Service is very poor in general these days, and especially in Seattle. I hope this will serve as good precedent for others who work in the service industry. Recognize that your job is not to create a ruckus, or to judge customers, it is simply to serve politely. If you can't handle that responsibility, then you should not sign up for such a job.

1) EB reports that Steffany's charges would have "certainly languished in obscurity" had Sharkansky just ignored them. How can she possibly know that??? Once the charges went on Blatherwatch, it seems likely that they would have forever been mentioned by local lefties whenever Shark's name came up, in the same way that they call Bush a cokehead or Hitchens a drunk.

2) She calls the interview 'tongue in cheek.' Where does she get that? Is there really some indication of this, or is this just a sneaky effort by Barnett to soften the ugly tone of the interview?

3) She quotes the snarky comments of posters on SP. But Sharkansky didn't make the comments and is not responsible for them. And why didn't she quote from the voluminous snarky comments from her 'slog,' or from BW, for balance. Answer: She didn't want balance.

Those who read this piece and this piece alone are going to get a very misleading picture.
Barnett is a great fit at the Stranger, working under the snot-smearing Dan Savage.

Most rational people will realize that regardless of how they feel about Stefan's response, he would never have had to make a response were it not for Bell's actions. The left defense is that Stefan should have done nothing, ignoring that he certainly did not initiate or deserve to have a public airing of his dinner at a Pizzeria. Which seems to be the left response to many provocations. And many on the left are now deliberately looking for provocations of the right so they can then spin negative angles about those who react. Angles that when run in papers like The Stranger, help to shore up the base.

The left wants conservatives to cower, rather than point out the lack of primary restraint on the left. And if conservatives dare speak out in defense, then the victim card is played to turn the tables.

Girl, you are SO busted!

No one, including Sharkansky, answered this question on the other thread, but hope springs eternal. Why was posting the personal information the only reasonable course of action left to SS?

Ignore everything else when considering this. Ignore the waitress's slander, whether she's telling the truth about whether she knew Sharkansky, whether this was damaging or not. Forget whether she deserved to lose her job for insulting customers online. The issue is SS's need for both the posts to come down (reasonable IMO) and the apology (maybe vindictive, maybe not) and the actions he undertook to see it happen (which, BTW, are why this is such news, not the original posts).

Why did SS find that this was the only reasonable course of action?

I can't see why he didn't use legal remedies. If it was all false and defamatory, why not sue?

And why didn't he comment for ECB's story and provide the balance that wutitiz is looking for?

Serious responses to this are appreciated. My lack of answer will mean that I don't think you're addressing my question.

It was one, of possibly more than one, reasonable courses of action. On what do you base a sense that it must be a last course? It's a framed argument where you characterize first the action as over the top and one of last resort before debating the point. It's a false claim and therefore not an actual debate to begin with.

Legal remedies would have been: A. expensive. B. Glacially slow (posts would have remained indeffinately). C. Deemed far more onerous to a low wage worker than a verbal slap down. D. An extreme waste of our courts time.

If asked by goldy or the Kos to comment on this story would it be helpful in setting it straight or would it be cherry picked to further paint SS falsely? Was he asked to begin with?

Stop trying to frame the debate into segments where you decide the relevant parts to parse and conclude in advance the correct characterization of actions and a "debate" might occur. Otherwise, take this as the only post to you explaining why you get no answers. When you post questions containing your pre-selected answers there's not much to talk about.

Pizza joints and kid mix.

Why doesn't he just sue?

Because he has NO CASE.
In the first place, the waitress's allegations are prbably truthful when you get down to it.

In the second, he cannot prove damages, and if damaged, would have a tough time why he continues to heap more upon himself.

lastly, by beating up on a pretty much broke single mom, he has already gone far beyond equity.

So sure he's going to try to pimp up his reputation...not doing so well at it.

And BTW, all of you with out of control youngsters, wherever, in restaurants, movie theatres, airplanes, you pretty much suck. You may have become immune to your child but most of us are not.

Get over it!
Your becoming so dang dense.

This lady made a fool of herself and she paid the price.

1) I only identified Steffany and quoted from her blog AFTER her story appeared on Blatherwatch, which was done AFTER I repeatedly asked Nate and Steffany to delete their false and defamatory post.

Why was THEIR only reasonable course of action to shop the story to Blatherwatch and why was Michael Hood's only reasonable course of action to link to a blog post which he knew I considered to be false and defamatory?

2) "why didn't he comment for ECB's story and provide the balance that wutitiz is looking for?"

That's another of the many examples of ECB's unprofessional conduct. I did comment for the story. I sent her two very detailed e-mails.

Thank you for responding. I'm not taking SB's side in this. I think your first several steps were reasonable, as was your wife's. True or false, you don't post stuff about your customers. It would have been equally as wrong to write that you were generous, polite, and a model father because it implies that it's alright for her to publicly comment on any customer. So good on you up to that point.

But I still believe you exposed too much about her. I don't see any good reason to jeopardize her job at Amazon. I don't see any good reason to link her myspace page and expose her to your readers' personal attacks (none have been reported but the exposure was there). And there's a difference between her posting her irrelevant diaries where few people who didn't know her would have cared to read them, and you posting them for your audience's ridicule.

Thank you for addressing the commenting issue. Did she ask to speak to you personally, and did you decline that?

Army Vet,

For someone who can't respond to simple questions without resorting to ad hominems, you're in no position to call anyone else dense.

