If you've read about the "fired waitress" kerfuffle, here is the original blog post by Nate ("mercifurious") with the false and defamatory "unedited phone interview" that waitress Steffany Bell gave Nate about my family's visit to the casual restaurant where Steffany worked.
Oddly, numerous left-wing hate sites, led by unethical poseur "journalist" Michael Hood, are defending the principle that a waitress who makes false and defamatory public statements about her customers deserves to remain anonymous and employed at the restaurant. Or maybe this has nothing to do with principles, it's just an excuse for fabricating a (untruthful) narrative with which to attack me as a "right wing blogger".
I had put Steffany's disgusting "interview" behind me Saturday afternoon after she apologized and retracted the story as largely untrue (also here). I acceded to Steffany's request to delete my earlier post about her because she said she wanted to put the incident behind her and didn't want any more negative publicity and I didn't have any desire to keep the story alive either. Unfortunately, Michael Hood subsequently posted, without bothering to check any facts with me, an intentionally misleading account of the incident and omitting the key fact Steffany retracted the original "interview" as untruthful. Even sadder, other unethical bloggers, such as at the Daily Kos and The Stranger, repeated Hood's maliciously untruthful story, also without confirming any facts with me. I've now been subjected to numerous hate emails and hateful blog comments, accusing me of things that I have not done, and in some cases threatening physical harm to my family. So now I feel compelled to defend my family with an even more detailed account than the one I posted earlier, but took down after Steffany retracted her story.
Steffany Bell's "interview" was full of wild exaggerations, false assertions and baseless allegations: that I routinely tip only 10%, that my wife and I feed our son candy during dinner, that we frequently beat him, and that he's an abnormally ill-behaved and unsupervised child:
Quite simply, the kid is Damion from the Omen. Might as well be a monkey. The kid did everything except reach in his pants and throw feces on the wall. His parents just allowed it...That's vicious nonsense. Our son is a properly supervised, normally behaved 5-year-old, not always perfect, but in no way as described by Steffany. It seems silly to have to refute the false claim that I'm a "10% tipper". We always tip 15% or more at that restaurant and everywhere else, except in very rare occasions if the service is exceptionally lousy or slow. I don't recall if I ever did tip Steffany only 10%, but if I had, it would have been an isolated incident of substandard service. Heck, 10% might have even been generous given the circumstances. And if the service was unusually and painfully slow one evening, it would help explain if our son was more restless than usual. The only specific detail about our son's behavior in Steffany's account that I can confirm is that he sat briefly at an adjacent unoccupied table one evening. But if we had one off evening, we've been happy regular customers there for nearly a year, and as Steffany indicated in a comment on her own blog to my wife: "the girl who waits on you currently has no beef."
I did not "get Steffany fired", nor did I "send a relative to the restaurant to physically threaten her". After my wife read the "interview" and was shaken and appalled, she called the restaurant owner last Wednesday, not with any specific request, but simply to alert him to the "interview" and to an additional blog post Steffany wrote which disparaged her customers [see June 21 entry]. The owner was horrified and made the decision to terminate Steffany and indicated that he also had other causes to terminate her. By the end of the week Steffany and her boss had reached a mutual decision that she would resign. It was only on Friday evening, Steffany's last day of work after she had already resigned, that my wife and 14-year-old stepdaughter visited the restaurant to rebuke Steffany in person (After they suggested to me that they might visit the restaurant, I advised them that this was unnecessary and not to do it, but they went anyway without my knowledge). My step-daughter quietly spoke about 10 words to Steffany, before Steffany turned on her heels and walked away. My wife and step-daughter promptly left. A pointless and unhelpful but harmless verbal confrontation that lasted less than a minute and did not entail any physical threats of any kind. It is also not at all true, as Hood wrote, that we "threatened to make trouble over at Amazon", where Steffany is working as a temp. That is false and baseless. Nor did we, as David Goldstein claimed on his KIRO radio show Sunday evening "threaten to sue the waitress for defamation". There is absolutely no truth to that.
I never cared whether Steffany was fired or not. That's her boss's decision. I just wanted this ridiculous and malicious slur on my wife and son to be deleted from Nate's blog. I told both Nate and Steffany that I knew who she was and I repeatedly asked both Nate and Steffany to quietly delete the "interview" to avoid unnecessary negative attention for either my family or for Steffany and her restaurant. But they defiantly refused to delete the "interview".
Steffany was publicly identified as the waitress who gave Nate the "interview" only after Michael Hood linked to and quoted from the "interview" on Friday afternoon, knowing that I deemed it to be false and defamatory, without contacting me for my side of the story, and also knowing that its dissemination would lead to Steffany being publicly identified contrary to her preference.
It wasn't until after I identified Steffany on my blog on Friday evening that she finally convinced Nate to take the post down.
Steffany Bell set this shitstorm in motion, but Michael Hood is the one who is responsible for generating publicity for it, and solely because he doesn't like some of my opinions. (He has a history of recklessly posting false and derogatory statements about me). Laughably, Hood criticizes me for not "letting this go and minimizing eyeballs to this trivia", which I tried to do until Hood acted to maximize eyeballs to it. To Michael Hood, Steffany Bell is just collateral damage.
My original goal was to encourage Steffany and Nate to take down their stupid "interview". I wanted to spare my wife and son the embarrassment of having this ridiculous story get wider dissemination. But now that the left-wing hate sites are falsely and viciously accusing me of getting a poor waitress fired and other nonsense, see for yourself the vile and unwarranted story about my child that started this thing and whose author the left wing hate sites are defending as a martyr.
All my wife and I did was what any parent should do if they see their family and children wrongly smeared on the Internet by an employee of a business they frequent -- contact the employer, and encourage the offender to delete the offensive post, even if it entails depriving the offender of undeserved anonymity.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 28, 2007 12:00 PM | Email ThisRest assured that ANYONE that's read about this tempest-in-a-teacup KNOWS that Steffany RECANTED, pulled her claims, admitted she lied about you. Only those with PURELY POLITICAL REASONS continue to fester the lies and deceit. THEY are the scum who deserve to be drug through the mud.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on August 28, 2007 11:54 AM"Don't bother to explain. Your friends understand- your enemies don't care"
Posted by: Cicero on August 28, 2007 12:17 PMI am glad your name is being passed around the restaurant circles.
Posted by: Ron on August 28, 2007 12:17 PMjust keep defending your shameless and disgusting over-reaction. your child should be taken from you and your wife, perhaps then he has a chance of being raised as a decent human being with values.
this is not about left wing or right wing, this is about you being a horrible human being and doing something lower than low.
your doing a background check and a smear campaign reeks of the current administations tactics and perhaps maybe you can be drummed out with them in 2008?
hope that made you feel better about yourself!
Posted by: lookinthemirror on August 28, 2007 12:23 PMHa...please let's just remember which party lied to get us into IRAQ. You are just as pathetic as Stefan.
