The site is not affiliated with me, Dan Kleinman, and will likely be used for harassment, as this blog post intimates, in a manner similar to how ginnymaziarka.com is used to harass Ginny Maziarka. Fortunately, a look at my SafeLibraries blog will reveal I address legitimate issues related to libraries, not social issues.
I hereby politely ask for permission to purchase the domain name.
Hi Dan. So is it you that reads this blog every other day or is it Ginny? I have to ask, what is the latest on "Hackergate"? Glad to see the only action taken by the hacker was to post a bigoted haiku regarding the "Ground Zero" mosque.
GinnyMaziarka.com now appears to go to a post on her own blog. Hardly "harassment", Dan.
Seems as tho you had oh, 20 years to purchase dankleinman.com but chose not to. I don't recognize the name of the person who emailed saying they bought it and I'm assuming it isn't you using an alias in a desperate bid to get back in the West Bend scene and generate sympathy for you and Ginny. I really hope that isn't the case here, but I really can't be sure. I must keep all options open, but if that were the case, I wouldn't at all be surprised if jail time was at the end of this twisted road.
Dan, glad you're here. I've been wondering about your response to Ginny's anti gay history month display at the library (see Ginny, I thought..... post on this site dated October 20th.) If you are able, please explain on behalf of Ginny how suicide hotlines and a Facebook page/group that provides support for LGBT youth are related to pornographic sex acts, as Ginny says.
When you read posts like this by Ginny, do you see how others may come to perceive you to be homophobic, simply by your past connections to Ginny and her blog?
Maria, I am not Ginny. I will hardly get involved in your community unless someone, anyone, raises an issue vis-a-vis some formal request involving the library. Ginny's recent comments do not rise to the level of a formal request involving the library, unless I missed something.
I got involved in the current non-library issue because of the obvious effort underway to harass and otherwise defame me. I got involved in the previous non-library issue because of the obvious effort to defame Ginny Maziarka. There's nothing much worse than defaming someone, so should I be expected to say nothing and allow it to go on unchallenged? Would I be contributing by my inaction?
Guilt by association. That is weak argument. You express it perfectly when you say, "When you read posts like this by Ginny, do you see how others may come to perceive you to be homophobic, simply by your past connections to Ginny and her blog?"
Honest people know I support anyone, including Ginny, bringing certain legitimate complaints against public libraries. Honest people know I support them only to the extent of those legitimate complaints. Honest people know I am not responsible for any statements made by others that fall outside of legitimate complaints. Honest people know I support authors, all authors, whether or not they are or they write about homosexuality.
If Ginny again raises formal complaints about the library, I will decide if they are legitimate, even in part, and I may support those parts that are legitimate. For example, if she calls for Internet filters like those found constitutional in US v. ALA, I will support her. If she calls for filters to remove content about, e.g., squirrels, I will not support that part of her request.
What's not legitimate, in my opinion? Opposing material based on religion, homosexuality, morality, or anything that is not backed by legitimate sources, such as local law, legal opinions, likely community standards, and common sense.
If anyone opposes materials for discussing that the Earth is older than 6,000 years, I will not support him. If anyone opposes books for containing homosexual content, I will not support him. You may not know this, but I advise people not to oppose books on those and similar grounds.
So honest people would not label me as homophobic because I support the legitimate concerns of people.
On the other hand, I fully understand the propaganda value of tying people together with the express purpose of smearing one with the other's supposed or actual crimes or misdemeanors. But people who do this are not being honest, and honest people can see through it rather quickly once the novelty has worn off.
I can assure you, I am not and will not be intimidated in the slightest by propagandistic means to smear me. Actually, it helps me illustrate that those doing the smearing do so because they have no substantive, legitimate argument to make to support why children should retain access to sexually inappropriate material it is perfectly legal to protect them from.
Still not showing though I tried again. This time I'll leave out the hyperlinks. Let's see if that makes a difference.
Also, since you are using Blogger, please check if it/they has/have not been flagged as spam. If it/they is/are and the several copies are there, please mark them as not spam so they publish and are my posts are not caught in spam in the future, then delete the duplicative comments. Please. Thanks you.
Maria, I am not Ginny. I will hardly get involved in your community unless someone, anyone, raises an issue vis-a-vis some formal request involving the library. Ginny's recent comments do not rise to the level of a formal request involving the library, unless I missed something.
I got involved in the current non-library issue because of the obvious effort underway to harass and otherwise defame me. I got involved in the previous non-library issue because of the obvious effort to defame Ginny Maziarka. There's nothing much worse than defaming someone, so should I be expected to say nothing and allow it to go on unchallenged? Would I be contributing by my inaction?
