- 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:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
65 comments:
I agree with the following, Dude:
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 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.
_______________________________________________
Before Bob can even begin to admit to having told lies or clear up the odometer matter, he needs to make public amends for his viscous personal attacks. He was willing to extend Susan Fye an appropriate apology and it's time for him to address the Barkes and the Ferrenburg's.
Remember Bob, no one is suggesting that your professional disagreements are wrong, just your choice of words in your personal attacks.
I hope you will consider this as it is a logical step for you. Thanks.
"A public apology on columbuzz to the Barkes and Ferrenburg families for EEB's personal attacks against them."
No, I can't apologize for something I meant then, and mean now.
I showed proof of what I wrote.
I still believe in what I called them both.
IF she did the funeral thing, she deserved worse than I gave her. I believe, from witnesses I spoke with, that she did exactly what they said.
SBOA shows Barkes was wrong and played around with the money. I proved that. That makes him a crook, in my opinion.
I apologized to Susan Fye for thinking she was the one all these years when she was not.
"An admittance (on my blog, not on columbuzz) that EEB sometimes lies.
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."
I did not lie. I designed a switch for a fuse. Someone suggested it would work for an odometer and we started to market it as such. When we learned it was illegal, we stopped right then.
We were selling a tool for someone else to possibly break the law but the switches were legal to have and to sell, unless they were sold for that purpose. We never sold any. And the day we ran the ads is the day we stopped the ads.
I learned yesterday that I didn't place the ad you found, my buddy did. That's why it wasn't stopped. I didn't know about it.
I guess it might be better to say I stopped when I learned it was illegal. So I guess I didn't 'knowlingly' break the law.
"An explanation of EEB's selective whistle blowing. If columbuzz only exists to blow the whistle on Republicans, then they should make that clear."
Jeremy hates the Mayor. So did Nathan. They both would post in a heartbeat anything bad he could find. We simply haven't seen any evidence of it or it would be on Columbuzz. Bring me evidence and we will post it.
It's mostly Republicans because that's almost all we have in office around here.
"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."
Because it was a part of an entire conversation I was deleting because of the uncivil nature of the conversation. A few times, when some, not just you, get on the there and start just causing trouble or using different names, I would delete everything I could by them just to get them off the website.
Right or wrong, that's what usually happened.
I am trying to be more selective now and only delete the uncivil stuff. Which we actually haven't had much of lately.
But the big one, I apologize when I am wrong. I don't feel that I was wrong in either of the Barkes' cases.
I meant and I mean what I called her.
I meant and I mean what I said about what someone should have done to her that day.
I think Fred is a crook and plays games with the money.
Rodney Ferrenburg is just as I have described him.
If it were his professional skills I felt were bad. I would say so. But it's his PERSONAL image that sucks and needs to improve. He works for us and he should act it. If not, then he will be called out on it.
For a leader to scream, holler, and threaten people is about as personable as it can get.
I will not apologize for something I still believe.
And those actions weren't only directed at his staff. They were directed at myself as well. I had him scream and holler at me.
And again, I provided facts to back up every single word I said about each and every one of them and nobody wants to look at that or prove me wrong.
They just want to deny.
If you go read what I said, you will see each and every word is true and backed with fact.
You know, you all say I should prove what I say. I know that I have.
You call me a liar. You should have to prove that I'm lying. And I'm not.
And not as much gets deleted as you think. Just because comments and articles aren't on the front page of the website, it doesn't mean they were deleted.
There's only so much room on the front page. You simply need to know how to dig for it.
If you go to the bottom half of the page, you will see categories for types of articles.
Click the title to each section and you will see all sorts of articles.
Most, probably 98% never get deleted. And the comments are attached to the articles they were written for.
Bob Freeman said...
"A public apology on columbuzz to the Barkes and Ferrenburg families for EEB's personal attacks against them."
No, I can't apologize for something I meant then, and mean now.
I showed proof of what I wrote.
I still believe in what I called them both.
