- A public apology on columbuzz to the Barkes and Ferrenburg families for EEB's personal attacks against them. It takes a big man to apologize publicly. LEB said he apologized to Susan Fye, so why not the Barkes and Ferrenburg families?
- An admittance (on my blog, not on columbuzz) that EEB sometimes lies. EEB has said in the past "I don't lie", yet I have proven on my blog that EEB lied about the odometer deal and also about the protection of privacy of columbuzz posters. EEB stated several times that he did not break any laws with the odometer deal, knowing full well that advertising the device was against the law.
- An explanation of why EEB would even attempt to sell a device whose sole purpose was to defraud. If it were someone else, say a public official, EEB would rant for days on columbuzz about it. EEB would probably say something like "This idiot tried to sell a device whose only purpose was to defraud, and yet he's a public official? He should be removed from office immediately and prosecuted for his shenanigans."
- An explanation of EEB's selective whistle blowing. I don't remember any rants about any of the mayor's "shenanigans". If columbuzz only exists to blow the whistle on Republicans, then they should make that clear.
- An explanation of why some of my civil comments were deleted from columbuzz, even though EEB stated multiple times that only uncivil comments were deleted. One of my comments that was deleted, "Thank you, Lucy", was not an attack. It was a response to her wishing everyone a Merry Christmas. I believe that EEB was angry with me or still thought that I was Merc and that's why it was deleted.
Monday, January 31, 2011
LEB
Well, it's been a week since aliens have replaced Extremely Evil Bob (EEB) with Less Evil Bob (LEB), and LEB is definitely better than EEB, but still not perfect. LEB handled the Susan Fye "incident" better than EEB would have, but there's still room for improvement. Here's a list of things I would like to see from LEB:
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
I Actually Agree With Bob
Bob wrote on columbuzz:
"You know what? Some people just want to complain. I think we should let our elected officials do what we elected them to do. If we don't like what they do we should vote them out and put the geniuses in that we think can do so much better. Fred Armstrong sure didn't get elected four times on his looks. Someone must think he's doing something right."
I hope he's talking about all elected officials, not just Fred Armstrong.
"You know what? Some people just want to complain. I think we should let our elected officials do what we elected them to do. If we don't like what they do we should vote them out and put the geniuses in that we think can do so much better. Fred Armstrong sure didn't get elected four times on his looks. Someone must think he's doing something right."
I hope he's talking about all elected officials, not just Fred Armstrong.
Monday, January 24, 2011
A Tiny Step in the Right Direction?
Bob wrote on columbuzz:
"Earlier, I said this: 'I don't use, and I don't like to see used, insults that included mental defeciencies.' Someone pointed out that I do it all the time by calling people idiots and dumbasses. They're right, I do. It's no different than calling someone retarded."
The first step is always admitting that you have a problem with your behavior. The second, more difficult step is actually changing that behavior.
"I've been thinking a lot about it since they brought it up. I guess in my goal of making strong points, I get too colorful with my words."
If you have to resort to name calling and demonizing, then how strong is your point? A strong point should be able to stand on its own without any of the nasty stuff. If you have to dress it up with name calling, then maybe it's actually a weak point instead.
"I suppose I always looked at the words idiot and dumbass as insults but not anything real. Apparently an idiot is a real thing, one of the most severe cases of retardation there is. I wasn't aware of that. I guess I never really thought about it."
If you have to resort to insulting an opponent while debating, then you've lost the debate.
"It's like calling someone a dickhead. It's an insult but everyone knows they aren't actually a dickhead. Same thing with asshole. Right or wrong, I used idiot in that context. I certainly never intended to insult real idiots, dickheads, and assholes."
That Bob, always classy. With the language that Bob uses, I just don't understand why he actually thinks he's fit for public office. How many public officials do you know use that kind of language in public?
"But idiot always seemed okay to use because, to me, it was an insult that didn't involve real people. It was my way of pointing out stupid moves people made. And I do it a lot."
Yes, you do. And it's a stupid move on your part. People will not take you seriously when you insult others so much. You come across as a raving lunatic.
"Thinking about it now, I have been wrong and I will try to make sure I don't do it again. If I think someone did something stupid, I will say so without adding a name to the conversation. I guess it's just another juvenile habit I have that I need to work on."
I have my doubts that Bob is even capable of stopping this nasty habit of his. Some questions that immediately come to my mind: Is Bob sincere with his comment? How long will it last?
"Earlier, I said this: 'I don't use, and I don't like to see used, insults that included mental defeciencies.' Someone pointed out that I do it all the time by calling people idiots and dumbasses. They're right, I do. It's no different than calling someone retarded."
The first step is always admitting that you have a problem with your behavior. The second, more difficult step is actually changing that behavior.
"I've been thinking a lot about it since they brought it up. I guess in my goal of making strong points, I get too colorful with my words."
If you have to resort to name calling and demonizing, then how strong is your point? A strong point should be able to stand on its own without any of the nasty stuff. If you have to dress it up with name calling, then maybe it's actually a weak point instead.
"I suppose I always looked at the words idiot and dumbass as insults but not anything real. Apparently an idiot is a real thing, one of the most severe cases of retardation there is. I wasn't aware of that. I guess I never really thought about it."
If you have to resort to insulting an opponent while debating, then you've lost the debate.
"It's like calling someone a dickhead. It's an insult but everyone knows they aren't actually a dickhead. Same thing with asshole. Right or wrong, I used idiot in that context. I certainly never intended to insult real idiots, dickheads, and assholes."
That Bob, always classy. With the language that Bob uses, I just don't understand why he actually thinks he's fit for public office. How many public officials do you know use that kind of language in public?
"But idiot always seemed okay to use because, to me, it was an insult that didn't involve real people. It was my way of pointing out stupid moves people made. And I do it a lot."
Yes, you do. And it's a stupid move on your part. People will not take you seriously when you insult others so much. You come across as a raving lunatic.
"Thinking about it now, I have been wrong and I will try to make sure I don't do it again. If I think someone did something stupid, I will say so without adding a name to the conversation. I guess it's just another juvenile habit I have that I need to work on."
I have my doubts that Bob is even capable of stopping this nasty habit of his. Some questions that immediately come to my mind: Is Bob sincere with his comment? How long will it last?
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Bob vs Bob 11.0
Bob #1:
"I don't use, and I don't like to see used, insults that included mental defeciencies."
Bob #2:
"In fact, see how you react when people constantly attack you, as the idiots on your website attack me on a daily basis and see how you react."
"Yet you and those idiots on your website continue to team up with his son and Charlie Townsend and call me a liar."
"Birds of a feather flock together and the idiots at the Trustee office fit the bill well."
"I posted once to let you know it wasn't me that posted the other crap that some idiots signed my name to."
"Oh no, I believe he (Fred Barkes) IS an idiot"
"What an idiot."
"even though she posted it on another blog full of idiots accusing me of evil things that simpy are not true."