Posted by: @Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2007 12:27 PMI see your reading comprehension is on par with your other leftist buddies.
Posted by: jimg on August 28, 2007 12:28 PMAnd now we see the ugly consequences of this with threats against his family from these people.
Is anyone surprised? Blatherwatch and horseass are full of low quality people who delight in others' problems. And kos is full of full-out whackos.
Posted by: Steve (was steve_dog) on August 28, 2007 12:29 PMAnd now we see the ugly consequences of this with threats against his family from these people.
Is anyone surprised? Blatherwatch and horseass are full of low quality people who delight in others' problems. And kos is full of full-out whackos.
Posted by: Steve (was steve_dog) on August 28, 2007 12:30 PMTrust me, what he did was mild compared to what you'd get from a lot of husbands and fathers who witness their family being publicly attacked. I know a good portion of people who'd be in jail right now if their families were subjected to this type of crap.
Posted by: jimg on August 28, 2007 12:34 PMYes, that's brilliant! React to a verbal altercation with a physical altercation and end up in jail...not only genius but very mature as well.
You hang out with a wonderful crowd, can wait to see the family Christmas cards from the big house.
Posted by: @jimg on August 28, 2007 12:37 PMI was hoping you'd take the high road and redeem yourself a little. Instead, you dig yourself deeper and deeper. Are you *really* this short-sighted or are you milking the situation because your traffic has probably gone up by a third or more in the past week? My guess is the latter. Anything for ratings, right?
You stay classy, Stefan.
Posted by: Ryan on August 28, 2007 12:40 PMThe issue here remains the same. Stefan is a scumbag.
Posted by: @Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2007 12:47 PMIt's one thing to piss and moan about work... it's another to completely make up some pretty ugly stuff about the families of quasi-public figures and disseminate those lies for all to see, then get upset when those quasi-public figures publicly call you out on it.
Posted by: Mike H on August 28, 2007 12:49 PMDoes this mean the employer was discussion private emmployee-employer issues with a blogger? What kind of employer would be dumb enough to open them up to a lawsuit for defamation? Doesn't that open you up also, since you repeated them in a public forum? Steffany is by far not a public figure, and I hope an attorney allows her to take you, and her boss, to court, so she can survive being effectively blacklisted by you.
Posted by: aren't you getting sued? on August 28, 2007 12:52 PMI find it funny watching all of these lefties circle the wagons to protect hate speech and slander. Just read the comments over at those lefty sites and it is obvious who in America is responsible for the decline in civility and decorum in politics today.
Posted by: AP on August 28, 2007 12:59 PMBut Stefan, you should know by now, that blatherwatch is PARODY. You'd be so much more effective if you could dish out some of your own parody. Instead, you always protest how "false" the parody is, and that's why you're such a fun target for them. Michael Hood loves to see you get all riled over what he writes about you. You fall right into his charactarization of you as "humorless".
That said, Michael and friends, should leave the children out of this.
Posted by: Michelle on August 28, 2007 12:59 PMAnd you do exactly what lefties routinely do when they disagree. You call my posts "B/S" and call me "childish". What a surprise!
/Stefan is a meanie.
Posted by: dan on August 28, 2007 01:00 PMYou know your getting under their skin when the left attacks you with ZERO proof.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 28, 2007 01:02 PMYOU find a publicly posted blog attacking your family, calling your child an abominable monkey, you and your wife poor and undutiful parents and a disrespectful patron of a restaurant.
The claims aren't true. This is important so read this again, the claims are FALSE.
You ask the wait staff member and the person/friend of hers posting this material publicly about you, BY NAME, to remove the post. Didn't even demand that they post a retraction, simply remove the slander. They won't.
You notify the employer. You document the occurrences/posts. And you do both of these only AFTER telling your accuser exactly what course of action you will take if they will fail to remove the smear. The wait staff is fired and the post is removed after you follow through, after they fail to respond to your requests (multiple) and polite.
The bad guy is: You, you have no right to demand the retraction of publicly posted lies about your wife and child. You, because not only have you no right not to face defamation, if your defense of yourself is effective, more effective than the defamation, disproportionality dictates you accept responsibility now for BOTH being slandered to begin with and for mounting and effective and persuasive defense. You because the person slandering you is a single mother of average income and you apparently have better financial resources and the bonds of marriage making you a person who deserves the treatment and from whom no claim against another with lesser income or status can ever be levied. You are at fault for not having the sense to recognize that if you hold opinions out of the flavor of the local body politic you deserve no basic freedom from disparagement. By virtue of your unholy conservatism, you have drawn all fire, even the false, defamatory and malicious, upon yourself.
And you do exactly what lefties routinely do when they disagree. You call my posts "B/S" and call me "childish". What a surprise!
I find it funny watching all of these lefties circle the wagons to protect hate speech and slander. Just read the comments over at those lefty sites and it is obvious who in America is responsible for the decline in civility and decorum in politics today.
Posted by: AP on August 28, 2007 01:08 PMDo you have any kids... many 5yr olds can get cranky in a hurry.
Makes no difference how good the parents are.
I don't pretend to know what the real facts are here, but watching the lefties foam at the mouth is certainly educational, and revealing.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2007 01:22 PM"yet disporportionate in most people's minds"
Bruce,
Have you polled "most people" or are you just making things up again? Typical liberal.
Posted by: pbj on August 28, 2007 01:25 PMAs for the linking to the Myspace page, sorry but if you put up a public Myspace page, you assume certain risks. I've known a couple of folks who got burned by what they wrote on their public Myspace page (some of them quasi-public figures) because they refused to understand that publicly putting that info out for any yahoo to read no longer makes it "private". It's like standing naked in front of a window, then complaining about people "invading your privacy" when they see you.
If you don't want people to know who you are and what you think, you shouldn't put out that info on the web for anyone and everyone to see, because someone eventually will... and you really have no right to then complain when they do.
Posted by: Mike H on August 28, 2007 01:27 PMHey Michelle, read the comments section when Stefan posted juicy blog details of the waitress and see how quickly SP readers did the exact same thing you accuse 'the Left' of doing now.
Get a clue already, SP readers spew as much hatred and lies as anyone on 'the Left'. I should know as a regular poster on SP I endure the constant stream of insults, false associations with various left wing para-military groups, and on very rare occasions death threats because I have a difference of opinion with many posters on here.
SP posters are no angels and Stefan is certainly no saint. I seem to recall Stefan being a Catholic. The teachings of Jesus specifically call for forgiveness. Maybe he should look at following them next time instead of getting his panties bundled up in a wad over some random blog comments.
Maybe I'm reading Cecil wrong, but I think he was being sarcastic and actually siding with Stefan.