IF she did the funeral thing, she deserved worse than I gave her. I believe, from witnesses I spoke with, that she did exactly what they said.
BOB, THIS CLEARLY SHOWS YOUR PROBLEM. YOU DID NOT MAKE THESE COMMENTS AS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL. YOU WERE A CANDIDATE FOR PUBLIC OFFICE AND THE "EDITOR/PUBLISHER" OF A WEB-SITE THAT CLAIMS TO BE FAIR. YOUR ATTACKS WERE PERSONAL AND SINCE YOU GOT BEAT IN THE ELECTION, I GUESS THE PEOPLE SPOKE BUT FOR YOU TO CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO ACCEPT THAT YOUR WORDS WERE WRONG IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IT'S JUST NOT.
SBOA shows Barkes was wrong and played around with the money. I proved that. That makes him a crook, in my opinion.
THAT IS YOUR OPINION BOB THAT YOU STATED AS FACT. IT HAS NOT BEEN LITIGATED AND HE HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED. MAN UP. AN OPINION IS ONE THING BUT YOU ARE NOT THE LAW, BOB.
Bob
Personal attacks have no place in an election, on a website you help control, or in articles you write the lower you as a politician, a man and a human being. If you ever wamt to amount to more then ajoke in this county clean up what you have done. It looks like EEB is coming back
Sorry typo in my above post...THEY LOWER YOU
'"An admittance (on my blog, not on columbuzz) that EEB sometimes lies. 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."
"I did not lie. I designed a switch for a fuse. Someone suggested it would work for an odometer and we started to market it as such. When we learned it was illegal, we stopped right then.
We were selling a tool for someone else to possibly break the law but the switches were legal to have and to sell, unless they were sold for that purpose. We never sold any. And the day we ran the ads is the day we stopped the ads. I learned yesterday that I didn't place the ad you found, my buddy did. That's why it wasn't stopped. I didn't know about it.
I guess it might be better to say I stopped when I learned it was illegal. So I guess I didn't 'knowlingly' break the law."
Bob, you are evading the issue. Explain the following:
1. Bob Freeman knew on Dec. 5, 2010 that advertising the device was illegal.
2. Bob Freeman and his cohort in crime admitted that they advertised the device on several websites.
3. 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.
4. 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.
You said "I broke no laws with the odometer deal" multiple times, which is a lie. At the time you wrote the statements, you knew advertising (and testing) it was against the law.
"You know, you all say I should prove what I say. I know that I have."
Again, Bob, you have proved nothing. Your proof is your opinion, nothing more.
"You call me a liar. You should have to prove that I'm lying. And I'm not."
I have. Twice. There are more I can prove too if you want.
"SBOA shows Barkes was wrong and played around with the money. I proved that. That makes him a crook, in my opinion."
But the SBOA found nothing illegal, correct? You called him a criminal which means he was guilty of a crime. I guess you know more about accounting than the SBOA?
""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."
"Because it was a part of an entire conversation I was deleting because of the uncivil nature of the conversation"
Incorrect. It was not part of any conversation. You complain about others and their denials. You are the master of denials, Bob.
Did you all notice that Bob ignored this one?
"An explanation of why EEB would even attempt to sell a device who's 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."
Every time Bob Freeman opens his mouth, nothing but bullshit comes out.
BOB-BULL: "I did not lie. I designed a switch for a fuse."
A switch is just a circuit interrupter. There are designs(patents) for every type of switch you could think of. Why would you have to 'design' one? I doubt that you did, or are even able to, design a switch. Unless it was something like a safety-pin with a wire twisted around it, held together with a rubber band and cellophane tape.
"Someone (Bob's convenient imaginary scapegoat friend) suggested it would work for an odometer and we started to market it as such. When we learned it was illegal, we stopped right then.
We were selling a tool for someone else to possibly break the law but the switches were legal to have and to sell, unless they were sold for that purpose."
Bob thinks people are stupid enough to believe a tale that would only be expected to come from an adolescent.