"You know, as dense as you are, it doesn't look to me like you quite know how to absorb the facts."
"You're either too stupid or too stubborn to absorb the proof."
"I don't use, and I don't like to see used, insults that included mental defeciencies."
Bob #2:
"In fact, see how you react when people constantly attack you, as the idiots on your website attack me on a daily basis and see how you react."
"Yet you and those idiots on your website continue to team up with his son and Charlie Townsend and call me a liar."
"Birds of a feather flock together and the idiots at the Trustee office fit the bill well."
"I posted once to let you know it wasn't me that posted the other crap that some idiots signed my name to."
"Oh no, I believe he (Fred Barkes) IS an idiot"
"What an idiot."
"even though she posted it on another blog full of idiots accusing me of evil things that simpy are not true."
"You know, as dense as you are, it doesn't look to me like you quite know how to absorb the facts."
"You're either too stupid or too stubborn to absorb the proof."
Bob vs. The Truth 2.0
Bob wrote on columbuzz:
"In my opinion, she was acting like the 4 letter word she was called and, in my opinion, someone should have knocked her on her ass. I'm not saying I would ever do that to a woman. I'm not condoning violence against a woman."
Yes you are.
"I am simply saying that someone should have done something drastic to stop her actions toward mourners at a funeral."
Good thing Justin wasn't there. He probably would have pistol whipped her.
"I stated earlier that I have people in my family with drug issues and I wouldn't comment on a son having a drug issue. No parent can stop that in this day and age."
Lie. Direct quote from Bob about the trustee's son: "And people talk about the report of the dope being in the trustee's house as being so long ago. I wonder if he has even gone to court yet. Or served his sentence. Or stopped making or using meth. Eighteen months isn't a very long time for some things. It's a very long time if you're hoping people will forget."
"I almost doubt that Herman posted that. I will have to talk to him about it. He agrees with most of what I post but he doesn't ever talk like that about anyone. But I don't know."
I'm pretty sure that comment came from columbuzz.
"In my opinion, she was acting like the 4 letter word she was called and, in my opinion, someone should have knocked her on her ass. I'm not saying I would ever do that to a woman. I'm not condoning violence against a woman."
Yes you are.
"I am simply saying that someone should have done something drastic to stop her actions toward mourners at a funeral."
Good thing Justin wasn't there. He probably would have pistol whipped her.
"I stated earlier that I have people in my family with drug issues and I wouldn't comment on a son having a drug issue. No parent can stop that in this day and age."
Lie. Direct quote from Bob about the trustee's son: "And people talk about the report of the dope being in the trustee's house as being so long ago. I wonder if he has even gone to court yet. Or served his sentence. Or stopped making or using meth. Eighteen months isn't a very long time for some things. It's a very long time if you're hoping people will forget."
"I almost doubt that Herman posted that. I will have to talk to him about it. He agrees with most of what I post but he doesn't ever talk like that about anyone. But I don't know."
I'm pretty sure that comment came from columbuzz.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Here We Go Again
Bob wrote on columbuzz:
"But we want discussion and debate."
Lie.
"So when a post is halfway civil, we try to include it."
Lie. One of my posts that was deleted: "Thank you, Lucy" in response to Lucy wishing everyone a Merry Christmas.
"Most of their posts are similar to this one; they want only to attack the writer instead of what is written."
But what if the writer is a hypocritical idiot? And the writer (Bob) can attack anyone he wants in his "articles".
"I was told that a scanner in a vehicle is illegal, so we don't want one of those."
So is odometer tampering.
"But back to your question; we approve these for the sake of discussion. At times, it's hard to know what is best to allow and what we should delete. When we delete anything, we are criticized for being censors. Some say that if it is negative against me, it is deleted. Not true."
You allow minor dissent, but if it's someone you suspect of being Merc, it is deleted or edited no matter what it says.
"Truth is, if they could write criticism without all the nasty stuff,more would get posted."
But you can post as much nasty stuff as you want.
"When people support what we do here, they are told, by these people, that they belong to a cult, like this website is a cult.????? People who contribute here, and defend what we do here, are called, by these people, Bob-o-bots.?????"
Yes Bob, your site is cult-like. You do no wrong. You criticize others for their alleged illegal acts yet you ignore your own, just like a cult leader. And your minions defend you no matter what.
"We simply want civil conversation. We encourage civil debate. That's why we're here."
Lie. Bob can be as uncivil as he wants.
"We feel people need to know things that some want to keep hidden."
Like you wanting to keep the odometer deal hidden.
"Especially people elected to serve us. We, meaning all of us, are their boss. We, meaning all of us, have the RIGHT to know what they do, good or bad."
But you shouldn't lie about what they do.
"We want to be here to inform people, plain and simple. Too many things go on that shouldn't. And they wouldn't go on if people knew about them."
You mean things like odometer tampering and threats of violence?
"It's anyone that does something or interest and anyone that something that affects others, physically, mentally, or emotionally."
Important things like parking illegally and moldy bread!
"If we have a trustee that is manipulating OUR money for his own benefit, we need to know."
Lie, but at least you said if.
"If you look over all of the articles we have posted, you will see our intent. We may not always have all of the facts, but we try to be as factual and as open as we can be. Jst because we don't have every fact, or we don't call the accused up and hear his side of it, it doesn't mean what we say is a lie or isn't true."
Sounds like a description of a tabloid.
"If we hear that someone is doing something they shouldn't be doing, like say, raping women, cheating on his wife, or stealing tax money, why bother calling and listening ti his lies?"
Or odometer tampering. And this is your biggest problem Bob. You assume what you're told is true and if the accused tries to defend themselves, you automatically believe they're lying, just like you lied with the odometer deal.
"Why listen to a known liar make up some more lies?"
Exactly. Bob, you are a known liar making up more lies, so why should anyone listen to you.
"Why call anyone there when they will lie like that?"
So I guess no one calls you.
"Point is, we can know something is true without being able to prove it and without needing to prove it."
So you can post anything you want without proof, and we're just supposed to trust you, a proven liar? Sure, sounds reasonable.
"Proof was shown repeatedly of the failures, bad attitude, and negligence of my opponent and his staff."
Yawn. No proof, just uninformed opinion.
"People needed to know. They still need to know. The fact that that knowledge didn't convince people to vote against a member of their political party is irrelevant. They still needed to know. So that's what we try to do here."
They also need to know about corrupt "whistle blowers".
"But we don't want to be a site where all hell breaks loose and the site ends up needing to be shut down, like so many are, as Sound Off and many others were. So yes, we censor. And we will continue to do so."
Thank God you censor terrible comments like "Thank you, Lucy".
"At times, it gets rather enjoyable deleting some of the garbage we receive. These folks think that since we are a forum type website that they have the God-given right to post whatever they wish. And when we censor what they try to post, we have violated their RIGHTS. But they don't have that right. We haven't violated their rights. We have simply protected the rights of those who want to post in a civil manner. We have simply protected our rights to run a website, that we own, in the manner in which we choose."