Posted by: Deborah on August 28, 2007 01:31 PMPeople attacking the victim here are suffering cognitive disonance. They'd never tolerate this treatment of their own family. They'd never tolerate this treatment of a pseudo-public figure of their perferred political persuasion. They will however both forgive the attacker and denounce the legitimate defense when they have an emotional visceral response to the victim. Because they hate that person so much, there just MUST be good reason he's been attacked. He must have had it coming. And if he didn't, well he should have taken it on the chin all the same. Of course, none of us here, left or right would ever do that if it were our family but irrationality takes broad license.
Posted by: Cecil on August 28, 2007 01:32 PMJust want to state publicly that I support your blog and you have done the right thing in defending yourself and illuminating the Lefty bloggers.
This was a great view into the Left Hateosphere and their willingness to stoop to any level of lies, profanity and ad hominem for political gain.
It's incidents like this one that cause me to reiterate that I would never support anyone on the Left, and especially the "New Progressive" left.
There is plenty of room for honest debate on any key political topic of today. Whether it be Iraq, the Viaduct repair, transportation issues in the Puget Sound, etc. But the Left demonstrates to us again and again, and particlulalry the Nutroots Anonymous Blogger Left, that we can't have a meaningful debate, because they prefer to shutdown debate with vicious personal attacks, anger, profanity, moral righteousness, fairness doctrines, etc.
That's why rational Puget Sounders looking for political debate come to Sound Politics, and stay away from the loons at HA, BW, SLOG, etc.
I've stated many times that I'm a secular Jew.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on August 28, 2007 01:36 PMKeep it going, big guy. The longer your name is out there, the more waiters and waitresses will learn of you.
We outnumber you at least in this part of the world.
Posted by: Ron on August 28, 2007 01:38 PMDid you even read the post? She asked me to take it down because she didn't want the negative publicity and after she retracted the statement I acceded to her request because I felt we settled our diagreement and I didn't feel like keeping this stupid and trivial incident alive any more ... until Michael Hood and Erica Barnett brought it back to life and made false and derogatory accusations against me over it.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on August 28, 2007 01:43 PMTruth means nothing to them.
Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 28, 2007 01:48 PMSorry, my bad.
I read through the comments and I'm not seeing the right wing hate that you claim. Perhaps you'd like me to put together a comment with links to every example of left wing comment hate I can find regarding this incident. It would take a while, because just about every other comment is another outrageous statement complete with profanity or suggestions to contaminate Stefan's food and mark him as a conservative resaurant patron to be punished.
The deranged Left wins the crazed anonymous Internet hate game, hands down.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 28, 2007 02:00 PMI'll happily admit I make dumb statements on rare occasions (like the Vietnam debate) but I fail to see how that absolves you or others from your mis-statements and broad generalizations that you post on this board. I know for sure that you are much a liar as anyone on the 'Left'.
I mean look no further than your own statements Army Med/Vet for proof that you're nothing more than a blathering partisan idiot. Despite that I still value your opinions and try to speak to you in a respectful manner. Too bad you and other SP posters can't do the same.
You obviously crave the life of a public figure, and that demands a higher standard of behavior and a thicker skin from *you*. Why don't you apply that bulldog personality to something more constructive?
Anyway, good luck untangling yourself.
(BTW, someone who doesn't agree with your handling of the events is not automatically a troll...darned freedom of expression -- sometimes it just gets in the way of good spin.)
No, you are ignorant. As usually spewing off without having a clue. Hey Cato, go to the clue store and get some. You are fresh out.
Posted by: pbj on August 28, 2007 02:17 PMI respect your web site, I respect your decision to confront the 'ugliness', but I just wish sometimes why "they" feel they have to 'get' you.
Hang in there. I'll still be here if you keep posting good articles. I don't visit the other 'scumbuckets'.
Posted by: swatter on August 28, 2007 02:42 PMI am interested in what you deem was going "so far"? How should someone act when an obvious hit piece was done on him and included outrageous remarks attacking his wife and child? If the first attempts at having the vitriolic posting removed were ignored what WOULD have been the next response?
I hear so many attacks against Stefan about what he DID do, but no one giving any constructive criticism about what he could have done differently. I don't think you have really taken the time to consider how they would feel if such a personal attack was made against them and their loved ones.
It is easy to sit on the sidelines and kibitz, but do any of you really know how it feels in your gut to have such an attack made? I doubt you have given that proper consideration. This person went way outside the bounds of decency and would not correct the mis-step when asked.
Posted by: Eyago on August 28, 2007 02:46 PMSS did not need to go public with this. He could have kept it private and dealt with Nate, the guy who posted it rather than Steffany, who made the statements (lest we forget, it wasn't on her blog - she was perfectly correct in stating that she had no say in whether Nate kept it up or not. He obviously took mercy on her). He could have outed kept this on his personal blog (trafficked by few, I'm sure) rather than here on Sound Politics. If anyone wants to assign blame for this blowing up, that's where it really belongs.
No, she wasn't cool to say what she did about SS's son (the insults, that is, and calling SS by name), not for something intended for publication. But let's have some perspective. How many people read that blog? How many read Sound Politics? And was SS really left with no other option?
Posted by: sir realist on August 28, 2007 02:52 PMCall a lawyer buddy and have him explain the 'Doctrine of unclean hands' to you. You didn't set out to right a wrong. You set out to destroy a person, utterly, and completely.
You could have just relegated her to the heap of internet pests, and nobody would have cared. Now they care.
The political idealists really want to paint this as a "lefty" or "righty" issue.
It's neither. It's a simple matter of equity. YOU mad her pay in spades for what she said, true or not, facitious or not. And you made her pay a price highly disproportionate to the damage supposedly done to your reputation.
You did more to yourself with vengeful actions than she ever could have dreamed up.
See, no love from the narrow minded dimwits who occupy this site.
Unlike most people here I admit when I am wrong. Maybe Stefan should do the same.
see comments # 63 and 70 for good examples.
Posted by: sir realist on August 28, 2007 03:08 PMNo, Stefan did what a real man would do, not wimpy Seattle liberal femi-man... which once again dovetails to a great piec over at Wizbang..
The shortage of real men... and follow the links.
Pay attention femi-men!
Traffic my dears, clicks my dears, old news. The waitress is a fool. Who would want her bad mouthing their kid to the big world? Utter fool.
Old news, can we move on to SOMETHING important? Oh, my dog has fleas. My cat kills mice. And, apt. rents are increasing.
Fall is approaching, as well.
Posted by: JESUS GOMEZ on August 28, 2007 03:14 PMWhat exactly go you "girlie men" democrats do when YOUR children get publicly maligned? Ask your wives to handle the situation?
The democrat party - the party of pansy's.
Posted by: JRFord on August 28, 2007 04:10 PMUh, just what was your point in that post, anyway?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2007 04:10 PMYep, he swatted a fly with a cannon. If that's a "real man," the world can do with less of them.
