz crying and shrieking about how I was looking to threaten his children, the one time I wrote something that could be interpreted that way, Dick Evans showed no fear whatsoever. No concern. No anxiety. No, he did something else.

He explicitly invited me to go after his kids. “Do your best,” he wrote. Bring it on. They’re fair game.

Make sure you understand the mind-numbing callousness of a father who, when presented with what he perceives as danger to his children, invites it. “Do your best.” But now, because it suits his purposes, Dick is running around to anyone who will listen, claiming to be petrified for the sake of his kids from that bad old CC. The bad old CC to which he offered up his children for attack. In public. Because he was having fun in the blogosphere and he didn’t feel like quitting.

Richard Evans has no grounds for whining about anything. He’s not scared of me, and he never has been. All this weepy fear of his is utterly and totally bogus, and he’s proved it by cheerily and publicly offering up his children for attack. But now he wants to play the “concerned parent” card.

Not likely, Dick. And I’m done debating this with you. Anyone who runs across Dick’s pathetic and insincere blubbering anywhere on the Intertoobz is welcome to link back to this post. I’m not going to address this “CC threatened to harm Dick’s kids” crap anymore. Yes, what I wrote was idiotic, and I did it in the vain hope that I could pull off the bluff, and this would be resolved, and we could all get back to blogging. It never occurred to me that Dick Evans valued a wicked practical joke more than the safety of his own children.

Ah, well. Live and learn.”

See what cc did there, Richard? (oh, and you might want to clue in as well, Patrick) It’s called ’speaking the truth’. CC took ownership for what he wrote, and he backed it up with links and stuff. Try it sometime.

If, as Leanne wants from us, we are to focus on intent, Richard has no ground left on which to stand.

Comment by Sparky — June 18, 2009 @ 9:31 am
Wait a second, Sparky, I’ll do it for you:

[Raise the age of sexual consent in Canada! The folks on the page you're about to be redirected to want to have sex with your children and it's people like "Canadian Cynic" that help to enable them.]

When the Judge looks at that, do you think he’s going to take your position that the site was being “promoted”?

Comment by Richard Evans — June 18, 2009 @ 9:36 am
Richard,
First, I didn’t go to your website because I don’t want my IP addresses listed in any log file of any NAMBLA related website.
Secondly, you obtuse piece of flotsam, did you read the part about intent? It doesn’t matter if you have a disclaimer on your website–a website that, once again YOU own and YOU redirected to NAMBLA–your disclaimer is the intent thing again.
Your intent is to make a point regarding cc–a point that was based on a baltantly wrong interpretation of the facts. This has been shown to you over and over again–you’re wrong! Your interpretation of events was wrong! The idea that you own websites that increase traffic to NAMBLA sites is wrong!! It doesn’t matter what your disclaimer states.
Most people would be embarrased to be this wrong but you relish in it.
“Officer, I told the guy I just shot that my intent was to scare him! See! I offered a disclaimer!!”
It doesn’t matter about intent, or disclaimers or any other wiggly thing that you can come up with, Richard–your money, your site–you own it.

Comment by Sparky — June 18, 2009 @ 9:41 am
“When the Judge looks at that, do you think he’s going to take your position that the site was being “promoted”?”

Your honour, the gentleman in question paid money for a website. A website that he himself redirected to NAMBLA.
His intent may be unclear, however, the facts–his actions–show exactly what he himself did–by his actions you shall know him…

Comment by Sparky — June 18, 2009 @ 9:55 am
Right, you just keep thinkin’ that way Sparky…

Comment by Richard Evans — June 18, 2009 @ 10:01 am
Nice Sparky.

Freakin internet lawyers earnestly parsing “intent” and “provocation”. Pathetic. I especially like the application of the well known legal defence ” It’s OK for me to incite harassment and harm to his children and family because he double dared me”.

Comment by BoomNoZoom — June 18, 2009 @ 10:06 am
BoomNoZoom–what are ou on? I was just taking Richard’s idea and running with it–wanna take onus on someone, look in Richards direction–not mine.

Comment by Sparky — June 18, 2009 @ 10:12 am
Like I said….pathetic.

Comment by BoomNoZoom — June 18, 2009 @ 10:19 am
Sparky, you hit upon the NAMBLA link from a site that was set up by Richard. I have to admit that I have a problem with the ethics of what he did. It sits horribly on me, as I would feel violated and mortified if someone did that to hurt me or a blog I’d set up. Further more, the type of people who would visit such a site are vile. I wouldn’t want anything like that remotely associated with me, and I can understand C.C’s outrage. As for CC’s opinion’s on the age of consent and his reasons for those opinions, I don’t think it justified the site with the NAMBLA link. A cooler head should have prevailed.

