Wednesday, 11 April 2012

Sadly, not so much of a WTF moment

Apparently, I am still an idiot.

Riotously, though, look where he's screeching from now.

Yes, indeedy, from the very blog aggregator that booted DJ! a mere 5-6 days ago. I wonder when he applied because I've heard it can take a while to get modly approval. Maybe his smearing me is enough to prove his bona fides.

Meanwhile, my friend Connie (ever heard of Facebook, WK?) has come out to her flock with 'Progressive blogger "punished" by Kinsella for talking to me!'

Well, no, Connie that's not all I'm being punished for, but her account -- with, natch, different emphases -- is about right. (Do go read some of the flock's, er, odd reactions.)

In a related meanwhile, Orwell's Bastard is keeping a tally of the Progressive Blogger Exodus.

And an in-case-you-missed-it. Dr Dawg's masterful takedown of the original WK smear.

And because it is such a keepsake, WK's response.
You're a great writer, old chum.  But you've way over-analyzed this thing (which may explain why I started skimming it halfway through).

I just think she's (she could be a he, by the way, as I assume "Fern Hill" isn't his/her real name) an idiot, is all.  When he/she got chummy with the scumbags at Free Dominion, she proved it to the world.

Anyway, his/her 15 minutes are up.  Talk soon.

To which DJ!'s Niles replied:
ooh. snap. WK pulls a tl;dr while trying to show how 'white man's burden' clubby he is with the 'man' of the house.  he needs a passive/aggressive award.

There, I think you're caught up now.

Wait. One more thing. This is what it is really about: Woodworth's Wank, aka M312.

ADDED: Been thinking. Read his latest again. 'Time for Fern to learn a lesson, I'd say.' Is he threatening me? I'm beginning to feel very weird about this.


Námo Mandos said...

This has got to be more satire on the part of WK. To bring up Fern Hill's name in two posts, after he declared Fern's 15 minutes to be up?

Dawg had it right! Hilarious!

Connie said...

The most bizarre thing about all of this is that, for some reason, he thinks he has the right and the power to control who you associate with! It's like he thinks it's the 1700s and you are his little wife. Absolutely jaw-dropping.

Námo Mandos said...

Some of your readers don't appear to understand that Dawg's response wasn't serious.

Dr.Dawg said...

It's a drawerful of dull knives over there, for sure. Connie even claims I "defamed" her in that piece, adding illiteracy to her impressive collection of anti-skills.

But as for being taken seriously by that mob, I take from WK's comment at my place that he may have done the same!

fern hill said...

Dr.Dawg and Connie: no slagging each other here.

My place, my rules. (Well, if dBO doesn't mind and she's OK with it and the others are OK with it. . .)

deBeauxOs said...

There is a legal dispute currently under consideration by the courts in Ontario.

We usually let comments stand if they're connected to the original blogpost.

When the discussion descends to volleys between folks who have litigious history, we have the right to ask them to take it outside and not let our comments' threads become forum for their expression of contempt for their opponents.

Every blogsite owner has that right and can apply it.

Commenters have freedom of expression, but they're not entitled to use someone else's space to do so.

Niles said...

I agree with DrD in that it seems WK and many of the respondents at FD appear to be equally disabled in the irony/sarcasm discernment department. Certainly made my brow poink on seeing the similarity. Ironic, innit?

Ms Fern, I'm not sure if WK is actively threatening or inciting others to do the labour while, he, having dispensed his judgement upon thou, washes in a silver salver. His phrasings seem in keeping with many of the 'pundits' extolling conservative efforts in the US.

Either way, it seems weirdly enabling to continuing the publicity of this. I can only guess it's difficult to use the 'poisoned well' tactic of smearing you as a literal femi-nazi with no credibility if no one he talks to knows who you are or why he should be bothering with you.

Does he have to create a straw-opponent worthy of his subsequent conquest or does your credibility reach further than you know? I'd like to believe the latter but at this point I'm wondering if the former isn't an easier target to cry 'mission accomplished' over.

As for not lowering yourself to allying with frothy authoritarian followers on the matter of internet surveillance because quality rather than quantity counts(and quality definition lies in the hands of those who consider themselves better than that), I sincerely wonder what Michael Geist and Cory Doctorow would say on the matter of internet freedom of association.

I'm also minded of something Sara Robinson wrote at Orcinus, where she discusses progressives finding common ground with rightwing authoritarians. She's got quite a few good pieces at Orcinus, highlighted in the left sidebar under her name. She lived up here in BC until just recently.

fern hill said...

I'll check out those links in a bit, Niles, thanks.

Frankly, I don't understand any of this.

I'm done with WK.

Niles said...

