http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=5806
Bob wrote on columbuzz:
"It's time to rethink my actions."
Bob, it's way past time to rethink your actions.
"I have been reading debate and discussions about it as well. Some of my critics on the other website make some good points."
Glad to see you finally acknowledge that.
"Our goal at Columbuzz.net is to get the truth out. It really is; even when some think all we want to do is stir."
Sorry, Bob, but I still don’t believe you really care about the truth.
"I want to confirm things I hear and I want to find out that someone is the snake that I think they are. But I don't want to portray someone to be something they aren't; especially if that something is bad."
It’s a little late for that, don’t you think?
"I believe some are being sneaky but I don't want to say they are until I know they are and can prove it."
I would say trying to sell an odometer tampering device on the Internet is pretty sneaky.
"The turning word on this change in my attitude is 'crook.' I know that someone who breaks the law is a crook. But I have never considered breaking the law to be the only way to be a crook. Apparently, I am wrong. I suppose my definition of crook is better suited for 'sneak.' It doesn't matter. I don't want to be sued to find out I was wrong."
I thought you wanted to go to court so you could prove everything you’ve written is true.
"More importantly, I don't want to accuse anyone of anything they haven't done."
Too late. You already have, multiple times.
"This really isn't my website. But I suppose that depends on what determines ownership. The last person who had it asked me to register the domain name in my name when it came up for renewal. He had promised his wife to get out of it, and he did. Other people do the technical part of it and they knew the person who originated the website. I consider them to be the owners. But again, who owns it isn't as important as the fact that we want to run it correctly, which means being fair, civil, and most importantly, factual."
Sorry Bob, but this makes you look like a weasel. It’s your site. Stop throwing Jeremy under the bus.
"So, I DO have some changes to make. I will not stop the criticism of those who are due criticism. I will not stop investigating those I think are doing things I feel we should know about. I will not stop voicing my opinions. BUT, I will be more careful as to how I word things. I will stop being accusatory when I think and I don't know. I will try to not be so personal in that criticism. That's hard to do when the subject of the issue is human life and caring. It is an emotional issue and it is dear to my heart."
Sometimes I wonder if you even have a heart Bob. I will believe that you’ve changed when I see it. I have my doubts.
"Phil Swaim really got me to thinking most about this. It had nothing to do with anything that he said. Phil is a bright guy. He contributed to this website a few times with articles he had written on local issues and local people. He left the site the other day and asked me not to post any of his stuff anymore. Something is wrong when a level-headed guy like that throws his hands up and walks away."
Yes Bob, something is seriously wrong when that happens.
"If they are a snake, I want to show people what makes them a snake. We all deserve to know."
A snake like you?
"I have to learn to wait on the proof that I know exists. And I will, as hard as that is at times."
Bob, you don’t know that the proof exists until you find it.
"As stubborn as I am at times, I'm not stupid."
I have to respectfully disagree with this statement.
"I don't want to learn the law from a judge, or a cellmate. As much as I think I have proof of some of the wrongdoings, I don't want to find out I'm wrong about that too."
Bob, you have no proof.
"And as much as I dislike some of the critics on the other website, they got through this time. I finally hear what they are saying. They are still full of crap on a lot of issues, but I think they are right on this one."
Took you long enough.
"The letter from the attorney asked me to stop what they consider to be libel per se. Whether I agree with what they call libel per se or not, it has stopped and will not continue. I appreciate what is probably a step they must take in that they asked me to stop. They said they would sue if it continued, and didn't say they were suing me for what I have already posted. I feel it gives me a chance to stop doing it the wrong way and to start doing it the right way. That's exactly what I will do."
Bob, from what I’ve read, I believe the Trustee’s case would be a slam dunk. They said they would sue if it continued, but they could change their minds at any time and proceed with the lawsuit based on what you have already posted. If I were you, I would post both an apology and a retraction, immediately.
"I have said repeatedly that if I said they said something, what I said was true and it didn't matter if what they said was true. But it does. I understand that now."
It always matters if you claim your goal is to get the truth out.
"We will be careful with what we post from here on out."
Time will tell, but I will remain skeptical.
17 comments:
The (feeble attempt at) DAMAGE CONTROL Continues...
Bob has changed his mind.
Barkes is no longer a crook. It was wrong to call him that.
NOW HE IS A SNEAKY SNAKE!
"This really isn't my website. But I suppose that depends on what determines ownership. The last person who had it asked me to register the domain name in my name when it came up for renewal. He had promised his wife to get out of it, and he did. Other people do the technical part of it and they knew the person who originated the website. I consider them to be the owners."
THE LAW 'considers' YOU to be the owner...as well as anyone with common sense who is not delusional and can read what is in black and white.
