Montana Democrat Insiders Not Acting Very Democratic

by William Skink

Montana Democrats: Party of the People. That’s what it says under a Cowgirl post titled Adams Backs Bruce in Unlikely Campaign for MDP Chair.

The title of the post speaks volumes about the anti-democratic inclinations of Democrat party politics in Montana. Instead of welcoming competition and debate, the online mouthpiece for the MDP, Montana Cowgirl, is trying to undercut Louise Bruce’s run for chair by bashing Dirk Adams and dredging up the gripes from the last election cycle:

A woman named Louise Bruce has announced that she is running for Chair of the Montana Democratic Party. The announcement was actually made by one of her backers, the former candidate Dirk Adams, who ran for Senate and lost to Amanda Curtis in the shortened Democratic primary. Adams has sent an email out, criticizing the current chairman Jim Larson, and announcing his support for Bruce. He cites her 30 years of organizing and an assortment of other activist work.

Of course the leaders of the party would prefer to keep the focus on Republican in-fighting and avoid any semblance of democracy cropping up within their ranks, lest it be similarly exploited by Republicans. But the way they are going about it—dismissively referring to Bruce’s campaign as “unlikely”—only ensures the Democrat in-fighting will be worse than it would be if competition and debate were embraced, instead of this pathetic attempt to suppress and distract. Here’s more from Cowgirl:

Adams’ email (predictably) trashes the “operatives” and “insiders” that he says control the party. We should remember, however, that Adams has an axe to grind, having convinced himself that “the party” “orchestrated” Amanda Curtis’s nomination, when in fact it was an open election.

We often hear this charge from people who lose primaries, that the fix was in, that the election was rigged in their opponent’s favor by The Party. It’s silly nonsense.

Beyond that, and more to the point, Larson will likely receive the endorsement of both Nancy Keenan (whom Adams praises in the email), and Steve Bullock. Which means that Bruce will be a long shot.

Silly nonsense? Um, no, it’s called politics, where operatives and insiders absolutely control the party, as evidenced by the very Cowgirl post dismissing this woman’s campaign by focusing on the man with an axe to grind.

In this attempt to head off Bruce at the pass, the Democrat insiders that run Cowgirl reference endorsements that haven’t even happened yet, saying it’s “likely” Bullock and Keenan will endorse Jim Larson. I guess we just have to take the anonymous “Cowgirl” blogger at “her” word, no matter how presumptuous it is to be speaking for the Governor.

In the comment section of the Cowgirl post, not every Democrat is falling in-line with this undemocratic attempt to kill Bruce’s campaign. Here are a few highlights:

Turner: My good friend Louise Bruce will make an excellent chairperson. “A woman named Louise Bruce” is an odd way to begin talking about her — as though she’s some obscure figure. Louise is very well known by Montana Democrats and is highly regarded by people of all political stripes.

James Conner: Louise Bruce is a good woman who would make a fine party chair. Conservationists especially should give her serious consideration.

Pete Talbot: In retrospect, after reading a few more comments, the headline “Adams Backs Bruce In Unlikely Campaign For MDP Chair” is disingenuous. Adams should’t be the focus of this campaign and Louise Bruce is still a contender. It’s over two weeks until the convention and things could start getting lively. Democrats should embrace the debate.

Brigham: How has Larson done a good job?

He lost a senate seat Dems have held basically forever. He risked MDP’s tax exempt status with his illegal fraud concerning the endorsement of John Lewis (who was overwhelming rejected by the voters for good reason). Dems underperformed in legislative races during the key first cycle after redistricting. Candidate recruitment in 2016 is a complete disaster, with no viable candidates running against either statewide Republican incumbent running for reelection. There’s no excitement for MDP, it’s just a smaller and smaller group of corrupt stooges plundering the grassroots for profit.

Jim Larson has been a disaster as MDP Chair. His overwhelming corruption is why fewer and fewer voters identify as Democrats. There needs to be serious reform of the MDP, which begins by throwing out the bums who illegally bossed the 2014 primary. The culture of corruption under Jim Larson needs to end.

Throw the bum out!

If Democrats in this state want to win elections they need to move beyond pointing fingers at Republican crazies, put aside unpopular wedge issues that are only popular in liberal enclaves like Missoula, and embrace Democratic principles as it applies to their own party processes.

Otherwise voters will continue staying home, and Democrats will continue losing.