Cecil,

Jeopardizing someone's livelihood (I'm thinking about SS's exposure of her other job) should never be anything but a last resort, and I don't necessarily agree that it was reasonable. So dismissing it like you do is what's false. And I fail to see why legal remedy, wasn't the better way. I'd bet my salary that the blogger (I can't remember his name) would have backed down if he knew he could have been taken to court. It seems to me that Stefan did not explore that option. Maybe he had a good reason but it hasn't been discussed.

This, to me, is the pertinent question - Is SS in a more moral position than SB? I'm thinking he started out there but ended up on a low level himself.

Second, there are times kids can play and times they can't and times in-between. Are you saying kids should be quiet in Mickey Ds, for example? Ruth Crisps? Pizza joints are pizza joints.

As for kids in general, we have been doing foster kids. There is a reason they are foster kids. You should see the looks I get when I discipline the kids in public. And this is at Costco and WalMart. I think you think and expect all kids should be seen and not heard. I think that too but I don't expect it.

Let me tell you about misbehaved and out of control. 5 hour plane trip in the Far East starting at midnight. 3 in the morning this brat (from earlier non-supervision encountered with the same couple) throws a tantrum and does his Jackie Chan imitation on the back of my seat. Parents never stopped him. steve, that is misbehaved.

You don't have to think about this real hard to see why going the legal route was not productive. It's 1) Costly 2) Time consuming 3) Blogs are exempt from libel laws.

SHE'S the one who jeopardized her career by making that post and then refusing to take it down. Stop blaming the victim of the vicious attack. And she has not been fired from Amazon, so that's a moot point too.

When you publicly attack someone online, and then that person responds, don't expect to retain your privacy.

Very seldom is someone "taken" because it is a close-knit community where the "players" are all pretty well known.

A couple of years ago an individual from Largo Fla scammed me for $105 on a watch bracelet. Within days of becoming aware that something was amiss and confirming that this individual had pulled the same stunt on others using various handles I had mobilized a small army and within a couple of weeks we had run the fox to ground.

Being as this individual used the handle drumplayer___ I posted an enquiry on the Largo Fla. Craigslist under the heading musicians and the dirt started to pour in. An individual I hooked up with with more internet savvy than I will ever hope to have monitored every posting for anything coming from his IP address and I totally shut down his internet scam operation as well as tracked his every move on the internet.

I had his and his wife’s names and aliases, dates of birth, criminal record, place of employment, twenty-five or so different Internet aliases, home address and more as well as photographs and knew of his sexual peccadilloes thanks to his "friends" in the Largo Music scene.

It did not take long before the filthy little slime ball threatened to sic his “relative who is quite influential in the Largo Police department” on me. I took this and sent a note to the Fla. State Police regarding the individual’s claim that the Largo Police Department was in some way compromised. They contacted the City Government and when the police department was informed and handed the documentation that he had indeed insinuated that the department was in some way offering “protection” hell’s own fire and brimstone rained down on him.

This is how to deal with filth, give them one opportunity to “get right” and if they do not avail themselves of your generosity, take no prisoners.

I call you dense, because you repete the same thing over & over even though Stefan has told you what happened, but you just continue on asking it.

Gosh, allow me to feign incredulity to the fact that Stefan used public information to find out who this girl was. Thank God she didn't pull something like this on Richard Pope, we all would've known the results of her pap smear.

The Stranger, Hood's blog, and goldy's nuthouse all have one thing in common - they're read by little people who need to act flamboyantly enough to flaunt The Man.

The Man is anybody who doesn't agree with them politically or anyone who has landed on their sh*t list (for whatever reason). These people live their lives on the edge of emotional instability (witness the number of them that need recreational drugs to feel good about themselves).

Look at the trolls who show up here. We have no desire whatsoever to communicate with these people, yet they persist in coming over to a blog where they clearly aren't interested in the subject matter.

Blogs are exempt from libel laws? That is indeed news to me. Very interesting. Can anyone corroborate? If true, thanks for that as it's an answer I've been looking for, and one that makes more sense than anything about it being time consuming or expensive. After all one of the refrains here has been that she attacked his family so SS was justified to do what he had to remedy the situation. Maybe the law should be changed. And allow me to disagree that the Amazon point is moot. She still has her job - for now - but it was jeopardized, maybe still is. Her retention doesn't make that moot.

Sorry, I meant to ask this in my last post. SB said the defamatory remarks but that other dude published them. Why was she the target instead of the man responsible for the online content?

Army Vet,

Maybe you aren't following the subtle nuances of the dialogue. I'm asking specific questions about the choices SS made in pursuing this. I'm getting answers about the what but not the why. So I repeat the question that is not being answered (at least until Palouse). Let me know if there's anything else I can clarify.

Erica C. Barnett is responsible for her actions and deserves to reap the consequences of her actions.

Stefan and Irene are responsible for their actions and deserve to reap the consequences of their actions.

Anybody disagree with that?

You 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.

It is not journalism per se - art and music coverage excepted.

If the post comes down after being asked then there needs be no further debate about its accuracy. The whole thing vanishes and that was 100% in the control of SB. So, once she determined that a battle was in fact what she wanted how does one make their case in a he-said, she-said scenario?

It falls to the credibility of the participants. Since SS has no other patrons to verify the event, he has only SB's character and integrity to use to frame the slur against him. SS had 2 separate and equally important things to accomplish and you chose to focus only on one of them. He needed to get the posting taken down AND he needed to counter the premise of the posting. Especially, and again you ignore this point, after the posting was first broadened in distribution to another blog. The only tools he had at that point to counter the attack were to flesh out the nature of the accuser, her other postings, her political leanings and her intent.