Bob is correct for once. People do not have the right to free speech on a website, but Bob goes overboard with his delete button.
"Our basic rule here is; if it's civl, on topic, and it doesn't attack the writer, it gets posted. If not, we delete it. It's a very simple concept"
I agree, it is a very simple concept. Do as I say, not as I do.
"But we want discussion and debate."
Lie.
"So when a post is halfway civil, we try to include it."
Lie. One of my posts that was deleted: "Thank you, Lucy" in response to Lucy wishing everyone a Merry Christmas.
"Most of their posts are similar to this one; they want only to attack the writer instead of what is written."
But what if the writer is a hypocritical idiot? And the writer (Bob) can attack anyone he wants in his "articles".
"I was told that a scanner in a vehicle is illegal, so we don't want one of those."
So is odometer tampering.
"But back to your question; we approve these for the sake of discussion. At times, it's hard to know what is best to allow and what we should delete. When we delete anything, we are criticized for being censors. Some say that if it is negative against me, it is deleted. Not true."
You allow minor dissent, but if it's someone you suspect of being Merc, it is deleted or edited no matter what it says.
"Truth is, if they could write criticism without all the nasty stuff,more would get posted."
But you can post as much nasty stuff as you want.
"When people support what we do here, they are told, by these people, that they belong to a cult, like this website is a cult.????? People who contribute here, and defend what we do here, are called, by these people, Bob-o-bots.?????"
Yes Bob, your site is cult-like. You do no wrong. You criticize others for their alleged illegal acts yet you ignore your own, just like a cult leader. And your minions defend you no matter what.
"We simply want civil conversation. We encourage civil debate. That's why we're here."
Lie. Bob can be as uncivil as he wants.
"We feel people need to know things that some want to keep hidden."
Like you wanting to keep the odometer deal hidden.
"Especially people elected to serve us. We, meaning all of us, are their boss. We, meaning all of us, have the RIGHT to know what they do, good or bad."
But you shouldn't lie about what they do.
"We want to be here to inform people, plain and simple. Too many things go on that shouldn't. And they wouldn't go on if people knew about them."
You mean things like odometer tampering and threats of violence?
"It's anyone that does something or interest and anyone that something that affects others, physically, mentally, or emotionally."
Important things like parking illegally and moldy bread!
"If we have a trustee that is manipulating OUR money for his own benefit, we need to know."
Lie, but at least you said if.
"If you look over all of the articles we have posted, you will see our intent. We may not always have all of the facts, but we try to be as factual and as open as we can be. Jst because we don't have every fact, or we don't call the accused up and hear his side of it, it doesn't mean what we say is a lie or isn't true."
Sounds like a description of a tabloid.
"If we hear that someone is doing something they shouldn't be doing, like say, raping women, cheating on his wife, or stealing tax money, why bother calling and listening ti his lies?"
Or odometer tampering. And this is your biggest problem Bob. You assume what you're told is true and if the accused tries to defend themselves, you automatically believe they're lying, just like you lied with the odometer deal.
"Why listen to a known liar make up some more lies?"
Exactly. Bob, you are a known liar making up more lies, so why should anyone listen to you.
"Why call anyone there when they will lie like that?"
So I guess no one calls you.
"Point is, we can know something is true without being able to prove it and without needing to prove it."
So you can post anything you want without proof, and we're just supposed to trust you, a proven liar? Sure, sounds reasonable.
"Proof was shown repeatedly of the failures, bad attitude, and negligence of my opponent and his staff."
Yawn. No proof, just uninformed opinion.
"People needed to know. They still need to know. The fact that that knowledge didn't convince people to vote against a member of their political party is irrelevant. They still needed to know. So that's what we try to do here."
They also need to know about corrupt "whistle blowers".
"But we don't want to be a site where all hell breaks loose and the site ends up needing to be shut down, like so many are, as Sound Off and many others were. So yes, we censor. And we will continue to do so."
Thank God you censor terrible comments like "Thank you, Lucy".
"At times, it gets rather enjoyable deleting some of the garbage we receive. These folks think that since we are a forum type website that they have the God-given right to post whatever they wish. And when we censor what they try to post, we have violated their RIGHTS. But they don't have that right. We haven't violated their rights. We have simply protected the rights of those who want to post in a civil manner. We have simply protected our rights to run a website, that we own, in the manner in which we choose."
Bob is correct for once. People do not have the right to free speech on a website, but Bob goes overboard with his delete button.
"Our basic rule here is; if it's civl, on topic, and it doesn't attack the writer, it gets posted. If not, we delete it. It's a very simple concept"
I agree, it is a very simple concept. Do as I say, not as I do.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Proof #2
Bob wrote on columbuzz: "We protect the privacy of those who post here."
Note he did not write "We protect the privacy of those who post here, except for those I suspect are the infamous Mercman (which, by the way, is everyone who disagrees with me)."
Last September, when columbuzz allowed anyone who created an account to post articles, I posted an article blowing the whistle on columbuzz. My identity was disclosed, even though the website clearly stated "Information about who posts articles will be hidden! This is a public website with no restrictions so post with complete anonymity." Fortunately, I used a fake name since I knew it would happen.
He has also revealed where people work and has publicly identified a poster as Charlie Townsend, who he believes is the infamous Mercman. To "out" Charlie Townsend, one of the moderators at columbuzz searched their log files, found the IP address of the poster who they suspected was Mercman, and then searched the Internet for references to that IP address. Does that sound like protecting the privacy of those who post there? It's just another Bob Freeman lie, one of many.
Note he did not write "We protect the privacy of those who post here, except for those I suspect are the infamous Mercman (which, by the way, is everyone who disagrees with me)."
Last September, when columbuzz allowed anyone who created an account to post articles, I posted an article blowing the whistle on columbuzz. My identity was disclosed, even though the website clearly stated "Information about who posts articles will be hidden! This is a public website with no restrictions so post with complete anonymity." Fortunately, I used a fake name since I knew it would happen.
He has also revealed where people work and has publicly identified a poster as Charlie Townsend, who he believes is the infamous Mercman. To "out" Charlie Townsend, one of the moderators at columbuzz searched their log files, found the IP address of the poster who they suspected was Mercman, and then searched the Internet for references to that IP address. Does that sound like protecting the privacy of those who post there? It's just another Bob Freeman lie, one of many.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Joanna, Joanna
Bob-o-bot Joanna is just as amusing as Bob. Here are some of her quotes:
"We proved that Fred Barkes broke the law several times. He is a filthy crook. He illegally used funds from one account to pay for things in another. Proven fact. He is a crook!"
"Bob made threats of violence? I don't think so. Read it again. If he did, I'm sure he would be in jail."
You all know how I just love turning the tables:
Fred Barkes broke the law several times? I don't think so. If he did, I'm sure he would be in jail.
