“Dawg Bites Man” story

Unleash the hounds! :shock:

Anyone know the backstory?  I can’t find the offending post at RA’s.

I’m apprehensive, confused and puzzled…

43 Responses to ““Dawg Bites Man” story”


  1. 1 Mike Monday, September 21, 2009 at 11:23 am

    I was looking for it myself…seems that it has been removed by Raph….or I completely missed it.

    The latter is entirely possible…they blogosphere has been rather tiring lately.

  2. 2 hemmingforddogblog Monday, September 21, 2009 at 11:27 am

    I think Ralph called Dawg a bad name, but only took the post down after the RSVP from the legal beagles. :)

    More popcorn?

  3. 3 JJ Monday, September 21, 2009 at 11:41 am

    Mike

    the blogosphere has been rather tiring lately.

    Can’t say I disagree.

    While I understand being dismayed at statements that unfairly malign one’s professional or personal standing, I’m pessimistic about the effect of bringing litigation into the blogosphere.

    But, I also don’t know the whole story here.

  4. 4 JJ Monday, September 21, 2009 at 11:43 am

    SQ – That’s what I don’t get — RA is always calling Dawg bad names, and Dawg usually lets it slide or fires back with ridicule. It had to be something pretty bad :shock:

    RA, if you’re reading: BAD! Bad RA.

  5. 5 JJ Monday, September 21, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    OK, well. This is from Peter, who seems to know what’s going on, commenting at RA’s:

    Actually, Raphie went beyond saying Dawg supported the Taliban. If I recall correctly he stated that Dawg was “a person who admits he supports the Taliban” or something like that. Oddly enough, Raphie couldn’t come up with a link to any statement like that when asked.

    On the surface this may appear as just another spat in the blogosphere, but I think there may be something more important here.
    For the last few years, anyone who dares question certain political philosophies on the internet has been routinely demonized by cries of “traitor”, “terrorist sympathizer”, or even “pedophile” by Raphael and others of his ilk. Raphie isn’t the only one, but this type of “dialogue” has been steadily poisoning political debate in this country, and farther south has degenerated into the kind of freak show that American politics has become since the Republicans lost the last election.
    Maybe it’s time to let the civil courts start holding these kind of people responsible for their actions, before they piss in the drinking water any more than they already have.

  6. 6 J. A. Baker Monday, September 21, 2009 at 12:50 pm

    I can’t find the offending post at RA’s.

    There’s always the Google cache or the Internet Archive.

    In the age of the Internets, nothing stays buried forever. NOTHING.

  7. 7 JJ Monday, September 21, 2009 at 1:20 pm

    JAB – I tried google cache, and the wayback machine doesn’t have anything that isn’t 6 months old (at least I think that’s how it works). The post was pulled, so if google cache didn’t get it (or pulled it by request) it may not even show up on wayback.

    I vaguely remember reading a post or a comment that said something like that, but it was pretty typical RA stuff. I guess Dawg’s just had enough.

    I’m curious — is the US blogosphere litigious at all?

  8. 8 Mark Francis Monday, September 21, 2009 at 1:41 pm

    And then RA posts a legal letter from the plaintiff with the tag ‘litigious lefties.’

    *sigh*

    In our libel law, malice matters oh so much. RA should get better acquainted with it.

    Still, this all sucks. I like Dawg, but this has all the importance of a sandbox brawl.

    Dawg had best be able to demonstrate that the material was read in the jurisdiction he is suing in. A very recent ruling (last week), seems to indicate that just because it can be read by anyone on the Internet, doesn’t mean that was read by anyone in the jurisdiction in question.

  9. 9 croghan27 Monday, September 21, 2009 at 2:39 pm

    hey –

    Jones, Horwitz, Bowles, Burnet, Associates
    Barristers & Solicitors
    584 Somerset Street West is just across the street from me ….. It is one of the few buildings I can see from my balcony.

  10. 10 deBeauxOs Monday, September 21, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    Well pissing in the drinking water is rude and ill-considered, as it affects others adversely. “Raphael Alexander” strikes me as someone who might do that figuratively and literally.

  11. 11 JJ Monday, September 21, 2009 at 4:11 pm

    Hi Mark

    I have to admit I’m a little baffled and apprehensive about this. Dawg is one of my favourite bloggers and I have the utmost respect for him, but IMO blogospheric litigation isn’t a good thing. (As you no doubt know.)

    Dawg had best be able to demonstrate that the material was read in the jurisdiction he is suing in. A very recent ruling (last week), seems to indicate that just because it can be read by anyone on the Internet, doesn’t mean that was read by anyone in the jurisdiction in question.

    I suppose that could be proven by getting IP logs from wordpress for that particular day? Is this serious enough for that to happen?

  12. 12 JJ Monday, September 21, 2009 at 4:22 pm

    croghan

    It is one of the few buildings I can see from my balcony.