Once SB/the blogger friend blew it up getting into even greater distribution it was no longer sufficient to simply seek it be pulled down from the originating blog. A defense, based on the background and credibility of the parties was required and was the only means to defend against the accusation. SS wasn't left a reasonable option at that point to simply ignore it.

On a separate note; any waitress, ever, anywhere who writes about a patron by name from their dealings in a restaurant should have that behavior reported 100% of the time to their boss. 100%, every single time. Doing so was not heavy handed nor disproportional. There can be no dispute on this point. No one anywhere should tolerate the employee of any business making personal and malicious use of activities related to that business to attack it's customers by name and the truth of the postings is not even relevant in that part of the equation.

One can't use the outcomes for the relative parties to determine "equivalence" in this matter. They had equal rights to privacy. SS was left exposed and undefended because of SB's choices, multiple choices and multiple opportunities to bring it to an end. The fact that she, because of her actions ends up significantly damaged is not evidence that SS behaved inappropriately. The fact that SS's factual, truthful and direct defense of himself was definitively more effective does not make this disproportional.

Didn't SB harm SS's livelihood first? By printing her bile, she threatend Stefan's ability to reach more readers who would agree with him and thereby send him money for his website. If she soured people on his personality or his eating habits, they would boycott his site. Lessening his cash flow and causing him serious monetary damage. Would you sit by and let someone pick your pocket?
(libelous slanders aside)

Or is it because he's a rich, white conservative and she's a downtrodden single mother communist that he deserves this treatment?

Again - who's the victim?

Jeopardized how? Stefan did not report anything to her Amazon bosses. They might have heard about this, but we can go back to who originally posted the vicious attack as to who jeopardized her position. She did.

Why was she the target instead of the man responsible for the online content?

She was the source of the offending material, not the blog host. The blog host would have taken it down if she had requested it, but really had no self interest in taking it down himself. Quite the opposite, anything that attracts additional interest in his blog is good for him. Why is why someone (him or Steffanny) relayed the story to Blatherwatch, where it was sure to receive more attention.

I know nothing about Stefan Sharkansky le deuche' but... cmon, if your a shitty tipper at least own up to it, you're acting like a 12 year old here... "teacher teacher she called me cheap..."

For cHRIST sake grow the fuck up and try to one day actually make a contribution to the journalistic community instead of using it to bully and be an asshole.

And no one need try to respond with a lame predictable diatribe commenting on my apparent lack of maturity because "I use 4 letter words" or "I'm just liberal". Instead why don't you all THINK about what this deuche did and realize that it serves no purpose. Stefan Sharkansky YOU server no purpose except be the target of rEPUBLICAN fan boys and girls further re-enforcing your delusion that politics actually matters to humanity... you all lead worthless lives.

Peace

They say there is no bad publicity, and I think there will have been a great deal more attention to you paid by the time this eventually winds down, and eventually it will. You may find that it has been instructive, whether or not you find the eventual outcome to be desirable.

Certainly the larger picture is: will the conservative community have been well represented by your actions? Will the cross section of conservatives in this area, not just frequent posters and people personally attached to you, regard this an appropriate response to this woman?

Politicians, one of which you actually are, even if not in an elected office, always have supporters that defend their actions and critics that condemn everything that they do. The large segment in between these poles make the final judgment.

One thing seems clear: You'll be dealing with the consequences, good or bad, for a lot longer than I think you originally intended. If you feel that you thought this out sufficiently before you did it and are satisfied with the correctness and prudence of your actions, then you should be comfortable for your future.

The answer to Stefan's question is obvious. Erica Barnett is deliberately untruthful. If I were her boss, I'd fire her too. But that's the difference, most restaurant owners have some integrity and respect for their customers, today's newspaper editors rarely do.

MOM, I thought you promised me you would stay off-line.

I answered the point about countering the post yesterday which is why I'm not discussing it today. But I'll reiterate - he could have posted a refutation, here, at blatherwatch, and at any other place it popped up. Further action may not have been necessary, but I won't argue with anyone who believes differently.

I don't look at the outcome to determine equivalence either, I look at their respective positions in the blogosphere (highly visible political blogger, virtually invisible but irresponsible blooger). I'll concede the point that things started to change once blatherwatch posted it but I'm still not sure why the focus was solely on the waitress, unless it was because SS could find nothing to use as leverage on the guy. Saying that her character is important in determining the truth of the matter - that's food for thought and I appreciate the point.

I want to thank those who are taking the time to answer my questions. While it's not convincing me that SS was right to use the means he chose, that's more a matter of personal opinion rather than debatable fact. I'll be busy the rest of the day and probably won't post about it any more. (And if you're reading this and thinking about posting something along the lines of "good riddance," let me tell you to save your keystrokes for something more original and topical.)

By the way, it's not a Mule. It's an Ass.

Oh there we go again. More excrement dropping out of the horses ass.

Frankly, I've seen nothing to indicate that anything Stefan has said is untrue, but she keeps looking worse and worse in the credibility department (first she admits to lies, then Stefan highlights one in particular and proves that she's lying).

Palouse, her job at Amazon was jeopardized because SS exposed this to an audience built-in to take his word over hers. I can imagine some of the, shall we say, more robotic posters calling Amazon to alert them what was going on with one of their temps. I can also imagine some of the Amazon workers reading Sound Politics and going, hey I know her, what a bitch. Maybe they could have figured that out anyway, maybe they wouldn't have cared, but it's foolish to think that that was a fair thing for SS to do.