And Joanna, what do you know that the professional auditors at the State Board of Accounts don't? They have found nothing illegal and neither have you.
"We proved that Fred Barkes broke the law several times. He is a filthy crook. He illegally used funds from one account to pay for things in another. Proven fact. He is a crook!"
"Bob made threats of violence? I don't think so. Read it again. If he did, I'm sure he would be in jail."
You all know how I just love turning the tables:
Fred Barkes broke the law several times? I don't think so. If he did, I'm sure he would be in jail.
And Joanna, what do you know that the professional auditors at the State Board of Accounts don't? They have found nothing illegal and neither have you.
Bob vs. Bob 10.0
Bob #1:
"I think anonymous is anonymous."
"But knowing an IP address doesn't tell us who it is, usually.... And we don't really care who it is."
"But their name doesn't matter"
"We protect the privacy of those who post here."
Bob #2:
"And Jaimie is a man. I bet you he would use his real name if he posted; instead of hiding like a coward, as you do, INDIANA TAXWATCH."
With Trigger Happy Justin as Bob's personal bodyguard, I can see why people would prefer to remain anonymous.
"I think anonymous is anonymous."
"But knowing an IP address doesn't tell us who it is, usually.... And we don't really care who it is."
"But their name doesn't matter"
"We protect the privacy of those who post here."
Bob #2:
"And Jaimie is a man. I bet you he would use his real name if he posted; instead of hiding like a coward, as you do, INDIANA TAXWATCH."
With Trigger Happy Justin as Bob's personal bodyguard, I can see why people would prefer to remain anonymous.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Columbuzz Sounds More and More Like a Cult
Comment on columbuzz about Milestone:
"The ushers have gotten their carrying permits and carry guns during the service."
Comments on my blog from Bob's friend:
"And you might be careful accosting him at dinner. Someone at the table usually carries a weapon."
"Bob is a good friend of mine. You don't know what I look like. I carry and won't hesitate to drop a maggot like you. Go ahead and try it. I will make sure my dining schedule matches Bobs. At which table am I sitting?"
"Touch Bob or anyone in his party and you go down."
"I will assume anyone that approaches is out to harm him. I will not allow that. No threat. A GUARANTEE. click..."
"The ushers have gotten their carrying permits and carry guns during the service."
Comments on my blog from Bob's friend:
"And you might be careful accosting him at dinner. Someone at the table usually carries a weapon."
"Bob is a good friend of mine. You don't know what I look like. I carry and won't hesitate to drop a maggot like you. Go ahead and try it. I will make sure my dining schedule matches Bobs. At which table am I sitting?"
"Touch Bob or anyone in his party and you go down."
"I will assume anyone that approaches is out to harm him. I will not allow that. No threat. A GUARANTEE. click..."
The Bots
The Bots are just so amusing. They challenged me to prove one of Bob's lies and I delivered. And the defense of their dear cult leader is just laughable:
Dude: Bob lies.
Bots: No, he doesn't lie. You repeatedly call him a liar but have not proven one lie. Not one.
Dude: What about the odometer deal? He said he broke no laws.
Bots: Bob didn't know it was illegal to mess with odometers.
Dude: What!?! Give me a break. Regardless, he advertised the device which is against the law.
Bots: (Oops! I just made Bob look like an idiot) What I meant to say was that he knew it was illegal to tamper with an odometer. He did not know it was illegal to make a device to do so.
Dude: It doesn't matter. He said he broke no laws knowing full well that he did. And he said he never lies.
Bots: He didn't say any such thing. You should prove something a lie before calling it a lie.
Dude: OK, here's the proof.
Bots: (Oh crap, now what do I say) Oh yeah, well, then have him prosecuted. You can't
Dude: That wasn't the challenge. The challenge was to prove one lie.
Bots: (I have no defense so I must resort to name calling) Found guilty by a bunch of retards. For shame for shame.
Dude: No, Bob should be ashamed that he concocted a scheme to help his customers defraud others and then lied about it.
Danielle: I hope to see him (Bob) wherever he goes to eat out Friday evening. I have a few words to say to him in front of his wife and/or friends and relatives. (Note that she said nothing about touching Bob)
NotCharlie: Bob is just a mean SOB who needs his ass kicked. (Very similar to Bob's "knocked on her ass" comments)
Justin: You might be careful accosting him at dinner. Someone at the table usually carries a weapon. (Danielle said she had a few words for him but nothing about accosting him at dinner)
Justin: I carry and won't hesitate to drop a maggot like you. Touch Bob or anyone in his party and you go down. I'm not kidding. I will assume anyone that approaches is out to harm him. I will not allow that. No threat. A GUARANTEE. click...
I guess the waitress should be careful getting close to Bob. Maybe she should make sure she's wearing a bullet proof vest just in case Justin gets all trigger happy.
Dude: Bob lies.
Bots: No, he doesn't lie. You repeatedly call him a liar but have not proven one lie. Not one.
Dude: What about the odometer deal? He said he broke no laws.
Bots: Bob didn't know it was illegal to mess with odometers.
Dude: What!?! Give me a break. Regardless, he advertised the device which is against the law.
Bots: (Oops! I just made Bob look like an idiot) What I meant to say was that he knew it was illegal to tamper with an odometer. He did not know it was illegal to make a device to do so.
Dude: It doesn't matter. He said he broke no laws knowing full well that he did. And he said he never lies.
Bots: He didn't say any such thing. You should prove something a lie before calling it a lie.
Dude: OK, here's the proof.
Bots: (Oh crap, now what do I say) Oh yeah, well, then have him prosecuted. You can't
Dude: That wasn't the challenge. The challenge was to prove one lie.
Bots: (I have no defense so I must resort to name calling) Found guilty by a bunch of retards. For shame for shame.
Dude: No, Bob should be ashamed that he concocted a scheme to help his customers defraud others and then lied about it.
Danielle: I hope to see him (Bob) wherever he goes to eat out Friday evening. I have a few words to say to him in front of his wife and/or friends and relatives. (Note that she said nothing about touching Bob)
NotCharlie: Bob is just a mean SOB who needs his ass kicked. (Very similar to Bob's "knocked on her ass" comments)
Justin: You might be careful accosting him at dinner. Someone at the table usually carries a weapon. (Danielle said she had a few words for him but nothing about accosting him at dinner)
Justin: I carry and won't hesitate to drop a maggot like you. Touch Bob or anyone in his party and you go down. I'm not kidding. I will assume anyone that approaches is out to harm him. I will not allow that. No threat. A GUARANTEE. click...
I guess the waitress should be careful getting close to Bob. Maybe she should make sure she's wearing a bullet proof vest just in case Justin gets all trigger happy.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
I Love a Challenge
Bob wrote on columbuzz:
"I don't lie."
