Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Elroy: More absurd comments, and no specific information

One of the "commenters" on the America Blog-C&L-FDL-Atrios circuit is Elroy.

Below you'll find various comments "Elroy" has made. Notice one thing: He's got no links. Just making more non-sense accusations.

Is there anyone in the blogosphere who knows who Elory is, and how to get on contact with him?

Issue: He's posting non-sense on multiple sites on the same topic, but he's got no specifics/backup, which he expects of others.


* * *


Apparently you have some concerns about "trolling" on the various sites like Atrios, Fire Dog Lake, C&L, and American Blog. You care to be specific?

Be sure to include links, examples, and the basis for your allegations.

Until you lay out your case, from this perspective, you’ve got a problem: You’re making baseless accusations, and the boards are letting your comments stay on them.

That is fine. We’ll have to see whether the world is willing to ask you to stop your apparent trolling; or whether there is a double standard – that you are permitted to make baseless accusations against others, and then when those absurd comments are challenged the people making those challenges are banned.

* * *

Put aside the above. Are we to expect more muttering from you?

If you do, then feel free to provide a clear case for the world. What is your backup information to justify what you are saying.

You may be right. You could be correct. But you do not provide any basis to assess whether your conclusion is sound or not.

* * *

Here’s what’s been said: Notice they offer nothing specific

Notice the date of this post: it is the 18th; this is two days after he specifically asked for detailed information.

Elroy asks for information; then uses the response to that request as a basis to say, "going on and on."

Elroy, you're not serious in your requests for information.

* * *

This was on the 15th on FDL:

Elroy likes to repeat himself

Elroy's comment here: [ Click ]

"are we sure the nagging Constant isn't the nagging Stanley Rosenthal?? :lol:

They sound identical in their repetitiveness.

elroy | 03.15.06 - 6:54 pm |"

This post is the 17th:


Constant is certifiably INSANE.
elroy | 03.17.06 - 4:58 pm | [ Click ]

Elroy: Do you have something better than this; I do not appreciate the fact that you enjoy slandering others, and provide no links. If you want to call someone crazy, and have evidence of that, I'd be interested in reviewing:

  • A. Your links

  • B. Your definition

  • C. Where you practice medicine

  • D. Which medical degree you have

  • E. What your score was on the MCAT

  • F. The basis for your medical assessment over the internet

  • G. The reasons you state that your medical conclusion is sound

  • H. How you incorporated other evidence and observations into your overall medical assessment

    * * *

    Then on the same day the 17th, after God knows what, Elroy reverses himself . . .

    Is Elroy Crazy?

    I think that everyone would like to know more about it, but Constant just bangs into the thread and repeats and repeats what are you going to do about the Constitution?

    I think that constant is Stanley Rosenthal in disguise...shh...shh...don't tell him.
    elroy | 03.17.06 - 5:22 pm | [ Click ]

    * * *

    Information provided minutes later on the 17th of March:

    Very Polite Response

    After Elroy asked for more information, here was the information that answered his question.

    Please look at what was given to him -- Click here: [ Click ]

    * * *

    Despite being given this information, you'll notice in the following comments, linked below in the blue boxes:

  • A. Disingenuous: Elroy did not really want the information

  • B. Whining: Elroy was still complaining about something [a] that he was asking about; and [b] did not want to admit he was interested in;

  • C. Repetitive: Elroy was repeating himself: Complaining that someone was or wasn't talking bout a subject that Elroy had asked about; but had been given a response; while at the same time accusing others of repeating something.

  • D. Unspecific: Elroy was then complaining -- without providing any specifics -- that someone was going [his words] "on and on" about something -- but then refused to admit, "Yes, I really wanted to know about it"

  • E. Rude: Despite getting the information he asked for, Elroy then proceeded to complain that someone did exactly what he wanted: Provide additional information, and having to repeat what had already been well discussed.

    * * *

    Elroy, how are you able to get up in the morning and find your socks?

  • * * *

    Next day, on the 18th of March:

    Elroy has no examples

    Stanley is my personal favorite troll, but Constant might be right up there. Then again, they could be one in the same, but I do think constant is on his meds, Stanley is usually not.

    elroy | 03.18.06 - 9:31 pm | [ Click ]

    Elroy: Do you have examples: Let’s see – no; this assertion is without merit. The Constitutional Convention is not needed. We can do this outside Article V. This was well discussed. But who is focusing on what they do not like? Elroy.