Yes, she was the source, and it's reasonable to think she has a say but it's also reasonable to target the man who could say, no, I'm keeping it up or yes, I'll take it down. More logical, even. She said what she said but he published it. In publishing you usually go after the publisher, not the author. If you don't perceive a difference then let's just agree to disagree.

Jeff B, there's still a difference between posting personal stuff for a few and having someone use it against you by spreading it on a popular political blog. Would you have gone looking for it? And remember, if you think the personal attacks SS has had posted here and elsewhere is unfair, than so were any emails she got as a result of SS posting it. It may or may not have been his intent, but I maintain that was irresponsible.

Michele, I haven't seen anything to indicate that what SB said was substantially false, other than the retraction that was made under duress. I don't really care about that, just think it should be pointed out.

Adieu, I really must work.

I don't believe it was an attack, I'd call it an interview and the last time I checked freedom of speech was still protected.

Why is it always the most vitriolic, powerful and nasty bloggers tend to be upset when other people have something negative to say about them.

Such a mild situation...talk about making mountains out of molehills, there are so many other issues that need to be addressed. Yet Stefen "The Snake" decides to spend his time attacking a waitress.

Is that what they teach you in the Ivy Leagues?

A thought for sir Realist. While Nate was the publisher of the "interview", he had the benefit of "plausible deniability". He could simply claim that he has no way of verifying his source's claims, nor could he verify the counter claims by Stefan, thus he could hide behind this ambiguity and allow the "interview" to stand because he had "no reason" to doubt the accuracy of his source. By exposing the source itself, Stefan was able to destroy the credibility of both the source and the editor, and it was the only way he could elicit the needed retraction. The action taken was not punitive so much as defensive. The fact that the source was affected more strongly by the action does not mean that Stefan was intending to achieve such an effect, and if that was not his goal, then there was thus no reason for him to "go after" the editor.

Might that effectively answer your question?

To sum up: He did not attack the source, he exposed the source, and there were resulting collateral effects, thus he also did not attack the editor who just happened to have fewer collateral effects, though his integrity was certainly brought into question. However, my understanding is that there was not much credibility there to lose, so maybe that is why it looks like he got off easy to you.

Just surmising.

Get a grip...the guy is a pussy, he wouldn't last 15 seconds in the ring with that waitress.

But I guess your talking about his prowess behind the keyboard...how manly...same goes for you..PUSSY!

Get a grip...the guy is a pussy, he wouldn't last 15 seconds in the ring with that waitress.

But I guess you're talking about his prowess behind the keyboard...how manly...same goes for you..PUSSY!

Dude - Learn how to read. The waitress retracted her claims. Which means her assertions that he does not know how to tip or parent are no longer valid. Defending one's honor and the honor of their family does not a douchebag make, but making false claims about someone on those issues might qualify, and doing drive-by insults on a blog without bothering to be conversant about the facts makes one subject to such labels as well.

My first reaction when I saw the waitress's post was and continues to be, to shrug my shoulders and think to myself, "That was tacky!" My first reaction to the Sharkansky's response was, and continues to be, "WTF, that is way over the top for the offense given."

If Goldy, or anyone else, had done this I would be just as critical. A person's character isn't just measured by how he/she treats people in an equal or superior social/economic standing but also how he/she treats people with an inferior standing.

If it was someone I knew personally, I would have tried to tell them it was a bad idea from the beginning. In fact, I would now be re-evaluating the level of my association with the person and examining whether this was an isolated incident or a pattern I had previously missed.

They say ignorance is bliss, and it may seem true for the ignorant themselves, but it it's a big pain for the rest of us us who have to deal with those so inclined to remain uninformed.

Stefan is right. This waitress is a liar...and deserves the consequences.
Actions...and consequences.
Something the fringe lunatic left is incapable of understanding.
I'll bet Steffany was really yucking it up when she saw her name in lights "exposing" Stefan.
It was pretty short-lived though when she felt the hot-poker of CONSEQUENCES jab her in the ass.

Why doesn't some lefty-loon hire her??
And PS--
I think her actions go a loooooong way in explaining why Steffany is a single mom.

For every useless defense the narrow minded nimwits on this site throw up all one has to say is it takes two to argue. I agree it was irresponsible of her to trash her customers. Would anyone have found the blog had Stefan not posted a direct link on SP?

What should have been a private fight between Stefan and Blatherwatch/Waitress got public when Stefan escalated via SP. Stefan quite clearly wanted revenge. He truly deserves all the heat he's getting (besides he's likely making a tidy profit off it).

Your last post on the Amazon "treat" was really a stretch. Amazon is a huge organization and the hand full of calls they might get from a few nut-cases reporting a totally non-job related issue with a temp employee who is probably no more than a number to them would never raise never a blip on the crises meter. I doubt there is anyone on this blog who even thought about calling Amazon much less did so. You can tell that the vast majority of people did not advocate for a scorched earth policy against the waitress but rather focused on exactly what they deemed fair and just and which you have also admitted was fair and just, that she be exposed for her lies and that her boss be made aware that she is slandering customers by name.

The threat to the Amazon job was just another manufactured liberal hyperbole to gin up more sympathy for the woman since it was obvious that the only sympathy they could generate had to BE manufactured.

You are carrying water for the deranged and unbalanced and you should start living up to your name more.

Sharkanski and his wife totally destroyed the champions of the left AFTER they called he and his wife out onto the field of battle.