About Travis Mateer

I'm an artist and citizen journalist living and writing in Montana. You can contact me here: willskink at yahoo dot com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

83 Responses to Montana Democrat Insiders Not Acting Very Democratic

  1. steve kelly says:

    Norma has put her finger on it: The dominant role of the national Democratic Party structure and financial support over Montana Democrats trying to win statewide elections. Her comment from the same post:

    Norma Duffy | July 28, 2015 11:07 PM at 11:07 PM | Reply
    “In my Opinion We have seen a lot of confusion in the last primary election. because the national Dem Party didn’t help here in the senator’s race with Amanda Curtis. Not at all.

    We finally get on track with a good rep for the people and in the last four short months, we couldn’t reach beyond the already faithful Liberals, because of the shortsightedness of the National party. and lastly blame yourselves Liberals, you didn’t go to the polls.

    Lino, Dino, Rino are just pleasant names for party rejects…. Of course, all of them sound like a typing error ;-)”

    The question remains unanswered: Can Montana Democrats cut the Wall Street/K Street apron strings and win top-of-the-ticket elections? In a party that claims to be all in for small-d democracy, this should be a difficult, but possible, transition. It will take new leadership selected from the bottom up, as opposed to installed career operatives steeped in the Washington, D.C. system. And it will take lots more grassroots volunteerism to offset the short-term difficulty created by generally smaller campaign warchests. As always, I wish Montana Democratic Party insurgents well.

  2. Posting comment to follow this discussion via email.

    • Rob Kailey says:

      Angling for the last word, again, Mark? Or just threatening it?

      • Commented to get emailed every time some interesting commented. Somehow you got in there.

        • Rob Kailey says:

          English, m***********, do you speak it?

          Seriously, Mark. There is not one thing you could add to this discussion that every single reader here hasn’t read at least a dozen times. There is nothing here that is ‘interesting’ to you, or anything else you could say that is ‘interesting’ to anyone else.

          All snark aside, I do remain curious about why you wish to announce following a comment thread that you find boring and predictable and everyone reading will find your involvement boring and predictable.

          Given your response to Swede below, I am likely being too harsh. Apologies.

        • “some… one” interesting. Shit,

        • Oh can it, Monty. You and I both know the secret of dealing with Democrats: Feed their illusions. If you don’t, you get this “heard it a thousand times” meme. But honestly, if they have their heads up their asses, is there any way of reaching them anyway? So why not have some fun, watch them huff and puff and get all indignant? What other choice is there? Humor them?

          And Monty, you can’t fool me.

        • Rob Kailey says:

          Don’t call me Monty, Monty. Do remember that all the evidence is on my side

        • I know who Monty is, you know who Monty is, you coward, you liar, you phony. You make me want to puke.

        • Rob Kailey says:

          Then do so and shut the fuck up, you weak liar.

        • I am not a liar. You are. I know this. So do you.

        • “Joe” was set straight, weren’t you.

        • Rob Kailey says:

          No he wasn’t. You don’t understand technology at all, do you? ‘Joe’ went away laughing at you. I’m doing the same right now. (Or did you actually ban him because he noticed your inadequacy, authoritarian that you are …?)

        • 1. “Joe” was you. 2. “Technology?” That is quite stupid.

        • Craig Moore says:

          Mark, it was Bono that was U2.

        • Rob Kailey says:

          Mark, I was obviously not “Joe” because I was banned at the time, you authoritarian dipshit. You don’t understand technology at all, do you, dipshit?

        • This is fun! You’re starting to boil. of course you posted as Joe because your IP address was not banned, only your name.

          You’re a con artist, but not a good one.

        • Rob Kailey says:

          Tell you what, since you seem to have the great ability to alter IP addresses, why don’t you post the IP that ‘Joe’ commented from and prove that it’s mine? Can you do that, dipshit? No? Didn’t think so, just as Joe pointed out.

          You’ve painted yourself in a corner, dipshit. You have no where to go, save your fantasy, and even that doesn’t hold water. You could have theorized that the Illuminati, seeing your burgeoning revelation of their chicanery, sought to discredit you. You could have just admitted that you did a stupid one off screw up. Hell, you could have blustered that you were Monty and stood behind that critique of my poor writing skills. All would have been acceptable, if arguable. They also would have shown some balls. But no. Castrate that you are, you chose to follow the one idea that makes no sense and is not even possible, that somehow I impugned you by faking a comment. I don’t fake comments, Mark. Even the people who run this website who have at times reviled and hated me have ample evidence that I don’t fake comments. You have precisely *no* evidence at all that I have done anything you accuse me of. You claim to be evidence driven and you’re lying. So what the fuck is wrong with you?

          I accept Joe’s challenge, as I would have done had I not been banned at your site at the time. I will grant either or both, William Skink and/or Craig Moore access to my website admin to show that I could not have altered the comment that came from you. I will, of course, change my password immediately afterward because I am not an idiot. But we can settle this, right here and right now, dipshit. You don’t really want that, do you? Sucks to be you because I do. I’m tired of your bullshit. Neither Moore or Skink have any reason to like me or lie for me. They will tell you that what I say is true. Do you have the balls to cowboy up, dipshit?

        • That easy. You changed your IP, dipshit. You rebooted your router, or used a public computer. Duh.

        • Rob Kailey says:

          The challenge Joe proposed was definitive and decisive. Do you accept the challenge, dipshit? Or do I just arrange it on my own to prove you a liar? Do you have the balls to see this game to its inevitable end where you lose? Come on, Mark. You keep calling me ‘Monty’. Let’s see if you actually have a pair to back that up.

        • You are “Joe,” you stupid lying twit. You can easily manipulate IP addresses, fake identities. And now I think we have evidence that you did so back during the Monty stunt as you are using your ability to post under a different name as some sort of proof that there is a person named “Joe.” I guess “Monty was taken.” .

          There’s nothing to “prove” beyond that. Jesus, what an imbecile.

        • I rest my case. Go f*** yourself.

        • Rob Kailey says:

          Very well. I will email both Lizard and Craig Moore over the weekend and allow them access to the admin of my site until Tuesday. If they can verify that your claim is true, that I can alter IPs and time stamps of comment then your claim has evidence. They won’t be able to. When it is verified that they can’t, your claims will show you to be the hollow loser and vindictive liar that you really are. They certainly don’t need to respond, so your lies can persist, But I find both William and Craig to be honorable people, vastly more so than you.

        • You are getting down and dirty, you slimy MF.

          I want ME allowed in. And I want to go back to 2006, when you did the miserable deed. I can do it, but I didn’t know how until I had my own blog, much later. In 2006 I did. It even know what an IP was. The fact that your are now, nine years later, allowing someone in, means you’ve got a trick in place.

          I am out of Internet contact tomorrow for a week. Please don’t burglarize our house or torch us. We have squirrels living on the property. Please don’t shoot them Jethro.

        • Craig Moore says:

          Mark, you wrote: “It even know what an IP was.” You are beginning to make as much sense as LK on a bender. Care to rephrase?

        • In 2006, when Kailey pulled the Monty stunt, I did not know what an IP was. I woudl not understand that until I had my own blog, and then figured out (in 2010) how he did it.

        • Rob Kailey says:

          You still don’t understand what TCP-IP is, Mark, but that’s beside the point. You will never have administrative access to my website, and only someone as deranged as yourself would think that was a good idea for anyone at all. I don’t care what you “want”. You’re not going to get it, and no force in the universe requires that you should.

          You see, Tokarski, you’ve mistaken my intent completely. I don’t care to disillusion you. Thanks to my mother’s occupation, I’ve spent enough time around the mentally ill to know that they can not be ‘cured’ of their deeply held fantasies, only taught how to deal with them such as not to hurt others or themselves. I haven’t a doubt that you believe ‘Monty’ was me, against all reason. I’m just tired of paying the price because you won’t seek help. Every website that allows your comments concurrent with mine is polluted by what I have already admitted is a non-issue, except to you. That needs to stop, for them and for me. That requires that others see your fantasy for what it is. So my allowance of others into my private space is about them, not you. It’s about me being safe from your delusions. It is not at all about proving *anything* to you. That is what you get so terribly and tragically wrong.

      • Craig Moore says:

        Mark, did you mead “Shit” with a comma, or “Shit” with a period?

        • Craig Moore says:

          Mark, I went ahead anyway and looked at Rob’s blog home at Typepad. He gave me the necessary credentials to access it. I went to the “infamous” Monty comment and found both the date and IP areas were blacked and did not allow editing. However, when I clicked on the IP search field it brought up a volume of your comments. The IP for the Monty comment and these other comments match. I didn’t find any tools sections at Typepad allowing anyone to alter the date and IP sections. Such are my findings.