HA! has raised some points that just seem disturbing. Inciting harm to someone in the real world is reckless and irresponsible. To do this consistently shows a contempt that seems pathological and dangerous.The escalation that’s taking place from blogs to real world needs to be addressed. It seems that outing will be an issue for years to come. But are targeting wives, spouses, children,neighbourhood mailboxes,schools, ect associated with these individuals fair game in outing or even in targeting a known blogger? At what point do we become a lynch mob? And like any mob mentality, would we absolve ourselves of personal responsibility.

Comment by Leanne — June 18, 2009 @ 10:28 am
Hey Richard,
As BoomNoZoom alluded to, what was your response to CC again?
cc said, “So here’s the deal — as long as Dick insists on redirecting that look-alike domain to NAMBLA, I will continue to post increasingly personal information about his family. See how that works? In short, what happens from here on out is entirely in Dick’s hands. All that remains to be seen is whether it’s more important for Dick to protect his family’s privacy, or for him to score points being an irresponsible dipshit”
Your response?
“The domain stays up… Do your best CC…”
Boom might be correct with the “double dared me” statement, but he missed the point when he got angry at cc for it.
Which is more egregious, Boom–a person trying to correct the record and stop someone else from directing traffic to NAMBLA sites…
Or a guy who pays money to direct traffic to NAMBLA sites even after it’s been shown that his intent is wrong.
Your anger is misdirected.
Moreover, even if we accept Richards completely wrong interpretation of events–hey Richard, don’t you think the point’s been made to your satisfation? Why do you still direct traffic to NAMBLA sites? What are you getting out of it?

Comment by Sparky — June 18, 2009 @ 10:34 am
My response is the statement of claim that we’re working on as I type…

Comment by Richard Evans — June 18, 2009 @ 10:37 am
Personally I think Richard and Kate McMillan are letting CC off easy.

According to Sparky, CC comes right out and says of his little “tiff” with Richard: “So, out of a sense of absolute frustration, I snapped and wrote something stupid…” about a man’s kids.

aka, “That meany, he MADE me do the bad thing!”

I can’t imagine what excuse he’s got for directing terrorists to a -woman’s- home address, probably something just as compelling.

See, once I can attribute to mere stupidity, twice to exceptional stupidity, but he does this kind of crap a lot. He’s been doing it on -my- blog, which nobody even reads. Doing it badly, but definitely doing it. Logs don’t lie, big boy.

But there’s ol Sparky, covering for the guy anyway. So Spark, buddy. You still wonder why conservatives oppose gun control? Its because people try to send terrorists to our houses, and people like you try to pretend its ok.

Comment by The Phantom — June 18, 2009 @ 10:50 am
Richard,
While you’re working on it, throw this one in there with appropriate links and backup–show your work–where you think CC’s an enabler–
[Raise the age of sexual consent in Canada! The folks on the page you're about to be redirected to want to have sex with your children and it's people like "Canadian Cynic" that help to enable them.]
And then add your websites that you paid money for and redirected them to NAMBLA sites and show how that’s not enabling…
Love to see it

Comment by Sparky — June 18, 2009 @ 10:53 am
My anger, as a father, is precisely and correctly directed. It is to be hoped that the apparently childless among the commentors here, if someday blessed with offspring, will have the grace and humanity to feel a sense of shame for their stance in defending CC’s actions.

Adults are free to have at each other and face the consequences.

Nothing, I repeat NOTHING, justifies incitement to inflict harm on Richard Evan’s or anyone elses children.

All else in this context is blather and bloviation. My opinion, or anyone elses, on the the re-direct to NAMBLA or any related dispute is irrelevant to the issue of involving children.

Comment by BoomNoZoom — June 18, 2009 @ 11:03 am
Hey Phantom,
Wanna know why it’s hard to take those on the ‘right’ seriously when say, well, anything?
Oh, also, here’s something I barely remember, but still: I do believe I brought the site “Pederastia” to Richard’s attention … Many on the left thought that the author of Pederastia had the right to do his thing. BnR and CC were among them. When they came out in defense of Pederastia, Richard (and myself) believed them to be enablers of man-boy sex. Again, your thoughts?
RG
followed by
I read that. But Richard didn’t wake up one morning and decide to do that at random, though I should probably not speak for him. Especially since I’m searching and searching through google and my own archives, and can’t find the articles in question, dammit. I hate having to go on memory alone!
RG
and then what… crickets…
See, you guys continue to thow stuff out there that’s demonstrably false. Patrick and Richard are fantastic at it.
And when you’re called on it, or you try to back up what you stated, what invariably happens??
Nothing.
Or in Richard’s case, sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Either way, is a wash…
Now let’s use an example also found in this thread–
Yes, what I wrote was idiotic, and I did it in the vain hope that I could pull off the bluff, and this would be resolved, and we could all get back to blogging. It never occurred to me that Dick Evans valued a wicked practical joke more than the safety of his own children.
and the salient point–
Yes, what I wrote was idiotic
Wow! CC took ownership for it.
Just like other times when he’s called to task–legitimately, mind you–for something he wrote.
Wanna find somewheres where Richard, et al did the same?
I’ll wait here.

