Jay Stephenson: Confirmed Liar and Coward

“Honest people will either back up their assertions with facts, or issue a retraction when their claims are shown to be incorrect.”

Really! I’m the moderator of the STOP boards and I am the one who deleted BV’s comments… ALL of them.

I banned BV months ago. I was offline for a week due to a fried modem. When I came back online, I deleted his comments and will continue to do so.

Jay nor anyone else at STOP had anything to do with the banning or the comment deletions. It was 100% me.

Now, practice what you preach!

loboinok:

I have updated the post to acknowledge your claim.

Let me ask you this, then: If someone else puts the same challenge to Jay that BV posted, will the challenge still be deleted?

”...will the challenge still be deleted?”

No… why would it? I deleted BV’s comment because of his banning not because of his comment or challenge.

Fine. I will post the challenge, and we’ll see if Jay has the cojones to answer.

“The fact remains, however, that whether Jay removes such challenges himself or has someone do it for him, it is clear that he is shielded from questions about the veracity of his claims.”

Just to be clear on this, I don’t cover for Jay or anyone else. Jay doesn’t ask me to remove comments or to cover his butt. He’s a big boy, capable of defending what he feels like defending.

If it is clear that he is “shielded” from questions about the veracity of his claims, maybe you can show me how that could be.

Jay has authorized you to remove comments from his blog, loboinok. He therefore authorized you to remove a comment challenging him to support his claim with facts.

I understand that you do not want to refer to this as shielding him from such challenges — but that is exactly the effect your action in this instance has had.

Nowhere on the Stop site is there a notation of moderation done by anyone else. Nowhere on an original earlier post “by Jay” about legal scholars in agreement on the legality of NSA actions was there a notation that it was written in tandem “with Gribbit.”

So, when someone comes along and sees “by Jay” and no mention of anyone else writing a specific post and no one else responsible for comment moderation, what is the point of a “Hey! I did that!” challenge when there is only Jay’s name on the work?

It is the default conclusion, you know, that the blog owner is talented enough to do it all for himself. If he is not, the default conclusion is that he is humble and honorable enough to acknowledge ahead of time that he is assisted.

If the default needed a name, it would be the “big boy” conclusion.

Some news for loboinok: If I am able to post coments on the StopTheACLU.com board, you have not “banned” me. Perhaps this is because your software does not allow you to ban users by IP address, although it is more likely that you have opted not to ban me per se in some way (I know that user account deletion is possible), deeming it easier to wait until I post comments and then delete them.

Regardless, this is not my main concern—as you know, I could negotiate this blockade in any number of ways and post strictly to be a thorn in your collective sides if I wish. Contributors to, and fans of, your site read my own and regularly send me caustic, unintelligible e-mails, which means I have reached my primary of goal of getting not all of humanity but a small blinkered subset of it to notice.

Although I have not posted any profanity or otherwise violated any posted rules recently at StopTheACLU.com, I don’t blame you for not wanting my persona around. I am openly contemptuous of the passe yet popular religious fad you use to justify your moral failings and, more pertinently, I often trouble the article writers by supplying facts, which are an anathema to your collective in most cases. My goal in life is not to impress a bunch of cowards (and cowardice has been a hallmark at that site for a long time, not just as a result of this recent episode) to a degree that allows me commenting privileges.

Now, what I do enjoy is showing political fringe-dwellers and anyone watching just how badly they play at their own game. An absence of fact-checking has long been emblematic of StopTheACLU.com and never do any of the contributors respond with admissions; rather, they throw virtual tantrums a la Cao or speak in “ya-owe-me-money!” inanities a la kender. And the point remains: Jay is now aware of having propagated a lie about the Times article and refuses to acknowledge it. It is bad enough that categorically pro-death people like you wonderful people see fit to engage in political posturing even when one of their wettest dreams has played out to its conclusion, but inexcusable that you do so dishonestly.

Jay is not interested in acting like a journalist. One of his posts today makes that clear—he supports the Idiotarian Rottweiler’s claim that any reporter who dares print something not pro-war is to be disregarded as a flake. Fortunately people this ignorant and potentially dangerous are not in the field or serving as real journalists themselves and are instead reduced to making craven, barely readable postings on the Internet and fantasizing about 2” x 2” ads in a newspaper serving as a touchstone for taking down a vital organization with an annual endowment pushing half a bil.

IF I remember right you told me some time ago that you, personally, would not tolerate mockery of Christianity, meaning that another ad hoc commenting rule had been created. Jay himself does tolerate such behavior even though he doesn’t like it, so your insistence on deleting any and all comments I make to his posts means you share his cowardice and duplicity. At least you’re all consistent that way.

“IF I remember right you told me some time ago that you, personally, would not tolerate mockery of Christianity”

I personally tolerate the mockery of Christianity and Christ, it is to be expected and is usually done out of ignorance. I don’t like it, but I expect it.

It is not a matter of ignorance or disbelief in your case. You have rejected Christ and intentionally and maliciously persecute Him.
It is presumptuous to believe that I could defend the Omnipotent, but I will not aid and abet.

“Jay himself does tolerate such behavior”

What Jay will or will not tolerate, does not pertain to me.

“so your insistence on deleting any and all comments I make to his posts means you share his cowardice and duplicity.”

No, it means you are banned and it matters not one iota what you are commenting about or who you are commenting to.

I know you are intelligent enough to understand this; you are looking for someone capable of giving you a run-for-your-money yet are afraid of succeeding.

You have rejected Christ and intentionally and maliciously persecute Him.

There ya go again BV. When the fuck are you gonna learn that your whole life would immensely improve if ya would just quit persecuting Him. Some of the blastocysts at those sites are somewhat capable of sustaining major hits, but you’re gonna be banned from them all for picking fights with their Big Guy.

“It is not a matter of ignorance or disbelief in your case. You have rejected Christ and intentionally and maliciously persecute Him.
It is presumptuous to believe that I could defend the Omnipotent, but I will not aid and abet.”

Out of respect for meatbrain I’d be loath to use this space to argue about something off-topic in any case, but I certainly am not going to bother at length with someone so far gone that he believes not only in the Jesus-as-a-god myth but that atheists are actually closet believers bearing grudges against the nonexistent. Your world view quite literally precludes you from recognizing the fact that I can no more be angry at your god than I can at Zeus, Vishnu, or the Tooth Bunny.

Your claim that you feel no need to defend your godthing is transparently false. You say that I’m persecuting it but it doesn’t seem to be complaining—only you’re doing that.

None of us would care what the Bechristed faction of America believed if they would simply stop trying to slip their misanthropic interpretations of faeces-stained religious texts into all manner of public policy. They want goofy, rights-swiping laws based on supernatural events and people; things never recorded, never seen, only believed at face value by unfortunate backwater types like you who have been programmed since birth to follow a corrupt course through life.

I won’t pray for you, but in a sense I do pity you—I hope that’s good enough.

I see Jay hasn’t found the time to answer you, meatbrain. Out of sight, out of mind—but his cowardice and willingness to flaunt obvious lies to suit the needs of his crippled agenda remain as obvious as can be.

People still believe in God… and Jesus?

That’s funny!