Posted by: Joe Blow from Kokomo on August 28, 2007 04:28 PMI have no idea what that comment means.
You're doing a great job of showing everyone who reads this just what kind of an individual you are.
You can name call all you want justin. I'm not getting in the sandbox with you.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2007 04:30 PMI'll bet the website logs can prove that #80 has probably never visited your site until today.
#81 Screw with my kids and you'll find out what a cannon is. How do you protect your children? "Oh, pweeese, Mr. Meanine, don't do that again or I'll, I'll, I'll......cry!"
Pantywaists!
Posted by: JRFord on August 28, 2007 04:40 PMYou go after someone's family because you're a moonbat? You get what you deserve.
Posted by: Attila on August 28, 2007 04:49 PMThe fly was told to buzz off. She chose to say, in not so many words, screw you SS. No honey, screw you.
There's a reason some people are continually picked on and others are left well enough alone and one of those reasons is clearly and decisivly establishing that you are or are not anyone's door mat. The waitress could have ended this at any time without consequence and with full advanced warning. That's all she had coming.
Posted by: Cecil on August 28, 2007 04:52 PMBut let's look at the actual event: A waitress says a kid is an unholy monster, and the parents say "He's no different from other kids!" Yeah, let's think who to believe there. The parents: can't tell the difference between dissing a kid and dissing his parents, even after the waitress points it out to them in an even way. The parents: bring their daughter on a mission of hate, hunting a person down at work where they can't leave or fight back, and dismiss it as "harmless" without the honesty to write down what the daughter unleashed. The parents: at least one is religious, but they don't seem to grasp the concept of the Golden Rule "two wrongs don't make a right".
Damn right your family looks bad for this: from your mouth enormously more than from anyone else's.
Posted by: Madeline F on August 28, 2007 05:12 PMAgain, I don't know what actually happened but it is more than obvious what leftists are doing here. You have to wonder if that was the intent in the first place.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2007 05:27 PMIt's a curiously appropriate punishment: Stefan Sharkansky did it all to himself, because revenge on a waitress who dared to criticize his parenting and his tips had become more important to him than anything else. He revealed his own poor political judgement, his inability to see things in proportion, his viciousness, and his inability to take fair criticism graciously.
Posted by: Jesurgislac on August 28, 2007 05:31 PM...but I have to wonder what it is you do as politician...
Last I checked, he was a blogger who owned a small business, not politician.
Madeline F. @90
Go back a read what she said... she was giving specific facts about what his wife and kid did that were untrue. If I said you broke into a house and robbed someone blind, or or ran a specific red light, or call someone something specific, when you didn't and knowing that what I was saying was untrue, that is defamation. Simply calling someone a bad parent isn't.
Also, you automatically assume this woman was telling the truth, when she even admitted she wasn't.
This is the thing that amazes me. This woman admits that she made it all up, and yet everyone still assumes it's true. How absolutely ignorant and/or full of vitriol are you people? SHE ADMITTED THAT SHE MADE UP EVERYTHING THAT WAS WRITTEN ABOUT THE SHARKANSKY FAMILY, and yet you people keep on quoting her like it's true and behaving as if she is some sort of saint of unquestionable integrity. Do you people realize how dumb you look?
Posted by: Mike H on August 28, 2007 05:37 PM@72 I'd worry about stopping the flood with comments like 4,22,25,39,76 and 79.
And @68, how do you think Nate found out about the incident? By that logic, someone could steal money from you, and give it to someone else, and you'd let them off because they no longer had the stolen cash.
And Jesurgislac @92. Keep fooling yourself. Because, yeah, the Average Joe would no have no problem with his 5 year old being called a monkey and his name being smeared all over some blog because of his politics.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 28, 2007 05:54 PMI hope readers out there who may be political fence sitters have had the opportunity the past few days to read the posts folks on the left have made on this subject. Perhaps they realize now just how truly nasty our friends on the left can be.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2007 05:54 PMBut these are the same people who lapped up Dan Rather's fake documents as well.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 28, 2007 05:57 PMTruly, truly classless and disgusting. But since we are kind of doing a clinic here on how repulsive leftists can be it fits right in.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2007 06:09 PMMike H 93, She made that retraction under duress. If you believe it then I've got some CBS-certified documents about Bush's service to sell you.
Posted by: Sir Realist on August 28, 2007 06:15 PMI'm not exactly sure but it's the kind of name you can expect to be called if you anger people on the left.
What they don't realize it that conservatives expect it, and find it amusing.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2007 06:20 PMThat's patently false. Steffany has PUBLICLY ADMITTED she lied - she made up bad stuff about Stefan and his family. And she had her comments pulled.
I'd say that evidence - her own admission - says we know what really happened. If you choose to believe otherwise then it's purely for political posturing.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on August 28, 2007 06:46 PMYou mean those questionable documents that many, many experts-- as well as the officers who were supposedly a party to them-- said were falsified?
Posted by: Mike H on August 28, 2007 06:57 PMTake a breather.
Is this really that important? Are we just grasping at things to be angry about? Can't we all just get along? We should legalize marijuana and get high together...
Really, this is stupid. You can pull all the lines you want. "Two wrongs don't make a right"...."An eye for an eye"...etc.
Is there hate speech...yes. Justin, you being a defender of the liberal argument....and that is what it has become....used the term 'ass clown'. I seem to recall that is a slang term for a gay guy. Nice work tool.
On the other side of the aisle, we need to stop responding. This is out of control. The trolls, from both sides, are in constant orgasm over this. Lets stop stimulating...
What Stefan did is nothing, let go. Everyone is right. He was too nice to the waitress and probably didn't need to post his defense online.
Instead, he should have (ie...I would have) filed a complaint concerning Assault 3, had her arrested, filed a protection order for his kid, dragged her ass to court, both criminal and civil and posted nothing about it.
She'd still have her job...and giving all of her crappy-service-tips up to pay restitution and legal fees for years to come.
Mike H 93: As I said, it is what Stefan has said and done that damns him. He admits he posted the waitress's private info. He admits his wife took his stepdaughter to harass a person at their workplace over a private matter. He doesn't post any sort of apology. From his own mouth, he's a raging asshole incapable of acting with honor.
Of course, this is America, where you're innocent until proven guilty. So he's innocent, of course, of being the cheap tipper and crappy father the waitress posits, aside from the "driving his daughter to make herself into a tool of ignorant vengeance" that he admits.
Posted by: Madeline F on August 28, 2007 07:41 PMAt the end of it you will have an icky feeling that can only come from arguing with the mentally handicapped.
"From his own mouth, he's a raging asshole incapable of acting with honor."
The tolerant, reasonable left. More than willing to assume the guilt of anyone that might oppose their political views.
And Madeline, linking to a far left blog is just a bit revealing, whether it is your personal blog or not.
I wonder, were you among the huge chorus of lefties that were ready to convict the Duke Lacrosse players because they were "priveleged white frat boys"?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2007 08:11 PMBirds of a feather - Darcy Burner (Goldstein's protege) is an empty skirt, who also has no soul - all she can do is mouth talking point claptrap. Those in the 8th District have some soul, so she will have a very tough time ever getting elected there, unless a catastrophe occurs in the economy- in which case; all bets are off.
Be wary of the leftist vultures out there - who love to pile on; this event would have been better to not have been publicized.
Probably the best tact is to take the high road and offer the truth when asked and show corroborating evidence from the waitress or forward it all to Postman for his blog (if it hasn't found its way there already), which has more credibility than Blatherwatch.
@106 Madeline, She lost her chance at anonymity when she made public accusations. Are you really saying that anyone should be able to make anonymous accusations against anyone who has a blog without having to answer for their words? If that is the case, I saw you turning tricks near the airport last week. See how it works? Maybe I should talk to Drudge about you and your johns. According to your logic, you would be a total asshole to try to find out who I am and out my public information. However, if I actually did such a thing, you would be fully within your rights to try to find out who I am and respond.
Basically, if you are going to say something in public there can be consequences. If you are telling the truth, you have nothing to worry about. If you are lying, then you recant.
She admitted she lied. Is that so hard to comprehend? Oh, I forgot, you are a liberal. Lying is perfectly acceptable to liberals.
This whole deal was over with over the weekend� She recanted and the Shark backed off. But then the �big� blogs pick it up� Now it�s all about hit counts, advertising revenue and like that. It�s a freaking gold mine! I wouldn�t be terribly surprised to find that Mr. Blather and Mr. Shark are in it together, [or at least of the same mind]. �Make hay while the sun shines� kinda� deal. The waitress lady is a pawn, �tis true. She should get a commission! Hell, maybe she was in on it! It�s the �dog days of summer� ya� know! What else is there to do?... Or at least until this Idaho guy showed up�
RRR
RRR
Posted by: RiceRocketRicky on August 28, 2007 08:34 PMLet's assume that Steffany didn't lie. She still deserved to be fired, and Stefan did nothing to get her fired other than let her employer know what she did. And he posted about the details about his side of it. He did nothing else.
So at worst for Stefan, he did what anyone would have done. I certainly would have. At worst for Steffany, she's a terrible and vicious liar.
So yeah, let's attack Stefan, after all, he's a conservative, so he must be at fault!
Some people say that it is not about left/right, but since the facts don't show Stefan did anything wrong, I don't believe, for one moment, the people who say that. Like Steve who said, The political idealists really want to paint this as a "lefty" or "righty" issue. It's neither. It's a simple matter of equity. YOU mad (sic) her pay in spades for what she said, true or not, facitious (sic) or not. And you made her pay a price highly disproportionate to the damage supposedly done to your reputation.
That makes no sense. Equity is bullshit. She did something that potentially hurt her employer, so she should be fired, regardless of the harm it may have caused. That is how the real world works. Any employer would have wanted to know what she did, and any employer would have fired her.
There was nothing wrong here. Everyone I've seen attacking Stefan is doing so because Stefan is a conservative, and they are liberals, whether they want to believe that or not.
Exactly.
Again I say for those readers that aren't sure which way they lean politically, read the comments here from the lefties. They are very, very revealing.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2007 08:58 PMYes, those fake documents. Steffany's retraction is as genuine as those fake documents. I'm saying, don't believe the retraction. SS threatened her livelihood and exposed her to who knows how much anonymous abuse (much like SS is getting now) and she recanted, just like Galileo did when they held his feet to the fire. Also, SS's statement that his boy's behavior is normal for a 5 year old rings defensive to me. I'd bet that the truth is in between - he was being disruptive and misbehaving but it wasn't as bad as SB said. Her going from "He's Damien" to "I made up the whole thing" is not believable.
People are missing the point. Going to bat for your family doesn't justify exposing irrelevant personal information about someone who said but did not publish those remarks. And keep in mind that SS really bears the most blame for this. No, he did not start it, but it was his choice to air this dispute on a widely read political blog - that's why this is all over the blogosphere now. Very few people would have found the interview if SS had been more patient and worked behind the scenes. Sorry, but until SS can give a reasonable explanation that this was the only course of action left to him then it's a morally reprehensible vendetta and not a justified defense of his family as of the moment he went public with SB's personal info. No matter what she said.
Posted by: sir realist on August 28, 2007 09:18 PMStefan must be on to something really good to force them to these depths to create a distraction.
I mean really, How many young single mothers read Stefan anyway??? Does she routinely post the names of customers she doesn't like?? And this was somehow OK up till now??
The girl is a pawn and a willing participant.
Posted by: Scooter Libby on August 28, 2007 09:20 PMRead the post. He moved on, but others brought it up again and slandered him and his family in the process. He defended himself against the slander and your response is that, "he is an attention whore who needs to move on?"
The scary thing is not just liberals betraying their idiocy with their comments, but the physical violence they threaten simply because Stefan exercises his freedom of speech on his blog. You'll find those threats on blatherwatch. Very scary.
Despite growing up here, I never had the full comprehension of how idiotic and threatening the Seattle liberals really are.
Posted by: saxa on August 28, 2007 10:10 PMAnf THIS led to all this shit?
Come on.
1. OK how much do you tip? do you calculate pre of post salestax? IMWK inquiring minds want to know.
2. You have a five year old whi is nt sometimes a brat? OK
3. Your wife is bossy.
i am shocked! The only part of this that does seem reasoable is that the broad beset blogger ought not to be telling tales about a customer of the rest.
AZ tleast she did not mention you body odor dirty nderear.
Your child wasn't viciously maligned (in fact, he sounds like every other middle-class pre-schooler that folks in the service industry have to put up with on a daily basis). Your reputation wasn't destroyed. Most mature adults would let the interview go--apparently asshole bloggers can't.
Your fragile ego required that you go nuclear on this woman (a single mother, no less, who's surviving on two shitty jobs), expose her personal life and then play a significant role in getting her fired from her job. How very noble.
Tell me Stefan, do you feel better yet?
Posted by: goodlordhowinsecureareyou on August 28, 2007 11:25 PMOh, and good job on controlling the blowback from your first post.
Posted by: soothtruthsayer on August 29, 2007 12:47 AMNope. She said her comments were "largely untrue". Not only did she write that under extreme duress, but it's a wishy-washy retraction even to those gullible enough to believe it.
Posted by: Bruce on August 29, 2007 01:16 AMWhat nonsense. Everyone I've seen pointing out that Stefan is a deranged nutter is pointing that out because Stefan Sharkansky is a deranged nutter, spreading his child's bad behavior and his poor tipping all over the Internet like this.
sir realist: Sorry, but until SS can give a reasonable explanation that this was the only course of action left to him then it's a morally reprehensible vendetta and not a justified defense of his family as of the moment he went public with SB's personal info. No matter what she said.
Well said, sir.
My first few times on SP, I used my real name and was astonished to see the quotes show up under a Google search of swatter.
There was another time several years ago, I was posting using an alias regarding the Iraq War. Someone was able to track down the IP address and I got calls and vicious e-mails from the person, who I had thought a friend.
Then there is a poster here called Doug Parris. I don't know if that is his real name but it sounds like one. He disagreed and then started 'calling' me out and was quite rude when he called me a 'chicken' for using a handle. Sounded like he wanted to come over and use one of those banned assault rifles on me.
Posted by: swatter on August 29, 2007 07:00 AMAnd that's really the key here. There is no evidence that you did anything to violate Ms. Bell's privacy nor coerce her in any way. You may have helped distribute more widely information that was already public, but there is no harm in that.
Ms. Bell's boss at the restaurant apparently made the sensible economic decision that a regular customer has greater economic value to the business than a relatively easily replaced staffer who was so foolish that she insulted customers on a public forum.
I don't know you, sir, and we may be unlikely to agree on much politically (I'm a very radical libertarian, laissez-faire capitalist, constitutional strict constructionist and strenuously anti-war). That's neither here nor there. My analysis of this indicates that the vituperation you're receiving, from people who don't seem to understand the difference between economic influence and coercive power, is undeserved, and I just wanted to make THAT public.
I see. He is deranged for doing something he didn't do.
Sorry, WHO is deranged, here?
Sorry, but until SS can give a reasonable explanation that this was the only course of action left to him
I already made that case: it would be utterly irresponsible for anyone to NOT inform an employer that their employee was out harming his business like this. She was causing harm to the business, and the employer must be notified, for the sake of his business.
It doesn't surprise me that liberals' professed care for "society" does not extend to employers, because business is evil yadda yadda.
Posted by: pudge on August 29, 2007 07:24 AMShe called the parents child beaters. That crossed the line. Call someone publicly a child beater and you deserve whatever you get.
The fact that she publicly named Stefan and then denigrated him and his family warranted being fired. If that was my business, she would have been fired instantly when I found out about it.
Rant about your customers all you want, but don't name them. She could easily have changed the names and still complained all she wanted. She even had the opportunity to ask the blog owner to take down the post and make it all go away, but chose not to. This was her own doing.
Posted by: Palouse on August 29, 2007 07:35 AMBut I agree that her actions and her family/employee status could not be further from any interesting point. She defamed customers, whether what she said was true or not, and she absolutely should have been fired for it. Again, it doesn't even matter if what she said is true: she is hurting her employer's business, and should be therefore fired. It's quite that simple.
Posted by: pudge on August 29, 2007 07:40 AMOH MY GOD!!!! Actions determine consequences!! Well what do you know?!!!
Maybe when the whiners learn that lesson we can attempt to teach them the one about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY...
If your going to smear someone on the web, better be able to back it up!
And please stop with this, OOOOOOOOOOOO-this poor woman has two jobs.
She jumped into it and it came back to get her.
Stefan you did the right thing and would do the same.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 29, 2007 07:44 AMContacting the restaurant manager was absolutely the right thing to do. I happen to be on the same page with most of you about that. It's not cool for a waitress to write such stuff about customers.
But beyond that SS crosses the line. He did not need to expose her personal information to thousands of strangers on a well read blog for the sake of having it removed. Please make the case for that. And please don't ever complain when a liberal makes the statement that "conservatives are [insert epithet] because [insert shallow observation]." You have to be above hat in order to complain about it.
GFT @ 141,
I'm equally tired of "he was defending his family" as an excuse for SS to go public with his Vendetta. Civilized people just don't do that or condone it.
Ragnar @ 145,
SS's actions are certainly having consequences, aren't they. But personal responsibility doesn't apply to your heroes, does it?
Army Medic / Vet @ 146,
Tell me you'd care if the circumstances were reversed - say, that Kos was the blogger defamed on an obscure blog and that he went public on his famous blog with personal details about the slanderer (who was already out of a job).
Posted by: sir realist on August 29, 2007 08:01 AM"Don't bite the hand that feeds you."
Posted by: NW Denizen on August 29, 2007 08:07 AMWhat personal information? Her name? The other things posted were things she wrote on HER OWN BLOG. That's about as public as you can get.
The fact that she had no respect for Stefan's privacy by publicly naming him and disparaging his family completely removes her right to anonymity in this whole thing.
Posted by: Palouse on August 29, 2007 08:11 AM++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks Palouse, you hit it right on the head!
To bad Sir realist can't seem to understand that.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 29, 2007 08:17 AMHer name, her myspace page (you think poor SS was subject to abuse from anonymous people?), her other job (which she may well lose too - think that's justified?). And yes, her published writings which were intended for friends to find. I guess in your fealty to your favorite blogger you choose to turn a blind eye to the difference between that and when someone splashes it all over a high traffic blog read by thousands of your unquestioning fans.
But to paraphrase what I said, it seems that personal responsibility isn't a standard you would apply to SS.
Army Medic Vet @ 151,
Are you going to answer the question I posed to you at 148?
Posted by: sir realist on August 29, 2007 08:24 AMAlready commented on why her name was justly revealed. Her myspace page is yet another piece of public information. The fact that attention was drawn to it was her own doing. As for where she works, the pizza place was probably warranted, maybe not her Amazon job. But if someone public named me and called me a child beater, I would probably rate that fair game too.
Here's a tip sir realist. If you don't want your personal information made public, then don't slander someone publicly. It's that simple. She even had the opportunity for this not to happen by asking the blogger to take down the post, but SHE CHOSE NOT TO. When you don't respect someone else's privacy, why should you expect them to respect yours?
Posted by: Palouse on August 29, 2007 08:35 AMNo one would whine if someone took pictures of you urinating on a tree in a public park. No one can claim an invasion of privacy after conducting their personal lives on a public my space page or blog. You simply can't have it both ways. Either you are a private person and have taken measures to keep your thoughts and actions private, or you are open to, if not in fact seeking public views.
Nothing was illuminated about this woman by SS that wasn't already public.
I've yet to hear one defender of this gal explain why it was acceptable for her to refuse to simply take down the posting. She didn't even get asked to retract the content, simply to demand the blog hoster, a friend, to take down the post! Why? She was asked politely to do so and she said tough S! One might have felt that she made a minor mistake in taking too much license to attack a somewhat known person and had SS taken all his actions at that very point, maybe, maybe there's some over reaction to discuss. But she was approached, asked to remove the post and was told the consequences of letting the slur stand.
If you are going to defend this person, one will have to explain this. She is an ADULT woman. This is not a Mayor vs the homeless man. This is 2 individual citizens of equal value and equal right to fair and reasonable treatment. She was offered a fair and reasonable compromise in which she didn't even have to say mea culpa and refused it.
Posted by: Cecil on August 29, 2007 08:41 AMTo answer another point, while SS and SB might be equal citizens before the law, there is nothing equal between an obscure blog and a high traffic one. This is where SS was being unfair.
Paulouse @ 154,
So SS was justified in exposing her to a potential flood of hate mail via her myspace page? I think that was a very calculated move on SS's part and the main reason why I believe he crossed the line. There's a difference between public info that interested parties can research and public info that's spread for the purpose of defamation.
FWIW: I don't support SB for what she said. Restaurant workers should not post insults about customers online. At her age (reported to be 37) she should definitely know better. So SS contacts the manager to let him know what happened and she loses her job. All well and good. But beyond that...
I ask again: Why was this the only reasonable course of action left to SS? He has a much more personal (and presumably low traffic) blog. Why didn't he air it out there (and in the process ensure that this would be such a huge issue and that everyone would know about it - it would have stayed obscure otherwise)? Why did he do all that research about SB and post it all online? The myspace page really sticks in my craw.
Posted by: sir realist on August 29, 2007 08:55 AMAs stated many times previously, SS tried to resolve it on the small obscure blog without posting anything here. Only after Stefanny refused to ask that the post be taken down in the other blog was a rebuttal posted here.
Why did he do all that research about SB and post it all online?
When someone publicly posts lies about you, especially about being a child beater, would you just let it go? I wouldn't. I'll ask again.
When you don't respect someone else's privacy, why should you expect them to respect yours?
Posted by: Palouse on August 29, 2007 09:06 AMShe knew her remarks named SS, she knew how harsh her words were, and she knew they'd be published publicly. When confronted she did nothing to seek a compromise, let alone to admit any wrong doing. Please show me where she made any effort to put this to rest prior to SS using her own publicly posted information to color the character and credibility of his accuser. She had control of the entire endeavor from beginning to its sad end.
BTW, I've never yet seen anyone shocked by someone's myspace account being made even more public. Every week some myspace account hits major news someplace and the fact that it is public and a retarded place to air embarrassing information is hashed out. The credibility and character of someone calling you a child beater and your child a monkey is absolutely relevant. And, for the 10th time, was absolutely avoidable if she'd simply decided she'd gone too far and pulled the plug.
I'm sorry that you can't perceive the difference between something only a few people would have seen and a high traffic blog. It's an important matter. SS is ultimately responsible for the amount of publicity this matter has received and I don't see how any reasonable person can see all his actions as justified. Even when your family is involved. And yes, I have children so I can imagine it happening to me.
Adieu.
Posted by: sir realist on August 29, 2007 09:17 AMAnd you know for a FACT that Kos, Goldstein, Blatherwatch et al would not have found this blog post and linked to it if Stefan hadn't responded on his blog, huh? How is it that you know that?
Posted by: Palouse on August 29, 2007 09:27 AMI can't claim to know exactly what happened in a situation I just stumbled upon in the blogosphere, but a few thoughts occur to me while reading this posting:
#1 If the claims were "false" how could you know JUST who the anonymous comments were about?
#2 This seems like the perfect example of "poor me"ism that Republicans are constantly complaining about. I mean ... really ... a waitress saying something on a blog in a tiny corner of the VAST world about you is really such a horrific personal crime that you create a total storm over it? Just ... wow. It's this sort of hypocrisy that is making it VERY difficult to remain a republican in this day and age. I don't want to be on the same team with you folks anymore.
#3 As a blogger yourself, surely you "get" the context of blogging. Opinions aren't exactly "defamation" for goodness sakes. Or perhaps you've never stated an opinion about other people you encounter in the world, I've never read your blog so I don't know (and after this post, doubt I'll read it, sounds like it would be filled with twisted logic justifying bad behavior, no tyvm). But surely you've encountered other blogs where 'venting' is the NORM.
#4 I hope you don't plan on eating out any more. I worked as a waitress in college, and I've seen people spit (and worse) in food for much less offensive behavior.
Good luck to you. It can't be easy right now to be so publicly seen as a total jerk.
Posted by: anon on August 29, 2007 09:33 AMWhether the kid was behaving badly is completely irrelevant. It's the fact that his privacy was not respected by Bell. If she wanted to complain about customers who bring in children who behave badly, she could easily have done that without naming them. She chose not to. She could also have done it without calling the parents child beaters. She chose not to. She could have had the offensive material taken down after it was called out. She chose not to.
When you make bad choices about other people's privacy, expect your privacy to be treated in the same manner.
Posted by: Palouse on August 29, 2007 09:53 AMBut as I said, the most important thing about the truth of it isn't that it was posted but that it calls the veracity of the retraction into question. Why was it so important to have this stuff from an obscure blog taken down right fucking now? Why couldn't he have been more patient and worked quietly, following any of the methods I suggested above? Again, would it really have been so damaging if Goldy did that? (They seemed civil enough in that photo together. I'm not sure I'm going to take the word of a diehard right winger that a leftwing blogger is that low, so links please.)
Until someone can give me a satisfactory explanation that this was the only reasonable course of action left to SS - that there was nothing else he could have done - then I'm through with this echo chamber.
Posted by: sir realist on August 29, 2007 10:16 AMMy wife tells me constantly to stay away from Michael Hood's website as I only give him the satisfaction of being another "hit" for the counter. It's not that I disagree with his politics so much, but he has gone out of his way to smear the names of good people in the radio business that I have worked in for the past 20 years. A business that he, Michael Hood, has zero background in, never worked at a broadcasting company, and has no idea of what it is like to work in a radio broadcasting environment. What I say next may sound pompous, but working in radio broadcasting is hallowed ground; not many people can do it. It's a very tight community, despite the fact that many are competing against each other for ratings and revenue. But we all respect each other's talents. IMO, he has not right to comment, pontificate, or op-ed on an industry he has no knowledge of. I understand that I can't fight anyone's fights for them---but when someone attacks my collegues in this biz, I'm the first one to jump to their defense because, believe me, it's hard enough to work in it and have to put up with the lies that Hood publishes each day.
I also believe that he and his website had a very strong, albeit indirect, influence on the tragic death of Mike Webb. Given Mike's mental state at the time (and I have worked with him on occassion), I can understand how the constant harrassment of Hood and his associates on Mike played a part in the bad decisions that Mike made toward the end of his life. Not only did Hood constantly rag on Mike on his blog, but he and friends followed him to court hearings and basically harrassed him in person as well as on the blogosphere.
I read about the story of you and the waitress on Friday or Saturday and sat with my family and wondered out loud how a man could continue to smear people this way? OK, I admit--it's just a blog. Sometimes you have to get outside, into the real world and leave the Internet behind you. But in this case, as with others, Hood made an negative impact on people's lives---and i just don't think that's acceptable. How could one run a blog whose intended purpose is to inflict suspicion, pain, paranoia, slander, libel, embarassment toward an entire community of broadcasters?
