My Blog, My Editorial Decisions

I have an anonymous reader who in recent days has posted dozens of times. I stopped publishing him or her when it became apparent the person pressed some sort of existential rewind button and was sending messages with the same theme over and over again. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what he or she is talking about.

Here is a message I received last night:

"Gee, on the latest Blue Fairy chapter, not much on TLC, past the email from Rex.(10/21/09)Suck the rubes in, then if any get too pointed block their posts, slant the board, run to Simple Justice get them to run "confront the cult", and then get the dupes to pump you for some liason to TLC for the Alumni. What a piece of work you are.Maybe you are proving some point, TLC is filled with some very naive people,(Confirmed by Mike) do they boarder on being suckers ?
Some of; oh please lets be friends, can we cry on your sholder, we were cut loose by the Price, the Earl, and the Duke of Teton.Most of the people Spence smeared in his 1996 book were dead when he wrote it, like the ex Dean of the Law School, where Spence ran some Number....You say there was no body of law taught at Spence's TLC, just how to be a drama-rama, lama. Why should it even qualify for any CLE( emphasis on the L(law) credits, it might apply for some acting gig thing.In any event, you are wrapping up to limit comments, close it down form the restless natives, seek to gain approval from you PALS, like Rex, as your suck 'em in tactic seemed to back fire on you(MIKE, ET AL.).Some quasi method, but who is getting sucked in now, after the lights on the mirrors were in bright beam modes. "

I passed this along to two friends to see if they could discern some meaning in it. One sent back a link to an essay on thought disorders; another just threw up hands in despair. Check out:

Until recently, I published virtually every comment I received, anonymous or not. In the past week, I have become more selective. Two writers in particular have been rejected: One is a former client from whose case I was permitted to withdraw for reasons best left unstated. The other is this fellow or a close kin.

The decision I made to walk away from TLC posts isn't a product of fear of the college or its emissaries. There was no secret deal. Their is no cabal. I stand by what I have written and if newbie board members or Rex or anyone else wants to now strut, huff and puff: God Bless them. They can look in someone else's mirror. Mine's closed on the topic. I'm shaking the dust off my feet and moving on.

I may well elect a policy against publication of anonymous posts, but I am not there yet. I do reserve the right to reject posts I don't understand, or that I think reflect the sort of rage best left to a psychiatrist. If you don't like it, don't read.

Comments: (2)

  • When this fellow wasn't busy wasting your bandwidt...
    When this fellow wasn't busy wasting your bandwidth, he was busy wasting mine. My tolerance for incoherence is limited, and he was banned from commenting. That hasn't stopped him from trying, but it has saved me the effort of trying to figure out if he's got a point or is just off the meds.
    The internet is the great melting pot, though some have melted more than others.
    Posted on October 24, 2009 at 2:41 am by shg
  • Cults attract these kind of people (the poster men...
    Cults attract these kind of people (the poster mentioned in your blog above). There are many such folks involved in TLC.
    Posted on October 26, 2009 at 5:33 am by Anonymous

Add a Comment

Display with comment:
Won't show with comment:
What is 2 + 2?
*Comment must be approved and then will show on page.
© Norm Pattis is represented by Elite Lawyer Management, managing agents for Exceptional American Lawyers
Media & Speaker booking [hidden email]