The Avenger's Corner

Here's a little niche I've carved out for my random observations from time to time on the issues of the day!

Recently, I started a thread on Topix, "Posting On Politics Under The B" that seems to be starting quite a stir.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/bisbee-az/TBE68JJKE70RN8Q3F#lastPost

In it I stated, "My friends, including Marla,(AND a person very close to Jeff Harris,) have suggested that I stop posting here, and begin posting more often over at Politics Under The B." I added that some of the more savage among the Toxic.com posters won't be able to stay away from here 'cuz they gotta peek!

Already they're GOADING me with taunts you don't often hear beyond a 3rd grade classroom, 'cuz they're obviously wanting me back! They want me continuing to post!

Are they *ahem* "obsessed" with me?

Eric, I don't give a rodent's posterior where you post, here -- there -- or anywhere you can find. I'll read your posts wherever they show up, just because occasionally you make a lot of sense (we all fall into that 'occasionally' trap).

I do have the sneaking hunch that some of what you were suddenly being faced with on Topix cut a bit close to the bone. At least one poster over there seems to have a good bit of knowledge and the wit to use it to great effect -- and that you now feel you might be safer here among your cheering section. Only you know about that for sure.

You might want to consider two things:
1) these trolls here seem to have few original viewpoints without being carefully coached and led. . . but then, that role might be one with which you're comfortable.
2) with this action, you largely leave the arena to those who WILL capitalize on your defection from the field. . . and it's real easy to shoot someone in the butt when he's running away.

It's also a bit disheartening to see you succumb to the megalomania shown by your dual actions of creating a thread on Topix to announce that you were decamping --- and then coming over here and "carving out your own corner" to announce that you were the object of others' obsessions. But, again, that's your choice and your action.

Good luck on this decision.

Jack you have the intellect of a flea. Please feel free to post where you want as long as where you post isn't here.

Hell Cannon, those words are a ringing recommendation for the B.

sandman wrote:

Hell Cannon, those words are a ringing recommendation for the B.

You and your compadres obviously feel so. On the other hand, not everyone agrees with you in the real world. Ah, well. . . so long as your tiny little comfort level isn't threatened or affected, what should you care about the real world?

Jack wrote:

sandman wrote:

Hell Cannon, those words are a ringing recommendation for the B.

You and your compadres obviously feel so. On the other hand, not everyone agrees with you in the real world. Ah, well. . . so long as your tiny little comfort level isn't threatened or affected, what should you care about the real world?

Jack, you think you speak for the real world? Which one? Where the wife tells you Harris is a mudslinger or the one where you ignore what she thinks?

sandman wrote:

Jack, you think you speak for the real world? Which one? Where the wife tells you Harris is a mudslinger or the one where you ignore what she thinks?

In the real world I inhabit, one of the first things one learns is that one DOES NOT IGNORE what one's wife thinks! But also in the real world, one does not have to agree with what one is told. For instance, it is common currency here (minted largely by Eric) that Jeff is behind every unattributed post everywhere; you've all been told that, and you all believe it. And yet, my request for proof of this assertion has gone unanswered and unaddressed in any real sense.

In the real world I inhabit, one is expected to back up one's assertions of 'truth' with factual reality. Your world apparently differs slightly.

Jack wrote:

... I do have the sneaking hunch that some of what you were suddenly being faced with on Topix cut a bit close to the bone...

Well, Jack, if by "close to the bone" you mean "close to the truth," I have to say you are waaaaaay off the mark.

These "look at all these jobs Eric' has been fired from" and "Eric has NO friends" things are good examples. Neither statement is true, and I could easily cough up a BIG list of references who could refute them... but do YOU have ANY DOUBT whatsever what these dirtbags would attempt to do, to the reputations and characters of any names they got hold of? Very few would want to go though that, and I don't want to expose them to the possibility.

I'm involved in many things, in many places, with many good people all across the state, and I think I've done a rather good job of keeping them safely out of harm's way.

Yawn!

If you internal antennae is so scrambled or you judgement so poor you can't even trust the little woman then you're one of those who are incapable of learning from others, so learn the hard way.

Jack wrote:

...it is common currency here that Jeff is behind every unattributed post everywhere; you've all been told that, and you all believe it...

That's not true, either.

Of course he's not behind every unattributed post! But we DO know that he IS behind a great majority of them - the problem is, obviously, because they are unattributed, no one but Jeff can be entirely sure which ones ARE his. (Except for, maybe, those people contacts and braggs to about his most recent brilliant post!)

sandman wrote:

Yawn!
If you internal antennae is so scrambled or you judgement so poor you can't even trust the little woman then you're one of those who are incapable of learning from others, so learn the hard way.