Guilt by association. That is weak argument. You express it perfectly when you say, "When you read posts like this by Ginny, do you see how others may come to perceive you to be homophobic, simply by your past connections to Ginny and her blog?"
Honest people know I support anyone, including Ginny, bringing certain legitimate complaints against public libraries. Honest people know I support them only to the extent of those legitimate complaints. Honest people know I am not responsible for any statements made by others that fall outside of legitimate complaints. Honest people know I support authors, all authors, whether or not they are or they write about homosexuality.
If Ginny again raises formal complaints about the library, I will decide if they are legitimate, even in part, and I may support those parts that are legitimate. For example, if she calls for Internet filters like those found constitutional in US v. ALA, I will support her. If she calls for filters to remove content about, e.g., squirrels, I will not support that part of her request.
What's not legitimate, in my opinion? Opposing material based on religion, homosexuality, morality, or anything that is not backed by legitimate sources, such as local law, legal opinions, likely community standards, and common sense.
If anyone opposes materials for discussing that the Earth is older than 6,000 years, I will not support him. If anyone opposes books for containing homosexual content, I will not support him. You may not know this, but I advise people not to oppose books on those and similar grounds.
So honest people would not label me as homophobic because I support the legitimate concerns of people.
On the other hand, I fully understand the propaganda value of tying people together with the express purpose of smearing one with the other's supposed or actual crimes or misdemeanors. But people who do this are not being honest, and honest people can see through it rather quickly once the novelty has worn off.
I can assure you, I am not and will not be intimidated in the slightest by propagandistic means to smear me. Actually, it helps me illustrate that those doing the smearing do so because they have no substantive, legitimate argument to make to support why children should retain access to sexually inappropriate material it is perfectly legal to protect them from.
Dan, I interpret your comment (part 1 of 3) to mean that you think Ginny's complaint about the YA library materials was a legitimate one. Have you read her original (and only) letter to the library board and her Request for Reconsideration of Library Materials form lately? There is no mention of sexually explicit books, worries about minor library patrons' access to "inappropriate" websites through library internet use, etc. It is all about "homosexual books" and the lack of books about becoming "ex-gay." It calls for the removal of or password protection for the formerly named "Out of the Closet" (now Over the Rainbow) booklist on the West Bend library website. (The information/her original complaint documents can be found at westbend.pbworks.com Timeline under February 2009.
As we all know, over time her complaint morphed into a complaint about sexual content and her list of books included more than 80 titles, including many that have NO sexual content. If you think her complaint had merit, where is the supposed pornographic content in "Heather Has Two Mommies," for example?
Her petition asked the library to "restrict access to library-produced sexual content online" (I believe this refers to the Over the Rainbow list.) How is a list and brief summary of book titles "library-produced sexual content"? How can the synopsis of a book consisting of a few brief sentences be pornographic?
I have come to view you as a reasonable person, even though we vastly disagree on key library issues. I would love to hear how you feel these requests had merit.
Miss West Bend, look in Blogger's comment spam. If I am not mistaken, one from Maria will be there as I got an email with her comment that is not published here. Please consider publishing it.
It has to link to great stuff like you get at ginnymaziarka.com. Maybe a sight that shows big piles of "gay" books smoldering.
ReplyDeleteThe site is not affiliated with me, Dan Kleinman, and will likely be used for harassment, as this blog post intimates, in a manner similar to how ginnymaziarka.com is used to harass Ginny Maziarka. Fortunately, a look at my SafeLibraries blog will reveal I address legitimate issues related to libraries, not social issues.
ReplyDeleteI hereby politely ask for permission to purchase the domain name.
I hope this harassment did not arise out of my efforts to defend Ginny Maziarka from defamation of character by the same harasser who now appears poised to begin harassing me in a similar manner.
Hi Dan. So is it you that reads this blog every other day or is it Ginny? I have to ask, what is the latest on "Hackergate"? Glad to see the only action taken by the hacker was to post a bigoted haiku regarding the "Ground Zero" mosque.
ReplyDeleteGinnyMaziarka.com now appears to go to a post on her own blog. Hardly "harassment", Dan.
Seems as tho you had oh, 20 years to purchase dankleinman.com but chose not to. I don't recognize the name of the person who emailed saying they bought it and I'm assuming it isn't you using an alias in a desperate bid to get back in the West Bend scene and generate sympathy for you and Ginny. I really hope that isn't the case here, but I really can't be sure. I must keep all options open, but if that were the case, I wouldn't at all be surprised if jail time was at the end of this twisted road.
