Here we go again...

Despite what I think was a very generous offer from Sludge to put an end to the feud between the Stern Fan Network and Val, Val has put up a new abridged version of her Stern Fans are Evil page, It's as biased as it ever was, just a quicker read now. I guess her very important guest was done using her page for research into how video games are turning children into soulless killing machines.

She ends the post with this line, "At the moment, however, I'm pretty much finished with these bozos." If that's the case then why wouldn't you simply take Sludge up on his offer, drop the page and your campaign against Howard Stern entirely, and raise some money for cause you claim to champion? Is your ego such that you can't admit you were wrong even if it will help out people in need?

Read More...

Summary only...

She doesn't just hate Howard

I've been somewhat one dimensional in my bickering with Kooky Val and some who haven't read her site might believe her to just be against Howard Stern, a somewhat reasonable position, as I understand that his brand of humour isn't for everyone. That doesn't make it right to take that humour away from those who do like it, but I can understand the position. On the contrary however there are many things she doesn't like. Rap music for instance. She has campaigned to prevent tens of thousands of paying fans from seeing acts such as Eminem or 50 Cent perform, and has also tried to persuade major record stores from carrying Rap. She has an entire page on her site dedicated to "music" but the only thing she fights against is rap. There is a lot of Metal and Punk out there that carry a much more racist and violent message, but she doesn't seem to care about that. She filed a complaint with the police about Bell Express-Vu showing pornographic movies on Pay-Per-View. That's right she thinks that she has the right to dictate what content adults can watch in their own homes. She also has a bug up her ass about violent Video games and this weekend unveiled her latest page on the subject, a collection of media clippings about the Dawson College shooter, Kimveer Gill. Of course she put the article that she is quoted in at the top of the list. The writer Mike Strobel of the Toronto Sun seems to have a somewhat irritating writing style where one sentence equals one paragraph, but I'll quote the relevant passage anyway:

I call Valerie Smith, 54, a neighbour of mine in Scarborough.

Where we live is bounded, roughly, by the Galloway Boys, the Markham-Eglinton Crew and the Versace Boys.

The Montreal Massacre, the original in 1989, inspired her to become an anti-violence crusader. (See www.fradical.com)

In '89, the deadliest video game was Pong, but that's sure changed, eh Val? Now, 401 video games are rated M for blood 'n guts. (Like that'll stop any kid who wants one.)

"The problem has exploded," says Val.

"As opposed to just fighting monsters, it's getting more and more personal. You get to kill people with all manner of instruments.

"And virtual reality is coming. What do you think will happen when some kid can immerse himself so totally he can't tell the difference between real life and fantasy?"

First up, Pong wasn't the most violent video game available in 1979 let alone 1989. Depending on the study up to 95% of Canadian teens report that they have access to video games with upwards of 80% owning at least one video game console of their own. So why aren't our streets crawling with homicidal maniacs? Why is it even possible for me to walk the 2 blocks to work without having to dodge gunfire? With so many of out children being corrupted you would think that our society would have devolved into a complete state of chaos by now. Hmmmmm...perhaps Video games and music aren't to blame. Maybe society should take a look for other factors. Anyone want to wager on how happy of a home life Kimveer Gill had? Anyone want to wager as to whether or not he had been abused physically or mentally? These would seem like far more likely triggers for someone to become a sociopathic killing machine than what games they play. But hey slapping "Video Game Killer" in 72 point print on the cover of your piece of shit tabloid newspaper helps sales.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Moderate Victory

From her holy kookiness's site:

I have to take this page off line for a bit. We're having visitors tomorrow - a reporter is referencing this site in an article on video games - and I have to make it family friendly again. Can't risk people doing a search on the site and coming up with the Sterniacs obscene comments. The search engine seems to collect everything.

The Sterniacs can yammer away among themselves for awhile - that's pretty much all they do anyway - and this page will be back before they know it. If the spirit moves me in the meantime, I'll boil it down to a few paragraphs so people don't have to wade through so much to find information. I'm torn about including the obscene postings from the Stern Fan Network. They're useful to illustrate the ethics and mindset of the posters, particularly *** ***** and ***** *******, but I never liked having them on my site. I'll have to think about that.