Left the pathetic little single mother of two in a puddle of tears and I am laughing out loud over the fact. One thing which is clear is that Sharkanski clearly thought through his course of attack and then after giving the instigator an opportunity to retract prior to going through her and all of her supporters like so much corn through a goose.

If this exchange is indicative of anything it is a clear example of his "his prowess behind the keyboard," in other words the superiority of his intellect. Since the same goes for me...Hey thanks for the compliment

So what to do? Flip the table and scream victim down. Someone lost their job for something really unprofessional. Oh the horror. I'll bet someone on the left will hire her in no time flat, and she will be better off for it because she will be working for someone who shares her ideology, and might even reward her for attacking conservatives. There's no such thing as bad publicity.

But keep making it out to be a values crisis. That's all you know how to do or can do, because its difficult for you to imagine a world in which people stand up and defend themselves.

There is a difference between covering a story verses misrepresenting the facts and stating known falsehoods. It seems to me that it is not too much to expect the facts to be right even if the opinion might be skewed in the predictable way.

"What should have been a private fight between Stefan and Blatherwatch/Waitress got public when Stefan escalated via SP. Stefan quite clearly wanted revenge. He truly deserves all the heat he's getting (besides he's likely making a tidy profit off it)."

You've got it kind of bass akwards dont't you Cato? Who went public first? The way I remember it, it was SB making unsubstantiated claims that Stefan and his wife are child abusers. Perhaps you don't have a problem with it, but an accusation of child abuse is a serious issue to my mind.

Which has a blog bigger audience full of rabid nitwits willing to expose someones private life for personal gain BW or SP? I'd say SP.

SB making unsubstantiated claims that Stefan and his wife are child abusers.

True, but again would it have gone national had Stefan not posted his revenge on SP? Who's the bigger idiot?

If he kept it quiet would typing Sharkansky into Google bring up words like shitty tipper and vindictive jerk? Unlikely, the traffic would likely have died down and it would have become a non-issue.

Expose her private life? Are you kidding me? Did you read all of HER postings on HER OWN blog? My God, after reading her own words, there is little left to the imagination.

"Shitty tipper", and "vindictive jerk" are a long way from "child abuser", and it would not surprise me to find the left using the latter to discredit Stefan and wife because they don't like his politics. Imagine Googling your own name and having is associated with child abuse.

I'm going to refain from using the word idiot here. There was only one person in the wrong , and it wasn't Stefan. In my opinion, Stefan acted appropriately and actually showed remarkable restraint. Some others would not have been so kind.

Can't we all just get along.

I'm not satisfied about the "knowing who Stefan was" question - did she know he was such a high profile blogger? That's how I read her comment given the context of her other comments where it seems like she kinda sorta knew who SS was but maybe not how popular her was.

And my employer is myself. When we ASSUME.... But I suppose you never use your work computer for anything for work-related purposes, correct? Thank you for your well deserved admonition.

Eyago,

Maybe so, but it's not a stretch to think that Stefan himself could have contacted Amazon to make the complaint. He didn't, of course, since he got what he wanted, but I believe that there was an implied threat there. And lay off the ad hominems if you want to be taken seriously beyond this.

It's a miserable, petty story, and you and your wife are miserable, petty people.

"Maybe so, but it's not a stretch to think that Stefan himself could have contacted Amazon to make the complaint. (emphasis mine)

Ah, but even by your own admission, it didn't happen, did it? I don't really care what you can stretch your imagination around. When you're able to stick to what actually did happen you'll have earned the moniker "sir realist"

In case you didn't look at the links posted, Stefan posted a response on the Meet the Stress blog asking that it be taken down. At that moment, the blog's author/publisher has a request from the target of the post asking that it be taken down. He could easily have done so, even without Stefanny's permission, but chose not to. In fact, he (likely) or Stefanny did just the opposite - he made sure that it was known to Blatherwatch.

Once it was blogged on BW, the obsure blog argument became meaningless, since BW has wider readership and would have been picked up by Goldy and others anyway. Only at THAT point was it blogged here in defense.

As for Amazon, I agree that job has nothing to do with this issue and could have been left out. She fully deserved to get fired from the pizzeria however, and that really is the pertinent job/issue. However, she has suffered no damage from revealing the Amazon job, and unless she does (very unlikely), it really doesn't matter.

The difference "Sharkansky child abuser" and "Sharkansky asshole" are now at the top of Google's search list because they're more popular phrases. Had he kept the matter more private those words would appear much much farther down the list (result #7862 maybe?). Now everyone can find the cache of both Stefan and the Waitress. Smart!

It seems the only reason he found the page at all because he has to keep track of his ego via Google Alert. I'm sure he's getting Google Alerts every 5 min for "Sharkansky", those alerts are likely to contain lots of words I'd care not to post on this 'family friendly' blog.

Why not? The rest of your fellow lefties are having no trouble revealing their vulgar vocabulary for the world to see. And thank you, mods, for keeping the posts up. They're very instrumental for showing just how the two sides to this debate behave.

Some others would not have been so kind. NW Denizen

You got that right. Myself included.

You expect me to control what a bunch of anonymous posters say because you want to lump me in some overly broad political category? If so Jimg then you have truly earned the title of dimwit.

Maybe so, but it's not a stretch to think that Stefan himself could have contacted Amazon to make the complaint. He didn't, of course...

At that is exactly the point. You are making accusations based on suppositions of "what if".

You threaten your own credibility when you accuse someone of something they have not done and then proceed to take them to task as if they had actually done it.

The same thing goes for accusing me of ad hominem attacks. Please be sure you understand what ad hominem means and carefully read what I have written. You will find that I made no such attacks on your person or character, and in fact, gave you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that you had good intentions but were misled by others who were less than accurate about the facts.

