Monday, February 25, 2013

Saying Goodbye Because I'm Going to Be Kicked Off Blogger

You say Goodbye and I say Hello ~ Paul McCartney (dob 6/18/1942) of The Beatles (1960 to 1970) "Hello, Goodbye" is a song by the Beatles. The song was released as a single on 11/24/1967, and topped the charts in the United States, the United Kingdom. Though the songwriting credit is Lennon–McCartney, it was written solely by Paul McCartney.

I just learned that my blogger account is about to be blocked. Seeing as that will result in this blog being shuttered, I'd like to take the opportunity to say goodbye to my followers. If any of them still read my blog, that is. Apparently I broke Blogger's rules, and for that I will be banished. The individual who reported my infraction explains...

dmarks: The troll [w-dervish] doesn't deserve the light of day anywhere after his many penis-lengthening spams on my blog. ... I forwarded all his comments to Google as spam, which often results in them classifying an account as spam and blocking it. (2/24/2013 AT 11:55am via the Contra O'Reilly blog).

While it is true that I submitted some links to dmarks' blog of the sort he refers to (For approval. He had comment moderation on and they were never published), the reason I did so was not because I was "spamming" him.

This started awhile ago when dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) demonstrated that he was incapable of debating honestly. Instead of letting his "facts" speak for themselves, Mr. Marks felt the need to engage in vicious ad hominem. Dennis has accused me of "[lying] about child abuse and anti-Semitism", claiming that I defended individuals guilty of these crimes. But neither of these things happened.

Dennis even went so far as to insist that I "defend and support Scott Ritter's sex crimes against children". I brought up Scott Ritter during a discussion of Iraq's WMD program. Scott Ritter, along with numerous other IAEA inspectors looked for, and found no WMD. They reported this BEFORE bush decided to invade Iraq in order to "disarm" Saddam.

The reason for these vile accusations from Mr. Marks? Scott Ritter was caught in "police stings in which officers posed as under-aged girls to arrange meetings of a sexual nature" (two separate incidents). These incidents, however, occurred many years after Scott Ritter left the IAEA. The charges Mr. Ritter was convicted of have absolutely nothing to do with the WMD Scott Ritter did not find in Iraq. The truth is that other members of the IAEA, including David Kay, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, all said Iraq was disarmed and that the bush administrations claim that Iraq had WMD was a "deliberate deception".

But, of course these facts do not matter to Dennis. This is what he does. If you ever quote anyone with anything questionable in their history - he will "discredit" anything you say after that by bringing up the individual-in-question's misdeeds (real or imagined) over and over. Whatever other proof you may present to back up your argument DOES NOT MATTER.

Another example of this is a time when I quoted Francis Boyle in a discussion of bush's war crimes. According to Dennis, Francis Boyle is an "anti-Semite" (TADM #4). Because, in addition to believing George W. bush is a war criminal, Boyle has voiced disagreement with Israel's policies regarding Palestine. Frankly, I think that Mr. Boyle's views on this matter go a little too far, and I don't agree with them. But I do happen to agree with him about bush being guilty of war crimes. And, as before, I do not base my case for bush being a war criminal solely on anything Mr. Boyle said or did (I quoted other people and introduced other facts).

Regardless, Dennis (again) concluded that he had decimated my argument (by digging up "dirt" on an individual I quoted) and that, because I had quoted the "anti-Semite" Francis Boyle, that I must be an anti-semite too.

But, that isn't the end of it. After Dennis accused me of "defending and supporting... sex crimes against children", he accused me of doing the same in regards to spousal abuse (in a discussion concerning baseless charges of wife-beating against MSNBC host Ed Schultz). And, when another commentator who calls himself Rusty commented that - if I were to discover that Jerry Sandusky was a Liberal Democrat - I'd defend him as well. Rusty concluded, "based on WD's adamant acceptence of deviant behavior, one would only deduce he himself may actively engage in somewhat like behavior".

Dennis agreed with Rusty's comments, adding that he believes I am an "apologist and supporter of domestic violence" (SWTD #232).

Ever since he slung these ridiculous and ugly ad hominem lies I've had an extremely low opinion of this fellow. None the less, I continued to engage him. If this jackass had been someone I encountered in real life - I'd have gone out of my way to steer clear of him. But words on a blog from an individual I'll never meet don't really concern me. Also, it's more than a little funny how insane much of what he says is.

Anyway, back to the story of what Dennis is now calling my "penis spams"... the incident was triggered when he posted an article to his blog titled, "Detroit: A case against gun control", I responded by calling him a "gun nut". I based my comment on the fact that he brought up the much referred to (on the Right) fictitious scenario in which numerous criminals break into the home of a single woman. But the fact is that these Republicans can't cite an actual case in which a single woman needed a large capacity clip to ward off a home invasion. Because it's never happened.