In the meantime, I think the page has been cached by Google, so it might continue to turn up if people do an Internet search. I'm not sure how that works once the page has been taken off the host site. I'll check it out in a few days.

Valerie Smith
September 14, 2006

Yep, I'm declaring a limited victory for the fans of free speech in regards to Val's feud with the members of the Stern Fan Network. Looks to me like she doesn't want some reporter to see that the way she conducts business. I won't miss your jack booted, thought police-like ways. I do wish I knew which reporter would be silly enough to use your site as a reference tool though, I'd write a letter to his editor. Is it your obedient lapdog Alan Cairns again? Oh and Val, no one told you that you had to post all those comments on your site, if you aren't happy with them being there it's no one's fault but your own.

Read More...

Summary only...

Seriously, She needs to get a life.

Good old Kooky Val has updated her Stern Fans page 6 days in a row now. Let's take a look at some of her new pearls of wisdom. Names have been redacted to protect the innocent victims of Val's campaign of hatred (oooooohh, how'd you like that spin move?)

September 8: Interesting thing I discovered today. A guy named ********* and Sludge have the same IP address. Hmmm... what are the odds they're not the same person. Oh, none! Stats are up for this page, but I think it's probably ******* checking in every five minutes to see if I've posted his mug shot along with Dumb and Dumber. Not yet, *******, but do stay tuned.

Uh oh, after only 6 months of investigation she has deduced sludge's real name, but what could she possibly do with that information?

****** ****** - come on down! The beauty of knowing Sludge's real identity is this: I can, should I feel it's necessary -- and the option is entirely mine -- apply for a peace bond to keep him away from me, file a private information (look it up), file a human rights complaint (a hate campaign using the Internet is right up their alley and they award damages), file a civil lawsuit, stuff like that. I did what you're supposed to do when harassed on the Internet, I reported it to the police. Unfortunately, as mentioned on the Industry Canada website, the police can do little about cyber bullying, which is another name for what ****** ********, ***** ********* and ****** ******* have been up to. However, there are other options once you know the identity of the bully. Thanks for sending me that email, ******. Absolutely brilliant.

Okie Dokie, I have my doubts about the court giving you a peace bond against someone who has never threatened you in any way nor ever been within 5KM of you either. File a human rights complaint? It isn't a hate crime to hate an individual person, but good luck with that. File a lawsuit? Good way to prove that you aren't an opponent of free speech, just sue anyone who voices a differing opinion.

And ******* ******, who, it turns out actually is a teacher, the Ontario Ministry of Education has policies on bullying which include cyber bullying. You really should look them up. Possibly, teachers are exempt, but I think that's entirely unlikely. Afterall, you're supposed to be setting an example

Wow, threatening the financial security of someone who disagrees with you. Can I get your mailing address? I'd like to send you a container of polish so you can put a nice shine on your jack boots.

September 9: Apparently, ****** ****** hasn't been reading the memos. Cyber bullying includes postings to chat groups, you know, like the one ****** ****** started about me back in February? Ringing any bells, ********? The one that contains what reporter Al Cairns called "a series of profane and vile chat entries" about me, the one that made me concerned enough about the content to report it to police, the one that contains comments the Attorney General calls "very disturbing"? You know, the chat group you've been posting to since it started on day one? Yeah, Acheson, that one.

Actually I believe that letter says "The types of comments you've received" not "The types of things people write about you on the Internet". But please feel free to point out any case law where someone has been convicted of cyber bullying for things posted to a publicly accessible forum.

September 12: I posted a comment to ****** ****** blog which he promptly deleted. Strange that, since he invited me to contact him directly, plus he's such a big defender of free speech. The nice thing is, he also deleted all his own postings about me. Gee, was it something I said?