BOB'S AD STATED IT'S (and his) INTENDED USE!
Directly from the ad: "I make a device that let's you turn your odometer on and off.
It plugs into the fusebox where your odometers fuse is.
YOU CAN KEEP THE MILES OFF YOUR CAR."
BOB KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS DOING AND THAT IT WAS WRONG. ("sold for that purpose")
A child would have known.
"I didn't 'knowlingly' break the law."
"DROP THE CASE, JUDGE!
BOB DIDN"T KNOW!"
Our Village Idiot will never be dethroned.
"And the day we ran the ads is the day we stopped the ads."
BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT.....and BULLSHIT!
"I learned yesterday that I didn't place the ad you found, my buddy did. That's why it wasn't stopped. I didn't know about it."
Yesterday? LMAO
Your buddy? LOL
That imaginary person in your head that you blame for any of YOUR wrong-doing?
You are DEFINITELY a mental midget.
"I guess it might be better to say I stopped when I learned it was illegal."
So NOW, you didn't stop "right then", as you stated above?
Your story keeps changing, Bob.
It even changes before you are finished with your paragraph.
FACT - BOB STOPPED WHEN HE WAS EXPOSED, RIGHT HERE ON THIS BLOG, WHERE THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND PROOF WERE PUBLISHED.
BOB WAS BUSTED AND REACTED, JUST AS A GUILTY PERSON WOULD BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO ACT, IN ORDER TO ATTEMPT TO SAVE HIMSELF FROM PROSECUTION.
"So I guess I didn't 'knowlingly' break the law."
"Knowlingly"? LOL
You "guess"?
Bob........BOB!
Are you blind, or just stupid?
Your knowledge and intent are crystal clear.
Your excuses, explanations, reaction, and descriptions of this matter, are that of a child's.
"I learned yesterday that I didn't place the ad you found, my buddy did. That's why it wasn't stopped. I didn't know about it."
Throwing your buddy under the bus? It's hard to believe someone when their story constantly changes.
EVEN MORE BULLSHIT FROM LIAR BOB: "I still believe in what I called them both."
But you can't even say your original descriptive words that you so strongly believe applies to them?
"I had him scream and holler at me."
Bob the poor little bitch-boy.
Shame on that bad man.
Do you need a hug, buddy?
"We simply haven't seen any evidence of it or it would be on Columbuzz. Bring me evidence and we will post it."
Since when was evidence needed for stories and statements posted on Columbuzz?
If only it had been submitted typed in CAPS.
Then, the requirement of facts, evidence, and proof would have been met.
"No, I can't apologize for something I meant then, and mean now."
Then you will never be respected by the community at large.
"And those actions weren't only directed at his staff. They were directed at myself as well. I had him scream and holler at me."
Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would scream and holler at you.
"We simply haven't seen any evidence of it or it would be on Columbuzz."
Wasn't the mayor asked to reimburse the city for money he misspent? Did you investigate this?
It looks to me like you crucify Republicans based on hearsay, but you need evidence for Democrats.
By the way Bob, I'm sure no one (except for the bots) believes your "I don't lie" statement. You should just man up and admit that you lied about breaking the law.
Also note that Bob said nothing about my second proof of one of his lies: "We protect the privacy of those who post here."
Tell that to Bob Smith and Charlie Townsend.
"My poor, sad little buckaroo needs a friend."
'Forlorn Freeman'
Bob wrote: "So I guess I didn't 'knowlingly' break the law."
That's not what you wrote. Your exact words were "I broke no laws with the odometer deal."
I did advertise them. It is illegal to advertise them. So yes, I guess I broke the law.
I jaywalk occasionally too.
You're playing games with words now. We advertised them one night late and took the ads down the next day when we learned it was illegal.
It wasn't done with the intent of breaking the law. It was done much as a company sells bongs and roach clips. Legal to sell but illegal to use for illegal purposes.
But you have NOT shown where I lied about the Barkes' or the Ferrenburgs. Not once.