"...who owns it isn't as important as the fact that we want to run it correctly, which means being fair, civil, and most importantly, factual."
Who owns it is of VITAL IMPORTANCE to the Prosecuter and the Judge.
"I don't want to learn the law from a judge, or a cellmate."
Translation - "Nobody can teach me anything. I already know everything."
"And as much as I dislike some of the critics on the other website, they got through this time. I finally hear what they are saying. They are still full of crap on a lot of issues, but I think they are right on this one."
Translation - "I hate them..."
"...they make sense..."
"...they're full of crap..."
"...they're right."
"I feel it gives me a chance to stop doing it the wrong way and to start doing it the right way. That's exactly what I will do."
Blah, blah, blah.
Same old song and dance.
Heard before.
False apology.
Not gon duit.
"I will not stop the criticism of those who are due criticism.
I will not stop investigating those I think are doing things I feel we should know about.
I will not stop voicing my opinions."
Translation - "I will not stop doing what I have always done.
I will not stop.
I will not stop.
I will not stop."
"I will be more careful as to how I word things.
I will stop being accusatory when I think and I don't know.
I will try to not be so personal in that criticism."
Translation - "I will continue to lie, stir, accuse, edit, censor, insult, delete, and be stupid.
I will continue.
I will continue.
I will continue."
To P.T. Barnum:
Your whistle blowing on Lucy has resulted in corrective action.
It is now the more common, and less extinct SPOTTED leopard.
Good work.
I, for one, am not falling for this latest, "Bob sees the light", nonsense. Bob has done this before and usually when he finds his numbers dwindling and his bots leaving in large numbers.
Columbuzz has almost no participants anymore which has forced Bob back over here to see what's going on. It's simple, he derided all of us, said he was never coming back, and ran off like some spoiled brat. Now, the only people he has to play with are Misty, Loosey and Jeremy because anyone with an ounce of intelligence wants nothing to do with him.
Bob isn't sneaky. Bob isn't transformed. Bob isn't sorry. Bob isn't making amends.
Bob is someone who does not know when to shut up. He is still trying to play his defense out on the internet. Guess what, Bob, this won't work. You WILL BE EXPLAINING THIS IN COURT. **All caps because it's true.**
I hope I'm wrong, but am skeptical too. He said the same thing basically several times (including after the people put the flier out about him, but seems to revert to form.
Perhaps the looming threat of the lawsuit being picked back up at any time MIGHT keep him on his toes, but I am not sure if he can help himself sometimes. He seems to act first and maybe thinks later. (If forced).
It is funny that he is pretty much admitting that he still reads here even though he claimed he wouldn't.
As far as getting the truth out, not always for sure, but it seems like a lot of the ones who do so fail to see their own actions or problems. They are quick to point the finger at someone else though.
Even IF Bob doesn't own the site, his name shows him as the owner and he controls the content and helps run it. I am not sure he would squeak out of it legally. At best, he and Jeremy would both be held liable I presume.
I wonder what issues Bob thinks we are full of crap on. Either way, he thought we were full of crap on this too, but found out differently.
I have tried repeatedly to get Bob to understand that the disclaimer "I was told" wasn't enough. I tried to tell him that he was still putting the rumor out there by saying it as such (he was just trying to skirt responsibility for the comments). Even it it was true that he had been told that, by passing it on he was guilty too. Also, even if not illegal, it is immoral. It might be somewhat different if he said he had heard rumors of something, but didn't know if they were true. But the way he did it was even worse. I tried to get him to understand that we could say all sort of bad things we had heard about him and would also be "telling the truth" in that we had been told that. The pain is still there if we were to do so. Someone even went as far as to make the fliers to prove the point, but ultimately, he reverted back to form.
It is perhaps even more immoral to do so if he knows or strongly suspects that it isn't true.
"I was told that Elvis is still alive." "I was told that x politician had a sex change." I was told that x person slaps around their wife." "I was told that X person hits the sauce real hard." These are not things he has said, but examples perhaps.
He still seems to not get the fact that just because someone tells him something, does not mean it is necessarily too. He seems to believe what he is told or at the very least feel if he is told, he should pass it on whether it is true or not, whether it can be proven or not (and prove isn't that someone told him).
He needs to question the accuracy of what he is told, the credibility of those telling him, and possible motives of the person telling. Some want revenge on someone, some get upset because they didn't get their way (this I think happens with some complaints for those seeking assistance), some have chips on their shoulders (perhaps others who seek assistance), some are mistaken and just don't get it. I am sure there are others. His previous way, anyone with any beef against anyone could tell him something false about them and he would pass it on (but perhaps with his disclaimer). That is just wrong and I hope he finally gets it.
I hope he has changed and don't mean to pile on or discourage, but still am not convinced. I hope I am wrong.