    You’ve got nothing on Sarah Palin ;)

  13. 13 JJ Monday, September 21, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    deBeauxOs – I think Peter makes a good point about the poisoning of the well of national discourse. But I’m apprehensive about where this all leads…

  14. 14 Bene D Monday, September 21, 2009 at 7:24 pm

    I’m concerned too JJ, the thread over at Alexanders is just plain sick.

    To mock Dr. Dawg`s accomplishments, to taunt him kind of shows the Taliban comment is part of a whole.

    Have no idea who is going to blink first, but if this goes down Dr. Dawg gets whatever financial support I can give him.

    He stands for civility, and while he dishes it out occassionally he has not been mean, hateful or deserving of disrespect Alexander doesn`t care to stop.

    I`ll help, even if it`s just a few bucks and raising awareness.
    A man who has served his community to be called what he isn`t is going to far.

    Yeah, I hope Alexander blinks and they both cool down and walk way. If not we need to have Dawg`s back whether he legally wins or loses.

  15. 15 fern hill Monday, September 21, 2009 at 7:37 pm

    fern hill been bad blogger. Not been paying attention to all the speechy stuff.

    But, no matter, I got Dawg’s back.

    Just sayin’.

  16. 16 Peter Monday, September 21, 2009 at 11:41 pm

    http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:Mdn9EmIGFtMJ:unambig.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/the-difference-between-the-left-and-the-pseudo-left/+%22a+person+who+admits+he+supports+the+Taliban%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

    Google cached the commentary in question.

    If the link doesn’t work, try googleing the phrase “a person who admits he supports the Taliban” and work your way through the cached copies (not many).

  17. 17 balbulican Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 2:27 am

    I think Dawg just hit the end of the patience rope. The Free Speech Crowd have made it clear that they mean CONSEQUENCE-free speech, and of course only for their side. Adrian explicitly stated that the Dawg supports an armed enemy currently killing Canadian solders. Adrian’s was the weary, familiar, “if-you-don’t-agree-with-me-you must-love-Saddam-and-Communism” riff, but his statement was essentially an accusation of treason.

  18. 18 KEvron Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 9:19 am

    dr has disabled comments. dawg, if you’re reading this: i’d like his record collection.

    KEvron

  19. 19 KEvron Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 9:23 am

    “9:19 am”?! where are you, jaze? kamchatka?

    KEvron

  20. 20 Dave Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 10:03 am

    In my one free minute of the day, I have a question.

    Is the Adrian McNair of “Raphael Alexander” fame the same Adrian MacNair who used to play with Joseph Lavoie on the, now dead, Popular Doctrine?

    If so, is there a spelling disconnect?

  21. 21 Johnny Comando Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 10:15 am

    I dont usually comment but must jump in here with what to me seems an obvious answer.
    This ralph dude allegedly said that the Dr Dawg dude admited he supports terrorism. Regardless if that is true or not…The effect that could have that is worth suing over is that if the wrong person reads that you WILL find your self on the “No Fly” list which is literally impossible to get off of. So there could be a huge effect on Dr Dawgs ability to travel ANYWHERE and you can quickly see how that could end someones career and livelyhood(sp?).

  22. 22 KEvron Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 11:00 am

    that was about as subtle as a wet fart on a nude beach, concern troll.

    KEvron

  23. 23 JJ Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 11:43 am

    Bene D

    Yeah, I hope Alexander blinks and they both cool down and walk way. If not we need to have Dawg`s back whether he legally wins or loses.

    Absolutely. Now that I’ve seen the comment in question I can totally understand Dr.Dawg’s consternation. It’s one thing to call someone a name, but the “admits he supports” makes all the difference. Not only a bald faced lie, but kind of a bizarre lie, given that Dawg just recently tore a strip off a socialist website (I forget its name, the socialist worker or something like that) for saying something to that effect (that the “left” should support the Taliban as “freedom fighters”) :shock:

  24. 24 JJ Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 11:44 am

    fern hill – I guess now we know why RA outed himself.

  25. 25 JJ Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 12:16 pm

    Peter – Thanks for the link, it works and now that I’ve seen the comment in question, I understand Dr.Dawg’s position. I have to say I’m surprised RA would be so sloppy — IANAL, but even I know the difference between calling someone a “fascist jerk” and calling them a “jerk who admits to supporting neo-nazis”.

    I assume that was you in the comment thread at the link — nice work. Not a real conservative, eh? ;) You’re the kind of conservative I wish all “conservatives” would get back to being.

  26. 26 JJ Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    Balb

    Adrian’s was the weary, familiar, “if-you-don’t-agree-with-me-you must-love-Saddam-and-Communism” riff, but his statement was essentially an accusation of treason.

    So I see :shock:
    I was unsure because I’ve seen RA make so many similar comments… but this one was clearly in a different class.

    I thought the so-called “speechers” understood the difference between free speech and libel, and accepted that libel isn’t free speech? Maybe they’ve changed their minds on that libel thing? How “law-and-order” of them.

  27. 27 JJ Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 12:26 pm

    KEv

    “9:19 am”?! where are you, jaze? kamchatka?