I'm sad that your thug tactics do seem to have silenced a voice with a dissenting opinion to that of yours, but I can understand his not wanting to risk his teaching job in a fight with a kook. Teacher's these days are always under a microscope and school boards seem quick to dismiss one rather than deal with any static from the public. I hope you are proud of yourself.

September 13: ***** ******** is implying on his blog that I would hurt his little boy. Like I said, the Internet really brings out the stupid in people.

This from the person who voiced a concern in one of the largest circulating daily papers in the country that because of her views horrible things could happen to anyone with the misfortune of having the incredibly uncommon name Valerie Smith. Yep that Internet really does bring out the stupid.

Once again Val, maybe you should just let the whole thing drop. None of your high profile attempts at censoring speech, music or film have ever worked out in your favour. Eminem has played concerts in Canada. Rap music is still available at HMV. Hardcore pornography is still available on every cable and satellite system in the country and Howard Stern is still available legally in this great country. I suggest that you may want to retire and take up knitting but you'd probably end up making a bunch of one armed sweaters and 3 fingered gloves. You just can't ever seem to get anything right.

Read More...

Summary only...

Accusing someone of paranoia doesn't make you any less paranoid.

My feelings have been hurt today. Our dear friend kooky Val updated her kooky website over the weekend this time to fire some shots at someone who has blogged about her ineffective campaign to have Howard Stern pulled off the air in Canada. The blogger in question wasn't me. What the hell Val? I'm king of the anti-Val bloggers (well in my own mind anyway, I can be delusional).

Anywho here's the guy she went after, I linked to him several months ago as well. Kooky Val had this to say:

He has a personal blog on which he posts seriously boring information about himself and comments about me which usually involve calling me a liar.

Michael Acheson also participates in Sludge's harassment thread on the Stern Fan Network under the name Macheson. This is interesting because comments he posted to his blog raise the possibility that he's a teacher (click here for posting). He's probably not a teacher though. I can't imagine a teacher being stupid enough to collaborate with someone who posts comments like this in a public forum. And that's mild, compared to Sludge's usual obscene comments, or these from some of the other participants. Nice company you keep, Mr. Acheson.

Note all those links there, they all lead to .pdf's she made of people insulting her. Which brings us to her next post:

Did some tidying up on this page for ease of reference. Messrs Acheson and Flood think changes to this page are noteworthy. They're not, really. It's standard ops to update a web site. But you two better print this new version off, just in case. You can never be too careful. Or paranoid.

Uhhhh, hey Kooky lady, you go to the effort of saving .pdf's of it every time someone mentions your name for fear that the posting will disappear before you can bother the police with some sort of bullshit harassment beef, fearing not just for yourself but for anyone who happens to be named Valerie Smith. Who exactly is the paranoid one?

Read More...

Summary only...

Writer's block responses...

Holly writes:

"Steve Earle sucks...talk about that a bit... "

meh, I kinda like Steve Earle. I didn't go to his concert Saturday night or anything, but he rocks pretty hard and has an interesting story of abuse and recovery.

Gwenwyfer writes:

"You haven't said anything about crazy Val in quite some time."

This is in fact true. Unfortunately our dear friend kooky Val hasn't really tossed any of her trademark softballs for me to swing at lately. As of late she's been reduced to posting emails and letters that are sometimes several years old in an attempt to look like she's doing something. Today she posted a picture of "sludge". [sarcasm] I'm sure it will cause him many sleepless nights and may cause him post traumatic stress disorder. I hope he sues. [/sarcasm]

Read More...

Summary only...

Seriously, she's coo coo for cocoa puffs...

From Val's kooky website:

June 11: News release CHUM previously purchased Stern's TV show for CITY TV but cancelled it before even airing an episode because they knew it would violate Canadian broadcast standards. Click here for MediaWatch intervention on Stern.