Comment by Sparky — June 18, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Boom–do you know what NAMBLA stands for???
For crying out loud, man!
I have a son–he’s 11 weeks old yesterday. Don’t you even presume to take the high road with me on this issue!
You can try to rant your way past the point, but there’s only one person in this entire thread that owns websites that direct traffic to NAMBLA.
If you want to obfuscate cc’s intent–then by all means. If you want to ignore cc’s mea culpa for what he wrote after he, and everyone else, tried to set the record straight with Richard, then go ahead. But don’t you even presume that you have the moral authority to state that cc’s the bad guy in this instance, and that Richard gets a by…
Especially when you bring up the ‘cc wished harm on Richards kids’ and you know that’s not what was stated at all.

Comment by Sparky — June 18, 2009 @ 11:15 am
“Especially when you bring up the ‘cc wished harm on Richards kids’ and you know that’s not what was stated at all.”

From CC:

Sparky, are you being deliberately obtuse or is it just, as your posts suggest, just a right v left type thing with you?

Comment by BoomNoZoom — June 18, 2009 @ 11:28 am
CC:Based on that information, it shouldn’t be hard to figure out where his children go to school (again, most likely public information based on residence). And from that, it should be relatively easy to get a list of relevant local teachers and school board members (again, openly public information). And once that’s in hand, it should be a piece of cake to make sure all of those responsible individuals are educated as to Dick’s disturbing predilection for online child rape and promotion of child sex.

I’m thinking maybe a mass e-mailing to school board members. Perhaps notes to the teachers. Or, heck, why stop there? How about a mass delivery of eye-opening flyers in local mailboxes? Yup, I bet that would get someone’s attention. (”Dear concerned parent: Let’s talk about Richard Evans, shall we?”)

Comment by BoomNoZoom — June 18, 2009 @ 11:29 am
Yeah, do you guys even know how to read?
Point in there where there’s intent to harm the kids?
here’s a line–
to make sure all of those responsible individuals are educated as to Dick’s disturbing predilection for online child rape and promotion of child sex
What’s that line say, boom? Read it! Wanting to bring information to individuals responsible for children in order to do what??
Protect them from someone who has a distrubing predilection for online child rape and promotion of child sex.
Even if cc was just being snarky and really didn’t want or expect people to actually go out and find these responible individuals, he was still making the completely valid point with regards to Richard–
Oh right–he owns websites that redirect traffic to NAMBLA.
So if you can’t even comprehend these basic facts, then where are we?
Right–everything you say is tainted by some right vs left thing, maybe?
Who would you rather leave your kids with? CC or Richard? I’l lel lyou–even if Richard was the last baby-sitter on the planet, I wouldn’t leave my 11 week old alone with him one minute. Not because of the NAMBLA thing–I know he doesn’t condone that behaviour–he just tacitly endorses it by having web sites that link there–but because of his apparent lack of maturity where taking ownership for his own mistakes.

Comment by Sparky — June 18, 2009 @ 11:44 am
“Don’t you even presume to take the high road with me on this issue!”

I presumed to take the high road as you and your confreres have expropriated the low road for yourselves.

Comment by BoomNoZoom — June 18, 2009 @ 11:48 am
Boom,
you so funny! Wanna prove your points instead of doing stand up?

Comment by Sparky — June 18, 2009 @ 11:50 am
“Hey Phantom,
Wanna know why it’s hard to take those on the ‘right’ seriously when say, well, anything?”

Please indicate which of my comments professes a preference for ideology of any stripe. I would hope that ethical behaviour and an understanding that children are sacrosanct is a tenet of those on the left, right or anywhere in between.

Comment by BoomNoZoom — June 18, 2009 @ 11:54 am
At 11:28 I asked:

“Sparky, are you being deliberately obtuse or is it just, as your posts suggest, just a right v left type thing with you?”

At 11:44 Sparky replied:

“Point in there where there’s intent to harm the kids?”

At 11:05 Sparky wrote:

““Hey Phantom,
Wanna know why it’s hard to take those on the ‘right’ seriously when say, well, anything?”

We have our answer….both.