          Now, over the years I have found you to be quite dishonest, not the least of which is your identity spoofing that allowed you to comment at sites where you were banned again and again. I find nothing that argues in favor of your veracity on the Monty matter or in the wider blog commenting context. I request again you take this matter out of the public forums for your own sake.

  3. Craig Moore says:

    When Adams posted a response at CG, didn’t he refer to Cowgirl as “Eric?” Possibly he was referencing Eric Stern, long conjectured as the original Cowgirl.

    • Rob Kailey says:

      I asked ‘Dirk’ who he meant as Eric. It is not to his credit that he didn’t respond. It might just be me, but I don’t find passive aggressive doxxing and pretensions of insider knowledge to be admirable qualities.

  4. petetalbot says:

    An honest question, William Skink, what, in your opinion, are the “unpopular wedge issues that are only popular in liberal enclaves like Missoula?” Do you think we’re that out-of-touch with the rest of the Democrats in the state?

    • Big Swede says:

      Sorry to butt in Pete but I’m thinking late term abortion is becoming a wedge issue currently.

      Having a past Pres. of Pro Choice is bad timing, wouldn’t you think?

      • petetalbot says:

        To be honest, Swede, I think abortion is way down the list of issues affecting most Montanans (and, no offense here, but it appears to be a wedge issue for you).

        • Big Swede says:

          If the Reps propose a late term abortion bill or hold funding to PP it’ll get real wedgie.

        • petetalbot says:

          Swede says: “If the Reps propose a late term abortion bill or hold funding to PP it’ll get real wedgie.” And women voters will continue to leave the ranks of the Republican Party, which works for me.

      • For the record, a “wedge” issue is merely one that merely divides people, usually to the benefit of the political leaders. In no way is the issue of abortion unimportant to those who favor or oppose its legality. And, it is of vital importance to those who undergo the procedure to be able to do so legally.

        Abortion is a “wedge” issue not because it is unimportant to the many genuinely caring and highly motivated people who fight on either side of the issue. It is a “wedge” issue because the leadership calls does not care about it. Once elections are over, it goes back on the shelf.

        Stop and imagine that if the daughters of either President Obama or Bush needed an abortion, that one would be provided, legal or illegal.

        • “calls” = “class.” I do not actually see typos until they are on the screen and unfixable.

        • Big Swede says:

          To the alleys where it belongs.

        • Swede, if you’ve ever made a mistake in your life, I assume you can find it in your heart to allow that same privilege to others. As a society, we make choices, very hard ones, favoring the life of a mother over that of an unborn infant. It is not easy for anyone I assure you. And it is not a perfect solution. It actually sucks. But unless you can find room and board for all the children beyond an “we oughtta”, it is what must be done.

        • Big Swede says:

          Thank God your mother was a devout Catholic.

        • petetalbot says:

          There you go Skink:, Swede, Eric and Craig got you back on the gun thing.

        • Swede, until I see you adopting unplanned/unwanted kids, I’d say your opinions fall like soft snow, and easily melt away. These problems are quite complex, and solutions don’t please everyone. People have to decide what to do. If are don’t favor legal abortion, then by all means, don’t have an abortion. But leave others alone.

        • Big Swede says:

          Don’t make me pay for murder Mark. And don’t profit off the dead remains.

        • Exactly my thought on our wars of aggression, but an aside. Do you not realize that life is not black and white? Can you deal with complexity?

          For instance, many people regard capital punishment as murder, not to mention innocent people killed by our bombs. If you have a definition of “murder” that holds pregnant women accountable, but releases the state, give it up now. I am all ears.

  5. steve kelly says:

    And what if Missoula really isn’t a “liberal enclave” after all? More similar to Butte with each passing year, I think. What’s the vision for Montana’s future; mission; goals of the party? Unknown to most voters, and a legitimate criticism, I believe, of the 2014 campaigns in general.

  6. Pingback: Montana Missoula Democrat Insiders Not Acting Very Democratic | Reptile Dysfunction

  7. Pete, I’ll answer you down here: guns. every new gun tragedy translates into renewed gun control efforts by Democrats, but I think gun control is a big loser for Montana Democrats because the public trend isn’t less guns after high profile tragedies, but more. you should read this Zerohedge piece: Majority of Americans Now See Guns As The Solution To Mass Shootings.

