Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Update: Red Tory Really Barking Up Wrong Tree Again

After some crafty detective work, I've managed to uncover proof that I did not, and could not, have made the posts that I've been accused of making on incouragible dim wit Red Tory's blog.

After some searching, I was able to identify the following comment posted by the so-called "number four":


you chose to acknowlege the most miniscule, irrelevant portion, while ignoring all the rest.

I believe you've just confirmed the validity of the concerns raised against you at the outset.

I must go now, its been very, very interesting and enlightening.

That comment was posted at 3:02 PM on Monday, August 6. Presumably, this is in Pacific Time (as Red Tory is from British Columbia). When adjusted for Mountain Time, this becomes 4:02 PM.

Where was I on 4:02 PM on 6 August?

I was meeting the Prime Minister.

At 3:28 PM Mountain Time, when I was claiming my tickets at the Lloydminster Stockade Convention Centre, "the number four" wrote:

"Some would argue, ti-guy, that you are blatantly attempting to avoid cold stark reality, in order to be more comfortable in you chosen position.

I don't suspect the thousands of girls recieving an education for the first time in their lives, would be so comfortable with that though.

To make matters worse for Red Tory, I have photographic evidence of my presence at the event. Here I am with Vegereville-Lloyminster MP Leon Benoit:

I do apologize for the hair. It's time for a cut, and I unfortuantely tend to neglect such things when my summer work schedule kicks in.

Here's a shot of Prime Minister Stephen Harper having his picture taken with some supporters, just a few feet away from my table:

The shot of myself with the Prime Minister (along with outgoing Saskatchewan party MLA and former leader of the opposition Milt Wakefield) will be added to this post as soon as I recieve them back from the PM's official photographer.

So, in short, I have a federal Member of Parliament, a retiring Saskatchewan Member of the Legislative Assembly, and the guest list for a Prime Ministerial meet-and-greet that can vouch for my whereabouts at the time the "offending" posts were made.

Red Tory's been barking up the wrong tree again. Once, I let him off the hook in return for a promise that he would go away quietly.

This time, he has to apologize. I'll be waiting.


  1. Did he ever bark up the RIGHT tree?


    Cherniak_WTF wrote in a comment to another post on this blog that I deleted one of his comments on my blog.

    I have never seen a comment by Cherniak_WTF in the timeframe he mentions.

    But I have to admit that my blogging software had a few hiccups recently (tried a new template, which turned out to be somewhat unstable and didn't work equally well with IE and Firefox; then, there were some server problems on the part of my provider, and finally, the spam controls implemented by my provider are sometimes too harsh, I find -- there was a time when I was unable to post comments to my own blog for 48 hours until the provider fixed the problem).

    So, to Cherniak_WTF I say, please post your comment again (or, at least, try posting it again, I should say).

    If there are any problems, let me know.

  2. In the comments section of his blog, Red Tory has announced he won't apologize because he has "nothing to apologize for".

    He's claiming that his insistence that I am his so-called "number four" was merely his opinion, despite the fact I've documented him repeatedly saying "I knew it was him when...".

    Apparently, Red Tory has a very shady grasp on the concept of libel, but I just might smarten him up by pressing charges if he doesn't retract and apologize.

  3. Don't waste your legal bills on him, not worth it.

    People like RT may know the law, but they have no respect for the law whatsoever. Every chance they get, they'll break it.

    Why do you think the Liberals want to vote down everything that has to do with respect for the law?

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  5. So little time for retards today, too.

  6. "So little time for retards today, too."

    what a libelous implication!


  7. Ah, no. That's an actual opinion, not an implied statement of facts.

    For example: Kevron, it is my opinion that you are retarded.

  8. Why Sue?

    If the answer is vengeance, money, or stopping the defamer from republishing the libel, a libel action probably is not warranted. Usually, a libel action should only be instituted if the primary objective is to vindicate reputation.

    If the answer is vengeance, money, or stopping the defamer from republishing the libel, a libel action probably is not warranted....

    Thought must be given to other issues before proceeding with a libel action:

    If the defamer is a disreputable publication or person, consider whether the statement should simply be treated with contempt, to avoid further republication.

    Determine the extent and location of the publication's circulation. In the age of global business and communications, reputation may also be far-reaching.

    Record all calls about the libel made by the claimant's customers, suppliers, financial institutions or any other people to assist in determining the impact of the libel. You may need to commission a poll to quantify the impact.

    How would you quantify the damage Red has done you, Patrick?

  9. That's actually the conclusion I reached myself, Penny.

    I basically considered the generally poor reputation of Red Tory, and considered how few people (aside from a collection of his cohorts and groupies) reads his blog, and basically decided that he was doing himself a great disservice by not doing the right and honest thing and retracting his statements.

    While I'm certain quite a few people would have been willing to contribute small amounts of money to a legal action fund, I decided that, based on his own prior activities (or at least his alleged prior activities) that I believe he is merely a hypocrite, and I believe that having to live with the fact that he's a hypocrite is punishment enough.

    Like I've said in a more recent post, I've decided not to sue. Having to live with being Red Tory is punishment enough for him.

    Because to be honest with you, I get the impression that Red Tory doesn't really like himself. You know what? I don't blame him.

    But thank you for your comment.

  10. Patrick, I have known RT (and by his real name!) ever since the Gomery Enquiry drove us over to Captain's Whatever to get the inside dope, and have always been a friend and - ah - "groupie".

    But that doesn't mean that I, or his other readers, really believe that everyone who disagrees with us is an asshat, a wingnut, or any of those other wonderful descriptions I only wish I could throw into everyday conversation!!

    That said, some people certainly are!! LOL!!

    And that said, I sometimes enjoy jumping into the fray myself! Even though it's wrong and mean-spirited and...!!

    I don't know if you're familiar with DBT's blog, but we first met him over at RT's well before he started his own blog. I can assure you, DBT has been called every appalling epithet in RT's very extensive vocabulary, but I can also assure you that offblog, they are good friends. I like to think I'm a friend of his too, even though I hardly ever want to raise my blood pressure by visiting his blog!

    Some of us know each other pretty well, apart from our political thoughts. After all, politics is one thing, but when someone is having a tough time of it elsewhere, there is a sense in which we do form a community and can come together and pull for each other.

    Still, I don't understand why all you masochists want to go running around arguing on blogs you don't have any respect for!! Could it be that, deep down, you really think it's.... fun?

  11. Well, Penny, I'm not sure what you mean by "you masochists". Masochism is a love of pain, and in the process of this little beef with Red Tory, I haven't been feeling any -- only inflicting it.

    It's really rather simple. I have a strict policy that anyone who addresses my blog will themselves be addressed in kind. This need not necessarily be taken as a threat. If someone addresses my blog (from their blog) constructively, I'll address theirs constructively. If they attack me, I'll return that attack. Poor Red Tory learned this the hard way. If you really want to know why online masochists like to run around attack people on their blogs, ask Red Tory. I assume he must know.

    For me, this is merely an exercise in intellectual self-defence. I'd much rather prefer to have reasonably intelligent conversations with people, but for those individuals who merely want to attack people and insult them, I guarantee that I can give much better than I recieve.