Saturday, May 4, 2013

Former Canadian Mountie on blog rampage in defense of wacky wife; bloggers threaten to send derogatory messages to The Rare Reporter's Facebook friends



HOUSTON -- Just when I think it can't get any stranger in the Blogosphere, it of course does do exactly that.

In my ongoing coverage of several blogs and bloggers during the last year, I have encountered some of the most peculiar people in the virtual world imaginable. Not the least of which is a Houston woman named Yappy who immigrated to the U.S. from Canada with her husband for him to work at an oil company. We will call him Mr. Yappy because that is how he referred to himself in his latest letter addressed to me.

Mr. Yappy reportedly is a former Canadian Mountie, and he likes to boast about his former military experience and his physical size. The letter posted on a blog that came to my attention this morning is at least the second communication I've had from him. This one didn't mention how big and strong he was, possibly because I previously pointed out to him that it sounded like he was threatening me.

The bottom line is that Mr. Yappy thinks I am out-of-line for defending myself against his wife's vicious attacks on my character that she posts on JoeyIsALittleKid.blogspot.com, which I've written about quite a bit. Yesterday, I updated a story about a lawsuit involving the blog's author, and it set off another round of verbal shots from the blog's virtual clubhouse. Mr. Yappy's letter subsequently was posted on the same blog.

During the past year or so Mrs. Yappy has accused me of driving my "longtime lover" to commit suicide after she apparently learned that I had found a close friend of mine of more than 40 years dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, of defending child molesters because of what I wrote about the trial of a blogger who was convicted of child sexual assault, of possibly being a child molester myself, of being an alcoholic, of being a "pathetic lonely old man" and just about every other insult you can imagine.

During our first encounter, her anti-gay rants such as "fruitcake" against me caused the blog hosting company Wordpress to shut down the blog. Later the blog author relaunched on Google, and they've apparently managed to train Yappy not to use anti-gay slurs. But they still enjoy making sly references about my sexual orientation.

I freely admit to losing my cool several times, and that I indeed did tell her off. She thinks I'm sick? I think she's sicker. So there you have it.

This is the most recent letter Mr. Yappy directed to me after Mrs. Yappy called me a "sicko," and I blasted back.:

"Mr. Webb, how awful your life must be. You must be so full of rage and anger to repeatedly attack people like Yappy in order to make yourself feel better. Must hurt so bad to look in the mirror and not see who you want everyone else to see when they look at you.

Reading the continuous garbage you post reminds me of a sadistic sociopath who goes out in a rage and attacks decent people in hopes that when they have reached their limit, they will strike back. Then you blame them for attacking you.

You are the complete opposite of Yappy (--I agree and thank God--), and I should know because I have lived with her for over 20 years. She is a beautiful person inside and out and has a heart of gold. She will not sit quietly and let the likes of you hurt and abuse her or other people. That's only one attribute that makes her beautiful.

You call her abusive yet your verbal attacks wreak of abuse. Go away and live your pathetic life, look for others to bash and abuse. Find another punching bag because your attacks on Yappy must end, yet you have no spine and morals so expecting you to change is hopeless.

Yappy doesn't need to be defended, she can handle herself quite well, but take it for what it's worth, this husband and ex-military MAN will always have her back.

-Mr. Yappy"

As though that wasn't enough to wake up to, another blog poster had named about two dozen of my Facebook friends and urged everyone to send them derogatory messages about me saying that I enjoy attacking victims of child sexual abuse. I'm not sure exactly what to make of that tactic, but if anyone receives one of those messages I would sure like to see it. If anyone wants to defriend me in advance, I understand. I already deleted one of the people on the list because I know he can't handle it. These are not nice people by any stretch of the imagination, which is quickly obvious from what they write on the blog.

In the meantime, here is a little music show to go along with this read:









2 comments:

  1. In a nutshell, we know the following about Yappy:

    She claims to "own her shit", but if she is confronted with facts that prove her wrong, she will NOT own up to it...ever.