That Link to the MediaWatch intervention letter to the CRTC is from March, 2000. It contains the following paragraph:

When CHUM cancelled Stern's show in Montreal, and decided not to air the TV version of the program, it did so on grounds that: "CHUM is committed to adhering to the industry codes administered by the Broadcast Standards Council. It is clear that the television show will not meet those standards." Having had direct, daily experience of the program, CHUM is in a unique position to be able to comment on the show's ability to live up to the standards. If its conclusion is correct, how is it possible for the program to be airing in Toronto without contravening the standards?

What exactly is the point of bringing this up Val? This isn't even the same Howard Stern TV show. You are just continuing to show your ignorance toward the topic. Also note that even this quote doesn't specifically say that the Stern show DOES violate the Broadcast Standards Act, only that it was CHUM's feeling that it would. That decision was made before the December 1999 decision to renew CILQ-FM's licence. Where the CRTC noted:

4. In response, the licensee stated that it now edits the Howard Stern Show to ensure that it complies with the Broadcasting Act (the Act) and the Canadian Association of Broadcaster's codes. The licensee noted that, in a letter dated 25 February 1999 to MediaWatch, the CBSC stated that the program is "edited to conform to Canadian standards."

But please Val, let's try and stay on point. It's now 2006 not 2000. The radio show is on subscription based satellite radio not over the open airwaves. The TV show is only available via a specialty subscription service, not on a major network. Why not try and frame your arguments as to why that set up isn't acceptable to you?

Read More...

Summary only...

It's not even my birthday...

Yet my dear friend kooky Val gave me a present in the form of one of her nutty "News releases". The title of this one is "Rogers Cable Will Censor Howard Stern TV for Abusive Comment: Why isn't Sirius Canada doing the same thing?". We'll just ignore the fact that it appears in the Radio section of her site even though it's about a TV channel on a cable service. We'll also ignore the fact that she probably meant to use the word "Content" not "Comment".

Let's take a look see at what she has to say:

In their June 6 news release, Rogers used the words uncut and uncensored to describe the material available. However, in their web site FAQ section under the question "is Howard Stern really uncensored?", Rogers states:

...Please note that if a program fails to meet Canadian Broadcast Standards due to abusive comments or undue discrimination or for another legal reason which fails a Canadian Broadcast Standard - Rogers will be forced to remove the affected episode.

Note the use of "...", I use that all the time because I'm a hack who is too lazy to write correctly regardless of how many boring ass composition classes I've taken over the years, but correctly used and in this context it means that she intentionally omitted something. Let's see what that line is from Rogers web site:

The Howard Stern episodes are all available in the original format provided to Rogers. This means nudity, swearing and other mature dialogue and situations will be shown with no overt censorship.

well that would seem to be a pretty important line, I wonder why she left that out. Maybe her next paragraph will shed a little light on her reasoning:

This intention to censor Stern does not appear in the Rogers news release although it is both important to potential subscribers and newsworthy. It is a current acknowledgement from one of Canada's largest communications and broadcast conglomerates that Stern's show features some material that contravenes Canadian broadcast standards.

Oh I see now, she was trying to twist Rogers statement into saying the exact opposite of what it really said. Val is a clever one. Remember kids, if people don't say what you want them to you can always use quotes out of context to make it look like they did. See Val when you use their entire quote it's plainly obvious that their intent is to NOT censor any of the Howard TV episodes. It also is not a "current acknowledgement from one of Canada's largest communications and broadcast conglomerates that Stern's show features some material that contravenes Canadian broadcast standards". It is a statement that they are aware that something COULD happen on the show that COULD contravene the Canadian Broadcast Standards Act, and that IF that happened they WOULD remove that ONE episode. It is also not "newsworthy" to report that a media conglomerate WILL comply with federal law, if newspapers started doing that the business section of the Globe and Mail would be 2000 pages long every day.

On forward we trudge through Val's nonsensical gobbledygook.

"The situation with Rogers and Sirius is exactly the same, Howard Stern programming being offered on a subscription basis," says Toronto anti-violence activist Valerie Smith, "but the companies are taking two very different approaches. Rogers is attempting to conform to Canadian law, while Sirius Canada is ignoring it."