    • petetalbot says:

      I’ve been disappointed that Montana Democrats don’t advance stricter gun control measures. But obviously that’s just me because from gun-toting Brian Schweitzer to Jon Tester to the majority in the legislature, not even something like background checks for the seriously disturbed, or at gun shows, will happen in Montana. It’s a pity.

      • it’s not just you, plenty of people in Missoula probably feel the same way you do. when I crossed to the dark side of gun ownership, though, I was a little surprised at how negative the reaction was.

        I put myself out there with my ignorance of firearms and my reluctance to actually take the step of buying a gun. I didn’t do so lightly, you know.

        what can I say, my day job ain’t easy.

      • Big Swede says:

        Frankly Pete, MT with one of the nations highest percentage of gun ownership I’m also disappointed that you idiots don’t push for stricter gun control.

    • Craig Moore says:

      Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nailed it. It’s rather shocking that partisans like Pete are so wedded to ideology and their “issues” that they have lost touch with what is important to the people.

  8. Eric says:

    “Swede says: “If the Reps propose a late term abortion bill or hold funding to PP it’ll get real wedgie.” And women voters will continue to leave the ranks of the Republican Party, which works for me.”

    Wrong Pete – as usual. The imaginary ‘War on Women’ was such a loser that I think the Dems drop it from their playbook, just like they did away with the gun-grabbing rhetoric. But if you believe in those things PLEASE encourage your Dem candidates to run on them.

  9. If white people owning guns posed a threat to the leadership, white people would not be allowed to own guns. But leadership has managed to focus the hatred of gun owners on the ‘right’ people (liberals, progressives, immigrants, minorities, dissidents), so the gun owners and leadership are all in agreement on who the enemies are. Ergo, white gun owners pose no threat to power, and are well under control.

    During the sixties, a black uprising was a real threat. LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act because of that threat, not her reason. So black leaders were systematically murdered or jailed. If white right wingers posed a similar threat, they would meet a similar fate.

    Guns are a wedge issue, but underground movements are watched very closely. Right wingers pose no threat, but other groups just might gain traction. Then guns are a problem.,

  10. Pete, if you actually looked at the polling, you would see it’s not just Swede, Eric and Craig. it’s the MAJORITY of Americans. do you enjoy losing elections?

    • steve kelly says:

      Just wondering, why is it important for Democrats to not lose elections? Where and when do they deliver measurable differences in outcomes for the everyday citizen/consumer?

      Non-voters outnumber voters in many districts. There are reasons for that. Both parties worked hard to make it (“base vs. base”) that way. You seem like you’d like two parties. But you can’t have two parties. Get it, got it, good.

      • I would like more than two parties, but you’re right, we can’t have that.

      • Such a good point! When have we been harmed by a Democrat losing an election?

        • Rob Kailey says:

          Tim Fox ignoring the illegal secrecy of the Montana Public Service Commission. Hey, you asked …

        • You guys usually fall back in what one of you would have done. Skeptical observers notice you don’t have anything but hypothetical in your pocket. Hey, you answered.

        • Rob Kailey says:

          Mark, you’re starting to froth again. You asked when we have been hurt by a Democrat losing. The election of Tim Fox was a Democrat losing, and he’s hurting us. I answered with a direct fact. It is *you* who are making the assumption, Mark. You are assuming that a Democrat wouldn’t have dome anything different and then project your assumption on others. History vs. your fantasy.

          I’m going to back away slowly now, while with a calm voice tell you that I don’t think the world works quite how you think it does.

        • Rob Kailey says:

          And in case you are still willing to rabidly pursue this, try this example: Democrat Steve Kelly losing to Dennis Rehberg.

        • The low-budget low intelligence con artist in you wants to deflect, and so paints me as “frothing” when it is you doing that. (yawn).

          in fact, we know that Democrats ignore their own party’s office holders once elected, so that there would be no accountability in place for Busy if she were elected. So we cannot at with any certainty how she would behave, but only assume she would bow to money backers, as they are the only ones paying attention.

          Kelly? Moot point. While he is a man of conscience, he was hung out to dry. the Republican leadership of the Democrat party was teaching progressives a lesson, that they are willing to toss an election out the window rather than allow a progressive to be elected. of course, had be won, he would have made a difference. but with both parties against him, genius, pray tell, how could he win?