Dennis deleted my comment and claimed I was "spamming" him. I responded to Dennis' "spam" claim by pointing out that, while my comment was disagreeable, it was not spam. It wasn't as if I posted a link to a male enhancement website, I wrote. But none of those comments remain. Dennis deleted both mine and his comments and replaced them with a comment that said, "Spams and trolls and other low-content comments will be deleted".

Of course, being his blog, Dennis can delete any comment he pleases, but what I wrote wasn't a spam. Perhaps my remarks could be categorized as a "troll" or "low-content", but it wasn't spam. Figuring Dennis was completely unfamiliar with what spam actually looked like, I decided to provide him with a couple of examples. At the time he had comment moderation enabled, so I knew only he would see this "spam", and he would delete it and not publish it. I wouldn't have submitted it otherwise, as it would only make me look bad to others who knew nothing about our "feud".

My comments included links and info regarding male enhancement and was intended as a JOKE and in response to him falsely accusing me of spamming him. I thought it was pretty funny, and given how torqued off it appears it made Dennis, I still think it is.

I also think it's pretty funny how confident Dennis appears to be that his "reporting" my comments will result in Google classifying my account as spam and blocking it. I looked into it and it appears to me that Google's policy it not to involve itself in such matters. If they determine your site is what they call a spam blog, they will disable it. But my writings most definitely do not fit the bill. This is not a "spam blog".

However, in the unlikely event of my blog's demise, I'll take the opportunity now to say goodbye. It was a mediocre to pathetic run while it lasted (given most of my posts receive zero comments). And screw you, Dennis. I was only attempting to be helpful (in educating you as to what actual spam looks like).

See Also: Perverted Phallophile's Homoerotic Homoerotica Featuring Noam Chomsky Nude, DSD #12.

SWTD #124, dDel #2.


  1. Those who cannot win a open debate honestly usually resort to the tactics of Dmarks, rusty and willy-boy.

    Dmarks uses lies, distortions and slimy attempt at personal slander cause the truth and reality is against him. If he stuck to just the real facts instead of his made up accusations, he wouldn't have much to argue with would he?

    Like how they thought the election was in the bag, because of their delusions they lie and tell each other and then verify for each other.

    Going forward is only going to get worse for all of them because both the demographics and reality are against them.

    Their actions in their made up reality's on their little blogs won't change how reality in the real world works out, even if the billionaires want to continue to throw good money after the bad they already wasted in 2012.

  2. Dmarks can't just erase your voice that easily. It always seems to be a losing game trying to make friends with right-wingers. Occasionally they will be civil. But they always turn on you. Which is a fucking shame because it does get a little bit dull always talking to people who mostly agree with you. btw, I don't think I will be eliminating "wage slave" from my vocabulary anytime soon.

    Some rw pos recently accused me of hating my own country for opposing the sadistic warfare and imprisonment that occured under Rumsfeld in Iraq and Afghanistan? Like he was okay with going house to house kicking in doors, throwing in a hand grenade, putting all the young men in torture prison Abu Ghraib? Right-wingers are a dangerous and mentally unstable bunch. They are, of necessity, self-deluded.

  3. Fortunately there are other free blogging services available if Google decides to ban you.

  4. Mordechai: Going forward is only going to get worse for all of them because both the demographics and reality are against them.

    True, and very encouraging. But I've heard they have a lock on the House due to their gerrymandering. Hopefully something can be done about that.

    Flying Junior: Like he was okay with going house to house kicking in doors, throwing in a hand grenade, putting all the young men in torture prison Abu Ghraib?

    Once I argued that there are innocent people stuck in Gitmo -- which there are, according to Lawrence B. Wilkerson (a Republican who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell). dmarks insisted that everyone there is a terrorist.

    No doubt the Republican who slandered you believes all the Iraqis who were thrown in Abu Ghraib deserved to be there. Objecting to the arrest of terrorists? What else could a rational Republican conclude but that you hate America.

    Jerry: Fortunately there are other free blogging services available if Google decides to ban you.

    I will be extremely surprised if that happens Jerry.

    The latest from dmarks...

    dmarks: ...I think I have gotten through to him. He has stopped trying to comment [to my blog] with penis spams, and has faded back to the usual profanity-laced insult-heavy whining.

    No, I stopped because I made my point. dmarks didn't know what spam looked like, so I kindly decided to help him out by providing some examples. I still think he doesn't know what spam is, but I've done all I can on that front.

    As for the accusations of my submitting comments to his blog that contain profanity -- this is a flat out lie. Or perhaps a delusion. Maybe dmarks thinks I really did submit comments to his blog in which I swore.

    Or maybe he's trying to goad me into providing some examples. Perhaps, realizing he's failed to get my blog shut down by reporting my "spamming" of his blog to Google, he thinks he can try again if I swear at him. Then he can "report" me again.

