February 22, 2007

Yeagley known by new name, Sitting Duck

From the Editrix (Feb. 21, 2007)

I happened to come across this oldish statement by David Yeagley a couple of days ago:

Poor Nora. First she followed me to TheAutonomist and tried to post there--until I had to expose her.

Spontaneously, I just wondered as WHAT the retard "exposed" me. As somebody who backs up each and every statement about him with rock-solid evidence or what?

But that is not the point. The point is, that the idiot lied and that I can PROVE that he lied.

I was invited to post at The Autonomist before I even knew that he was contributing there as well and I was invited following a recommendation by a journalist called Myles Kantor.

Idiot that I am, I was even apprehensive at that time that my private little feud with Yeagley might bring discontent to The Autonomist.

I, additionally, complied to bury the hatchet when asked to do so. However, I refused to delete my anti-Yeagley posts as long as Yeagley wouldn't do the same with his posts about me. In fact, I stopped posting against him even before my little feud became yet known, and then observed that he didn't do the same following the "let bygones be bygones" talk.

And the good thing is: I still have the entire email correspondence (any interested party can see it) to back up each and every word I am saying here. AND the fact that Yeagley is nothing but a pathetic, delusional liar.

Not that this comes as a surprise, but I like the idea nevertheless.

To be frank, at that time, I was amazed at the imposition (or is the word "impertinence"?) of asking that I should censor myself retroactively. And that, mind you, from a conservative who is as hot on "freedom" as they come. But, as I said, I would have done it, had Yeagley done the same.

I have no idea what value a simple thing like "truth" holds for an American conservative. But I, for one, am fond of the oldfashioned (my thesaurus offers the alternative "conservative", but it must be erring here) idea that truth is a valuable thing per se. And that is why I am putting up this post.

As an aside: Does that naive dolt really think I am "following" him? That I beg blog owners: "Please let me post. I wanna badmouth Yeagley" or what? What would be the purpose of "following" him? Is there any limit to his megalomania and paranoia? Does he think that blog owners would comply? Would I get invitations to post at group blogs on the strength of the single merit that I don't like Yeagley? And if yes, what then?

Or do I NEED to "follow" him in the first place when he delivers all material against himself free and gratuitous at his very own idiot website?

The only drawback this sadly holds is the fact that it is considered unfair to shoot a sitting duck.

He seems to think, too, that it is somehow my fault that his rating at Technorati is as low as it is (rank 109,155 with 106 links from 35 blogs), instead of getting a modicum of information how Technorati works and then asking himself why so few people are keen to put up links to his site. Does he think I wouldn't release my own blog from the humble rank 57,440 (131 links from 63 blogs as I am writing this) IF I HAD ANY WAY TO DO SO?

I know I have asked this before, but do they deliver doctorates by mail order in the States?

On a different note, doesn't he see what laughing stock he made of the owner of The Autonomist whose cool macho-conservative number he has exposed at what it is: The airs of a John-Wayne-for-the-lower-classes who first asks for retroactive self-censorship and then gives in to the whining of a lying old queen.

For the search engines:
Dr. David Yeagley
Piano Player
Waffling Warrior
Two Short Planks
Bad Eagle
Bad Hair Day
Pants on Fire

Oh I forgot: He was dumb enough to insinuate that I aspire to post at WorldNetDaily. Thank you very much, Yeagley! Too bad he has AGAIN forgotten to back up his claim. I wouldn't touch that virtual fishwrap with a barge pole and -- again -- I can PROVE it. In fact, I have trashed it several times at my blog and -- DRUMROLL -- even at Yeagley's own site, to which he, interestingly, responded:
You've got to admit, it was a cool article. Just wasn't true!

Yeah, right! Make up your "cool" shit while you go along and if it's not true -- too bad. At least it's "conservative" shit.

Which neatly sums up Waffle's attitude towards truth.

I rest my case.


From the Bad Eagle Journal

Can Waffling Warrior David Yeagley read the writing on the wall. No? Okay, I can spell it out then. The Iraq war, Bush’s oil war, the preemptive war of Bush’s aggression (i.e., Bush’s premeditated murder of civilians in other countries) is a colossal failure. Bush’s claim to make the world safer is complete crap. A new study concludes the world is considerably LESS safe than before Bush attacked Iraq. Again, Yeagley is licking at the hind quarters of an issue, siding again with the corporate warmongering elite and against the American people. Of course, the piano doctor never was a warrior, he only “plays” one on his web page. Well, read it and weep, little David. Terrorism has increased by 607% — BECAUSE of Bush.

Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank — “ ‘By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people.’ So said President Bush on November 30, 2005, refining his earlier call to ‘bring them on.’ ... The president’s argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions... The administration’s own National Intelligence Estimate ... states that "the Iraq War has become the ‘cause celebre’ for jihadists ... and is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives.’ ... we have undertaken what we believe to be the first such study, using information from the world’s premier database on global terrorism.”