That's right kids, Val Smith went out of her way to get a quote from noted anti-violence expert...uhh...Val Smith. Geez, how did you manage to get a quote from her when she never seems willing to talk to any other media outlet on this issue. You must have some clout lady. Seriously who the fuck quotes themselves? I should start writing blog entries in the 3rd person. It would seem so much more official and noteworthy. I don't even know where to start ripping apart this quote though, she bases an argument on an out of context quote and then tries to compare a cable company to a radio company using her twisted quote. My logic professors would have torn their hair out trying to talk to this woman. Geez Val, if you are so concerned with the content on Sirius maybe you should make a formal complaint. Oh you did? And they're ignoring you? Sucks to be you.

Thanks, Rogers, for highlighting the situation. Let's hope that whatever regulatory and/or political pressure inspired them will also force Sirius to adopt similar measures to Eliminate Stern's trademark misogyny and abusive comments directed at other vulnerable groups.

Thanks? She's thanking Rogers for providing Howard Stern to 10 times as many homes as it is currently available in? And what is this "trademark" misogyny and abusive content you refer to? Why do you never provide an example? Why do I have a feeling that the total amount of time you've listened to Howard Stern in your lifetime is roughly the same as the amount of time I've spent reading Cosmo? What "vulnerable groups" has he attacked? Please provide out of context quotes with dates so that I can slap you around with the complete quotes.

She finishes off her release with quotes from the various Broadcast Acts. She includes the relevant paragraphs from the Pay Television, Specialty Services, Television and Radio acts, showing yet again she doesn't know what category her argument is about. I'll deal with the Pay Television Regulations as clearly that is what Rogers is offering.

3.(2) No licensee shall distribute programming:

(b) that contains any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation that, when taken in context, tends to or is likely to expose an individual or a group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability;

There's some pretty important words in there that people like Val and her ilk like to gloss over. I find it humourous that someone who habitually uses quotes out of context seems to skip over that passage of the Act every time she reads it. Also please note Val, the bit about "hatred or contempt". That's the governments silly little way of making sure the Act doesn't quash satire. If it wasn't in there the Broadcast Standards Council would be inundated with calls from Newfoundland, every time Air Farce did a newfie joke, well only if those inbred newfies could figure out how to get their phones out of the cod they're stuck in. See that, I made a joke where I ridiculed someone based on where they live, and that's protected, as much as you wish it wasn't Val.

Read More...

Summary only...

Post #100

And guess what, kooky Val updated her kooky website just in time for me to write my 100th post on this here blog.

This time she proves that despite claiming to be an adult that she doesn't have the reading comprehension level of the average 12 year old. In response to Roger's Cable announcing today that they will be carrying HowardTV (Howard Stern's On Demand channel), Val writes:

"June 7: Rogers Cable has announced it will carry Howard TV. They're also going to censor it to conform to Canadian broadcasting standards."

Here's the actual quote from Rogers website (I've highlighted the key words to help the reading impaired uber right wing conservative nut jobs):

Q. Is Howard Stern really uncensored?
A.The Howard Stern episodes are all available in the original format provided to Rogers. This means nudity, swearing and other mature dialogue and situations will be shown with no overt censorship. Please note that if a program fails to meet Canadian Broadcast Standards due to abusive comments or undue discrimination or for another legal reason which fails a Canadian Broadcast Standard - Rogers will be forced to remove the affected episode.

So as long as nothing in the episode hits the level of hate speech, they will be completely uncensored. And given that nothing on the show ever hits the level necessary to be legally deemed hate speech, even with Canada's incredibly conservative definition of what is and isn't, I can't see any episode ever getting pulled. But hey, nice try at raining on people's parades Val.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hello...

Welcome to all the new visitors I got when I posted a link to this site on Stern Fan Network today. Sorry there isn't much Howard content here but really, what could I possibly post about Howard that doesn't already have 17 threads devoted to it on SFN. I try to update this blog a couple of times a week, mostly when something strikes me as being interesting or infuriating and I hope you enjoy it. I allow anonymous comments on my blog so please feel free to state your opinion on anything I've written.