    I think I'll pass. For the record, I did leave a couple of comments, but they were only to inform him that Google had not yet shut down my blog. I thought he'd appreciate being kept abreast of any developments (or lack of developments), seeing as he seemed pretty sure his "reporting" of my comments would result in me being kicked off Blogger.


  5. As you're leaving...dont let the door hit you in the ass!

  6. Testing to see if my blog is disabled.

  7. first time visit, you seem like a clean date to me. Hope you survive.

  8. dmarks said he "reported" me, but what he meant was that he checked a box next to my comments in his dashboard and clicked the "spam" button.

    As a result of his doing this (along with Will Hart who did the same thing with my comments to his blog) my comments on ANY blog are now designated as spam (any Google blogspot blog, that is).

    I commented on Jerry's blog and my comment went to his spam folder (which he confirmed when I contacted him). I just commented on Shaw's blog and my comments went to her spam folder (I strongly suspect. I just sent her an email asking that she check her spam folder).

  9. dmarks is now using this incident to attempt to chase me off blogs he doesn't want me commenting on. First he attempted this on the blog "Progressive Eruptions" but it didn't work (dmarks deleted his comment in which he made the ridiculous claim that I was "caught praising Stalin"). His most recent attempt was on a Libertarian blog called "Libertas and Latte".

    Instead of responding to dmarks' accusation on "Libertas and Latte" I decided to respond here and link to my response for anyone interested in reading it. The reason being concern over the blog proprietor possibly not appreciating such a discussion - or me responding to dmarks' accusation and beginning an (off topic) discussion - given that dmarks is a commenter that the proprietor of "Libertas and Latte" appreciates (as dmarks agrees with and kisses this blogger's ass constantly). Me, on the other hand, am not an appreciated commenter (thus my desire to not attack dmarks' for his lies on this blog).

    What follows is my response to dmarks' dishonesty on "Libertas and Latte" - telling a story in which he presents his version of events while omitting details that make him look bad...

    1. dmarks has said much worse (than the comment from me that he posts on "Libertas and Latte"). For example, he's accused me of supporting "sex crimes against children" and being an "apologist and supporter of domestic violence". All over political disagreements. Who does such things? Not a mature person interested in honest debate, that's for sure (frankly I'd refer to such a person as a scumbag).

      And it was dmarks who OBSESSED over "weinergrams" (his term for pictures of one's private parts) and falsely claimed that I'd sent him such pictures. Links to these comments can be found here and here. All connected to dmarks' actual blogger ID - for anyone to see (although he has a habit of deleting embarrassing comments when I link to them).

      For the record dmarks stating that "for much of 2013, I was getting several of these a day" is a lie. According to Dennis himself I sent him "dozens over the space of a couple of weeks.... from Feb 18 to March 4".

      (continued below)

    2. Now this timeframe has expanded (greatly) from "a couple of weeks" to "much of 2013". As for the truth, I did sent him some comments after he banned me from his blog (and lied about me "spamming" him) for a week or two (I believe), but I don't really remember the exact length of time. I do know it wasn't "much of 2013" however. But dmarks has a long history of exaggerating in addition to outright lying.

      In any case, I regret my reaction (submitting some joke comments to his blog - the Santa thing inspired by dmarks' own lie based version of "the 12 days of Christmas") to dmarks' vile lies about me supporting "sex crimes against children" and being an "apologist and supporter of domestic violence" (this is just the tip of the iceberg, BTW).

      Regret my reaction because now dmarks can lie and say I "left it visible". I did not. I would have deleted the comment had he published it, but he placed it in his spam folder and published it AFTER he made his blog open to "invited readers only" (so I can't delete it now because I can no longer access his blog).

      What is genuinely weird here is that dmarks thinks he can lie about me "falsely claiming that Silver said it instead" when my comment is visible on the Libertas blog. I never claimed "Silver said it instead". I said this slur was one I could imagine him using. Which I can, given his vigerous defense of Indiana's pro discrimination law (although he fibs and says it won't be used to discriminate).

      (continued below)

    3. Anyway, as you may recall, I am the only one that has argued against discrimination on the Libertas blog - while everyone else (except Jersey) has argued in favor of discriminating against gay people. So I really could care less what Silverfish or others think of me. I'm not grappling with my sexuality, as the comment dmarks posts (from which he removes his name for some strange reason) was a joke comment sent in response to his obsessing over "weinergrams" (during the Christmas holiday).

      Given that his obsession went on for several years (this is something he brought up on the blog of Will Hart on a regular basis) he obviously was desperate to receive one of these Weinergrams from me. But I REFUSED. I never sent him the weinergram he wanted from me, which probably explains why my joke comment made him so angry.


Comment moderation has temporarily been suspended. Although I may be forced to reinstate it if the trolls take advantage.