        • Autocorrect makes Bucy into Busy.

        • Rob Kailey says:

          So, you threw out a challenge I accepted and you waffle and wail because you were nothing short of absolutely wrong. The world doesn’t work how you think it does.

  11. Craig Moore says:

    Moving beyond 2nd Amendment rights, Don P at ID provides another example of a loser position. Denigrating the military, especially an accomplished general, just doesn’t sit well with voting Montanans.

    • Rob Kailey says:

      You may be correct about uninformed voter preference, Craig. This is certainly the right place to post that. But it is also true that Gen. Vellely called for an armed coup of the government. As a believer in democracy, I know which one concerns me more.

      • Craig Moore says:

        Listen for yourself here and decide in context how serious was the call. Vallely has vigorously denied any intention of calling for a coup or insurrection. There is no question in my mind that he gets caught up in the moment and says things he doesn’t really mean. Done that myself more times than I care to remember.

        BTW, if Mark would merely post here how he would explore your blog to justify his umbrage, I would honestly pursue it and report back. Given his heel stomp and storm out, I guess he would rather continue his faux outrage and ersatz claim to moral high ground rather than putting it to an end.

        • Rob Kailey says:

          We all do say things and we don’t really mean. Sadly, context doesn’t work on the campaign stump.

          As to the latter, and email will be coming shortly.

        • Craig Moore says:

          I’ll look for your email. However, I will not pursue this matter unless Mark is “all in” and provides exactly how I or anyone else could validate his claim. I think it would be better if you two would converse off line and agree to never again bring this up on a public stage. Either one, or both of you, might be upset with my findings. I don’t offer perfection, only my best efforts given my lack of professional competence on such matters.

        • Craig Moore says:

          I posted this at Mark’s place.

  12. I am in Canada, data roaming, and can’t do much about this Kailey matter, which he knows. However, and again, it is all explained here, Rob set A trap, which his type like to do. I explain what he did, how he did it in this post:

    Please read it. There’s no ” technology” involved. It was not complicated. For him to come back now nine years later, when he could have and should have back then, is just the calculating bastard with a new angle.

    Mr. Skink, he regularly attacks me on other people’s blogs when he’s feeling overmatched. I suggest you tell him to take it to my blog. He prefers to attack me in other venues. I defend mysf where he attacks, but have told him to bring it to my place.

    Rob, you’re a slimebag. We both know it. The hypocrisy is simply stunning, the lack of character, manhood, honesty. How do people like you manage in this world? Oh wait, I know: you set traps, connive, deceive. Now down boy. Down. Go back to the Democrats. Your types thrives there.

    • Craig Moore says:

      There is this old adage, when the law is against you argue the facts. When both the facts and the law are against you, pound the table and yell a lot. IMHO Mark, you are pounding the table.

      • Some day, Craig, if you find yourself accused of something out of the blue that you know nothing about, and find out you’ve been sandbagged by a sociopath, you’ll understand. You’ll pound the table knowing this sleazy man gets away with stuff like this. But that is what his type does. They calculate, they game. They don’t much enjoy anything else.

        You’re not much a judge of character, are you.

        • Craig Moore says:

          Can’t you take your sniveling off line and out of the public forums? Did you bother to see my warning above directed to both of you? Now, if you feel so righteous, why not just sue for libel to arrive at a value for your outrage? Apart from that, stop playing the fool time and time again with this nonsense that is boring at best

        • It’s an amazing thing to see a sociopath at work. Ask yourself why, nine years later, he lets you, who he knows to be his patron, in, but has steadfastly refused others for years? He worked his details.

          I did not make those comments. He did. He is a lying son of a bitch. I stand by that. If you read, you would see how it is done on my blog. They don’t differ. He’s monkeyed with it somehow.

          Again. He is a liar. I will not back down from that. Ever. He is a liar. A lying mongrel. A loser.

        • Craig Moore says:

          Mark, I am nobody’s patron. Deal with the Typepad facts. I gave my best efforts to see your side of this mess. All you have is blather and fizz in return. It would seem to me that if someone had the ability to change time stamp and IP designations which are blacked, it would take someone who has hacked Typepad itself. Barring that you have offered no reasonable explanation whatsoever. Please stop. Your obsession is painful to watch unfold with ever increasing stridency.

Leave a Reply