jmaharry: Banned
Read my previous post and comments thereto for the details.
I was going to simply suspend the guy from commenting until he proved or retracted his wild allegations about being threatened by commenters on this site — his justification for posting comments under a different name than he had used in the past. It soon became obvious he would do neither. His comments became increasingly incoherent, as he posted private information about himself, and then blamed me for commenters using that information to dig up more. Finally, he threatened my job. That was the final straw.
I have told him that his comments still show up in moderation. If he ever proves or retracts his allegations about being threatened by commenters here, I will post the comment or comments.
Otherwise, good riddance.
P.S. I want to make it clear that this is not about discouraging the expression of contrary opinion, it’s about dealing with someone who posted under different names, lied about the reasons for it, threatened my job, and otherwise provided a huge distraction.
The best way to make this point is to seek out more contrary opinions. So do me a favor: go to some reasonable lefties of your acquaintance, and tell them about this blog. Encourage them to comment. I want to see this blog be a place where people of different opinions can debate issues. I think it already is. Help me to continue that.
Thanks.
[…] UPDATE: Banned. (But with a caveat.) […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » A Not-So-Hypothetical Hypothetical: Let Your Voice Be Heard on What Should Happen to This Commenter (421107) — 5/25/2006 @ 8:07 amGood for you. There’s no reason you have to provide a serial libeller a forum to continue his libel.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 5/25/2006 @ 8:08 amThe problem with “contrary opinion” is that the vast majority of leftists can’t get past one sentence without using the word “fascist” or “Nazi.”
Capitalist Infidel (2f6027) — 5/25/2006 @ 8:35 amA blog is as personal and private a place as your home.
We are guests.
If a guest in your home behaves in a manner you disapprove of, you are under no obligation to be polite, accepting, understanding or accomodating.
Pitch the offender out and let the party continue!
heldmyw (a999cd) — 5/25/2006 @ 8:39 amFASCIST! You just hate free expression! I’m going to tell your boss you hate the Constitution!
See-Dubya (afdbd2) — 5/25/2006 @ 8:57 amWell at least jmaharry still has a bucket for his bile:
Welcome to Slippery Pebbles. Drummaster’s official blog, and an area to discover and discuss, celebrate and excoriate, just about anything I find interesting.
http://slipperypebbles.blogspot.com/
TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 5/25/2006 @ 9:04 amHe won’t be getting any visits from me. His derision of the beautiful relationship I have with my tapered hand reamer (Ace not Sears BTW) has put him on my fecal roster forever.
nk (b57bfb) — 5/25/2006 @ 10:56 amWow. All I have on my blog is a boilerplate warning — posted about where most websites’ terms of service and privacy policies are (which should put the alert in mind of where Ford Prefect found the notice for the demolition of the earth for that hyperspace bypass…).
What it says, in effect, is that particularly obnoxious commenters’ first warning that they may be banned is likely to be when they find they already have been.
But then, I’ve never claimed to be a nice guy.
McGehee (5664e1) — 5/25/2006 @ 1:43 pmCan I call Angry Clam a “chicken” for his lack of posting and not be banned?
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 5/25/2006 @ 3:21 pmYou’re doing just fine Patterico, there’s no need to fret over jerks. Go ahead with what you’ve been doing and don’t look back, or give it another minute of your time.
You did the right thing, you gave him many chances to behave himself and he continued to lie, threaten, and provoke. There was really no other option. One rotten apple spoils the barrel and removing it promptly saves the others from contamination. It’s simply good cyber-hygiene.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 5/25/2006 @ 3:57 pmI disagree with McGehee’s approach to dealing with obnoxious posters. Since I have experienced such treatment (for saying illegal immigration is, well, illegal), I find that a bit heavy-handed.
Patterico, on the other hand, has handled this situation appropriately, imo. Hell, he’s not even banning the guy per se, just making him either produce evidence to support his allegations or retract them. Sounds like an adult way of handling things.
sharon (fecb65) — 5/25/2006 @ 6:04 pmIt’s not a guy, it’s a woman.
She works as a California artist.
Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c) — 5/25/2006 @ 6:05 pm> It’s not a guy, it’s a woman.
> She works as a California artist.
I think Patterico probably knows the gender of this person. There seem to be a bunch of Maharry folks, all seemingly talented and all possessing nice websites.
Pauli (032c5f) — 5/25/2006 @ 6:22 pmOh. well, it’s linked at the steaming pebbles website. The name and the spouse, even the mother. They’re all in the corresponding phonebook. But, what-evah.
I think if someone maintains a site, they should block anyone who’s a real rascal. Rude, argumentative, or bending the facts to the point of lying.
I guess if someone emailed their name and info, then it’s to be believed. Or not.
Personally, I’d rather read a Patterico movie review or something, rather than all this focus on one bad apple. JMO.
Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c) — 5/25/2006 @ 6:35 pm“I know it’s a man because he e-mailed me and told me his name. Which I do not believe I have ever disclosed.” – Patterico
____________________
“I have had personal experience with abortion (unfortunately). Not a decision I would wish or certainly impose on any other couple. However, I also cannot imagine imposing my views on life – and when it begins – now, at age 46, on a “me” when I was 25. I certainly know that the difficult decision I made could have opened up a life, and a happiness, that I never could have imagined so many years ago.” Comment by jmaharry — 2/14/2006 @ 10:02 pm
steve (f8c5a5) — 5/25/2006 @ 6:43 pmIt IS your house…
JoeS (ff0bfe) — 5/25/2006 @ 7:16 pmjmaharry/drummaster/(P.H.?) –
You didn’t need to erase your blog entries. It was all pretty innocuous stuff. But, just to be thorough, you may wish to erase the Google captures too. I think you’re okie dokie with the internet archives.
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=slipperypebbles+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fslipperypebbles.blogspot.com%2F&btnG=Search+Blogs
TakeFive (6af881) — 5/25/2006 @ 8:03 pmsteve,
I’m not publishing the guy’s name, and I’m going from memory here, because I haven’t re-hooked up my old computer. But it’s a guy, and he plays the drums.
Maybe his girlfriend got an abortion.
Maybe it’s his dog.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 5/25/2006 @ 9:46 pmPat,
I’m afraid you have committed a fundamental error by banning jmaharry. By doing so you have denied us, the visitors to your blog, many an opportunity to read his comments on your postings, and in considered reply providing ourselves with endless hours of entertainment making fun of the twerp.
You are just being mean. If you keep this up I’m afraid I’ll have to inform the L.A. County District Attorney of your behavior. The sort of behavior most certain to get you promoted to Associate District Attorney; a position that will add to your responsibilities and duties, and thus cut into your blogging time. Not to mention the extra tax burden that comes with a raise in pay. And you would have only yourself to blame.
Alan Kellogg (16eb4e) — 5/25/2006 @ 11:23 pmBanned him, huh. Well, good luck with your blog. I don’t read blogs where commenters are banned.
[Thanks for the thoughtful response to my explanation. I may be coming by your blog with some choice profane comments and links. Perhaps I’ll grab a slew of porn links from one of my spam comments, and start sticking them all over your site. I’ll be interested to see how you respond. Otherwise, nice knowing you. — P]
RightNumberOne (11dd90) — 5/26/2006 @ 4:24 amRightNumberOne, Patterico and Angry Clam have put up with me for a half a year now and I can be brutally critical. I don’t sugar-coat what I say most of the time. But our hosts shouldn’t have to put up with personal attacks – that’s one place where I draw the line. So I agree with Patterico.
In fact, if personal attacks were permitted here, I would be less likely to come back. I have better things to do with my time than to put up with personal smears from some bonehead who is incapable of formulating an argument for his position and resorts to childish insults.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 5/26/2006 @ 5:50 amBanned him, huh. Well, good luck with your blog. I don’t read blogs where commenters are banned.
You want to see what happens to a blog when the owner does not take control of the comments?
Go on over to Balloon Juice and wade through the comment sewer over there. There is no such thing as meaningful dialogue. Just a heaping bunch of ad hominem attacks – the site hi jacked by a determined group that “jumps” on anyone with a divergent point of view.
Sure, banning someone is extreme – but sometimes it is the extreme measures that are the only alternative.
RLS (0516f0) — 5/26/2006 @ 6:24 amI just left a fairly innocuous spam comment at RightNumberOne, here. Feel free to join in with obnoxious comments. As Galloway would say, I am not *calling for* pornographic links to be left on his site, but . . .
Patterico (50c3cd) — 5/26/2006 @ 6:59 amJeez, ‘rico, enough already. Spend some time with your kids rather than spending time explaining why you banned jmaharry. Even an occasional visitor would realize that jmaharry’s mission here was to get banned while taking up an inordinate amount of your time and patience.
TNugent (6128b4) — 5/26/2006 @ 12:27 pmFeel free to leave any comments you like. At a blog called RightNumberOne, everyone is free to offer their opinion, even if they are wrong, or stupid, or childish.
Speech is the antidote to speech.
They banned speech in the Third Rei … well, we wouldn’t want to end the argument now would we.
[Are you still here? I mean, I’m happy to have you, but I thought you were gone already. — P]
rightnumberone (11dd90) — 5/26/2006 @ 3:29 pmApparently rightnumberone never got the memo that one instantly loses the argument when one has to bring up Nazis.
sharon (fecb65) — 5/26/2006 @ 6:23 pmSee? TNugent says I have over-justified this, and rightnumberone says no banning can possibly be justified, ever. Child porn links all over rightnumberone’s site are A-OK with him — as (I see) are comments from certified libeling lunatics.
Goes to show; you can’t please everyone.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 5/26/2006 @ 6:36 pmSeriously, you know you’re desperate when you’re bringing up the Third Reich…and why is rightnumberone still reading a blog where commenters are banned?
mh (952a36) — 5/26/2006 @ 6:59 pmThe Third Reich built roads, too. I refuse to read any blog that supports building roads.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 5/26/2006 @ 7:07 pmMeanwhile, rightnumberone could encourage genuine dialogue by bringing me a new lefty who’s *not* a dishonest jerk. Instead, he throws stones.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 5/26/2006 @ 7:12 pm