If you can, show me where I lied.
Being crooked doesn't mean you're a proven criminal. I said Barkes was a crook, and I mean it.
You can be crooked when you play games with the books, and he has been said, by the SBOA, of playing games with the books.
And Rodney Ferrenburg is just what I have ever said about him.
Show me the lies.
Who is Bob Smith?
And if Merc is not Charlie Townsend, then we did protect those who post here because Charlie never posted there. Correct?
And Merc is the exception. He does everything he can to destroy a website.
He isn't a person who 'posts' on a website. He is a bad disease on a website. He is out to destroy any website that I engage in, except for this one apparently.
We will protect our website from a tumor such as he becomes.
And our actions have kept him from doing to Columbuzz what he has done to every other website he and I have had debates in.
And if I have called Barkes a criminal, it isn't necessarily false.
You can be a criminal and not have been caught yet.
And, I believe it is illegal to have meth and precursors in your home. He had them.
That is illegal. That has been proven. That makes him a criminal.
It is fact that Barkes had meth and precursors in his house and on his property.
That is illegal. Not knowing is no excuse, remember?
He is guilty. Even if unknowingly.
I think it's time to re-examine the stores I told about the Barkeses and the Ferrenburgs.
Maybe a little hindsight is a good thing.
You want to support them, so lets report their shining moments of service to the people of Columbus Township.
Maybe we can find a child molester within their ranks. Ya reckon? How fucking personal would that be?
Or how about a constantly drunk trustee?
Maybe there's a 'cunt that needs knocked on her ass' in some of the stories.
Let's see what we can find. Wanna?
You people want to constantly tear apart every fucking word I say and defend those rotten SOBs.
You want to attack, so let's fucking attack.
Shall we? Only lets do it on a website that has a few readers.
"And if Merc is not Charlie Townsend, then we did protect those who post here because Charlie never posted there. Correct?"
Now who's playing games with words. I'm Bob Smith, remember? You revealed my "identity" after I posted my article last year. And at the time, you didn't know it was a fake name.
"Not knowing is no excuse, remember?"
Not knowing the law is no excuse.
"You want to attack, so let's fucking attack."
And EEB is back. That didn't take long.
"Dude, end this bullshit or find someone else to bicker with about me.
These accusations are over the line.
Stop it or you can continue without me. "
End what? Are you asking me to censor comments? If you don't like a comment, just ignore it.
Bob, you are still ignoring this one. Is this what a Boy Scout leader would do? A Big Brother?
"An explanation of why EEB would even attempt to sell a device who's 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."
"I'm asking you to expect everyone to be civil and stop the stupid accusations."
You run your website your way. I'll run mine my way. You aren't civil, so why should I require others to be.
"I'm sure Fred and Sandra Barkes will appreciate all this coming up again.
I'll be sure to let them know why."
Bob, the election is over. You're the one that will look like a raving lunatic, again.
"It is fact that Barkes had meth and precursors in his house and on his property. That is illegal. Not knowing is no excuse, remember? He is guilty. Even if unknowingly."
Incorrect. His son was guilty, not him.
"And if I have called Barkes a criminal, it isn't necessarily false."
Yes it is. It is libel without proof.
I wrote:
"An explanation of why EEB would even attempt to sell a device who's 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."
Bob wrote: "I explained it. I was making a device to sell legally."
Bob, I'm not talking about legally in this case. I'm talking about morally.
"The DOPE was in FRED BARKES' house, not his SONS house. It is illegal to have the crap in your house. The law doesn't say there are exceptions. Obviously, his somnb was the reason and he was punished and not Fred, bt the law says it is illegal to have it in your house. Fred and Snadra Barkes had METH and PRECURSORS in their home and all over their property."
You called Fred Barkes a criminal before you even knew about this. You called him a criminal for things he has done as a trustee. This is libel without proof.
And Bob, if someone plants meth in your house, does that mean you should be arrested for it?
