So Simpson tweeted to Susan a link to his article about the First Freedom column. It doesn't necessarily follow that she saw it. My understanding is that she purposely doesn't read his crap (or any other hate crap from floggers). Except occasionally, when her friends think she might like a good laugh, and send her a link. Her ignoring him is probably one of the reasons Simpson can't stand her.
Well, Simpson, I'm glad you haven't tarnished my blog with a visit, but it's understandable that I would think so, since the chatter parroted things you've said almost word for word. If it wasn't you, fine. I don't really care.
Lamprey, I don't think you are an assortment of characters. I think you have an assortment of online identities and profiles.
|I'm looking for racist minkeys.|
First, I note that she offers a definition of public domain, but doesn't attribute it. It's found at Wikipedia but she doesn't say that, so using Simpson's standard, she's a plagiarist. (I guess plagiarism is okay with him when HIS side does it).
She says, "It doesn’t appear that Hathaways (sic) work fits that description."
Dictionary.com defines public domain this way: "the status of a literary work or an invention whose copyright or patent has expired or that never had such protection." (Emphasis added. --cw)
I suspect Childress thought the last phrase of the definition applied -- that the article never had copyright protection, and was thus in the public domain. But only he knows for sure, meaning all of Jacques' sleuthing doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
She notes that the VaFlaggers' blog displays a copyright notice, so presumably she thinks Childress should have known he needed permission to reprint it. See, this is what happens when people learn a few things on the Internet, but remain ignorant of others. The Sticks and Stones essay was posted numerous places -- on Facebook, where it was shared a bunch of times, and on other blogs that may or may not display a copyright notice. Unless he's asked and says so, there's no way of knowing where he got it.
"What does Chastain mean by “verifying it?” Verifying that the paper didn’t have her permission to publish? That’s established, so I doubt they’d waste the time."
You're not a journalist, are you, Inspector? The media standard for establishing and/or verifying something is NOT the private blog of a retired insurance secretary. They have to verify it themselves.
Jacques says, "Again, what is slanderous about pointing out that her work was reprinted in that paper? That’s a fact."
But Simpson didn't just point out that her work appeared in the tabloid. If he had, it would have gone something like this: "An article written by Susan Hathaway of the Virginia Flaggers appears in the January 2015 issue of The First Freedom, a right-wing tabloid newspaper that includes racist content."
That is a factual statement; it's 28 words long. What Simpson posted is 519 words focusing almost exclusively on the racist content and interpreting it for his sycophants who he perhaps thinks aren't savvy enough to understand what he's trying soooo hard to get across...
As for anger and/or concern, the impression I've developed of Susan since I've been acquainted with her is that she cares about the opinions of those who care about her, and she doesn't give a fig about the opinions of people who denigrate, attack, smear, lie about, harass, persecute and hate her and who disparage her cause.
Simpson's slander is implied, Jacques, and couched in plausible deniability, as I explained. That's his stock in trade, and I have pointed it out numerous times.
He and his floggerette peanut gallery are not "watching, noting, and even reporting on" what the VaFlaggers are doing. He is continuing his campaign of denigration, smears and attacks on Susan and the Flaggers, which he has been doing the past three+ years. Do you REALLY think the 242+ VaFlagger posts (or mentions or comments) at XRoads are just "watching, noting and reporting on?" No, they are evidence of animosity that is, at once, deep and petty (complaining about the color of Susan's clothes, for example).
Don't believe it? Then you're part of the problem.
The primary reason for mentioning Simpson's hiding the identity of his informant was simply to show his gargantuan hypocrisy. Unbelievable that I'm having to explain that....
"The most revealing thing though is that Chastain feels that you pointing out that Hathaways work was reprinted in the Newsletter is damaging to the group. She recognizes that it is a negative."
Depends on where you think the negativity lies. There is an extreme probability that most people whose opinions matter do not read the tabloid, do not know it exists, and never even heard of it. The reason I think Simpson's pointing it out could be damaging is because that's exactly what he wants, intends and is trying to bring about.
Anybody who thinks Simpson's writings about the VaFlaggers is "just factual" is either lying or hasn't been paying attention. Want an example?
Remember when Simpson implied Grayson had cut trees on the right of way beside the Interstate adjacent to the Chester battle flag site? Sed he:
"Seems there was a lot of police activity by the flag site on January 2 as five police vehicles checked on the results of more tree-cutting … this time reportedly across the property line that divides the trailer park from the interstate. You’re not supposed to do that, Grayson … and one Richmond station carried the news last night. Given that the Virginia Flaggers openly boasted about their plans to cut down those trees, I imagine this might get interesting."