It appears that I was wrong in that case and will not make such assumptions heretofore.

I'm responsible for my own behavior much the same way Stefan is for his (or his child in this case).

The lesson here is that writing on the internet isn't private. If you say stupid things about someone, it's likely to come back to bite you. It's really that simple. If SB didn't want to lose her job, then maybe she should have acted like a grown-up (37?!) and kept her trap shut about the customers who paid her salary. I hope she doesn't work in customer service again. Some people just aren't cut out for it.

Come again. Rational adults don't press charges for slander. They rationalize the courts don't want to deal with it and the attorney costs are unreasonable. Ergo, come up with a better word than rational.

Why do you think this is a poor, poor woman being picked on by the bully? Personally, I think it was the other way around. And no, that woman did such a poor job on other issues that this guy canned her- actually, it was her decision as well. Stefan had nothing to do with it. He pointed out boorish behavior of an employee and the employer talked to her. The two parties agreed to leave each other. No Stefan involved.

This thing is taking on a life of its own.

The waitress was wrong to do what she did - plain and simple. Perhaps it was right that she was fired; not my call. What is clear to me, however, is that this woman is rather unhappy and dealing with some pretty heavy issues (one need only read her blog so conveniently re-posted on this site to ascertain this). While this does not justify her behavior, it is relevant.

It is relevant because it provides context for how Sharkansky chose to respond. He didn't have to link to her myspace - but he did. He didn't have to reprint her blogs about being abused by her former spouse (on the number one political website in the state) - but he did.

Frankly, he can make the case that he was justified in doing what he did. But that doesn't mean his actions were any more honorable than the waitress's. Like everything in politics - power plays a central role. In this case, Sharkansky had all the power when matched up against the waitress. He chose to respond with overwhelming force. His response - that of total and intended personal destruction of this woman (why else choose the excerpts from her blog that he did) is not appropriate conduct for a man who has, in many ways, become the spokesperson for the conservative movement in this state.

I think you over-reacted, Stefan, and I'm not impressed - notwithstanding the waitress's boorish behavior. I expected more from you.

Dave

Do you feel that it is ok to maliciously attack anyone who is willing to step forward and speak up about political things? In some ways you seem to be advocating two things. One, that by being willing to participate in the political process you become fair game for malice and slander, and two, that only those who have no feelings would be willing to become public political representatives.

Being willing to speak up for what you beleive does not mean you should be willing to accept malicous attacks on your family. There is simply no excuse for incivility and your argument is completely without merit. Stefan no more deserves to be slandered than you do. Period.

Should I construe that since you chose to speak up in a public blog about an issue that you have given up all rights to decorum and civility? Can I safely describe you as morally impure, violent toward children, perverted and many other (and far less delicate terms than even used here) terms?

Your rationale is ridiculous. The waitress made a public but anonymous accusation, her anonymity was stripped away and you blame the the person who revealed his accuser.

I suppose you blame the home owner for calling the cops on the burglar when the burler's life is destroyed by the ensuing arrest. After all the homeowner was probably white and affluent and exercised power over the likely poor, and under-educated burglar.

Do liberals even think before they speak? Do they follow the chain of effect for their emotional responses?

What you failed to realize is that Stefan did not present anything that this person herself posted publicly. She posted for the world to see what she felt and thought about things. She was an aspiring writer and was practicing her craft. If she did not want her personal stuff to be read by others, she might have considered not placing it in an open forum.

There is nothing in reading her material that did any "harm" to her in that there were no lies posted about her, no accusations of misconduct or criminality. Stefan simply pointed out that this person's own posts reveal that she is less than an ideal character reference about him and his family.

Had Stefan simply posted that the waitress in question was wrong, that would not convince anyone since it would boil down to a "Stefan is a child beater", "no I am not" kind of argument. When dealing with an accuser, a character reference is useful in determining the value of a person's statements, and Stefan used the best character reference available on Steffany. He used Steffany herself to be her won character reference.

He did not take anything that was not made already public by Steffany. He did not steal her personal diary from her home, he did not dig letters out of her trash can. He simply linked her own public writings.

Again, I see people reacting to the impact of the consequences and having an emotional reaction to how Steffany had been hurt by her own words and deeds, and then blame the victim for revealing it in his own defense.

You also conveniently forget that he made several attempts to privately respond and when the people involved escalated it to a broader audience AFTER he tried, it was inevitable that he needed to act on his own behalf.

It is easy for you to sit there and say he over-reacted, but unless you have ever experienced such a personal and malicious gut punch yourself, you cannot judge Stefan. His actions were measured. He asked politely and several times, he gave them fair warning before acting and followed through on his promises.

Steffany could have prevented everything early on, but you continue to blame Stefan for her failure to respond to his reasonable request. It should not, but it still amazes me how people seem to conveneintly ignore pertinent facts.

I think that's a really valid counter-argument. The crucial distinction for me in this case, however, is Stefan's role as a quasi-public figure. Perhaps it's unfair, but I'm holding him to a higher standard than I would a private person, such as the waitress, you or me.

Additionally - a clarification - I'm not "blaming" Stefan for the waitress's failure to respond to his request that the posts be pulled. I'm critiquing the extent to and manner in which he responded after the posts were not pulled.

Upper middle class male conservative is roundly trumped by single lower middle class mother. The left gets to deermine the moral high ground at all times, because they are the self appointed moral authority.