    Had you reviewed the information -- which you obviously could not -- since FDL has banned me, and you do not know where the information is located, you would not know what the Yale Law school had already discussed on this issue: [ Click ]

    I'd refer you back to the comments "I might have made to let you know about these developments on FDL," but guess what: They're not interested in solutions to this issue. They want to continue doing what doesn't work: "Talking to" Senators who have their head up their rear-end, and refuse to assert the rule of law over a war criminal/snake in the White House.

    * * *

    Notice the date of this post: It is the 18th. The day prior on the 17th, Elroy was asking for more information.

    This is from the 18th:

    Rude people provide no evidence

    no..Constant...he may be on AmericaBlog, but he is always asking when are you going to support a Constitutional Convention...on and on and on. Quite Rude. Stanley is not so rude, just irritating.

    elroy | 03.18.06 - 9:37 pm | [ Click ]

    Elroy, why are you being two-faced: Why do you ask for information; then turn around and complain that -- those who provide that information to you -- are being annoying?

    * * *

    Loki: Here’s all the information for you

    This is on the 18th:

    Loki disagrees with Elroy

    elroy, I've seen Constant on AB and I never really thought she/he was that annoying. I did see her post something on C&L about how she was kicked off firedoglake. I didn't understand why but I don't post there that much.

    I think someone like "newsie" from above is more annoying than Constant. But, like I said, I didn't see what happened at FDL.
    Loki | 03.18.06 - 11:10 pm | Click ]

    Easier to deal with: What’s your plan to “deal with” things? Elroy has no plan.

    Notice the date of this: the March 19th, two days after asking for information that he said he first said he doesn't want or is interested.

    Elroy, maybe you have some links to share with us, and this will clear everything up.

    This is on the 19th, on C&L:

    Elroy won't ask for what he wants

    xoites...I agree...he is much easier to deal with than Constant from another channel, although I often think they are the same.
    elroy | 03.19.06 - 2:20 am | Click ]

    Elroy, you need to be very clear what you mean by “easy to deal with” – what do you want? You have to be clear. At this point, you’re making multiple comments, they make no sense.

    If you need help "understanding," ask: "Please explain."

    * * *

    Hay, folks -- I know this is confusing, but Elroy can't get his dates straight. One day he's asking; the next day he's muttering, the next day he's tired, the next day he's interested, then another day he wants us to believe he likes to talk to crazy people. . .

    * * *

    Put aside all the non-sense.

    Elroy, if you've got something you're trying to get the world to believe, then make your case. At this point, all you've done is confused yourself.

    Moreover, I do not appreciate that after you have asked for -- and been given -- information that might be a solution -- that you then go on making non-sense remarks.

    To those who want to believe Elroy, fine. You're free to do that.

    To those of you who are interested in finding things out and looking at facts, ask:

  • A. Is Elroy really interested in solutions;

  • B. Why is Elroy asking about something, but then whining that -- a response to that request -- is "repetitive"; and

  • C. What will Elroy do when he's confused about something, but not willing to admit, "Yes, I'm asking about things I'm not really interested in" . . .

    * * *

    Elroy, until today I had no idea that you were being rude. I simply took your comments as banter. I took the time to answer your questions.

    But to find out today in April 2006 that you went behind my back, and then had the gall to insult me about things that you were mocking -- you're just vile.

    You do not deserve to be taken seriously.

    But what's more amazing, all this time -- despite giving you what you want -- not once did I think it would have been "appropriate" to demand from you links.

    You were the one asking for links -- I have given them to you.

    * * *

    Well, Elroy -- tables have turned. You start providing some links. I want to see a timeline of every comment I've ever posted on any of the public boards, and you put a story together.

    Make your case. Show the world what an evil person I am. Your problem is that you can't make the case.

    Moreover, you have no links. Nothing. But I'm going to be civil about this and let you have the chance to publicly share with the world what "the issue" is that you've been talking about on FDL, C&L, Atrios, America Blog, and elsewhere.

    I'm willing to stand on what I have or have not said and stand up to anything that you throw my way. Your job is to put your story together and make a good case why you should be believed.

    Here are the criteria:

    Burden of Proof Is on You

  • Requirement 1: Burden of proof is yours

    Prove to the world that I have a problem; and/or that your point has merit. We need specifics, examples, and links. This is your argument to make, not one for the world to blindly embrace as the President has done.