See, this is typical Simpson slimy-slick manipulation of the language accompanied by plausible deniability and implication. He doesn't come out and say Grayson cut the trees. But his followers, with their drooling eagerness to believe any negative about the VaFlaggers, probably went away from that blog post believing Grayson had cut the trees. (The claim that the VaFlaggers "openly boasted about their plans cutting trees on the right of way" is, of course, unaccompanied by verification, links, source, etc.)
BTW, did Simpson post the outcome of the right-of-way tree cutting? I've seen no post at XRoads about it, so presumably not. Was it because (a) it didn't turn out the way he wanted or (b) he doesn't know how it turned out? He does that a lot, posts grand pronouncements like they're fact, often wrong because they are based on partial knowledge. Knowing the whole story can paint a very different picture.
(Incidently, I do know how the tree-cutting incident turned out, and have known since it was resolved. In any case, this is proof positive that Simpson's interest in, and writing about, the VaFlaggers is not "just factual.")
Clouseau also says, "This is a great point. She (Susan) chose to have a selfie made with a White Nationalist."
I seriously begin to doubt this woman's ability to read. It wasn't Susan's selfie. A guy named Shane Long, who was an attendee at the event, took a selfie with her.
Sarah shows her true leftist colors here. Typically, leftists dehumanize people who believe things they disapprove of (most especially about race, gender or "sexual orientation"), and totally define such people by what they disapprove of, as she has done here. Based on some of Long's Facebook comments, you could just as easily say Susan posed for a snapshot with a Ravens fan. (And her a Steelers woman!)
Jacques would have to ask to make certain, but presumably, some nationalists attend heritage events because they support Confederate heritage.
"Could it be that “Heritage” is just White Nationalism light?"
If, by heritage, you mean the VaFlaggers, the answer is no. I know this disappoints you, Inspector. Sorry. Careful, don't trip over that umbrella stand.
What's slanderous about Simpson's First Freedom post is his implications, and if he transmits his implications to the media, he will be sending them slanderous material. It's established that the paper didn't have permission to publish Susan's essay? It wasn't when Simpson posted about it. He was striving to make it appear she had written it FOR that publication. That's what the reference to "careful documentation" is supposed to get across.
I think it's safe to say that Susan doesn't care what people like floggers and floggerettes think. She has no desire to explain herself to people who hate her. She cares about what her people think, and I'd wager that if any of them express concerns, she'll address them -- to those people. Otherwise, she focuses on what truly interests her (and keeps her super busy).
Me, now, I'm different. I inherited a lot of pure cussedness from my Appalachian ancestors, and I don't mind tangling with floggers and other assorted haters, because they reveal a lot about themselves that way.
I also don't mind in the least "revealing" why I'm on a first-name basis with Mr. Childress, but I believe the revelation will be a disappointment to Simpson, who seems to live to find (or fabricate) dirt to sling. (Pathetic, huh.)
Ready? Here ya go:
Sometime in 2001, I attended a meeting to discuss the feasibility of a Southern Heritage Festival along the upper Gulf Coast, perhaps Pensacola or Ft. Walton Beach. I met Mr. Childress at that meeting.
On January 13, 2002, I attended an event at the University of West Florida at which Morris Dees was the speaker. Mr. Childress also attended, and I saw him and talked with him there. He was thrown out of the refreshments segment of the event by campus police, who manhandled him two to one, pushing him backwards out the heavy glass doors onto the sidewalk. I was talking with someone near the exit when it happened, and we witnessed it. I later wrote a report about it for my e-zine, 180 Degrees True South.
I also exchanged a handful of emails with him mostly about the possible festival and the Dees appearance.
I believe the last time I saw him (though I don't remember us conversing) was at a rally for the Ten Commandments in Montgomery on December 17, 2002.
|Screenshot of first email to Olaf Childress|
Back to the present. Because it's been that long, I initially sent an email that reminded him who I am, in case he didn't remember me. He did not respond to that one. I sent a second email. I received a reply a little over 24 hours later.
I don't know why he didn't answer the first one, or whether he even saw it. Perhaps he didn't need a reminder of who I am, since I have several open and public web venues (blogs, websites, Facebook, Twitter, and various author/book sites) and Olaf is evidently quite a web surfer since the web, presumably, is the source of a lot of his tabloid's content.
So Simpson attempts to impute grave significance to the "first name basis" of the emails, but he does so based on incomplete information -- and, once again, falls flat on his face when the whole story is revealed.
Image of Peter Sellers in the public domain. Image processing on all photos by C. Ward.