    Just up the coast from you, buddy! Vancouver Island.

  28. 28 JJ Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    Dave

    Is the Adrian McNair of “Raphael Alexander” fame the same Adrian MacNair who used to play with Joseph Lavoie on the, now dead, Popular Doctrine?

    One & the same. But I never noticed the difference in spelling. Just looked it up in the wayback and yeah, it was “mac” back then.

    Good catch, Dave. HMMMM! :shock:

  29. 29 JJ Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    Johnny Commando

    This ralph dude allegedly said that the Dr Dawg dude admited he supports terrorism. Regardless if that is true or not

    Whoa: why would you even say that “if”? There is no “if” — it’s 100% BULLSHIT.

  30. 30 Bruce Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    A quick search of Adrian MacNair reveals that he has been posting in comments threads all over Canada for years, from Stageleft to SDA. Judging from the writing style, I would say it’s the same dude. My guess is that he took on the RA persona when he started his own blog, doubtless under the impression that he had gained so much knowledge and experience on political discourse that writing under an assumed (not to mention affected) name was the obvious way to go. Not quite sure what the motive was there, but he seems to feel he needs to play his cards close to his chest. Personally I think it’s an ego trip.

    I think this might be a first, I’ve seen lots of bloggers with nom-de-blogs who came out later or were forced out, but I’ve never seen one go into the closet only to come out anyway because he pissed so many people off.

  31. 31 JJ Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 1:42 pm

    Bruce – RA/Adrian outed himself back here shortly after the thread under discussion was posted.

    I’ve never seen one go into the closet only to come out anyway because he pissed so many people off.

    Yeah really. I think the idea was that since people already knew him from Popular Doctrine, and maybe he’d had fights with people or whatever, he wanted to start anew by blogging under a different name.

    I have no idea why he outed himself, maybe he knew this was coming? I think I would have been more inclined to admit I was wrong, publish a disclaimer and make amends with Dr.D, but that’s just me. When you think about it, it could have made a pretty good post, but oh well.

  32. 32 JJ Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 2:01 pm

    The thread at RA’s about this (click on the link to Dr.D and follow his link) is getting pretty funny. The cheeto-munching armchair lawyers have arrived, with all their whacked-out legal advice. Apparently the fact that Dr. Dawg sometimes comments at CC’s makes this entire action null & void :lol:

  33. 33 lulugirrrlll Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 4:12 pm

    That’s because we who blog with the Great and Terrible CC are pottymouthed and rude, doncha know. ;-)

  34. 34 JJ Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    And powerful, don’t forget that:

    “Canadian Cynic: Great & terrible and now with the power to render perfectly legitimate libel suits completely unactionable!”
    ;)

  35. 35 balbulican Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    Somebody slap me and tell me to snap out of it…as God is my witness, the stupid has me spellbound.

  36. 36 JJ Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 5:15 pm

    No! No! Keep going! You’re doing a GREAT job over there. I just made more popcorn… :P

  37. 37 JJ Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 5:57 pm

    :lol: “Piss-reeking shithole”, instant classic!

  38. 38 Frank Frink Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    Zoinks! 224 comments? :shock:

    I think it was somewhere around 64 comments last time I bothered to look. Will have to catch up on it later. Still a period of hockey (Canucks vs. Sharks) to go here, but I did notice the level of stoopid has risen a by a yard or two.

  39. 39 JJ Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 7:52 pm

    FF – 224!!?? It was only 180 last time I was there before my afternoon nap :P

    224 comments, that can only mean one thing: T W A T S Y is on the job.

    ETA – Who’s winning?

  40. 40 Frank Frink Thursday, September 24, 2009 at 1:50 am

    Sorry, didn’t get back here as soon as I hoped. Canucks made it interesting once again and won it in a shootout for the second game in a row.

    That would be the 6 wins and no losses Canucks! But, heh. It’s only preseason.

    Just keep reminding myself that being a Canucks fan is like being the absolute worst dysfunctional, codependent relationship you could imagine. Every year they let us down and fail us, tell us things will be better because they can change, baby. They can change. The cycle repeats and we keep going back.

    I’m not scheduled to work tomorrow night’s game. They’ll lose. :shock:

  41. 41 JJ Thursday, September 24, 2009 at 1:58 pm

    FF – I had the same relationship with the Canucks for years, and finally broke free during the NHL strike.

    I wish I could say the same about my totally dysfunctional love affair with the Leafs…

    But this will be the year they bring home the Cup. I just feel it in my bones.

  42. 42 johnny comando Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 2:02 pm

    JJ

    I said my ifs cause I had not seen the actual comments. I believe you are 100% right 0% wrong in calling bullshit. I just wanted to leave what I saw as the obvious answer to why someone would want to sue.

    Sorry for the late reply – this is y I never blogged I am usually too mellow to be around consistently.


  1. 1 Canadian Cynic: Interesting things happening in Adrian's Fruit-of-the-Looms, I think. Trackback on Wednesday, November 21, 2012 at 7:35 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 620,404
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers

%d bloggers like this: