Definition of a Crybaby

Normally I wouldn't waste a moment of my time posting about an anonymous blog stalker, but I can't let this pass.

We have the infamous anonymous coward known as "anonone" who spews sweeping monomaniacal borderline-exterminationist garbage around the Delaware blogosphere, and who in past comments has falsely accused me, for example, of supporting the Bush administration to the point of saying I somehow 'aided war criminals', amongst other various distortions about me personally.

Of all those with whom I politically or ideologically disagree around the Delaware blogosphere, no matter how strenuously we might argue, none except this particularly nasty troll has ever made such ridiculous and false accusations.

Even those with whom I have had the most heated exchanges or personal friction are honest enough to admit, for example, that I have consistently and vigorously displayed nothing but contempt and condemnation, in the blogosphere and even on public airwaves, over the outrages of Bush, Cheney, their hatchet men, and their neocon warmonger fellow travelers, for example.

This self-important anonymous coward has also made a habit of accusing my and Delaware Libertarian's good friend Mike Matthews and his fellow Down With Absolutes bloggers of racism, amongst other hysterical and ridiculous slurs.

Crazy as it is, given his/her troll status, this "anonone" is the first to cry foul when his wittle sense of propriety in the blogosphere (i.e. that we tolerate and entertain her/his twisted accusations and personalized falsehoods) is somehow offended...as if those of us who put out time and effort running a blog and presenting content somehow owe this anonymous troll some type of deference, as he/she hides behind their special little moniker.

Well, guess what? Bulls**t on that.

Like some around the blogosphere I don't buy that any of us is obliged, for any reason, to tolerate the likes of anyone with a trolling track record like "anonone", much less allow our blogs to become his/her forum to make personal attacks and antagonize other commenters or bloggers.

Yesterday when this "anonone" reduced the comments on a post about cold fusion into distorted broad-brush accusations and outright name-calling, in particular calling me a "hypocrite" and "crybaby", I had enough. For the first time in my life I moderated someone's comment (i.e. deleted it). More than anything, it was to send a message to this person that I am drawing the line.

Of course since this "anonone" feels the world owes him/her, he/she immediately went crying to a blog quite friendly to his/her ideology and admittedly quite tolerant of personalized flame wars, for better or worse.

Ironically it is a blog in which some of the moderators admittedly have deleted comments they didn't like and even banned commenters (though it is rare) as is their right, the exercise of which I have never questioned.

This "anonone" childishly leapt to hijack a thread there (as if anyone there necessarily cares what goes on over here or what I do on this blog) to cry like a baby that his comment was quashed :

"Hey, I had a comment deleted by Tyler Nixon over at Delaware Libertarian today.

He accused me of “quite nasty and way over-the-top vitriol.” I basically responded by writing that all anyone had to do was read his Obama posts if they wanted to read “quite nasty and way over-the-top vitriol."

I think he must have got mad when I said that he was a crybaby who liked to dish it out but couldn’t take it in return.

It was in the thread on “cold fusion.” I thought that I was quite polite, actually.

Those crazy Libertarians!"

If such a pathetically self-indulgent comment and the ethos behind it aren't the perfect definition of a "crybaby" I honestly don't know what would be.

Now of course this person thinks that they are being clever in doing this, kind of like a 2nd-grader running off to teacher to snitch, but disguising it as though just commenting on the weather....("Now please please please, teach, tell me what a good boy/girl I am!!").

Well, once again, bulls**t on that. This "anonone" person has previously stalked me (or any mention of me) around the blogosphere, instigating and laying false accusations directly and implicity. I engaged this troll in countless instances and was fine with all the give-and-take.

But this blog has become as much a result of my efforts and energy as Steve and others here and I will be damned if I will tolerate someone of this ilk bringing their personal accusations and anonymous attacks to any post I write.

I have already seen enough bile thrown at my friend, Mike Matthews, who aptly notes that he and the vast majority of Delaware blog commenters have the balls to sign their own name to accusations and attacks, should they happen to engage in any. Many pseudonymous commenters, despite being unknown to many casual readers, are nonetheless personally known to some or all other bloggers in "real life".

"Anonone" has quite quite indignantly and jealously guarded his/her pseudonymity, outlandishly accusing real people by name, but never having the stones to allow for scrutiny or verification of his/her many self-serving claims such as : "I have more than a dozen articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals." It is quite ironic that in nearly the same breath as this claim, this "anonone" pointed out that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. (Apparently for everyone but "anonone", of course).

I am all about securing anonymity as a means to protect political or ideological content, but not as cheap cover to make personalized attacks on other commenters/bloggers, while never being personally held to account for one's own claims, or actions, or life, for that matter.

So hear this, anonone : you are banned from commenting in any of my posts from here forward. Your comments will not be accepted by me under any circumstance.

In keeping with my freedom (yes, quite libertarian) to determine who or what is appropriate in comments on my posts here, I am done tolerating this particular internet troll's insidious nonsense and anonymous asshattery.

Commenting is not a right, it is a privilege that "anonone" abused one too many times.

So, as famously said by my good friend Dana Garrett, with whom I once had many heated blog battles and personal arguments (as real friends do) : "Put that in your pipe and smoke it."


IMPORTANT NOTE : Delaware Libertarian godfather Steve does not necessarily agree with me on the moderation of posts; but in libertarian fashion he accepts that my posts are my intellectual property, and that I am free to deal with them however I choose. He does not endorse my action and has his own policy, as stated previously.

This is my decision and mine alone. I can say with 100% certainty that "anonone" is the only person who will ever be subject to such a blanket ban by me on any content I post and, at that, I doubt it will be permanent. I never believe anyone totally irredeemable. Despite the caricature of me that might be conjured by "anonone" or those like him/her, whether from my musings in the blogs or my political advocacy, I am a very forgiving person.

But we all have limits. At the heart of this is how much I detest the personal vitriol I have seen thrown around the blogosphere, not merely at public figures or over public issues but at each other. Too many of us have trouble backing down from a fight (or just recognizing when it is a useless pissing match)...as I readily admit I have been guilty of...when instigated.

In the case of "anonone", I am simply pre-empting any more of this instigation. I already completely withdrew long ago from ever engaging this person on other blogs. Since then I have only engaged them here, if at all, when they showed up to comment.

If I thought asking "anonone" to steer clear of my posts would be sufficient, I would do so. But since this person is largely an internet phantom, I have no means to do so privately.

So this is the result, like it or not.

Now...back to real life...