Here's your wacky Val Quote for today:

"Gee, this page is proving popular with visitors. They can't all be from the Stern Fan Network, although they do seem to check in somewhat obsessively. I don't get the volume the SFN gets, but I do have a slightly more diverse readership. "

A) I highly doubt that your readership is more diverse than that of a site like SFN that has thousands of registered members from all over the world.

B) You aren't the only one who reads your logs from time to time. I know you read my site Val. Hope you enjoyed it. But why no mention on your page? I'd love to get those 3 extra hits that Jakyll got when you linked to his website.

Read More...

Summary only...

...Sigh...

We present today another installment of "Val has her head up her ass".

This week she posted on her Stern fans are evil page this article which has absolutely nothing to do with Howard Stern, the Stern Fan Network site, Radio, obscenity or anything else she has ever posted about. She also adds the comment that this is "Good news for victims of cyber bullies."

I'm sure she was trying to make some point about how people should leave her alone online lest they feel the wrath of the almighty Canadian legal system, but really she should have read the article if that was the point she was making.

The article tells the tale of the recently settled case of the Star Wars kid.

How do you figure that a case settled out of court after all the evidence that originated on the Internet was ruled inadmissible is good news for cyber bully victims Val? The kid wasn't even alleging that he was bullied online, all the bullying was the good old fashioned taunting in the cafeteria and hallway kind.

I'm beginning to understand why there doesn't seem to be any history out there of Val debating anyone on any topic anywhere at anytime, it clearly isn't her forte. Try to stay on point Val. Argue why you don't think that adults should be allowed to listen to what they choose to in the privacy of their own homes without governmental interference and leave the schoolyard bullying to some principal somewhere.

Read More...

Summary only...

A spike in traffic

Looking at the logs it seems that my little corner of the web became somewhat busy yesterday as a result of an article that ran in the Toronto Sun, by Alan Cairns. Apparently googling any combination of "Val Smith", Stern, Fans, Toronto Police or "crazy self involved harpy" throws my page pretty high on the google results page. Yay, time to dissect a media article and all the crazy quotes within.

"A Toronto anti-violence activist who slammed satellite radio shock jock Howard Stern wants criminal charges laid against Stern "fanatics" she says are harassing her."

Let us look at the voice that the "reporter" is already using in the first sentence of his article. He refers to Val as an "anti-violence activist" instead of the more correct, "free expression hating fascist". He also refers to Howard Stern with the derogatory term "shock jock" when he could have used the more correct "talk radio host". Excellent work in establishing right off the bat which side of the debate you are on sir, I'll bet you graduated right at the top of your J-School class.

"Val Smith wants Toronto Police to charge two local Stern fans amid fears she is in danger from "intimidation" and "threats" that followed her criticism of Stern on her website."

From reading that it sounds like she has a non-stop parade of Stern fans picketing outside her house and work, chasing her in cars, calling her at all hours of the day and night. In reality of course she has received a few emails, which she has posted on her website and none of which have been threatening in any way. Most have seemed to be downright pleasant in comparison to the personal insults that Val has flung on her website.

"Smith said Stern's views on women make her "skin crawl.""

Which specific views on women would that be Val? I've listened to hundreds of hours of Stern and never found him to be gender biased in any way. If anything he is more openly insulting towards men than he is towards women. Of course this is something you would never know Val, as you would never actually listen to the show so that you can have an informed debate on a topic you seem so passionate about.

"In a series of profane and vile chat entries on the American-based Stern Fan Network (SFN), one subscriber who lives north of Toronto encouraged Stern acolytes to not only "fight back" against Smith but also to look up her home phone number."

Profane and vile in whose opinion Mr. Cairns? Did you read the entire 30+ page thread or just one or 2 posts that Val provided to you? Did you even read that much or did you just take her word that was written was both "profane" and "vile". Do you have some particular problem with people "fighting back" against those who wish to usurp their rights?