We have all been on this merry go round with Bob before. I really wanted to believe him the last time but he started all the same crap again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I do not believe it at all. Bob has really hurt people with the things he has said and was even fanatic enough to have people talking about carrying guns and hitting women. Great Bob, you typed another sad column trying to show you have changed, but I do not believe it for a minute.
E
One more thing: It is amusing that he threw Phil under the bus so quickly and blasted him, but now is calling him level-headed and saying he helped him to see the error of his ways.
Phil, if I were you I would still stay away for at least a good while. Only after a long time of improved behavior and the removal of all of the bad things from the past would I even consider being associated with him. I, personally haven't been to begin with and have no plans to change that.
I have said this every time (since way back) that Bob pretends remorse......
Don't fall for it.
It never has, and it never will come to pass.
There is no reformation for a person with Bob's mental state.
The only hope for silence from Bob, will be if he is forced to cease via legal channels, medication, or surgical removal of his mouth, or what little gray matter may be found inside his cranium.
by Bob Freeman
I have been doing a lot of thinking the past week about the letter I received from the attorney regarding what I have said about our trustee.
REALLY? THIS WOULD BE A FIRST...YOU THINKING.
I have been reading debate and discussions about it as well. Some of my critics on the other website make some good points.
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT POINT IN PARTICULAR SINCE YOU TOOK YOUR BALL AND WENT HOME A MONTH OR SO AGO.
Our goal at Columbuzz.net is to get the truth out. It really is; even when some think all we want to do is stir.
YOU STILL DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE TRUTH IS, BOB. THIS IS THE CENTERPIECE OF YOUR PROBLEM. HOW CAN ANYONE KNOW WHAT "YOUR" TRUTH IS?
I want to confirm things I hear and I want to find out that someone is the snake that I think they are.
TIME WILL TELL.
But I don't want to portray someone to be something they aren't; especially if that something is bad.
SINCE WHEN, EXACTLY?
I believe some are being sneaky but I don't want to say they are until I know they are and can prove it.
THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU FOREVER BOB. SOMEONE'S ACTIONS VS THEIR INTENTIONS ARE SOMETIMES TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
The turning word on this change in my attitude is 'crook.' I know that someone who breaks the law is a crook. But I have never considered breaking the law to be the only way to be a crook. Apparently, I am wrong.
YES, YOU HAVE BEEN WRONG ABOUT THIS AND A TON OF OTHER THINGS.
I suppose my definition of crook is better suited for 'sneak.' It doesn't matter. I don't want to be sued to find out I was wrong.
AGAIN, BOB, THE TERM SNEAK IS SUBJECTIVE AND IS NOT, NECESSARILY TRUE!
More importantly, I don't want to accuse anyone of anything they haven't done.
I HAVE HEARD THIS BEFORE.
I wasn't aware of some of the responsibilities of fault when others post on a website either.
OBVIOUSLY.
This really isn't my website.
LIE.
But I suppose that depends on what determines ownership.
YOUR NAME IS ON THE LINE, BOB. YOU OWN IT.
PART 2
The last person who had it asked me to register the domain name in my name when it came up for renewal. He had promised his wife to get out of it, and he did.
"SO AND SO SAID THIS AND DID THAT AND WANTED ME TO DO THIS" -- DOESN'T MATTER. YOUR NAME IS ON THE LINE! HELLO?!?!?!
Other people do the technical part of it and they knew the person who originated the website. I consider them to be the owners. But again, who owns it isn't as important as the fact that we want to run it correctly, which means being fair, civil, and most importantly, factual.
STOP BLAMING JEREMY IN THIS VEILED ATTEMPT TO SHIFT BLAME. YOUR NAME IS ATTACHED TO ALL OF THE CRAP THAT YOU AHVE SPEWED FORTH ON A WEB-SITE WITH YOUR NAME REGISTERING THE DOMAIN. SAVE IT FOR COURT!
So, I DO have some changes to make.
AGAIN, WE'LL SEE.
I will not
I will not
I will not
YADA YADA YADA.......................
BUT,
I will be more careful as to how I word things.
WE HAVE HEARD THIS BEFORE!
I will stop being accusatory when I think and I don't know.
YEAH, RIGHT.
I will try to not be so personal in that criticism. That's hard to do when the subject of the issue is human life and caring. It is an emotional issue and it is dear to my heart.
EXCEPT FOR THE PEOPLE YOU TRASHED WITH YOUR RANTS!
Phil Swaim really got me to thinking most about this. It had nothing to do with anything that he said.
YOU SHOULD DO MORE THINKING BOB BEFORE FIRING OFF YOUR MOUTH.
He left the site the other day and asked me not to post any of his stuff anymore. Something is wrong when a level-headed guy like that throws his hands up and walks away.