Ok, got it now. His genius idea of how to attack you (in a THIRD post as of counting) is to:

a/ repeat assertions that you were dead serious about calling Ms Connie 'my good friend', without of course linking to the context, and...

b/reprinting at his blog, noxious misogynist comments (allegedly) from one of Ms Connie's commentors and proclaiming from his fainting couch that Ms Fern is thereby a poisoned well for being anywhere near this.

I wonder if he's going to make a series of these, highlighting commentors at FD and then referring to you from his fainting couch while multi-tasking pieces for a media company where fellow travellers of his, like Ezra Levant, extoll the virtues of being constantly losing libelous litigation.

This, of course, while being caught out himself rewriting published dissenting comments from another *professional journalist* into insults against herself, instead of letting her words stand. Not just banning them, but rewriting them into a complete falsehood of her words.

Which certainly adds credibility to his assertions that someone somewhere said something. (btw, for those having difficulty in discernment, this line was sarcasm)

I'd venture we haven't left WTF country yet, we're just a 'Valley of the Gwangi' off to the side, with more cowboys and dinosaurs. I can certainly hope Mr. Rae, Mr. Crawley and the Liberal Women's Caucus aren't listening to him.

Anonymous said...

Thought of you when we read this:

deBeauxOs said...

WK is a washed-up, bitter has-been political operative.

fern hill saved his ugly butt when she investigated Hudak.

So now WK's like a vicious junkyard dog, snapping and barking at the one who did the heavy lifting and uncovered critically strategic info about the Ontario CONs and their antichoice record.

fern hill said...

I'm not going to make it easy for readers to check that link. But I'll summarize: Anti-choicers are pretending so hard that this is about the pro-choice movement falling apart that some morans believe it.

JJ said...

There's only one explanation for this foolishness, and we all know what it is... ;)
♥♥♥♥♥ Spring Fever!!!!!!

Niles said...

Well, he's certainly coming across as barking alright. (gesture of fingertip at temple making circles)

Ms Fern, what the hell did you put in his water?

deBeauxOs said...

fern hill pissed in his corn flakes, doncha know?

Or, as I said in the comments at another blog:

Somebody, anyone really, close to WK should check the pharmaceutical quality of his recreational enhancements.

His latest OTT tactics appear a tad over-cranked.

SS said...


That line on WK's site looked like a threat to me too. It made me very uneasy and I'm not even connected to the issue.

Some observations about WK, every item goes into building a picture of the guy, he is very public after all:

-He's in a "punk" band at 50+ years old and he's a lawyer. k.

-The latest album from this band features a cover with a picture that is just of cleavage, nothing to point to it being satire. Again, he's a 50+ year old lawyer. Umm, k. and ewwwwww.

-He posted an entry on his blog where he thought that the priest at Easter Mass should PUNCH a parishioner in the face because the parishioner was wearing a t-shirt that had a logo that WK did not approve of. That's what Jesus would do too, I'm sure. Disrespecting mother church and Patriarchy is a sin worthy of a good punch in the face. No anger there though.

-Based on his going to Mass, one could assume that WK is a Catholic. The Pope is cool with a woman's right to choose, isn't he?

-WK just signed on with the prog-blog crew. Interesting coincidence. Perhaps they have proven to be his kind of people.

-In his posts he has now associated you with neo-nazis. He seems to be very concerned about neo-nazis and neo-nazi affiliation in general. He gained some notoriety selling a book about this topic(he seems to like notoriety a lot). Skin-heads and neo-nazis are associated with punk music.

-Based on his past blog posts he seems to have threatened a number of people with lawsuits for what they have said, rightly or wrongly. I wonder how he would respond to a threat of the kind he directed at you?

-He comes across as a guy who is very angry and is perhaps still trying to live out his punk band fantasies at 50+ years old. In my experience, punk rock is generally picked up by angry young men and women who feel disaffected from society. The same way Lawyers do. Punk music is angry music and it's meant to be.

-That threat really was disturbing, more-so coming from someone supposedly on the leftish side of things, and especially coming from a man and made towards a woman. There was nothing to indicate that it was satirical or tongue in cheek.

-Oh...he also feels that it is OK to replace real comments to his posts with fake comments that he makes up under the original posters name. How ethical of him.

Keep up the good work, Fern, I support you 100%.

Niles said...

Just because, I have to speak up for the other groups of skinheads. The anti-racists are majorly pissed off at the neo-nazis and look to kick their asses when available.

It's never simple is it?

snafu said...

Fern, I believe most progressives would agree with you in that we need to join forces in opposition to bill c-30 and personally speaking here, I'd rather be 'friends' with Connie and Mark than bottom feeders such as WK.

You've got my support.

Post a comment