Herman wrote on my blog:
"I've seen nothing Bob has said that you have proven to be a lie. You repeatedly call him a liar but have not proven one lie. Not one."
Joanna wrote on my blog:
"Then show one lie since they are so plentiful."
I love a challenge, so here's your proof:
Let the record show that on Dec. 5, 2010, Mr. Bob Freeman wrote an email to Mr. Dude that stated the following:
"I would guess it was more like 10 years ago. It was when I was still working at the Franklin plant and that was 9 years ago. An ex Franklin cop, one of our drivers, is the one that told me it was illegal and he brought me the same legal stuff posted at your site. That website you found the ad was one place I advertised."
Since the law states, and I quote, "A person may not advertise for sale, sell, use, install, or have installed, a device that makes an odometer of a motor vehicle register a mileage different from the mileage the vehicle was driven." that means that Bob Freeman knew 10 years ago and was reminded of it again on Dec. 5, 2010 that advertising such a device was illegal.
Also let the record show that Bob Freeman's cohort in crime posted the following on Mr. Dude's blog:
"The first week Bobs friend showed us they were illegal to use, advertise or sell. So we stopped and never sold one. I know because I was the one that soldered them together. Bob simply helped. Ads were made for a few websites and that ad you found must have been overlooked."
So I have established the following:
"I wonder what the statute of limitations is on something like this."
"Good luck in prosecuting me for anything."
Now I ask you, are these the words of an innocent man? What say ye members of the jury?
"I don't lie."
Herman wrote on my blog:
"I've seen nothing Bob has said that you have proven to be a lie. You repeatedly call him a liar but have not proven one lie. Not one."
Joanna wrote on my blog:
"Then show one lie since they are so plentiful."
I love a challenge, so here's your proof:
Let the record show that on Dec. 5, 2010, Mr. Bob Freeman wrote an email to Mr. Dude that stated the following:
"I would guess it was more like 10 years ago. It was when I was still working at the Franklin plant and that was 9 years ago. An ex Franklin cop, one of our drivers, is the one that told me it was illegal and he brought me the same legal stuff posted at your site. That website you found the ad was one place I advertised."
Since the law states, and I quote, "A person may not advertise for sale, sell, use, install, or have installed, a device that makes an odometer of a motor vehicle register a mileage different from the mileage the vehicle was driven." that means that Bob Freeman knew 10 years ago and was reminded of it again on Dec. 5, 2010 that advertising such a device was illegal.
Also let the record show that Bob Freeman's cohort in crime posted the following on Mr. Dude's blog:
"The first week Bobs friend showed us they were illegal to use, advertise or sell. So we stopped and never sold one. I know because I was the one that soldered them together. Bob simply helped. Ads were made for a few websites and that ad you found must have been overlooked."
So I have established the following:
- Bob Freeman knew on Dec. 5, 2010 that advertising the device was illegal.
- Bob Freeman and his cohort in crime admitted that they advertised the device on several websites.
- An add was found on the internet at GarageSaleHomePage.com still advertising the device as of Dec.4 2010 but was removed soon after by Mr. Freeman.
- Bob Freeman wrote on his website columbuzz on January 7, 2011 and I quote, "I broke no laws with the odometer deal." knowing full well that this was a false statement.
"I wonder what the statute of limitations is on something like this."
"Good luck in prosecuting me for anything."
Now I ask you, are these the words of an innocent man? What say ye members of the jury?
Monday, January 17, 2011
Exclusive Report From Columbuzz!
Loaf of moldy bread from Love Chapel attacks local Columbus resident, preventing them from exchanging it for a non-moldy loaf! Tragic!
http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=5502
http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=5502
Friday, January 14, 2011
Columbuzz Gets Another Story Wrong!
http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=5503
Statements from Judy Johns Jackson:
"This post is not accurate."
What?!? A post on columbuzz not accurate? I'm shocked!
"we need to stop saying things that aren’t true. These city crews have worked hard and they have worked some very long hours to keep our streets clear of ice and snow – we should be thanking them not spreading rumors about them."
And columbuzz needs to stop posting things that aren't true. But if they started doing that, columbuzz would be reduced to a blank web page.
Statements from Judy Johns Jackson:
"This post is not accurate."
What?!? A post on columbuzz not accurate? I'm shocked!
"we need to stop saying things that aren’t true. These city crews have worked hard and they have worked some very long hours to keep our streets clear of ice and snow – we should be thanking them not spreading rumors about them."
And columbuzz needs to stop posting things that aren't true. But if they started doing that, columbuzz would be reduced to a blank web page.
Bob vs. Bob 9.0
Warning! This post contains adult language! Reader discretion is advised.
Bob #1:
"I'm not a gun fan. I don't want one in my house. I don't like to shoot them. The thought of an accidental shooting, or a senseless shooting in a rage, scares me to death!"
Bob #2:
"Dude asked me today if I own a .357. I don't but I own a few guns. Give me reason assholes. Back the fuck off."
"I know where some of you live. You want to cross the line, then lets cross the fucking line. It would be worth some time in jail to destroy your homes. And the lives of some of your family."
"You keep saying on here that I'm nuts and a retard. Piss me off and find out. I could play the part in a HUGE way"
"You talk big when others that I do know will suffer. I will not tolerate it. Try me, asshole."
Is Bob afraid that someone will use one of his guns to commit a senseless shooting in a rage? He should be.
Bob #1:
"I'm not a gun fan. I don't want one in my house. I don't like to shoot them. The thought of an accidental shooting, or a senseless shooting in a rage, scares me to death!"
Bob #2:
"Dude asked me today if I own a .357. I don't but I own a few guns. Give me reason assholes. Back the fuck off."
"I know where some of you live. You want to cross the line, then lets cross the fucking line. It would be worth some time in jail to destroy your homes. And the lives of some of your family."
"You keep saying on here that I'm nuts and a retard. Piss me off and find out. I could play the part in a HUGE way"
"You talk big when others that I do know will suffer. I will not tolerate it. Try me, asshole."
Is Bob afraid that someone will use one of his guns to commit a senseless shooting in a rage? He should be.
Web Traffic
Currently I'm getting about half the web traffic of columbuzz, but almost three times the visitor participation.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
I Just Love Proving Bob Wrong
On Tuesday, Jeremy (admin of columbuzz) wrote:
"Dude, I want to email you some code for your header, provided you are open to sharing. You say you have all these visitors, If you are willing how about placing some Google Analytic code in your site so your traffic can be tracked and shared publicly. I don't look forward to you accepting the challenge but it is worth asking."
An anonymous commenter wrote:
"You lie about your visitors. Prove you have more than ten people come here each day."
Bob has written in the past:
"I think that site is basically 2 or 3 people max"
Since I was 99.9% sure that there are more than 10 people that read my blog, it was yet another opportunity to prove Bob wrong. So I decided to add Google Analytics code to my blog just to see how many people were actually visiting. Here are the results from the first day and a half (around half of Tuesday and all of Wednesday):
And before anyone writes that I just made these numbers up, I have downloaded the data in PDF format and emailed it to Bob, so both Bob and Jeremy know the data is legitimate.
