Sunday, January 29, 2006

Pot. Kettle. Yadda Yadda.

Robert gets upset about WK's new round of legal threats...one of which is against Mark Bourrie.....
Mark’s reply to the letter from the net kook’s lawyer is.

There will be no apology.
There will be no retraction.

Good for you, Mark.

As for the net kook, now the statement is on two blogs. Care to throw more fertilizer on it and see where else it blooms?

Which is interesting, because it wasn't long ago that Robert wrote this:
----------------------
"Robert, at the moment I'd score it rather differently - Kinsella has demonstrated he is a thin skinned bully who resorts to threats of legal action when he reads things he doesn't like."

No, he's declared that he's not going to let a pack of know-nothing ankle biters smear his reputation. And it worked. Brooks removed the post.

You just don't seem to get it. Some of us are fed up with the bullshit smear tactics used almost exclusively by you right whingers and we're starting to fight back. If you don't like it, don't engage in smear campaigns against people you disagree with. Otherwise, be prepared to get your ass kicked.
Robert McClelland |robert dot mcclellandAT NOSPAMsympatico dot ca

-----------------------
---Sidenote: Robert is calling someone else a "Net Kook"?

6 comments:

Don said...

Don, this is off topic but I owe you a big apology. You were 100% right about Kinsella last year. Sorry.
Robert McClelland

http://haloscan.com/comments/talkcanada/113293088358827416/#201046

Shamrocks! said...

Don:

Ok, he apologized. I think Robert owed many people apologies after that BS, although I'm not looking for one myself.

I do recall that Rob was one of the very few trying to justify WK's outbursts.

jaycurrie said...

Robert took that position before Mr. K got on his case about his "F**K the Jews" post which, horrible as it was, well within the bounds of basic, if abhorent, free speech.

Robert McClelland said...

I do recall that Rob was one of the very few trying to justify WK's outbursts.

Yes I did, but that was before I really knew who Kinsella was and was defending him on the princple. I've learned since then, through personal experience as Jay points out, that Kinsella is nothing less than unprincipled and not worthy of defending since his outbursts do not have the high ground.

his "F**K the Jews" post which, horrible as it was,

I fail to see how that post, which was nothing more than a discussion about anti-semitism and not an anti-semitic one itself, can be considered horrible.

Shamrocks! said...

Robert:

It's interesting that you mention that stopped defending Kinsella when he attacked you personally.....

It's like the expression goes from Nazi Germany...

"First they came for the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew so didn't mind. Then they came for the gays, but I wasn't gay so I didn't mind..."

...Which leads me to my second point about your "Jews" post.......

Anonymous said...

Mark Bourrie is a kook. He said he was gonna call the cops on me for posting that his credibility is affected because he's notorious for fighting with anonymous posters on the frank forum. What a kook.