That doesn't hold up to logic well. It would be one thing if Stefan had made no attempt at all to reconcile in advance with SB. But he did, and so at very worst, he might be held to account for simply using SB's own words to contradict her statements about him, or mentioning her job at Amazon, which appears to be just fine. Not a whole lot to build the horror of Ms. Bell's fate upon.

If anything, Ms. Bell is now quite well known herself. So her ability to be used as a pawn for stories like that of Erica Barnett's spin, balance any gravity of Stefan's blogging reknown.

The left has very little to cling to here, but they want the narrative that the big bad wolf came and scared Goldilocks, because it fits their world view that conservatives have no compassion, etc.

It's weak, but if that's all you have, I guess you cling to it.

Exactly, if Stefan Sharkansky is trolling the bathrooms at City Hall looking for love, I'd want to know about it. He is a public figure after all.

Do you think the hate websites and Stranger aren't eating up every drop of this? They don't like Stefan and they're pumping it for every last bit of dirt. I never even heard of Mercifus or his website until this blow up.

The waitress and the restaurant will likely fair okay. She'll probably get a job from a sympathetic person.

Stefan's and Steffany's kids hopefully won't hear about this dust up. They're the innocents in this whole mess.

Stefan's quasi or not so quasi public persona fairly or unfairly puts a bullseye on his back and he served it up to them.

I appreciate your candor on the issue of why you hold Stefan to a higher standard. I certainly can respect that logic. However, the older I get the more I begin to realize that everyone is human and that everyone is going to act like a human, and when they manage to take a more lofty approach to a problem that the average Joe and Josephine, then I will tip my hat to them, but I am less than willing to go the other way any more and criticize a "public" or "quasi-public" figure for being human.

Would I have respected Stefan more had he managed to find a better way? Probably, but he does not lose respect because he did NOT take the high road because he was fair in his approach and does not deserve the criticism he is getting. He did not ask for this fight and has paid a huge price for simply being willing to step up and speak his political mind.

The fact that he becomes open to such attacks should be enough for others to err on the side of forgiveness rather than expect even more from him. It's not like he nets any significant bounty from his efforts worth such slings and arrows. He is already worthy of respect for simply being willing to step up and be involved. Us peons do not fully appreciate the price of leadership and the courage it takes in today's political environment.

They still think they can control outcomes based upon their control of information and that is what led to the arrogance that was displayed here in the early stages. When they had all the power they took great satisfaction in destroying people. Now that the playing field is level, they cannot compete and so now they are clamoring for equality of outcome or the "right" to a win based solely upon their self labled "victim status."

The world doesn't work that way when there is an opportunity for free exchange of information. You win based upon the strength of your case, and your ability to frame your case.

Yeah. he did. And he made a horse's ass of himself in the process.

The line about Sharkansky the powerful vs. SB the week is complete nonsense. If the blue dress story posted by an ex-gift shop worker had been false, would POTUS have just let it go? Think of the power disparity there! Should the fake documents provided by a raving lunatic to Dan Rather have been ignored? The unknown person actually has an advantage in this kind of fight.

Sharkansky did just the right thing, and because of what he did he won't have to endure forever being linked by local lefties to false allegations of stinginess and child abuse.

RE: libel: a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person, causing injury to said person. If you say something like "Paris Hilton is a whore" - it probably won't be libel if it's on the internet.

HOWEVER, the thing to remember about libel is, someone usually has to hear it (which is the case here) and believe it to be true. The internet is kinda sticky for that because folks tend to take the internet with a grain of salt.

BUT, there is also libel per se... which is automatic damages. Libel per se usually involves
A) saying they're shady in business;
B) saying they have an STD;
C) saying they're a slut (sexual promiscuity); or
D) saying they committed a crime. And theoretically, calling Stefan and the Mrs 'child abusers'fit under D.

Gee what would our poor hapless "single mother" wanna be writer do if hit with an onerous, lengthy and costly case like that? She should consider herself lucky she got off with a handslap and encourage her me-too chorus to allow her to move back into oblivion.

Frankly, I'd suggest that they sue her anyway. They've got a legit claim. And something tells me that 'poor helpless single mom' would have a tough time with the costs of defending a libel suit, let alone that particularly ugly attention it brings her!

Seems to have a selective indignation given:

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

There is reason to believe Reno is precisely the sort of attorney general that Hillary would nominate, since Reno was widely assumed to be Hillary's pick at the time. As ABC News' Chris Bury reported the day Reno was confirmed: "The search for an attorney general exemplifies Hillary Clinton's circle of influence and its clout. ... The attorney general-designate, Janet Reno, came to the president's attention through Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham."

Let's compare attorneys general:

-- Civilians killed by Ashcroft: 0 -- Civilians killed by Gonzales: 0 -- Civilians killed by Reno: 80

I am amazed at how slow you are to learn a lesson. Your use of a thesaurus is impressive though. You have managed to begin to make "friends" across the nation.

http://tinyurl.com/ys2g5q

It is a sin in God's eye to purposely harm another. The person with the greater understanding (which you pride yourself to be) has the greater responsibility. You might check with your Rabbi about your actions. You have aligned yourself with the Christian Right, what harm is there in asking for advice and guidance?

I feel empathy for you and the sadness in your life that drove you to over-react in such a scurrilous manner. A mench would never have acted out the in this way.

Shame on you.

How many lawyers do you think would line up to take the waitress' case pro bono? I assure you they would be three deep. I am married to one of them. As soon as papers were served I am sure that we would find that Stefan is the one who would not be able to afford the attorney power necessary to answer the bell. Even with his wife working for free. He does not want his life opened up like a can of chili, his friends and neighbors interviewed, deposed and called as witnesses. His life would become a living hell.