You are absolutely determined to misunderstand and misinterpret what you read, aren't you?
Of course I trust my wife; I just don't always agree with her -- or with anyone. That's part of what being your own person is all about.
About being "incapable of learning from others": simple silliness on your part, coupled with the devout wish to be a smart-ass. Hell, we ALL learn from others; you might want to try it sometime.
About "learn the hard way": sometimes. Again, we all do -- but I'll make an exception in your case. You've apparently learned the simple way, and it's made you simple.

So, in future you might try actually responding to a post with which you disagree, instead of trying to be cute and vicious at the same time. . . because you don't carry either of them off very well. In other words: Learn to dispute and debate; learn to defend; learn to attack with some degree of validity.
Or you'll end up simply appearing simple.

Jack wrote:

...At least one poster over there seems to have a good bit of knowledge and the wit to use it to great effect...

BTW, some of us have the sense that that person I assume you are talking about - "Henry David" via Anonymous Proxy - is none other than the gracious and lovely Marilyn Jones.

There are tell-tale signs to the writing style and the content. She has a motive and a means. Any "knowledge" she has is rehashed trash she cooked up quite a while back.

[quote="Jack"]

sandman wrote:

...instead of trying to be cute and vicious at the same time...

Well, frankly Jack, YOU don't do it very well either.

You are at the height of your skills and persuasive powers when you drop the "vicious" and "cute" stuff, and go for "well-thought-out" and "to-the-point."

THAT'S what's earned you grudging respect from folks like me, NOT the other crap.

I've watched your crap, Jack. You are either incapable of real logic or playing dumb otherwise you wouldn't need to ask such damn stupid questions.

The Bisbee Avenger wrote:

Jack wrote:

...it is common currency here that Jeff is behind every unattributed post everywhere; you've all been told that, and you all believe it...

That's not true, either.

Of course he's not behind every unattributed post! But we DO know that he IS behind a great majority of them - the problem is, obviously, because they are unattributed, no one but Jeff can be entirely sure which ones ARE his. (Except for, maybe, those people contacts and braggs to about his most recent brilliant post!)

And we "know" this exactly HOW? If they are unattributed, is in not in fact only your feelings and suspicions that they're his? As I've said before, where is the PROOF for your paranoia? Certainly, Eric, you're willing to acknowledge the fact that he may not be your only enemy -- that others may well be voicing their own grievances, and be made even more aggrieved by the fact that you and your little cadre refuse to grant them standing, so that you can accuse Jeff?
I admit to being conflicted here: You and Elysian have both gone to great lengths to try to convince me of Jeff's perfidy, citing what you consider historical chapter (but without verse). On the other hand, Jeff has disavowed (to me by e-mail, and publicly on Topix) accusations of numerous posts under multiple identities. These positions make it unlikely that the truth lies somewhere between, and argue for the conclusion that one of you is mis-stating reality. I don't know the answer to this dilemma, but I DO KNOW that your ongoing, eternal, and tiresome fixation on an all-purpose "evil Jeff" is doing you no good.
Which brings me to your much-expressed purported concern about Jeff as an evil elected official: GET REAL!! We all know he hasn't a chance, and that makes your 'concern' about as transparent as a well-washed window. Instead, your repeated doom-mongering only serves to point out -- yet again -- the depths of your own obsession.
And so, I'll beg you again: get over it. Move on, to other concerns and other uses for the good mind you have.

sandman wrote:

I've watched your crap, Jack. You are either incapable of real logic or playing dumb otherwise you wouldn't need to ask such damn stupid questions.

I'm sure glad you didn't drop the "r" in 'your' in this post, like you did in your last post! I'd have gotten really paranoid....

Meanwhile: to which "such damn stupid questions" do you refer in your own inimitable way? I really don't recall asking you any questions, since you seem to have only attitudes and not answers.

"Sending you dreams" backatcha

What are you waiting for Jack. A sign from god? You're a slow learner. Either adjust to that or live with it.

Sanctuary Under the B?

sandman wrote:

What are you waiting for Jack. A sign from god? You're a slow learner. Either adjust to that or live with it.

Oh, NOW I get it! You're telling me that only God knows whether every (other) troll is Jeff (you and your anonymous cohort of course excepted).
And that I should open my heart and mind to God, and He will tell me that Jeff is evil.
And that if I should somehow be unable to do that, I'll have to "adjust to that or live with it".