"You and your asshole buddies ramped up your attacks."
I did not ramp up my attacks. I asked you to do some simple things that you refuse to do. You just got your panties in a wad because I proved you're a liar.
"And Dude, F YOU and you questions."
It's not my fault you can't answer them.
"You're nothing but a fing troublemaker."
Karma is sweet. Pot. Kettle. Black
"It wasn't done with the intent of breaking the law. It was done much as a company sells bongs and roach clips. Legal to sell but illegal to use for illegal purposes."
Is there a legal purpose for an odometer tampering device?
"I'm asking you to expect everyone to be civil and stop the stupid accusations. Like you demand of me."
That is incorrect. My problem with you is that you don't play by your own rules. You expect everyone else to be civil but you can be as uncivil as you want.
Asking me if I'm still molesting little boys is calling me a molester.
And you have NOT proven I lied.
I may have been wrong about the odometer law.
Show me where I lied about the Barkes bunch.
I haven't.
It is illegal for him to manipulate the funds the way he does. Just because he hasn't been convicted or just because the SBOA doesn't have the balls to crack him on it, it doesn't mean he isn't breaking the law.
In my opinion, as I have stated, he is one crooked son of a bitch.
Now I just have to prove it and have him prosecuted and jailed before you'll admit what a sneak he is.
I didn't say Fred PUT the drugs in his house. I said it is illegal to HAVE drugs in your house, which he did. So he broke the law by allowing it. Even if he didn't know he was breaking the law.
Just as you say I broke the law by advertising what I thought was legal.
And I personally talked to three witnesses that said what Sandra Barkes did at the funeral home. I think it's time we get them on video and let them tell their stories. Maybe even put it out on youtube.
What they say she did is one of the worst things someone could do to someone mourning at a funeral. So now we need to prove she did it. Right?
"Asking me if I'm still molesting little boys is calling me a molester."
Tomato, tom-ah-to.
"And you have NOT proven I lied."
Yes I have.
"I may have been wrong about the odometer law."
Convenient excuse. I didn't lie, I was wrong. It was a misunderstanding. I swear.
"Show me where I lied about the Barkes bunch. I haven't."
I have.
"It is illegal for him to manipulate the funds the way he does. Just because he hasn't been convicted or just because the SBOA doesn't have the balls to crack him on it, it doesn't mean he isn't breaking the law."
Please cite the specific law that he broke, Detective Freeman.
"In my opinion, as I have stated, he is one crooked son of a bitch."
It is a fact that you're a crooked SOB. Not only is odometer tampering illegal, it is morally wrong.
"I didn't say Fred PUT the drugs in his house. I said it is illegal to HAVE drugs in your house, which he did. So he broke the law by allowing it. Even if he didn't know he was breaking the law."
You don't follow logic very well, do you? If he didn't know about it (just like if someone planted it), then how did he allow it? You, on the other hand, knew you were breaking the law.
"What they say she did is one of the worst things someone could do to someone mourning at a funeral. So now we need to prove she did it. Right?"
And how are you going to do that? Was someone wearing a wire? Did someone videotape the funeral?
Bob will not, and cannot change.
He is a natural born prick.
I said I wouldn't say, "I told you so."
....so I won't.
Bob, although I have no examples offhand, time and time again you have either outright accused people of things or in more recent times asked questions in essence intimating they were guilty. You have stated that saying someone reported something is true because they have reported it to you. So, even if something is untrue or unsubstantiated, you have posted it because in your mind saying it was reported to you is telling the truth whether what was reported is true or not. How is asking if you are something (even untrue) any different than what you have done?
You had gotten better and more reasonable, but as before you revert back when backed in the corner. Yes, there are times people really pile on and call you names or say things they shouldn't. Nonetheless, you make the decision to blow your which is probably what they want.