"One agitated Stern fan from Peterborough, who Smith has since identified on her website, also threatened in an e-mail to post her address, e-mail address, social insurance number and car make and licence number on the SFN."

Odd, you'd think that if that was true Val would have posted that email to try and discredit the person instead of the one that she did post. Excellent work in casting the fan as "agitated" Mr. Cairns as opposed to say, pissed off that someone is trying to tell him what he can and can't choose to listen to in the privacy of his own home.

"In a complaint letter she sent to Toronto 43 Division Det. Peter Moreira late Tuesday, Smith argued that charges should be laid."

Hold on a sec, in Val's original post on this topic on March 5th, 2006 she said that she had already contacted the police in regards to this matter. Was she lying then or is she lying now? Where is the letter? A cursory examination of Val's website should make it abundantly clear that she has a tendency of posting copies of all of her complainants. Why not this time if such a complaint does exist?

"She fears violence not only against herself but also against other unrelated Valerie Smiths who may be targeted. "Is it necessary to wait until some Valerie Smith is attacked by these creeps before that happens?""

If someone was looking to do harm to the actual Val Smith I wouldn't think it would be that hard to find the correct one. She's the one who looks like she hasn't smiled in 20 years and has a giant stick protruding from her ass.

Read More...

Summary only...

I think her head will explode soon

Our dear friend Val has been updating this page almost daily

"For my sin of opposing Howard Stern, XXX XXXXX called me the following on the Stern fan site which is a public forum (and I have these all saved to pdfs): "c**t, out of touch bitch, fucking nut, fucking kook, fucking crazy, fucking loony" and a "mentally impaired bitch"."

XXX is the person who posts on Stern Fan Network as Jakyll, just as a refresher, here is what Val originally had to say about him:

"Jakyll is a computer geek who started his own business last year in a small city about an hour northeast of Toronto. He maintains his own vanity web site on which he posts pictures of himself. He looks more like a herd animal than a Jakyll, but everyone is entitled to their Walter Mitty fantasies."

Geez, I can't figure out why he would have less than favourable things to say about you Val, what with your kind and friendly demeanor towards him and all.

Some recent quotes from her and my take on them:

"Funding: I fund my own lobbying efforts and have for 15 years. I like it that way. It gives me independence. But, by all means, spend time trying to find the "agencies" that fund me. Maybe it'll keep you out of trouble."

Translation: Even the other kook organizations opposed to having a free and open society think that I'm too big of a kook to deal with.

"Howard News has emailed me three times wanting to talk to me about various issues (requests denied)."

Translation: I'm far to much of a coward to actually engage in a debate with anyone. I'll just sit here behind my computer posting on my site that doesn't allow people to respond, and ignoring any email that is sent my way from anyone who doesn't 100% share my opinion.

Now if this isn't enough to convince you that she is a special kinda crazy check this shit out here. She claims to have enlisted the aid of Jack Thompson to send a cease and desist order to the Stern Fan Network website. For those not in the know, Jack is essentially the American version of Val, except that he actually has a law degree and isn't a coward when it comes to being in the media. Getting back to our story however, Mutt, the owner of Stern Fan Network hasn't received any such letter. Gee Val, now you make idle threats and try and use someone with a well known name and huge media profile to back them up? Maybe you should have let Jack in on this little game of yours first so that he could have actually sent a letter. I'm sure he would have been glad to as he seems just as opposed to the First Amendment to the US Constitution as you are to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Why don't you just let it drop Val? You basically already won. Howard Stern isn't available on the open airwaves where any impressionable youths might hear it. It's on a subscription based service that you need to have a credit card to purchase and the last I checked minors don't carry plastic. Let those of us who want to hear Howard, hear him. What exactly are you afraid of?

Read More...

Summary only...

Hypocrisy

hy·poc·ri·sy

n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

Our dear friend Val is such a kook. Here is her latest "News Release", I love how she uses that term like any actual publication is picking it up and running it.