  • Requirement 2: Provide backup

    Success Factor 2A: Show the world that I have made comments that deserve for me to be banned; or justify your assertions;

    Success Factor 2b: Show the world that I have done something that warrants being labeled a troll or justify your assertions;

    Success Factor 3b: Make a good argument why your definition of "troll" is or is not to be believed; why it has merit; and how your examples that you provide with links/commentary/discussion have merit;

    Success Factor 4b: Make a good argument/case why what I have done is not consistent with any board policy, and include a good accounting why Hamshwer's 30 Jan 2006 comments did or did not timely "resolve" the "obvious" problems;

    Success Factor 4e: Make a good argument/case why what I have done or said is not consistent with what other board managers have expressly stated they do or do not want;

    Success Factor 4f: Make a good case/argument that what you present is true, factual, and that the conclusion is clearly at odds with civil behavior, and totally at odds with what is reasonable; and that the conduct warrants being banned, or labeled as a troll, or why your comment has any merit.

  • Requirement 3: Justify your conclusion

    Success Factor 3A. Show everyone why I should have been banned as a troll, or believe what you are saying;

    Success Factor 3B. Define what a troll is, or any other term or statement in your accusation;

    Success Factor 3C. Prove that your definition of a troll is reasonable, or that your point has any merit;

    Success Factor 3D. Show that what I was or was not doing on the boards meets your definition of a troll, or show that the conduct was not consistent with the 30 Jan 2006 Hamsher statement;

    Success Factor 3E. Discuss all other views and comments that fit outside this definition, and why your characterization should be believed;

    Success Factor 3F. Provide a discussion in the commentary that shows that the comments were not justified; or that the comments and links were never at any time ever requested by Jane Hamsher, anyone on Fire Dog Lake, or anyone on that board or any other board;

    Success Factor 3G. Make reference to any specific Board Manager comment that explicitly notifies me that I have been warned of anything, and/or that the warnings were multiple, or that the conduct was at odds with what was acceptable or requested.

  • Requirement 4: Use valid links

    Success Factor 4A. Come up with some links to show why the world should care what you are saying;

    Success Factor 4B. Demonstrate that the links to your information are valid, reliable, accurate, and the public should believe that the content and links you provide are bonafide;

    Success Factor 4C. Prove to us that the content of that link has not been tampered with, "Trexed" with, adjusted, modified, enhanced, or otherwise changed from the original posted comments; and

    Success Factor 4D. Point to specific content on the web using URL links that the public can independently review and access and make judgments about the content.

  • Requirement 5: Timeline

    Success Factor 5A. Show the timeline you are working on;

    Success Factor 5B. Explain why your above comments are conflicting with the clear policies and statements to the contrary;

    Success Factor 5C. Put in sequential order all the comments that back up your case/argument, and show why the comments do or do not satisfy the definitions and actions;

    Success Factor 5D. Make a compelling case for the public for them to accept that your information is credible, that our statements are linked to something credible, and that your comments are linked to something resembling coherent English; and

    Success Fact or 5E. Put together a timeline that shows link-by-link that there was something on the board that justified anyone believing you.

    If you fail to timely provide this information, the public may make adverse inferences inter alia:

  • 1. Your statement has no merit; and

  • 2. Jane Hamsher should not be a moderator at Yearly Kos.

  • Until you provide the above, then all should freely pass this link and let all k now that the basis for the banning from Fire Dog lake, and all of Elroy’s non-sense comments are one in the same: Pure, utter non-sense.

    There is no justification for anyone to believe that any request for information from the Fire Dog Lake or any statement that Jane Hamsher, Christy Smith, or Elroy makes is reasonable.

    Until you provide the above information:

  • A. You shall have no reasonable basis or claim to assert that anyone is or is not crazy;

  • B. You shall have no basis to assert that someone is or is not a troll;

  • C. You shall have no basis to assert that anyone is repetitive;

  • D. You shall have no basis to assert that someone is or is not being reasonable;

  • E. You shall have no basis to assert that someone is or is not "easy" or "hard" to get along with.

    Rather, the public should reasonably know and infer by your inaction and failure to provide back up that you are inter alia:

  • 1. Lazy;

  • 2. Stupid;

  • 3. Unproductive;

  • 4. Incapable of making a coherent argument;

  • 5. Not worthy of a credible source of information; and

  • 6. Incapable of providing anything worth seriously considering as having any substantive contribution to solutions, decision-making, or national public policy.

    Further, anyone who sides with you or agrees with your argument -- despite failing to ensure the above requirements are met -- is equally:

  • 7. Foolish;

  • 8. Naive;

  • 9. Not interested in critical thinking;

  • 10. Easily manipulated by non-sense;

  • 11. Well connected to others who are very low on the food chain;

  • 12. Willing to embrace what people say without exploring facts, or getting backup information;

  • 13. Willing to go with the herd and mass non-sense, rather than exploring on their own what is really going on; and

  • 14. Relying on mass herd mentally, not finding out the answers yourself.