Yes a criminal is a criminal whether they are caught or not. Yes ignorance of the law is no excuse. If there were drugs in the house, the party who put them there should be held responsible not the homeowner. Granted, even if the homeowner is unaware there COULD be liability, but a parent cannot always control what their kids do 24 / 7. There is no evidence he was aware, so he didn't likely allow it. He was likely ignorant that they were there.
As far as shuffling money, it isn't like he gave it to himself, friends or other things. He may have shuffled money from one area and to another, but I am not sure that is a crime. Perhaps he shouldn't have done it, but it is more like taking rent money for his house and putting it on a heating bill NOT like taking his wife's money and buying himself a boat.
I neglected to mention your telling Dude how to run this blog. You basically want this blog to be run in a way that doesn't allow attacking you (which I agree with to some degree), but you want the power over there to attack anyone as you see fit. Perhaps Dude could follow suit and run this like there which might limit us from attacking you (or not), but would allow him to attack any poster as he sees fit. How would you like those apples?
In fact, if he ran this like Columbuzz, he could attack you in a "story" as much as he wanted and not allow you to defend yourself. I admit you seem to have made some progress in changing that a bit and I salute you for that. However, it was that way a long time and you still don't allow people in the stories to post their side there. You are seeming to at least talk to some first and that is the part you seem to have improved on.
"Nonetheless, you make the decision to blow your which is probably what they want."
Bob just doesn't get it. That's why they do it, to get Bob to blow his top and he takes the bait every time. I don't understand why he can't just ignore those comments. Maybe he was mad at me for calling him out and was looking for an excuse to resume his attacks. Or maybe he's just a control freak and can't stand it when he can't delete the comments.
"As far as shuffling money, it isn't like he gave it to himself, friends or other things. He may have shuffled money from one area and to another, but I am not sure that is a crime. Perhaps he shouldn't have done it, but it is more like taking rent money for his house and putting it on a heating bill NOT like taking his wife's money and buying himself a boat."
And this issue was worthy of debate during the election. Bob didn't agree with how the money was used, which is fine. He could have disagreed civilly and let the voters decide, but he had to go off the deep end and attack.
"I neglected to mention your telling Dude how to run this blog. You basically want this blog to be run in a way that doesn't allow attacking you (which I agree with to some degree), but you want the power over there to attack anyone as you see fit."
I would make a deal with Bob if I thought he would honor it. I would delete attacks on him, which I define as accusations against him without proof, if he would do the same on columbuzz. But I don't think he's capable of doing that. He believes Fred Barkes is guilty of a crime without proof.
Bob seems to know a lot about gay sex. (No offense to the GLBT community.)
How can anyone have a civil conversation with Bob Freeman when has proven time and again to be the most uncivil piece of s--- in Columbus?
Bob, you are totally overreacting and acting like a child. Think about it. You are freaking out over an idiotic comment posted by an idiot on a blog that nobody reads. As Joanna would say, and I quote, "It's BS on a blog. Nothing more."
Exactly. You want proof of what I said, and you're going to get it, over and over and over....
"Exactly. You want proof of what I said, and you're going to get it, over and over and over...."
I hope it's not the same old "proof" (opinion) from before, cause that would be really boring. You're going to lull your web visitors to sleep.
Bob is acting like an ill-tempered infant again.
He gets upset and goes and starts lashing out and attacking others who probably aren't even the ones doing the attacking and maybe not even relation to anyone here. I have never to my knowledge met the Barkes family.
There is more than Brian who posted in a civil manner. You go and attack EVERYONE here (except maybe Brian), call us idiots, gay and all that crap all because at least one calls you something or makes an indirect implication by asking. I don't think you are a molester, but the person who made the comment was trying to make a point on you that seems to have escaped you. It isn't the way I would have done it exactly, but still.
As far as my being an idiot, pardon my lack of modesty at the moment, but something tells me that I have more intellect than you do. Not in every area for sure, but nonetheless. Just basing it on your gullibility in falling for scams, not understanding when people are making points with you, and other things I have seen.
Let me say though, I have friends who are more intellectual than I. Some of them in several areas. Some of course are skills and training, but others maybe with higher IQs, but I am still not an idiot.
"I don't think you are a molester"
I don't think Bob is either, but I'm really starting to wonder at this point. Every time someone even mentions it, he goes totally ballistic.
OK, I don't get it. I don't normally look at my statcounter log file, but I wanted to see where the above comment came from. It came from Columbuzz.
To be fair, Dude, being accused of being a molester or rapist would be two of the most insulting things a person could be accused of. I have a couple of others that I would find equally insulting, but don't think Bob would find them offensive. Nonetheless, I am not giving him any ideas. Of course Bob uses the "C" word on women which is one of their biggest.
Bob might also find the molester thing especially offensive due to his dad and the problems there. He might even have concerns that he could be that way by something in the genes, but that is probably reading too much into it.
"Bob might also find the molester thing especially offensive due to his dad and the problems there. He might even have concerns that he could be that way by something in the genes, but that is probably reading too much into it."
Maybe so, but you would think that would make him more sensitive to offensive name calling himself. And why would Bob or someone else from columbuzz write "But are you still molesting little boys? Oh, and you're just a janitor. You aren't the concrete technologist that you claim to be."
It was sarcasm toward the February 1, 2011 4:02 PM post.
"It was sarcasm toward the February 1, 2011 4:02 PM post."
OK. For a second, I thought that maybe the February 1, 2011 8:05 AM comment came from you. So how is this sarcasm to NotDudeNotJeffBarkesNotMerc's comment?
"Let me say though, I have friends who are more intellectual than I. Some of them in several areas. Some of course are skills and training, but others maybe with higher IQs, but I am still not an idiot."
I was responding to that.
And the 8:05 was not from me.
Okay, Bobbo, maybe the custodian thing is sarcasm against my rebuttal of your initial comment about us being idiots. How do you justify the molesting bit? I haven't accused you of that (or the janitor thing for that matter). My intellect comment was made because YOU pretty much called all of us posters here idiots. Had you not done that I would not have made my comment.
For the record, I don't find you stupid or a janitor. I do find you to be gullible or naive in that you believe these get rich quick schemes, believe what people report to you on Columbuzz and your failure sometimes to get certain points that are being made. I don't know if you are unable to see them because you lose your temper because you are upset over the comments instead of seeing the point the poster is trying to make or what.
We can disagree and not call each other names. We have done it before. We can see things different ways. Your problems are in believing unfounded accusations, stating them as facts or responding to people as if they are facts (assuming people are guilty and treating them as such), losing your temper and lashing out when you don't get your way or don't like when you don't have the power and so forth.
In case you haven't noticed, there have been times I have defended you or tried to explain why you might act or think the way you do (as in why the molester comment might upset you). I have done this in spite of the insults you have hurled my way as a part of the posters here.
Oh Bob how I have missed you!! When you go off on one of these rants I find myself waiting for the next post like a kid at Christmas. It has been such a long week without something spewing from your mouth like poison. I am so sorry whatever mood stabilizer you where on has stopped workin, you are in my thoughts :)
"For the record, I don't find you stupid"
I find Bob to be very ignorant. He has little to no logic skills. Of course, it's not really a fair fight between Bob and me, but I digress.
"I am so sorry whatever mood stabilizer you where on has stopped workin, you are in my thoughts"
Maybe Bob should try a different medication.
A heavy dose of Thorazine would be a good start.
More insight from the whistle-blower himself:
"Why don't you meet me and my stepsons and you tell them you think I'm a child molester. I would enjoy watching you get the fuck beat out of you."
I have a better idea, why don't you grab your own whistle and blow those 2 morons yourself? Or is that why your wife originally divorced you in California in the first place? Were they part of your scout pack Bob?
Or was she one of the people your brother stole from in his pyramid scheme?
Come on tough guy. I know you say you want to get at the truth, so let's do exactly that.
That's not what I wrote. I wrote "I find Bob to be very ignorant. He has little to no logic skills."
Post a Comment