These are my favourite bit's, first she says this:

"A is for act like a man. Don't hide behind a fake name to throw around insults and launch harassment campaigns. Have the courage to use your real name, and take responsibility for your actions. It's what grown ups do."

She then begins to fire off a bunch of info she had to have gotten from the profiles of 2 posters on Stern Fan Network even though the site administrator confirms that no one using her name or her published email address has signed up for an account there. That's quite the impressive set of cajones you got there Ms. Smith.

Next she says:

"C is also for crimes like criminal harassment and defamatory libel which are both illegal under the Criminal Code of Canada. Start harassment campaigns that make a person feel threatened and you could be charged, and once you are, your real name becomes public. Criminal harassment includes repeated emails, threatening or obscene email, live chat harassment called "flaming", leaving improper messages on message boards or in guest books, sending unsolicited email, repeated telephone calls. Defamatory libel is writing something that is designed to insult a person or likely to hurt that person's reputation by exposing her to hatred, contempt or ridicule. "

And follows that up with:

"Jakyll is a computer geek who started his own business last year in a small city about an hour northeast of Toronto. He maintains his own vanity web site on which he posts pictures of himself. He looks more like a herd animal than a Jakyll, but everyone is entitled to their Walter Mitty fantasies."

Ya, that's not too insulting. People in Glass houses Valerie, People in Glass houses...

She has also apparently filed a complaint with the Toronto police because of all the bad things people are saying about her on the Stern Fan Network. WAAAAHHHHHH People don't like me. WAAAAHHHHHHHH, baby want a soother?

Read More...

Summary only...

Random thoughts...

No real theme to this post, just some randomness.

First up, winter sucks, I've felt crappy for weeks and I'm sure that it's due to the fact that from October to March I rarely see the sun. Winter sucks hard for those of us who work nights. It's dark out when I get off work in the morning, it's dark out when I wake up and go to work in the evening. Sometimes I'll go a full week without ever really seeing the sun, summer can't come fast enough.

I found my polar opposite, her name is Val Smith and she runs this site here, www.fradical.com. Just a note Val, if you stumble upon this site while googling your own name, bad shit happened in the world before shock jocks, rap music, violent video games and porn. Ever since one Neanderthal man bashed another over the head with a rock to get some food from him our history has been paved in blood. It didn't start circa 1990. Poor black people in the ghettos didn't get the idea to start shooting at people from rap music. Girls got raped centuries before porn existed. But hey, whatever, if you have nothing better to do with your time than fill our politicians and civil servants mailboxes with 40 page missives about whatever particular bug you have up your ass this week, more power to you, I wish I had the energy. Granted I'd use that energy to make sure "I had too much to drink" isn't a valid excuse for driving like a maniac and killing people, or making sure kiddie rapists never see the outside of a prison ever again, but that's just me. Your thing is trying to take away peoples right to free speech and I applaud your efforts and wish you the best of luck. I'd never tell you that you don't have a right to say the things you do in the way you try and inflict your morals on other people, that's the difference between us and this great country is filled with more people who think like me, then think like you, thank the creator. Ramen!

Next up, somehow I doubt my blog is being read extensively throughout the hotter, sandier, more oppressive parts of the world, but just in case, let me say this. They're just fucking cartoons, you can stop killing one another. No Danes have been killed in all this protesting, just your fellow Muslims. Stop using these cartoons as an excuse to burn down McDonald's and KFC's. For once the American's didn't do it, and for that matter those restaurants aren't even owned by Americans, they're owned by local people, probably Muslims whose lives you are destroying and it is in no way punishing the cartoonists or making you look any less like a bunch of blood thirsty terrorists which is of course the perception that started the whole mess to begin with.

Lastly, I've been kicking around the idea of starting a photoblog. Would anyone actually want to see pictures of random crap I've taken with my outdated digital camera and then compressed even further so they could be presented in a bloglike forum? Or would anyone perhaps be interested in contributing pictures of their own to such a project? Just something that's been rattling around in my head as of late.

Read More...

Summary only...