I don't know quite how to end this post, so I'll just end it by saying that I hope you read it.
Posted by: Jim on August 29, 2007 10:17 AMIf someone told lies about me or my family publicly online, I would want them taken down right f-ing now. No questions asked. The child behaving badly is irrelevant, because whether it was true DOESN'T MATTER. Being publicly called a CHILD BEATER does. She can blog all she wants on children behaving badly, but she should have respected his privacy if she was going to post slanderous comments.
Again, the obscure blog argument is bogus. ANY blog post is a link away from NOT being obscure. If you need evidence of Goldy's MO, just do some searching in the archives here. And be sure to wash your hands when you're done.
Posted by: Palouse on August 29, 2007 10:53 AMWhat would happen if someone from CPS reads these comments about child abuse and does an investigation from her allegations? Not exactly unheard of in this state. SS would now have to clear his name with the state for something that may not be true. And with CPS, you're always guilty until proven innocent. And let's not forget the media circus that would develop, but disappear when a retraction was due.
So my feeling is that the SB was wrong in first posting names of customers and secondly suggesting that SS is responsible for child abuse. The first action should alert the business owner, but the second is an attack on the family with potential disaterous results.
And again, from reading all the posts from both logs, this could easily have been averted by an agreement between the parties involved, but one of the parties refused and caused the further actions to be taken.
Posted by: Ken on August 29, 2007 11:01 AMBut instead of deleting the interview, someone (I suspect Nate) fed it to Michael Hood. It was only after Hood linked to it and quoted from it that I posted my response that named Steffany.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on August 29, 2007 11:08 AMPosted by: PugetSound on August 29, 2007 11:09 AM
they are obviously trying to destroy him with these extreme distortions.
Keep up the good work Stefan, I can't wait to see what it is you have on them!
Posted by: dave o on August 29, 2007 11:49 AMShark, PugetSound did you good over on Blatherwatch's blog by kickin the shit out of all those supporters of the waitperson. If you haven't read it yet it was well done.
Posted by: Simplex on August 29, 2007 11:52 AMI saw no posting of personal information, except for a name.
And please don't ever complain when a liberal makes the statement that "conservatives are [insert epithet] because [insert shallow observation]." You have to be above hat in order to complain about it.
I am above that. Note that I was not speaking of all liberals, only those who pretend to care for society but then couldn't care less about her employer. That was clear from the context, and if you are a liberal, then you prove you are not among the people I am talking about, since you do care about the employer.
Also, I never used any epithet to describe liberals. I make it a habit to not do that. I am not sure why you think I did do that. Nor did I make any shallow observation: I made an observation based on fact, one you agreed with.
Posted by: pudge on August 29, 2007 12:57 PMSingle mother shmingle mother whoopti dam doo and Jimmie cracked corn and I don't care. Cuts no mustard with here. Anyone starts a fight with me, I intend to leave them swimming in a puddle of tears and will laugh my ass off about it when it happens.
Posted by: JDH on August 29, 2007 12:57 PMNow he extols the use of "handles."
I wish to nominate Swatter as our "Handles Messiah."
I hope you don't plan on having any more kids.
Posted by: Pathetic on August 29, 2007 07:48 PMDude I support Swatter too.
Sorry but get a grip!
I find it hard to believe Swatter hurt you poor little feelings. What he called you a pudge?
Grow a spine!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 29, 2007 09:05 PMEven insinuate that and the target of your fat mouthed spew should confront your employer and you will end up sitting around unemployed with your thumb up your @ss while whistling Dixie. Just like little miss smarty pants single unemployed mother of two.
Posted by: JDH on August 29, 2007 10:06 PMThis is basic politics. I am not a Republican and I am on the record that whoever you pick as nominee, I will vote for in '08.
Posted by: swatter on August 30, 2007 07:15 AMYou sound just like Senator Craig. “I am not gay”. “I am not a bad parent”. Same thing.
The truth is your ego got in the way (when doesn’t it?) and you spun this thing into a monster that you can’t control.
Shhhhh, listen…..do you hear that? That is the sound of any hope you have for political office going down the drain of a toilet that YOU flushed all by your lonesome. Right along with any hopes of credibility that you may have hopelessly harbored.
Stefan, you are a pompous and arrogant jerk. You have done more to embarrass yourself and your family, with your reaction to this incident, than anyone else could possibly hoped for. You should have just shut the heck up and let it die.
You still can’t do that.
Seems to be a gene that you conservatives share.
Wonder how long this post lasts before Stefan deletes it.
Posted by: My Left Foot on August 30, 2007 08:53 AMWhat else can I say, when parents react so strongly to obviously over-dramatized statements it makes it appear even more so that the statements were true to form. So what if a waitress thinks you're cheap and poor parents? Why should you care? I think it's true, and it hurts you to admit it, so like any functioning alcoholic you practice denial. Nobody is perfect...it's no big deal...we've all got work to do on ourselves. However, you're never going to be able to remedy your own personal issues by going insane everytime someone points them out.
Deal with it, be human...don't be another hateful cog in the political circus..there's enought of them already.
Posted by: Jay on August 30, 2007 10:45 AM
8D
I've been a counter jockey myself and am glad to be a stay-at-home mom...that way I don't get to deal with people who let their children run wild.
If it's true that you had this girl fired (or tried to) because of what she posted, then you need to get over yourself and get a life. Better that she has a job than she leeches off the taxpayers.
Posted by: Alexandra on August 30, 2007 02:38 PMBut Doug Parris, I have to side with swatter here, just because I am standing up for personal choice ... he gets to make the decision, and we don't know all his reasons, so it's pretty low to question it. Yes, it would be nice to know who everyone is, but there are certainly many good reasons for people not to tell everyone, and they are not all related to your idea of cowardice.
Posted by: pudge on August 30, 2007 04:06 PMI never saw swatter say what you say he said, so I won't comment on the reasonableness of it.
Posted by: pudge on August 30, 2007 10:21 PMAnd you are the people that want us to trust you about truth in elections or accountability.
Sure.
Get another waittress fired, heroes.
Posted by: DaveD on September 2, 2007 05:51 PMShe got herself fired. Get a grip, wingnut.
Posted by: pudge on September 3, 2007 08:43 AMEvery Con child I have seen has been poorly raised, either beaten or let out of control completely, do if you hadn't pointed out that she was talking about you we Mods would never have thought twice about it. But now that we know it is truely a Con's child it is VERY believable, and most likely true. You are probably a horrible parent.
Oh, and go ahead, try to attack me like you did her, I have never hid anything from anyone. The police here in Seattle know me well, but not because I am a criminal, the papers also know me, and everyone in my life knows everything about me.
Why? Because, unlike Con's and political
Posted by: KittenComputerGoddess on September 4, 2007 12:17 PM