The outing then went on to the No-Treason blog where JTK intimated strongly that he would out me – so I beat him to the punch and then nuked the blog. And then a week or so after Kate McMillan jumped on it like a fat kid on a smarty… She was drooling with delight. This is of course after she had tried to sick her winged monkeys on me to try and get them numerous times to call CPS on me for the purposes of having my son taken away.

He’s 14 now, but at the time and knows all about the skanky-bitch from Delisle Saskatchewan and even asked to directly give comment on the subject at the time since Kate and her buddies at No Treason seemed to be obsessed about with my progeny.

I recall when the first person on London Fog did it, it was because he couldn’t stand losing the argument. It was pure vindictiveness that somebody was posting cogent arguements about the disaster of a war.

I posted anon and wiped out the blog after I was outed for several reasons. One of them being I had co-writers who wished to be anonymous for posting anti-war stuff.

I recall one of them saying way back in 2004 that in all likelihood the US govt was probably tracking ALL anti-war commentary. It turned out that the co-blogger’s fears were not far off the mark when we discovered that Bush had been tracking such things in violation of the Constitution.

I liked posting as Edward T.Bear much like the reasons Balb talked about his feelings about balbulican. Posting as a guy, and a fictious bear was a personnae that was fun to write from. Like Skippy the wonderdog.

I’ll still take the piss out of KKKate from time to time – but it was nice when I was anon that retribution from her winged monkeys was less probable…

As Dan Ashcroft from “Nathan Barley” says “The Idiots Are Winning”.

The whole idea that anon blogging or commenting is not acceptable practice for people is ridiculous especially when you see the lengths that some people will go to reach out past the computer to try and mess with you or your family.

I’ve taken action to document and inform the police about the incitement to harrass by Kate McMillan. It’s on record and if anybody who was outed and wants info to add to the documentation of this behavior by her, I’d be happy to supply them with that information. I called the police to protect myself and my family from malicious wanton incitement of harrassment against me and my family.

There is a difference between what Brock did and the commentator who claimed to have harrassed him at work. I hope people can see that. Sure, they couldn’t have done it if Kate and Mike hadn’t supplied the info in the first place…

And I’m not really buying that there was some noble reason for doing what Brock and Kate did. It was just petty vindictive spite. I think he was within bounds to do it – like Ian says for being dumb enough to post from work… if you use the company computer to post dreck on the net, you’ve got to expect this kind of thing these days.

I think this issue is more a matter of taste than of principle… And in that regard the outing was in poor taste and manner than the rudeness that inspired it.

I also have to wonder, under my pseudonymn again, what Mike’s expectation was in revealing someone’s true identity. Would it be so that readers simply had the glee of knowing a supposed secret? Was that the payoff to the readers, or was the logical conclusion this: An anonymous person can act however they want without fear of retaliation against their personal life, but if an identity is known that person must act only in fear. Fear being reinforced by various possible threats to ones’ safety, ego, or financial well being.

Mike Brock e-mailed me late Sunday night, after a little confusion regarding comments trapped in a spam filter (more on that later. If I hadn’t gotten his note, at least one other legitimate comment, to this post, would have fallen…

Briefly, Canadian Sentinel published and then endorsed a submission unambiguously and directly accusing you of a serious felony. A writer who appears to be Canadian Sentinel then identifies you by name and place of work.

Leaving aside the obvious question of the accuser’s credibility, it seems to me you have fair legal ground to at least initiate research ino the actual identify of Mr. Sentinel.

No, Chad. What strikes me as strange is that some people think the two are mutually exclusive.

“Never was it my intention to “expose” him to harassment. My intention was to demonstrate his reprehensible behavior, that, as Ezra Levant puts it ‘masquerades as polite company’.”

But you did expose him, and possibly to more than harassment. If you think his behavior is so reprehensible, then target the behavior, not the person. By all means, hold it up to ridicule. But putting the man himself in your sights endangers more than just him. It affects the people around him, who may be completely blameless.

When the military goes operational with civilian casualties, they call it collateral damage. What do you call it?

“You’re right. It’s not my job to “police” his computer use at work. But it’s also not my responsibility to protect him from the culpability associated with that misuse.”

And you know, without any shadow of doubt, that he was in fact misusing the computer? And on a related note, you know absolutely that it was him, and not just someone else using his computer and pretending to be him? After all, if a proxy appearance can be made on a radio interview and fool most of the country, including the interviewer at the time, how difficult can it be to impersonate someone on a computer?

“He took a risk by posting that comment on my blog.”

Does your blog colophon include a warning that anyone who makes a comment you don’t like might be leaving themselves open to venal retribution?

What you can do:

Participate in chat or discussion groups under a pseudonym.
Be discreet. Don’t provide personal information unless absolutely necessary.

Now some people feel that blogging or commenting other than under your real name goes to your credibility. But that’s a different point.

Yes, I deleted them upon receipt. The first in question, was deleted within the first few hours of the post, prior to any major reaction.

The “journalist” is Scenty’s primary source on Chinese issues, “Jana”. I use the term “journalist” very loosely: in a subsequent thread she admitted with disarming candour: “i resigned from my job as a reporter because i wasn’t good at it”. Heh. No kidding. Well, she’s no worse than Scenty’s other lunatic sources. But I digress.

Here’s the original thread where this “not very good” reporter “outed” me.

Here’s the site (read the comments) where she reveals that Scenty has also outed me as a spy, although probably Russian this time.

And here’s the link to Scenty’s neonazi American friends, where the whole mountain of nonsense came crashing down around Scenty’s head. Shortly afterwards, I was denied posting privileges on that site – seems that al lot of folks of Scenty’s persuasion can’t stand actual facts.

Just Askin’: yes, that’s right.

Scenty published a statement by an alleged “reporter” that I was a spy for Communist China. The “reporter” withdrew the allegation and apologized. She then published a statement on another site that Scenty had “confirmed” I was a spy: “Balbulican has also been exposed as a spy by The Canadian Sentinel; probably Russian not Chinese but never the less very obstructive and seeing as the both the Chinese and Russian communist regimes are in bed together well say no more…”

When confronted, Scenty initially denied all this, then acknowledged it at the neo-nazi Center for Vigilant Freedom site.

I have of course retained screenshots of all the above.

Comment posted by balbulican CANADA on March 3rd, 2008

Balb, are you serious? Who was the Reporter and what media outlet does he/she work for? Oh come on man, you can’t say something this juice and not give us the links, it’s Monday freaking morning and we all need a laugh.

God, Russian Spy, damn man, you’re impressive! And here I just thought you were one of the liberal brown paper bag men, with $40 million in stolen tax payers monies stuffed in Dry Suit.

LOL.

Scenty published a statement by an alleged “reporter” that I was a spy for Communist China. The “reporter” withdrew the allegation and apologized. She then published a statement on another site that Scenty had “confirmed” I was a spy: “Balbulican has also been exposed as a spy by The Canadian Sentinel; probably Russian not Chinese but never the less very obstructive and seeing as the both the Chinese and Russian communist regimes are in bed together well say no more…”

When confronted, Scenty initially denied all this, then acknowledged it at the neo-nazi Center for Vigilant Freedom site.

I have of course retained screenshots of all the above.