December 26, 2011

"I'm Not Your Pirate Radio Jesus," Says Poet to an Anonymous Detractor Who Ignores Poet's Rights of Self-Defense

Pirate Radio News & Commentary
by John Poet

(An anonymous commenter in a previous thread made an argument we'll probably be forced to suffer through more and more as time goes on:  that if I publish information on 'Commander Bunny' similar to that which he has repeatedly published about me, then I am "no better than he is".  I initially posted a lengthy response to that in comments... but think it appropriate to raise the whole exchange to the post-level here, since it probably isn't the last time we'll hear this, and I prefer my response to that argument to be more prominent than at the comment-level.)


"Anonymous said...

"Okay something is very wrong here... I had just read your article re: Commander Bunny and NRS, and it I can say, yes it is 100% correct. I didn't want to believe that CB was a snitch, but now all doubt is gone. CB is #1 snitch. Unfortunately that puts you at #2, as you have revealed CB's indentity, and put other's in jepordy. You revealing CB's identity in reaction to his actions doesn't make it right. It pretty much means, you're no better than he is.

"I am in hopes that both sides of this "pirate war" continue, and that is ends up that you both wipe yourselves from existance."



John Poet Replies...
@Anonymous 1:03 am:


I am "no better than he is"? Nonsense!

If Abraham Lincoln had been able to shoot back at John Wilkes Booth, would you then say that Lincoln was "no better than he is"? Would you then refer to Lincoln as "Assassin #2" ?

I think not... but that is the essence of the argument you are making, here. It completely ignores the facts about who fired first, and who is only reacting in self-defense. Furthermore, it conveniently ignores the fact that it was Commander Bunny who repeatedly posted approximations of my address, before publishing the real address-- something that I have not, as yet, done to him in return-- so even by the standard of 'who has published what, who cares in what order',  your statement is still demonstrably false at this juncture.

However,  I believe I have the moral right to publish that information, if and when I should choose to do so. Firing back is essentially an act of self-defense, and everyone has the moral right to self-defense. In fact, it may be a moral imperitive for me to republish pertinent information about him (it isn't as if any of this is 'new information' or 'secret', it is publicly available)-- because if he is allowed to do all these things without consequences, it makes it more likely that he will do the same again to someone else. Making his information available to other potential victims will serve as a deterrent to he who has always preferred to "drop dox" and publish his slanders under the anonymity of secondary false identities or sock-puppets.

You wrote, "You revealing CB's identity in reaction to his actions doesn't make it right." It is still an act of self-defense, and there is nothing morally wrong about acting in self-defense employing a similar level of 'force'. The facts are, I have published less about him than he has about me, and much less often. Unlike him, I have reacted with a good deal of restraint.

You seem to want me to be your 'pirate radio Jesus', to love my enemies and 'turn the other cheek' to 'Commander Bunny' after he repeatedly publishes my real name, real address, what he claims to believe are facts about my living arrangements and employment status-- and even sinks to the level of making sordid comments about my dead mother. When those facts are fairly taken into account, your statement that I am "no better than he is" holds no water whatsoever. However, it is true that I am more like a pirate radio Moses than a Jesus: 'an eye for an eye' is good enough for me, when it comes to this business of publishing personal information.  I won't go so far as to create slanderous lies about him, but I certainly will not allow some demonstrably false moral double-standard to prevent me from revealing similar facts about him as he has done to me. I am not the one who started this "dropping dox" and publishing names and addresses.

If this means that there will be a few, like yourself, who will claim to believe that I am "no better than he is" (even though, deep down, you know better), well, that is a price which I am willing to pay-- and, when weighing the validity of such opinions, I am certain that objective observers will also take the 'likely sources' into consideration. 
~  John Poet


'Commander Bunny's alter-ego 'Bill O. Rights' makes interesting comments
about the supposed frequency of complaints 'phoned in' to the FCC...

9 comments:

  1. Poet wrote 'if he is allowed to do all these things without consequences, it makes it more likely that he will do the same again to someone else.'

    Exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Once again, John Poet speaks the truth. Commander Keyboard Pounder has constantly whined about being a victim. Of course, when he was caught with his hand deep in the sock puppets, it was always everybody else's fault.
    Instead of taking responsibility for his actions, Commander Delusional ,with the help of his Circle of Jerks, has attempted to obscure the truth through personal attacks on John Poet.
    So, anything those guttersnipes get in return from the Poet is not only fair, but warranted. Why should the Poet take their nonsense and absorb their slings and arrows without returning fire?
    Especially when Commander Crybaby Coward committed the most egregious sin: snitching out another Free Radio Participant, not just once but again and again. And the dime dropping always seems to happen, when Commander Drama Queen's actions are called into question by the person, who eventually gets "the knock".
    I say, John Poet, "Fire Away!"

    ReplyDelete
  3. no shots from the port side

    don't forget his physical mailing address in case someone would like to send him swag crap

    ReplyDelete
  4. "If Abraham Lincoln had been able to shoot back at John Wilkes Booth, would you then say that Lincoln was "no better than he is"? Would you then refer to Lincoln as "Assassin #2" ?"

    If your family was wiped out by an assassin, then are you in the right to act as an executioner?

    ReplyDelete
  5. On an earlier TCS blog entry, A naughty mouse squeaked...

    "Okay something is very wrong here... I had just read your article re: Commander Bunny and NRS, and it I can say, yes it is 100% correct. I
    didn't want to believe that CB was a snitch, but now all doubt is gone. CB is #1 snitch.
    Unfortunately that puts you at #2, as you have
    revealed CB's indentity, and put other's in jepordy. You revealing CB's identity in reaction to his actions doesn't make it right. It pretty much means, you're no better than he is.

    "I am in hopes that both sides of this "pirate war" continue, and that is ends up that you both wipe yourselves from existance."
    December 26, 2011 1:03 AM


    This reads like two mice were composing a single squeak. It starts out Alan Colmes and rapidly devolves into Sean Hannity.

    It's the weakest example I've seen in a long time of the weakest of logical fallacies, the moral equivalence argument. And by "weakest" I mean, the funniest.

    Skip to the "you're no better than he is" and "I... (hope)... you both wipe yourselves from existance" remarks, and you've negated the entire opening premise. Not easy for any single sane person to do, without obviously trolling. Believe me, I've tried.

    The only way this could be better is if Colmes injected a buttload of steroids and meth, sprouted porcupine quills, ripped out Hannity's
    heart and ate it, then sliced off Hannity's face and wore it like a mask and said "Thanks, Sean, I believe I'll take over both sides of the debate here."

    There's no equivalence between the Lagomurph's 10 year reign of terror and Poet's generally civil and logical rebuttals. You can safely
    disregard this Anon's moral equivalence argument, at least until he clarifies which part he actually means.

    --GF

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Anon 6:20 PM:

    If a Corsair goes off in the woods but nobody hears it, is it really transmitting?

    Nobody's acting as "executioner" here. We're just publishing information. Of course, if someone killed my whole family, it would certainly be the right thing for me to do, to turn over all the information that I might have about the suspect-- wouldn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  7. the rabbit is like a stinky turd that won't flush

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lets put aside the whole "moral right to fire back" and "eye for an eye" arguement for a moment. There is a more important consideration ... the future of this hobby that we all claim to love.

    Bunny is an FCC snitch. (He made that crystal clear in his post threatening to report anyone who relayed Poet's shows). He has felt safe snitching because he possesses hordes of personal information taken from the frn, and felt that he could threaten anyone and everyone.

    The only way to level the playing field is to provide Bunny's info to past and future potential victims. Only then will he be too vulnerable to continue his snitching ways.

    So publish away John ...

    (We may never be able to completely flush that turd, but we can neutralize the stink!)

    ReplyDelete
  9. yes, publish away poet!! alot of us are waiting for that info

    ReplyDelete

You may comment anonymously, without signing up or logging in. Please keep language relatively clean. Hate speech will not be tolerated. Comments on posts less than 14 days old will appear instantly.

DISCLAIMER: Approval and posting of a comment should not be construed as our agreement with, or endorsement of, the comment in question. Opinions posted are those of the commenters, and not necessarily those of John Poet, The Radical, or tcsshortwave.com