Comment by BoomNoZoom — June 18, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
Boom,
Are you saying you’re Phantom as well?
I would have hoped that you’d actually deal with the issues instead of bringing up something parenthetical.
As it is, you didn’t, and it should.
Happy?
Now answer the points–
Where did cc wish harm on Richard’s kids.
Who owns websites that direct traffic to NAMBLA.
In all this, who’s pointing out that Richard should take the links down and who is just standing by the sidelines saying nothing?
And here you are–having a problem with what cc said and not having a problem with what Richard is doing…

Comment by Sparky — June 18, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
For the benefit of the obtuse among us, I will re-iterate.

I have neither condoned or condemned Richard Evans’ actions. They are not relevant, as stated ad nauseum, to the issue of advocating harm to his children.

As to the question of whether what CC wrote constitutes advocating harm if you even have to ask the question you are either being hopelessly and deliberately obtuse or your partisanship has blinded you beyond all reason.

Comment by BoomNoZoom — June 18, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
On a related note to this conversation (since cc’s not allowed to post here), he just sent me an e-mail letting me know that Richard no longer owns canadiancynic.net.
So here’s something some people might want to learn from–
Since this new information was brought to my attention, I unequivocally apologize for any of my comments in which I stated or inferred that Richard was still directing people to NAMBLA. I was wrong in stating or inferring that he was still doing it.
(see that Patrick?)
This does not change the facts here–Richard paid money for the website, he owned the website, and he redirected traffic from that website to NAMBLA organizations.
To take issue with cc here is the height of hypocrisy. He can’t even post here to defend himself.

Comment by Sparky — June 18, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
Boom,
and with that–since you obviously wish to blatantly overlook someone’s actions and instead focus on what someone else said on the internet–we’re done

Comment by Sparky — June 18, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
Sparky

and with that- congratulations on your newborn son. I wish you and your family all the best.

Comment by BoomNoZoom — June 18, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
Oh dear god, shut up. All of you.

Forty comments overnight? Some of you screaming FASCIST!!!11one! because I don’t stay awake to approve you the very second you comment?

A few things before I shut down comments on this post:

1. I’m shutting them down because I’m bored. Really bored. When it became the same (to use the devil’s own turn of phrase, which I hope makes him smile in his angry little world) “pants-pissing” round-and-round that it has been since yesterday, we’re not getting anywhere. Especially since these are conversations better had with a legal expert. And I’m bored. And it’s my blog.

2. Harassment of anyone’s kids is not cool. And yes, spurious child services claims, which is what contacting the Evans’ kids’ teachers would have been, tear families apart. CC himself has apologized for this today, which shocked the shit out of me. There is NO excuse for that. Ever. It is the quintessential “fire in a crowded theater” you lefties are always bringing up when trying to shut down free speech. Learn what it means. it means what CC called for on Richard’s kids.

3. Going from memory alone would only be good enough if I were a minority trying to get government money for pain and suffering from 50 years ago. So therefore I withdraw CC’s (and BnR, for that matter) name from my bare recollection of the Pederastia website kerfuffle from pre-2006 (which is as far back as this email account goes).

4. Not that anyone at this point cares, but it may serve you to keep in mind that revolting as they are, NAMBLA is NOT illegal in Canada or the United States. They gross normal people the fuck out, but that was the point - to revolt. But unlike Hezbollah (whose flag flies proudly at anti-Jew demonstrations across the country) they are not listed as illegal in Canada. Sorry Robert, but I doubt there’s a claim to be made there. Again, discuss it with a lawyer. I don’t even play one on TV.

5. Sparky, congrats on the birth of your son! Sleep will never mean the same thing again.

6. A few of you have commented that Richard makes women’s lives miserable. I’m going to bring up a few names, so bare with me: Suzanne Fortin. Sandy Crux. Denyse O’Leary. Hunter. Wendy Sullivan. These are women that Robert Day has made miserable with his day after day misogynistic abuse. I’m sure there have been others, but I make my point. If Robert worked in an office with a Christian pro-life woman, would he call her a cunt all day? No. But Canadian Cynic felt it was his due to say that of Suzanne Fortin from the comfort of his keyboard.

7. Robert Day/Canadian Cynic has NEVER been welcome here. This post is not unique in that respect. His every utterance brings to mind a backed-up toilet, and since he can’t be plumbed, he has been banned. His free speech has not been infringed upon - he and his sub-trolls still have a voice at canadiancynic.blogspot.com - go check them out there!

8. Bored. Really.

RG

Comment by Right Girl — June 18, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
[...] Wendy Sullivan, the Girl on the Right, has officially found out who the mysterious Canadian Cynic is. Here is stuff he has said about me. [...]

Pingback by Uncommon Descent: Contest Question 7: Foul anonymous Darwinist blogger exposed. Why so foul? | Uncommon Descent — July 4, 2009 @ 10:17 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

A Very Bad Day

131 Comments - Join in the conversation below

Disclaimer

Sponsored by

Topics

Archives