OK so far? I've read your diatribe correctly? I've interpreted your snark successfully? Sorry it took me so long; I'm a 'slow learner', you know.

However: Aside from the fact that adjusting to it and living with it are equivalents, the rest of your pitiful little screed leaves something to be desired, so far as actually responding to the challenge I posed is concerned. But then, if Jeff's evilness is a matter of faith to you, without the necessity for works or basis, I guess I can't argue with a True Believer. I also learned a long time ago that it just ain't worth it -- you can't change a closed mind.

But do be careful; True Believers have a long and detailed history of being mistaken, often to their own sorrow and chagrin. So until that happens, be happy in your faith.

Jack wrote:

And we "know" this exactly HOW? If they are unattributed, is in not in fact only your feelings and suspicions that they're his? As I've said before, where is the PROOF for your paranoia? Certainly, Eric, you're willing to acknowledge the fact that he may not be your only enemy -- that others may well be voicing their own grievances, and be made even more aggrieved by the fact that you and your little cadre refuse to grant them standing, so that you can accuse Jeff?

The problem is, Jack, that it is quite possible that a 3rd party is pitting my group and the Jeff supporters against one another, for those people's own purposes.

Several years ago, I had a nutcase on probation for domestic violence that reached felony status. The girlfriend, who still lived in the home, called me one day from her place of work and reported that she was afraid that the guy was going back into a cycle and was going to hurt her and their daughter. Although the concerns were vague, I decided that protecting the potential victim was my highest priority, and I assisted her in making arrangements to get out of the house and into a safe place while he was at work, then I arrested him on several (rather minor) probation violations.

It turns out that the girlfriend was manipulating the situation, in order to come to the rescue and be the hero to her boyfriend. She helped to get him released on good conditions, and testified that he was a good man who would be doing even better if it weren't for those unfair people an the probation department - but that she would make sure that he'd be OK anyway. It was quite the lovey-dovey scene.

That was a real eye-opener to me. I still believe that abused women rarely lie about their abuse - it does happen, of course - and that you have to take it seriously, but I also know that a small percentage will lie and deceive to achieve their needs. And even of that small group, I think that MOST genuinely think that they are doing what they need to do, and don't intend to hurt anyone else.

So, it's quite possible that some of the people who are my "enemies" are also Jeff's enemies, and they are using me to get to him.

(Which is quite a bit different than the theory that suggests that Jeff himself is manipulating things so that he causes himself to be attacked by me, in addition to the people who work for the city, who are elected to office, and who he thinks are in the Bisbee "power structure," so that he can claim to be an innocent victim of City Hall, and use that victimhood as "proof" of corruption, and cause himself to be elected to office on the platform of restoring ethics to local government. I think this theory is a bit "too Hollywood" to be anywhere CLOSE to realty, BTW.)

"Reality" by its own reality, excludes any possibility of Jeff being elected to anything. That being the case, to what possible end would some undefined third-party (group or individual) attempt to further this Jeff-Eric vendetta?

To be blunt, I consider it faintly possible that Jeff's current efforts at his election are being HELPED by your (and your cheering section's) vendetta. Speaking as one who is very familiar with the feeling of not being universally loved, I strongly urge you to recognize that same reality in yourself. . . and consider that those who do not love you may be impelled by their feelings to grant Jeff some spurious sympathy -- and the occasional vote.

Again I urge on you and yours a course of discretion about the evil Harris monster. To put it simply: he ain't got a chance unless you all help him to build one.

Think about it.

Jack wrote:

"Reality" by its own reality, excludes any possibility of Jeff being elected to anything. That being the case, to what possible end would some undefined third-party (group or individual) attempt to further this Jeff-Eric vendetta?

There's more than just an election involved here, Jack.

That being the case, there are ends, unrelated to any elections, that a third-party may be pursuing.

And, as much as I don't want to be thown under the bus, I can't say I'd blame a third party for doing so if they thought it was the only reasonable and effective means of reaching a critical goal. In other words, if there's no malicious intent, I'll get over it faster.

Jack wrote:

...To be blunt, I consider it faintly possible that Jeff's current efforts at his election are being HELPED by your (and your cheering section's) vendetta.

Think about it.

BTW, I HAVE thought about it. That's why I mentioned above that there's a "theory that suggests that Jeff himself is manipulating things so that he causes himself to be attacked... and cause himself to be elected to office on the platform of restoring ethics to local government."

Jack, Had Eric not gone over to TOPIX, nothing would have happened. You fostered this mess, ending it is simple. Shut up.