"Dude, I want to email you some code for your header, provided you are open to sharing. You say you have all these visitors, If you are willing how about placing some Google Analytic code in your site so your traffic can be tracked and shared publicly. I don't look forward to you accepting the challenge but it is worth asking."
An anonymous commenter wrote:
"You lie about your visitors. Prove you have more than ten people come here each day."
Bob has written in the past:
"I think that site is basically 2 or 3 people max"
Since I was 99.9% sure that there are more than 10 people that read my blog, it was yet another opportunity to prove Bob wrong. So I decided to add Google Analytics code to my blog just to see how many people were actually visiting. Here are the results from the first day and a half (around half of Tuesday and all of Wednesday):
54 people visited this site
206 Visits
54 Absolute Unique Visitors
811 Pageviews
3.94 Average Pageviews
00:07:27 Time on Site
26.21% Bounce Rate
16.50% New Visits
206 Visits
54 Absolute Unique Visitors
811 Pageviews
3.94 Average Pageviews
00:07:27 Time on Site
26.21% Bounce Rate
16.50% New Visits
And before anyone writes that I just made these numbers up, I have downloaded the data in PDF format and emailed it to Bob, so both Bob and Jeremy know the data is legitimate.
Voice of Reason
http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=5486
Comment from Phil Swaim on columbuzz:
"C'mon, let's be logical. Everyone who is trying to point fingers at their political enemies for this travesty is a poor excuse for a human being much less a representative of the people.
Barack Obama had it right in his speech he gave. This is a time for us to come together. It's not a time for nutty political theories as to the cause of this event."
If I'm not mistaken, I believe Phil is implying that Bob is illogical and a poor excuse for a human being. I couldn't agree more.
Comment from Phil Swaim on columbuzz:
"C'mon, let's be logical. Everyone who is trying to point fingers at their political enemies for this travesty is a poor excuse for a human being much less a representative of the people.
Barack Obama had it right in his speech he gave. This is a time for us to come together. It's not a time for nutty political theories as to the cause of this event."
If I'm not mistaken, I believe Phil is implying that Bob is illogical and a poor excuse for a human being. I couldn't agree more.
Should Bob Really Be Ranting About Palin?
What exactly does a picture of a masked gunman have to do with a Columbus Township Trustee budget hearing?
UPDATE: The picture is still there as of noon today:
http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=4770
UPDATE: The picture is still there as of noon today:
http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=4770
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Bob's Still Ranting About Palin
"Dimwit Sarah Palin apparently can do whatever she wants, but let others TALK about doing exactly the same thing, and all hell breaks loose."
That's funny, Bob calling someone else a dimwit. And when will Bob learn that TALK has consequences when it includes threats of violence?
"She even puts crosshairs on each Democrats location, so people know where the bad guys are."
Note Bob wrote location.
"Yea, they're right, it has targets all over it. Targeting states, not human beings.
Big difference.
I don't remember any nutcase going out and assassinating a state. Maybe I missed it."
Which is it Bob? Is Palin's map targeting locations or human beings? It looks like locations to me.
"They are actually a bunch of Fred Barkes fans that aren't real bright"
Please provide proof that I'm not real bright. I have provided ample proof that you are not the sharpest tool in the shed.
"and they are still bitter that I brought out so much truth about Fred and his gang during the election."
Now, Bob, who's bitter? That would be you, Mr. 0-5.
"Apparently they are on his payroll somehow too."
Wrong!
"Sarah Palin can burn down an orphanage in front of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir; that would be fine. But let Bob Freeman walk past the front of that orphanage and they will say that I went in and chopped all the kids up. There was no threat from me. But if it's fine for some dingaling from Alaska to do, shouldn't it be okay for me to do? They said she did nothing wrong. So why shouldn't I post a map of Columbus with crosshairs where people are that I want 'removed?'"
The difference is that you have threatened and advocated violence in the past. Plus, you are not well mentally.
That's funny, Bob calling someone else a dimwit. And when will Bob learn that TALK has consequences when it includes threats of violence?
"She even puts crosshairs on each Democrats location, so people know where the bad guys are."
Note Bob wrote location.
"Yea, they're right, it has targets all over it. Targeting states, not human beings.
Big difference.
I don't remember any nutcase going out and assassinating a state. Maybe I missed it."
Which is it Bob? Is Palin's map targeting locations or human beings? It looks like locations to me.
"They are actually a bunch of Fred Barkes fans that aren't real bright"
Please provide proof that I'm not real bright. I have provided ample proof that you are not the sharpest tool in the shed.
"and they are still bitter that I brought out so much truth about Fred and his gang during the election."
Now, Bob, who's bitter? That would be you, Mr. 0-5.
"Apparently they are on his payroll somehow too."
Wrong!
"Sarah Palin can burn down an orphanage in front of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir; that would be fine. But let Bob Freeman walk past the front of that orphanage and they will say that I went in and chopped all the kids up. There was no threat from me. But if it's fine for some dingaling from Alaska to do, shouldn't it be okay for me to do? They said she did nothing wrong. So why shouldn't I post a map of Columbus with crosshairs where people are that I want 'removed?'"
The difference is that you have threatened and advocated violence in the past. Plus, you are not well mentally.
Bob vs. Bob 8.0
Bob #1:
"I don't blame Sarah Palin directly."
Bob #2:
"So, Sarah Palin shouldn't be blamed for the shootings that happened in Tucson last Saturday?" "I don't think so..."
What's really scary is that these two conflicting statements were posted on columbuzz less than two hours apart.
"I don't blame Sarah Palin directly."
Bob #2:
"So, Sarah Palin shouldn't be blamed for the shootings that happened in Tucson last Saturday?" "I don't think so..."
What's really scary is that these two conflicting statements were posted on columbuzz less than two hours apart.
Bob's Ranting Again
"So, Sarah Palin shouldn't be blamed for the shootings that happened in Tucson last Saturday?"
No, I believe Jared Loughner should be blamed for the shootings in Tucson.
"Crosshairs on a map with people named that should be gotten rid of is fine behavior? Seriously?"
Crosshairs on a map was probably not the best way for her to illustrate her point, since a mentally ill person could see it as a call to arms (not unlike your threats of violence). But I have not heard if Mr. Loughner is a Palin supporter or not. And you lecturing about fine behavior? Priceless.
"So it would be fine for me to post a map of Columbus with crosshairs over the fire station a jerk of a fire chief runs? I think he should be 'removed.'
Maybe crosshairs over 13th and Washington St.? I can think of an entire staff that need to be 'removed' there.
Maybe I don't like the job the principle at North High School is doing. Crosshairs there okay?
Some don't like the job City Council is doing. So, City Hall too?