YOU POISON ANY LEGITIMATE DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING BOB.
PART 3
***HERE IS WHERE BOB STARTS TURNING THE CIRCLE BACK THE OTHER WAY...AGAIN***
Like I said, I don't want to accuse anyone of something they haven't done. I don't want to portray them as they are not.
If they are a snake, I want to show people what makes them a snake. We all deserve to know.
***THIS BASICALLY MEANS THAT BOB STILL MEANS EVERYTHING HE HAS SAID***
I have to learn to wait on the proof that I know exists. And I will, as hard as that is at times.
PROBABLY A LIE BUT TIME WILL TELL.
We heard things last year about one of our local business owners that we knew was true, from the number of people who contacted us with collaberating stories and details. That proof hasn't come in yet.
"WE KNEW WAS TRUE" ~~ BOB'S TRUTH OR THE REAL TRUTH?
We won't always post all of the proof. Sometime we can't for fear of outing our source, but you can bet we will have it printed and ready for a judge if we need it. And we will have that before we post the article.
***THE DEFIANT BOB COMES FULL CIRCLE IN HIS REVELATIONS***
As stubborn as I am at times, I'm not stupid.
I DISAGREE...STRONGLY!
I don't want to learn the law from a judge, or a cellmate.
NO ONE DOES, BOB.
As much as I think I have proof of some of the wrongdoings, I don't want to find out I'm wrong about that too.
I AM CONFUSED, ARE YOU BACK-PEDALING OR JUST TRYING TO COVER ALL OF YOUR BASES?
And as much as I dislike some of the critics on the other website, they got through this time.
WE HAVE HEARD THIS BEFORE.
I finally hear what they are saying. They are still full of crap on a lot of issues, but I think they are right on this one.
YEAH...MMM HMMM.
The letter from the attorney asked me to stop what they consider to be libel per se.
IT DIDN'T ASK BOB...IT DEMANDED. THE LETTER DEMANDED FOR YOU TO STOP!
PART 4
Whether I agree with what they call libel per se or not, it has stopped and will not continue.
BOB, FINALLY, IS TRYING TO AVOID A LAWSUIT.
I appreciate what is probably a step they must take in that they asked me to stop. They said they would sue if it continued, and didn't say they were suing me for what I have already posted.
AFTER YOU GOT THE LETTER, YOU POSTED A PICTURE OF A "PUCKERED UP BUTT-HOLE" AND CHALLENGED YOUR DETRACTORS TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP. HAS THAT BEEN REMOVED FROM YOUR LITTLE WEB-SITE?
I feel it gives me a chance to stop doing it the wrong way and to start doing it the right way.
YOU HAVE HAD PLENTY OF CHANCES, BOB.
As far as what others post here, they will be under the same scrutiny as the staff here is.
YOU DON'T HAVE A STAFF. YOU HAVE JEREMY.
I never dreamed we could be responsible for anything someone else says. It appears that we can.
WELCOME TO THE WORLD BOB!
I have said repeatedly that if I said they said something, what I said was true and it didn't matter if what they said was true. But it does. I understand that now.
MEALY MOUTHED ATTEMPT TO BACK-TRACK ONCE AGAIN.
We will be careful with what we post from here on out.
HEARD THIS BEFORE.
I am not fooled by Bob's latest REACTION to something he WAS TOLD. Bob is reacting to a LETTER FROM AN ATTORNEY and a party who has the upper hand. Even Bob, in all of his delusional grandeur can recognize he is in trouble.
What you are reading is from a very frightened Bob Freeman NOT a reflective Bob Freeman. How do I know? His comments are in RESPONSE to the letter, nothing more, nothing less. He still doesn't get it.
The last time Bob "was wrong" it took him one week to start calling people names again. Its now T - minus six days and counting for a new record.
I would suggest that candidates who have considered Columbuzz to be a legitimate news source need to be remembered on election day.
1. Kristen Brown
2. Priscilla Scalf
3. Chris Rutan
4. Nancy Ann Brown
I don't believe any of the candidates have turned to Columbuzz for anything. Columbuzz just takes what the Republic has reported and copies it to their site. Have you seen any of those candidates post anything on Columbuzz?
I would say that Priscilla Scalf should be remembered on election day for her support of Bob's trustee campaign.
Those candidates HAVE sent Bob materials because entire "articles" about them were "published" on Columbuzz. They are not re-treaded articles from THE REPUBLIC.
Nancy Ann Brown's article on Columbuzz appeared a full week before ever mentioned in THE REPUBLIC.
Kristen Brown's mayoral candidacy was announced the day before it appeared in THE REPUBLIC on Columbuzz.
Chris Rutan posted on Columbuzz.
Post a Comment