    She likes to present herself as a tiny person, while frequently announcing that her "husband" is huge. Why she thinks anyone cares about the size of their bodies, is a mystery. This is the Internet where one is judged more by the size of his brain. Neither of the Yappys will fare well in that contest.

    Yappy does not hold back when it comes to spewing venom. She has no problem going beyond the bounds of decency.

    Yappy goes for the jugular with her enemies. She seems to think she can attack others with impunity, because she is a rape victim. That "silly" theory evidences her skewed view of the world and her place in it.

    As a final line of defense, Yappy will attempt to deflect anything an opponent says about her, by diagnosing her opponent with a mental disorder. Her diagnosis will come from Wikipedia, lol.

    Inventing a post from Mr. Yappy is an act of total desperation. It is the equivalent of a little kid, knowing he's lost a fight, running home to tell his mother. The problem is that on the Internet, input from an unknown third party is meaningless. Further, it is the clear action of someone that does not, can not, own her shit.

    If anyone dares to argue with me about this post, I will have Mr. Susan, a 6'8" former Navy Seal, martial arts expert, private contractor for the CIA, Mensa member, best selling book author, whose sun rises and sets on me, speak on my behalf here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just so you didn't miss it Susan. I thought you should know Attorney gave you the explanation you asked for.

    "AttorneyMay 28, 2013 at 9:13 PM

    Hello again, Anonymous.

    Attorney before I take the time to support my comment on the jurisdictional issue, may I ask what prompted you to reply to my post with the Chief Justice remark?

    As I thought I made clear, it was the oddly haughty posture of your "Missouri has no interest in" declaration. Your legal analysis was stated as a Decree from On High—while meanwhile finessing the central question at issue, one that I had specifically emphasized in my earlier comment. Your confident pose rang rather hollow.

    You acknowledge that you are not an expert on personal jurisdiction....

    Indeed not; are you? Have you conducted research into the specific application of the International Shoe standards to an internet defamation (and intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.) suit? Seriously?

    Further, it is my understanding that your practice does not involve civil litigation.

    You are mistaken. My practice involves almost nothing but civil litigation. However, I don't practice in Missouri, Georgia, or Texas. Nor have I needed to analyze personal jurisdiction in several years. And I prefer not to make confident assertions that exceed the legal subjects (e.g., jurisdictions, areas of law) I am thoroughly conversant in. Again, how about you?

    You mentioned that I disagreed with your analysis. I don't recall doing that.

    Okay. I took you to be implying otherwise—especially given that you entered a thread to which I had contributed a (typically) caveat-laden submission and proceeded to blast blanket statements about (for example) what the state of Missouri uncomplicatedly "has no interest in," directly contravening my presentation of a few central legal questions that (to date, on this blog) remain open. That smelled a wee bit hostile.

    My comment only addressed the likelihood of a Missouri court compelling responses to those subpoenas.

    ...On stated grounds that seem to me notably vague and question-begging—though I doubt too many people who are unfamiliar with civil procedure would notice the manner in which you avoided the fundamental legal issues in question.

    You say my comment was poor form. How so?

    I believe I've explained that at length, both in previous comments and now in this one.

    I don't recall seeing any citations in your posts here.

    Again, you're mistaken. I have in fact posted a handful of citations in my contributions to this blog.

    More commonly, however, I make a practice of stating general principles applicable to a particular question and then noting the areas that remain unclear, frequently because of my lack of familiarity with a particular local provision (I've lost count of the number of times I've made it clear in comments on this blog that I'm not familiar with the peculiarities of Missouri law and procedure) or area of the law (one high-traffic subject lately has been collections, as first Maid of the Mist and now an AUSA in Georgia attempt to extract money from Bill Windsor to settle the debts he's incurred; as I've mentioned repeatedly, I know very little about the law and procedure governing collections).

    In my professional experience, it is decidedly poor form for an attorney to represent or imply that (s)he has knowledge or understanding regarding a legal issue when in fact (s)he (1) has little experience in that particular area of the law and (2) has not spent time conducting conscientious research into it. Pretending to legal knowledge one does not actually possess is decidedly poor professional practice—if it does not indeed flatly violate the ethical standards of the legal profession."

    ReplyDelete