A detective at CPD screwed me over pretty good right before the election. How about crosshairs on CPD and his home address? Would that be okay?
Mike Pence said politics had nothing to do with it. Crosshairs?"
Veiled threats from Bob?
"If Sarah Palin can do it, can't we all?
Being closer to home puts a little different light on it, doesn't it?
I would never do that, but according to you, Sarah Palin should not be blamed for the deaths of 6 people or the shootings of 14 others."
Bob, you say you would never do that, but your previous actions tell a different story. And I guess you're saying that if someone hurts one of the workers in the trustee office, we can all blame you.
"She only told people that those 20 were targets and 18 of them had already been removed; only two left. So some whacko shot one of them and 19 of her friends.
Harmless?
Blameless?
I don't think so..."
Please stop thinking Bob.
"Like I said, time to stop and think."
I agree Bob. It is past time for you to stop and think.
And I guess Democrats have forgotten their targeting map from 2004, since they're starting to lob grenades at Palin:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171
No, I believe Jared Loughner should be blamed for the shootings in Tucson.
"Crosshairs on a map with people named that should be gotten rid of is fine behavior? Seriously?"
Crosshairs on a map was probably not the best way for her to illustrate her point, since a mentally ill person could see it as a call to arms (not unlike your threats of violence). But I have not heard if Mr. Loughner is a Palin supporter or not. And you lecturing about fine behavior? Priceless.
"So it would be fine for me to post a map of Columbus with crosshairs over the fire station a jerk of a fire chief runs? I think he should be 'removed.'
Maybe crosshairs over 13th and Washington St.? I can think of an entire staff that need to be 'removed' there.
Maybe I don't like the job the principle at North High School is doing. Crosshairs there okay?
Some don't like the job City Council is doing. So, City Hall too?
A detective at CPD screwed me over pretty good right before the election. How about crosshairs on CPD and his home address? Would that be okay?
Mike Pence said politics had nothing to do with it. Crosshairs?"
Veiled threats from Bob?
"If Sarah Palin can do it, can't we all?
Being closer to home puts a little different light on it, doesn't it?
I would never do that, but according to you, Sarah Palin should not be blamed for the deaths of 6 people or the shootings of 14 others."
Bob, you say you would never do that, but your previous actions tell a different story. And I guess you're saying that if someone hurts one of the workers in the trustee office, we can all blame you.
"She only told people that those 20 were targets and 18 of them had already been removed; only two left. So some whacko shot one of them and 19 of her friends.
Harmless?
Blameless?
I don't think so..."
Please stop thinking Bob.
"Like I said, time to stop and think."
I agree Bob. It is past time for you to stop and think.
And I guess Democrats have forgotten their targeting map from 2004, since they're starting to lob grenades at Palin:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Bob vs. Bob vs. Bob vs. Bob...
Bob wrote on columbuzz:
"I have been accused of writing this article. I did not.
We have 20-25 people who write and post articles here. Mostly 5 to 6 but there are many who do from time to time."
So does that mean that Bob has 14 to 19 personalities?
"You only know me because I am the most vocal and probably the most opinionated of the bunch."
Bob, I think you meant to type "the most idiotic", although Jeremy and Herman come close.
"I have been accused of writing this article. I did not.
We have 20-25 people who write and post articles here. Mostly 5 to 6 but there are many who do from time to time."
So does that mean that Bob has 14 to 19 personalities?
"You only know me because I am the most vocal and probably the most opinionated of the bunch."
Bob, I think you meant to type "the most idiotic", although Jeremy and Herman come close.
Get Over It Already!
http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=5474
Bob wrote the following caption under a picture of the trustee sign:
"You'll have to find another place for your family reunions......"
First it was nepotism, then it was cronyism. Yawn. Bob, you lost! Stop whining and get over it! Face it, you are unelectable! 0-5!
Bob wrote the following caption under a picture of the trustee sign:
"You'll have to find another place for your family reunions......"
First it was nepotism, then it was cronyism. Yawn. Bob, you lost! Stop whining and get over it! Face it, you are unelectable! 0-5!
Monday, January 10, 2011
Arizona Shooting
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0108/Arizona-shooting-Rep.-Gabrielle-Giffords-hit-at-meeting-with-constituents
When something like this happens, I become more and more concerned about Bob's threats of violence and the way he demonizes people, especially those in the trustee office.
When something like this happens, I become more and more concerned about Bob's threats of violence and the way he demonizes people, especially those in the trustee office.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Bob vs Bob 7.0
Bob #1:
"I broke no laws with the odometer deal."
Bob #2:
"An ex Franklin cop, one of our drivers, is the one that told me it was illegal and he brought me the same legal stuff posted at your site."
"Using it to shut off an odometer was illegal."
"I wonder what the statute of limitations is on something like this"
"I broke no laws with the odometer deal."
Bob #2:
"An ex Franklin cop, one of our drivers, is the one that told me it was illegal and he brought me the same legal stuff posted at your site."
"Using it to shut off an odometer was illegal."
"I wonder what the statute of limitations is on something like this"
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Bob vs Bob 6.0
Bob #1:
"I really hate that people found out that I had anything to do with the cross. That was never my intention."
Bob #2:
"Also, we have a white cross available to place as a memorial. Is there a place that would be available to place it? It is made from 4x4s and it would be approx. 4' tall once in the ground."
"Would you like the cross at the end of the dam closest to I-65 or the end closest to Tipton Lakes? The cross is painted and ready now. If I don't hear from you, we will decide where to place it once we get there."
"We placed the cross at the end of the dam."
"For one, I had Christians help me make it and paint it. And when we took it out to place it at the lake, I had Christians with me helping out."
"But we got it in place."
"We've done been there and the job was accomplished..."
"So, anyway, we were already there. We didn't snoop. We didn't walk. We drove up, dug the hole, dropped the cross in, tamped the dirt, took a few pictures, and left."
"I really hate that people found out that I had anything to do with the cross. That was never my intention."
Bob #2:
"Also, we have a white cross available to place as a memorial. Is there a place that would be available to place it? It is made from 4x4s and it would be approx. 4' tall once in the ground."
"Would you like the cross at the end of the dam closest to I-65 or the end closest to Tipton Lakes? The cross is painted and ready now. If I don't hear from you, we will decide where to place it once we get there."
"We placed the cross at the end of the dam."
"For one, I had Christians help me make it and paint it. And when we took it out to place it at the lake, I had Christians with me helping out."
"But we got it in place."
"We've done been there and the job was accomplished..."
"So, anyway, we were already there. We didn't snoop. We didn't walk. We drove up, dug the hole, dropped the cross in, tamped the dirt, took a few pictures, and left."
Knee Jerk Reactions
http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=5395
Bob wrote: "Knee jerk reaction is better than no reaction."
Bob, do you know what's better than both a knee jerk reaction and no reaction? A reasoned, intelligent reaction. But it's obvious that you're incapable of both a reasoned, intelligent reaction and no reaction, so knee jerk is all you can contribute.
