Every time I mocked those who ripped into people from the “safety of anonymity,” there were countless numbers of folks there to tell me...Well, Mark, what are you going to do? That’s the internet. Deal with it. Learn to live with it. Embrace it. Better yet, kwitcherbelyacin.
Yeah? Fu>k that!
As far as I’m concerned, the very worst of the anonymous assassins are the ones that go after candidates for elected office. We bemoan the fact that not enough people are willing to make that sacrifice, running for elected office. And we moan in unison when candidates run unopposed. Yet, when people do step forward and run for elected office, up step the anonymous cowards to savage them at nearly every possible turn.
As per my last couple of posts, I’ve had a reader reminding me that ad-hoc anonymous attacks of the most scurrilous nature launched from the safety of anonymity is just the way it is, the way it will be, all because it’s been going on since long before even oral varnishes for wooden teeth were invented. Again, what are you going to do, Mark?
Best I can tell, you should work to expose exactly who it might be who feels they must cling to their anonymity, while ripping into whomever they feel like ripping into at any given time, and for whatever reason. And in this case, expose who it is that played holier than though with not only one, but two candidates on the ballot next Tuesday.
First, "Norton the Blogger" at One Vote Counts gave us some noble sounding claptrap about doing the right thing when he smeared Walter Griffith, a County Controller hopeful. Then, he felt the need to expose what he saw as a convoluted conflict of interest or something on the part of judicial hopeful, Mike Blazick.
Interestingly enough, after Walter’s internet lumps were delivered from the safety of anonymity, somebody said in the readers‘ comments at One Vote Counts that “those who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones,” all the while forgetting that the most recently thrown stones were thrown from the most stealthiest of places…the safety of anonymity.
But then the cloaking device was done in by it’s own creator.
Yeah, Norton the Blogger went and published a picture on his ill-fated blog that he had very, very recently taken at a local eatery, a picture of judicial hopeful Mike Pendolfi and his smart-looking family.
When contacted and asked who had taken that picture, Mr. Pendolfi identified the photographer as none other than Steve Urbanski, a disbarred local attorney currently on probation with the Judiciary Board of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
And immediately after being unknowingly “outed” by Mr. Pendolfi (an innocent bystander in all of this) some of us started posting comments on the One Vote Counts site, comments that were obviously just a little too close for comfort for the author of that blog known for hiding behind his purposely hung curtain of anonymity.
And as a result, said author instantly removed all previous comments posted there, and suspended any further capability for readers to post comments. Yeah, that’s right. No more comments are allowed. All of a sudden, Norton the Blogger isn’t liking comments from the occasional reader (since that’s all he has), especially those of the anonymous variety.
So, what we have here is a temporarily defrocked lawyer, a former law partner of Kingston Mayor Jim Haggerty, playing god with other people’s lives. What we have here is an anonymous coward who’s glass house is as completely fragile as any of those he felt the need to very publicly throw stones at.
So, assuming that the blog is still there and functional on election day, and assuming that the ability to post comments by readers is at some point restored, at least now you know who to post your comments to.
No, not Norton the Blogger.
Say hello to Steve the Blogger. Or should I say, Steve, the soon-to-be former blogger.
So, would anyone else care to chastise me about how the internet works? Anybody else feel like bringing me up to speed? As I have frequently been known to say on whatever electronic pages I may have been saying it at the time, consider the source. The anonymous source, that is.