Tuesday, September 14, 2010
"Midnight Review - Exposed" Exposed - More John Smithson Lies!
Response: anyone see a problem with Kelley's whining about my so-called character assassination and his use of the phrase "pretend Christian?" I have made it painfully clear to anyone who can actually read with comprehension that this sight is here to defend myself from his continual attacks. Understand that weeks ago, he left off printing my complaints making this site necessary. - jds
Smithson's website, titled "Midnight Review - Exposed," basically copies articles from this website and attaches lies to them to try and convince the reader that I am a fraud, but the funny thing is that Smithson doesn't even try to hide his idiocy. He claims that he had created the website as a way to offer a rebuttal to my articles regarding him because I refuse to post his comments - a claim that is ridiculous because I have posted numerous comments from Smithson in the past.
Again, the last 8 to 10 rebuttals sent to his site remained unprinted, thus the reason for this blog. - jds
I have recently enforced comment moderation and the reason why Smithson's comments have not appeared on this site is because he has violated the terms of use numerous times, including in his comments plenty of insults against this website (which he has now decided to post on his own blog). Those insults (to date) include insults against this author's employment status, insults against this author's education, insults calling this author a pervert or sex offender, insults calling this author a drunk, and veiled threats that he will find out where this author lives. If Smithson were to actually post a comment without an insult (and that includes baseless attacks), this blog would post it
It is easy to make up stuff especially when you disallow rebuttal. Let this genius come to this site. We have no rules of exclusion in our comment section except for advertising types. Does Kevin come to this site and take me on? Tell us Kevin, about your work habits.You post throughout the work day and your profile tells us you had to quit school after losing your job. No mention of going back to work. So, again I ask, "Still living off your wife?" Straighten us out on your educational record; we mention your AA degree. Did we miss something?? What are you doing cruising Craig's List - looking for theological/political material as per one of your posts? No slander, just questions - jds
Lets take a look at a couple of Smithson's posts where Smithson takes lying to an all new level:
In the image above, Smithson writes that I created a video that shows me supporting Florida Governor Charlie Crist and that I pretend to be interviewed. Smithson is referring to this video produced by the Charlie Crist campaign:
Funny but Kevin presents the video and states "not my best interview." Clearly, he takes credit for what he now claims was none of his creation. The original post is on this site. -- jds
Maybe Smithson didn't notice that at the end of the video it displayed the legally required "paid for" message, or that the video was posted on Charlie Crist's YouTube channel. Does Smithson seriously believe that I organized an event at the local plumbers and pipe fitters union to fake a video showing my support for the governor? Can Smithson explain the existence of the governor at the event? My photographs of those in attendance, including my picture with the governor?
Smithson's claim is ridiculous. I also wanted to point out one other thing about his post - the title. Smithson wrote that I pretended to "interfiew" those at the Crist event. This spelling error is quite funny, but also something Smithson does quite frequently, and hypocritically at that - Smithson recently posted an article attacking a grammatical error in one of my headlines (Smithson must have grabbed a screen shot before I corrected it)
Moments before he chides me for a typo, he goes "off the plantation" grammatically. One thing Kelley does as a matter of course, is to confuse verb tenses. No big deal, but he was the first to offer up this type of criticism. Look at the paragraph above. "I also wanted to ....." should read "I, also, want to point out . . . " - jds
Unlike Smithson, I correct any errors in my posts. The original title of the article above was "Sarah Palin Violated The Constitution Of Alaska." I added the "Did" in the beginning and forgot to change the "Violated" but after proofreading my post after I published it I fixed the headline. It's been almost two weeks since Smithson's "interfiew" gaffe and still no correction.
Kevin misses the point. His socalled "misspelling" example is really an Old English version of the word. - jds
I also wanted to point out that Smithson wrote that I claimed to live in New York, but anyone with half a brain would see that on the "About Us" page I state that I am "originally" from Brooklyn and that I was attending school in Florida. Does that sound like a claim that I currently live in New York?
Kelley writes in the above - "I also wanted to point out that . . . " Again, this should read "I, also, want to point out . . . "
I have your script telling me you live in New York. But of course, you will now deny that post. Whatever. One thing I want to clear up is Kelley's claim that I have threatened him, physically. Another lie. I have stated that I might take a trip to Orland and talk to him, face to face, something, of course, he would never agree to do. Maybe he should post my actual comment but if he did, it would contradict his claim so he TELLS the fools what I said rather than publishing my words. Nevertheless, could he and his wife misconstrue my comment? Certainly and so I restate my comment. No physical threat was intended. I meant exactly what I originally wrote, confirmed in this post - jds.