Quotes from Bob:
"As stated in the editorial in The Republic, some concerns were, I suppose, knee jerk reactions."
I suppose?!? What about the other things mentioned by The Republic? You know, unsubstantiated charges, little or no factual information, uninformed speculation, finger pointing, and uninformed accusations, which is your typical Method of Operation.
"Not everyone in the public arena knows what goes on behind the scenes."
You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes either. You just think you do.
"Call me crazy"
My pleasure. You're crazy.
Bob wrote: "Knee jerk reaction is better than no reaction."
Bob, do you know what's better than both a knee jerk reaction and no reaction? A reasoned, intelligent reaction. But it's obvious that you're incapable of both a reasoned, intelligent reaction and no reaction, so knee jerk is all you can contribute.
Quotes from Bob:
"As stated in the editorial in The Republic, some concerns were, I suppose, knee jerk reactions."
I suppose?!? What about the other things mentioned by The Republic? You know, unsubstantiated charges, little or no factual information, uninformed speculation, finger pointing, and uninformed accusations, which is your typical Method of Operation.
"Not everyone in the public arena knows what goes on behind the scenes."
You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes either. You just think you do.
"Call me crazy"
My pleasure. You're crazy.
Monday, January 3, 2011
And Another Uncivil Comment Not Deleted From Columbuzz
Bob wrote:
"Everyone will post civally or their posts will be deleted. Disagreeing with what is said here is fine. Attacking people for what they post here is not."
Recent comment on columbuzz:
"Hey Lake, I know a great church you can go to. Milestone Ministries is just as hateful as you.
I think you would really enjoy it. Look up Tim Miracle, he may even help pull that cross up.
You are just as bad as those idiots that protest at military funerals. Your comments lead me to believe you are a counterfeit Christian.
At least Bob is honest about it, instead of being a jackass hiding behind 'religion'"
"Everyone will post civally or their posts will be deleted. Disagreeing with what is said here is fine. Attacking people for what they post here is not."
Recent comment on columbuzz:
"Hey Lake, I know a great church you can go to. Milestone Ministries is just as hateful as you.
I think you would really enjoy it. Look up Tim Miracle, he may even help pull that cross up.
You are just as bad as those idiots that protest at military funerals. Your comments lead me to believe you are a counterfeit Christian.
At least Bob is honest about it, instead of being a jackass hiding behind 'religion'"
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Bob's Freudian Slip?
Bob wrote in a comment on columbuzz:
"Dude, if your comments are on topic about the topic, they will not go on."
LOL! You're right Bob. If my comments are on topic, they will NOT go on. Of course once he reads this post, he'll fix his comment.
"Dude, if your comments are on topic about the topic, they will not go on."
LOL! You're right Bob. If my comments are on topic, they will NOT go on. Of course once he reads this post, he'll fix his comment.
My Blog
Bob and the Bots are sure making a big fuss over a blog that "hardly nobody reads":
- Bob is writing articles about my blog (yet he still has not posted the address)
- Lucy and Misty are commenting about my blog on columbuzz
- Shawn has created an anti-Dude blog (note that I have not deleted the address from my blog)
- Bob and Jeremy are posting comments here again
The Republic's Opinion
http://hneolive.therepublic.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TheRepublic&BaseHref=TRP/2011/01/02&PageLabel=B4&EntityId=Ar01201&ViewMode=HTML
Quotes from The Republic op-ed:
"It was an unspeakable tragedy and it has raised several questions about whether the county is prepared to handle such situations. It has also brought forth unsubstantiated charges that local governments have spent public money on other projects while neglecting to expend what some consider to be modest amounts for life saving equipment."
"The charges have largely been knee jerk reactions based on little or no factual information."
"It is important they be addressed by the agencies participating in the upcoming meeting and answered in such a manner as to end this uninformed speculation."
"The decisions that should emerge must be based upon a reasoned and informed review of these kinds of situations. Finger pointing and uniformed accusations will only complicate matters."
The Republic sure has Bob pegged:
Quotes from The Republic op-ed:
"It was an unspeakable tragedy and it has raised several questions about whether the county is prepared to handle such situations. It has also brought forth unsubstantiated charges that local governments have spent public money on other projects while neglecting to expend what some consider to be modest amounts for life saving equipment."
"The charges have largely been knee jerk reactions based on little or no factual information."
"It is important they be addressed by the agencies participating in the upcoming meeting and answered in such a manner as to end this uninformed speculation."
"The decisions that should emerge must be based upon a reasoned and informed review of these kinds of situations. Finger pointing and uniformed accusations will only complicate matters."
The Republic sure has Bob pegged:
- unsubstantiated charges
- knee jerk reactions
- little or no factual information
- uninformed speculation
- finger pointing
- uninformed accusations
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Wonderland is Reality Land
"And the idiots over in wonderland say I used the drowning story to attack Fred and Rodney again, because the accident happened in city limits."
It's obvious to everyone why you wrote the article.
"Fred Barkes and Rodney Ferrenburg were the ones that ranted about 'needing to be prepared' and having a contract 'to help other departments.' They are the ones that spent money on everything they wanted, regardless of what they needed. They have a maintenance building they don't need. They spent $3000 for exercize equipment from Rodney and Brianna. Maybe it's needed but apparently not as badly as ice water rescue staff and equipment."
So I guess you now have an excuse to blame Fred and Rodney for everything, even if it's not in their jurisdiction. Convenient. And when are you going to write an article slamming the mayor for not prioritizing correctly? I won't hold my breath.
"Most of the past year, I have been finding out crap that THEY have been doing. So yea,I 'attacke' them, by bringiong out facts."
THEY have been doing their jobs. You just like to complain and attack.
"You'll notice, that in the article I faulted every fire department in the county. I still do. It's sickening that better help wasn't available for that boy."
What's sickening is you using the death of that boy to further your agenda.
It's obvious to everyone why you wrote the article.
"Fred Barkes and Rodney Ferrenburg were the ones that ranted about 'needing to be prepared' and having a contract 'to help other departments.' They are the ones that spent money on everything they wanted, regardless of what they needed. They have a maintenance building they don't need. They spent $3000 for exercize equipment from Rodney and Brianna. Maybe it's needed but apparently not as badly as ice water rescue staff and equipment."
So I guess you now have an excuse to blame Fred and Rodney for everything, even if it's not in their jurisdiction. Convenient. And when are you going to write an article slamming the mayor for not prioritizing correctly? I won't hold my breath.
"Most of the past year, I have been finding out crap that THEY have been doing. So yea,I 'attacke' them, by bringiong out facts."
THEY have been doing their jobs. You just like to complain and attack.
"You'll notice, that in the article I faulted every fire department in the county. I still do. It's sickening that better help wasn't available for that boy."
What's sickening is you using the death of that boy to further your agenda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)