    * * *

    Elroy, at no time was I ever rude to you; nor did I ever do anything that was not specifically asked for. If you have other information to prove otherwise, then you're making it up.

    Rather, your and your "friends" on the blogs are simply whining, but refusing to be open to solutions. Nor are you aware of the other discussions that have already occurred about what is or is not acceptable.

    Based on your abusive, inane comments, and your arrogant slander, you will be given the minimal amount of respect and civility -- just enough so that I might no lower myself into the cess pool you and your friends on Fire Dog Lake enjoy rummaging.

    Your crowd, and your ilk enjoy tearing things down, but you have no solution or alternative. You pander to the world, and you provide no basis to believe anything your are saying.

    Rather, you refuse to back up what you are saying.

    No longer shall I ever seriously consider your remarks. I am so glad that you waited long enough to have the comments archived on Google, and no it is impossible to have them changed.

    * * *

    At this point, it's clear about Elroy, Fire Dog Lake, Jane Hamsher, and Christy Smith:

  • 1. You have no credibility when it comes to why other should or should not believe your actions and statements on this very narrow issue are reasonable or should be believed;

  • 2. You provide no links to content, comments, or backup to justify your statements or decisions on this very narrow issue;

  • 3. You are not interested in solutions, rather you whine about other ideas, without providing any constructive feedback or alternative;

  • 4. When given a response, you use "that response" as "evidence" that someone is "repeating";

  • 5. You go behind people's backs and complain, and are passive aggressive;

  • 6. You do not have the courtesy to give others what you expect them to give you, and your hypercritical;

  • 7. When people genuinely take your requests for information seriously, you then throw it back at them, and talk behind their back to others and rudely say that people are crazy and that they are fixated on something;

  • 8. You have no ideas or solutions other than what does not work, and you refuse to openly discuss alternatives that might transform the current standoff;

  • 9. You whine about things that you talk about, but you have no interest in getting a real solution together;

  • 10. You are unreliable as a serious source of feedback, commentary, or a voice to transform American;

  • 11. You cannot provide any backup information to justify your statements, conclusions, diagnosis; and

  • 12. You are not a professional, straight shooter, or someone that anyone should take seriously.

    * * *

    Who’s being repetitive, Elroy? You can either provide the links, or you can find another board to slander other people with falsehoods.

    No, that's being polite: You're a liar and there's no reason anyone should believe your non-sense. You are more than lying you are outright fabricating reality, and then having the world believe it is real.

    You are delusional Elroy. The above links and comments -- from your own fingers -- show you are inconsistent, not stable, and completely wacky.

    Elroy, if you've got a solution to this problem, all ears. Otherwise, maybe you want to go back to the FDL board. If you’ve got an issue with people posting links, or commenting – then let’s hear it: Where are your links, what’s your solution.

    Either put up or shut up.

    Got it?

    * * *

    Elroy, you that the topic was old, tired, and was useless.

  • Why are you asking about it?

  • If you have a "problem" with someone, why are you bothering to follow up on a topic that you have said is a waste, doesn't deserve attention, and should be ignored?

  • What's the real issue here, Elroy?

    Elroy, come on. You show me your medication list. And I'll show you mine. You got the good stuff?

    * * *


    Notice what's happened: On the 15th, Elroy is complaining about a topic -- says he doesn't want to hear about it.

    Then, two days later he says, "Wait, never mind, I really want to know about this, but I can't find any links."

    OK, Elroy, tell us:

  • A. Are you on some sort of medication?

  • B. Why are you asking for links, but you wont provide links?

  • C. Do you want the world to ignore your hypocrisy?

  • D. Can you provide some sort of links to back up what you are saying?

  • E. If you really are "annoyed" by the subject, why do you then later ask about it?

  • F. Is there anything else that you want, but aren't willing to be clear on?

    * * *

    Members of the blogosphere,

    I’m all for good bantering. But if you happen to run across “Elroy” maybe you can let him know he’s got some explaining to do.

    Give him the chance to give his links. Let’s get this on the table.

  • 1. What information does Elroy have that says someone is a problem;

  • 2. What are the specific links he can point to that backs up what he is saying; and

  • 3. Which specific comments meet his definition of “whatever he’s talking about”.

    * * *

    Elroy, if you have no links, then don’t expect others to provide you with links. If you want to slander/libel/defame someone and call them crazy, then provide a good basis for that statement. If you want anyone to believe anything that you're saying then back it up.

    Until then, you’re on notice:

  • A. You have no credibility and nobody should believe you;

  • B. Get over yourself.

    * * *

    Elroy, how did it feel to win? [Elroy's image here: Click ]