In addition, I wanted to shed some light on this other blog post by John Smithson that supposedly exposes myself - a post alleges that I had published a political blog from 2002 to 2004. That is a lie.
The website Smithson is referring to is a blog by a man by the name of Kevin Kelley. Smithson believes this is me, but if you look at what Smithson wrote, you would realize that he does not understand what he is writing about. For instance, he wrote that this "Kevin" person "quit the blog sometime before his 15th birthday." I have written numerous times that I had voted for President Bush both times, as well as other politicians, such as Jeb Bush (both times) and Ric Keller (all four times).
How would I have voted for these people if I supposedly quit this other blog when I was 14 years old in 2004 when these politicians were elected to their first terms prior to that year?
The answer is that I was not a 14-year old boy in 2004 who operated a political-themed blog.
I think these two examples highlight perfectly the attention to detail Smithson lacks. He maliciously posts false information on the internet to intentionally defame myself - he even states that is his intent in his original mission statement:
Just trying to draw out more information about you, who you claim to be and what you think. It worked as of this Kevin Kelley post. I don't know if you are pretending not to be the author of the mention blog, but , of course, you are. I got the link FROM YOUR SITE. -- jds
If you read the screen shot above (click to enlarge) you will see where Smithson wrote that his blog "is dedicated to the trivial pursuit of exposing this charlatan." That "charlatan" is me, although there seems to be very little exposing going on on Smithson's new site. He continues with his lie that I plagiarized the name of his website and copy the content on his website. After reading the two examples I had given above exposing John Smithson, anyone can plainly see just who is telling the truth...
1 Comments:
- craig said...
-
What's odd is that Smithson's whole problem with you could easily be solved by him just acting with any kind of decency.
This back and forth started with his coming here out of nowhere and throwing accusations around.
Then when you tried to have open discussion he either ignores it, or twists your words around. C, give us examples of Kelley seeking "open discussion." You are smarter than this. Maybe you don't know but I have repeatedly offered Kelley response opportunity on my political blog. We can set up a page dedicated to this purpose. I have kept a 10th page reserved for this very thing. Bring it on, I say.You see, when it comes down to ending the BS of this back and forth, Kelley is the one who refuses. The same invitation is offered to you, C. If you want to debate the issues, great. No rules except the use of "teabagger" and the "f" word. Anytime. This whole thing ends when he stops posting slander on his site. It has been two weeks since he wrote anything about me, this particular post being that last post. If he is done, so am I. But if he is going to continue to try to shut down my blog ( a truly BS thing to do - its what women do ) no deal. I have not tried to take his blog down. Maybe that's the way you libs fight. That crap doesn't work with me. And the blasphemy of my head on Christ's body has to come down - both and all incidences. This blog stays up as long as his posts show up in the web, but I will stop posting, here. What you do not know, Craig, is that I have not entered any codes into my HTML code for this blog nor do I post key words. That is the only reason this blog is not everywhere on the web. Consider THAT as a sign of compromise on my part. Understand that if Kelley wants to continue the fight, I know how to play the game better than he thinks or imagines. Understand that I am as serious as a heart attack. Tell you comrade to knock it off and take down the Christ pics and it is over. --- jds
You then focus more on his blog, discover some hypocrisies with his accusations and point them out. He then reverts to personal attacks and abusive language. When you start moderation to avoid having to weed out his blatant disregard for common courtesy he opens up his "libel/slander blog" about you.
If Smithson really was honest about wanting to settle things with you all he needed to do was ask nicely for you take down any copyrighted material if you had any, stop his accusations which have been proven incorrect and not include personal attacks with his comments.
Basically, if he acted as if he was conversing with you in real life on the street or in a cafe rather than as an "anonymous" online persona.I have no patience, C, for moronic discourse and slander. I have documented his slander. His use of the picture of Christ on the cross, his cut and paste of my face onto that picture is what seriously set me off. He crossed the line on that one. He no longer deserves any of my consideration. He is a godless jerk for doing such a thing and I have no intention of walking away from this guy. I have downloaded BOTH articles with that godless picture in it - a blatant copyright infringement and a slander against God. You want to know what got him under my skin? It was that crap. --- jds.
Most likely, his John Smithson online presence is an act to drive traffic to his site and get attention, in which case it's probably working as he benefits from your higher traffic- Understand, C, that the only numbers you have on Kelley's site are HIS numbers. There is a reason why he does not carry any stat counters on his site. anytime Kelley wants to challenge my numbers, and he does so with regularity, he can put up some money and I will cram them down his proverbials. I carry four stat meters on my site. I get no traffic from Kelley. I know where all of my traffic comes from. Nothing from Kelley's site.
'
- Craig (former "C")
No comments:
Post a Comment