The waitress, not so much. She has nothing to lose so she wins. Stefan on the other hand is in a lose lose situation. And he knows it.

My Left Foot, as official puppet of the left, says the gal should sue just to cause Stefan hassle. Cool!! And lefties wonder why most people hate attorneys and see no value in them and why the Republicans was to limit their power.

"The waitress, not so much."

That's SERVER, you sexist!

End of Story

As proven by the comments posted by the likes of "Steve" and "Sir Realist", they only prove, yet again and without a modicum of doubt, that the collective stupidity of the liberal Democrat Party is overshadowed ONLY by their mind numbing intellectual dishonesty.

You are 100% correct there. I had a policy when I played hockey - you pick a fight with me and I am in it for the long haul. I'm going to inflict enough that even though the fight may be "called" a draw by spectators, by the time it's over, I will go another round but you want no part of me in the future.

Stefan won this one, hands down, AND it will be a while before he has to return to the ring.

"Hello, I'm Stefan Sharkansky, waitress slayer. And you are?"

While it's tempting to assume that he's an ugly hectoring bully because he's a Republican (and certainly, I doubt if he would have got this much public support from his regular commenters if this had been a left-wing blog) I know a good many Republicans who would despise anyone who was rude and bullying to waitstaff. So I can't blame Stefan's behavior on his politics: he's evidently just that kind of nasty bully.

Well you certainly knew Sharkansky's politics by the time you made the very one-sided post on your blog, and your "waitress slayer" comment above.

I don't know what happened at the restaurant, and neither do you. What amazes me is how leftist bloggers and columnists immediately drooled all over themselves and jumped to conclusions such as yours.

Actually, I don't. I've not read a single one of his political posts on this blog, only the ones where he publicizes himself as a slayer of waitresses. Sure, I know he identifies as a Republican: but that has a very broad spectrum, from the wingnuts who believe Bush Can Do No Wrong, to the sensible types who voted for Kerry in 2004 because, even if he was a Democrat, someone had to stop the continuing disaster that is Bush.

I have no idea which end of the spectrum Stefan Sharkansky falls on. All I know, thanks to his own self-publicity, is that he's a bad parent, a cheap tipper, and a bully.

I don't know what happened at the restaurant, and neither do you.

We now know, from Sharkansky's public behavior, that he was sufficiently deeply embarrassed by what happened in the restaurant to bully and threaten the waitress into silence. And we know that Sharkansky's character, as made public by his own actions, makes the waitress's description of his behavior in the restaurant very probable.

What amazes me is the number of right-wing commenters who are going yeah! and cheering on the bully.

You don't go on to the internet and slander customers. Her employers deserved to be informed of her actions and she was rightfully fired. Why are you leftists circling the wagons to protect slander and hate speech? It is you hate filled, intolerant leftists that are the bullies here.

The lesson is that we should ALL avoid ad hominem attacks, avoid calling people names, and stick to reasoned arguments and observations about the truth of what our political opponents have done or said.

The waitress started it with her name-calling.
Criticising Stephans political views would have been one thing, but hers was an ad hominem attack that had no real value to anyone.

We fiscal conservatives need to keep the high ground, and avoid ad hominem attacks, even against the big government liberals who annoy us so much. There is plenty to attack on the issues and principles!

In order to show a statement is slanderous, it has to be shown to be untrue and damaging. As the damage to Stefan Sharkansky has been done by his own endeavours, and as he has failed to show that the statements made by the waitress in her interview were untrue, the waitress did not go on the Internet and slander Stefan Sharkansky. End of problem.

Bruce: . If I had been the owner of the restaurant, and I had an employee who had been slandering one of my better customers, I certainly would have wanted to know about it.

If I had a customer who was known as "Mr 10%" and who let his child run riot in my restaurant, I wouldn't regard him as "one of my better customers", but as a customer I was glad to be rid of.

The lesson is that we should ALL avoid ad hominem attacks, avoid calling people names, and stick to reasoned arguments and observations about the truth of what our political opponents have done or said.

Good thinking. Hopefully, next time Stefan Sharkansky gets the urge to viciously attack a waitress - or any other service staff - he'll take your advice.

No, I didn't think so. Another case of "Fake, but accurate?"

Will he be suing the Stranger for libel now? His doing so might actually help mediate his lack of character issues.

You are an F-wad. Is your foot fitting better now that you've had about a week to get used to it in your backside? Should be plenty-o-room in their since your head regularly occupies that space.

It is not fiscally conservative to claim that those emotional damages ought to be quantified and recovered from the waitress. That's a liberal position. But Stefan knew that making her statements public, without exaggeration, would result in some measure of justice being done. Her words were not words that anyone should have been proud of publishing, and she knew it, as evidenced by her initial anonymity. She deserved to be "outed." Such "outing" was an act of free speech, and was the truth as well.

I still think it was slanderous, but if you insist, you can replace my word "slander" above with "diss." Then my argument stands.

In any case, the waitress started it, and her boss would know that it was in his or her interest to fire her if he or she found out about her public statments. It doesn't matter if it meets the technical definition of slander or not, it was certainly slanderous in the non-technical sense of the word.

I'm glad you agree that calling people names is a bad idea. Can you spread that view to your liberal freinds? Conservatives do it as well, (e.g. Right Foot at 137) but in my experience it is liberals who tend to rely more on ad hominem arguments.

I'm not a conservative.