Dan, glad you're here. I've been wondering about your response to Ginny's anti gay history month display at the library (see Ginny, I thought..... post on this site dated October 20th.) If you are able, please explain on behalf of Ginny how suicide hotlines and a Facebook page/group that provides support for LGBT youth are related to pornographic sex acts, as Ginny says.
ReplyDeleteWhen you read posts like this by Ginny, do you see how others may come to perceive you to be homophobic, simply by your past connections to Ginny and her blog?
Maria, I am not Ginny. I will hardly get involved in your community unless someone, anyone, raises an issue vis-a-vis some formal request involving the library. Ginny's recent comments do not rise to the level of a formal request involving the library, unless I missed something.
ReplyDeleteI got involved in the current non-library issue because of the obvious effort underway to harass and otherwise defame me. I got involved in the previous non-library issue because of the obvious effort to defame Ginny Maziarka. There's nothing much worse than defaming someone, so should I be expected to say nothing and allow it to go on unchallenged? Would I be contributing by my inaction?
Guilt by association. That is weak argument. You express it perfectly when you say, "When you read posts like this by Ginny, do you see how others may come to perceive you to be homophobic, simply by your past connections to Ginny and her blog?"
Honest people know I support anyone, including Ginny, bringing certain legitimate complaints against public libraries. Honest people know I support them only to the extent of those legitimate complaints. Honest people know I am not responsible for any statements made by others that fall outside of legitimate complaints. Honest people know I support authors, all authors, whether or not they are or they write about homosexuality.
If Ginny again raises formal complaints about the library, I will decide if they are legitimate, even in part, and I may support those parts that are legitimate. For example, if she calls for Internet filters like those found constitutional in US v. ALA, I will support her. If she calls for filters to remove content about, e.g., squirrels, I will not support that part of her request.
What's not legitimate, in my opinion? Opposing material based on religion, homosexuality, morality, or anything that is not backed by legitimate sources, such as local law, legal opinions, likely community standards, and common sense.
If anyone opposes materials for discussing that the Earth is older than 6,000 years, I will not support him. If anyone opposes books for containing homosexual content, I will not support him. You may not know this, but I advise people not to oppose books on those and similar grounds.
Indeed, sometimes patrons can blame libraries for anything, so much so it can become a joke. In such cases I might even defend the library. I have done so here, for example: "Extensive Therapy For Library Thief; Crestview Public Library Not Responsible For Child's Losing His Mind Over Stolen Adult Material."
So honest people would not label me as homophobic because I support the legitimate concerns of people.
On the other hand, I fully understand the propaganda value of tying people together with the express purpose of smearing one with the other's supposed or actual crimes or misdemeanors. But people who do this are not being honest, and honest people can see through it rather quickly once the novelty has worn off.
I can assure you, I am not and will not be intimidated in the slightest by propagandistic means to smear me. Actually, it helps me illustrate that those doing the smearing do so because they have no substantive, legitimate argument to make to support why children should retain access to sexually inappropriate material it is perfectly legal to protect them from.
My response has been removed. Was that intentional? If not, shall I rewrite it?
ReplyDeleteDon't know why it isn't here anymore. I have a copy in email. Let me know if you'd like me to repost for you.
ReplyDeleteStill not showing though I tried again. This time I'll leave out the hyperlinks. Let's see if that makes a difference.
ReplyDeleteAlso, since you are using Blogger, please check if it/they has/have not been flagged as spam. If it/they is/are and the several copies are there, please mark them as not spam so they publish and are my posts are not caught in spam in the future, then delete the duplicative comments. Please. Thanks you.
COMMENT PART 1 OF 3:
ReplyDeleteMaria, I am not Ginny. I will hardly get involved in your community unless someone, anyone, raises an issue vis-a-vis some formal request involving the library. Ginny's recent comments do not rise to the level of a formal request involving the library, unless I missed something.
I got involved in the current non-library issue because of the obvious effort underway to harass and otherwise defame me. I got involved in the previous non-library issue because of the obvious effort to defame Ginny Maziarka. There's nothing much worse than defaming someone, so should I be expected to say nothing and allow it to go on unchallenged? Would I be contributing by my inaction?
Guilt by association. That is weak argument. You express it perfectly when you say, "When you read posts like this by Ginny, do you see how others may come to perceive you to be homophobic, simply by your past connections to Ginny and her blog?"
Honest people know I support anyone, including Ginny, bringing certain legitimate complaints against public libraries. Honest people know I support them only to the extent of those legitimate complaints. Honest people know I am not responsible for any statements made by others that fall outside of legitimate complaints. Honest people know I support authors, all authors, whether or not they are or they write about homosexuality.
COMMENT PART 2 OF 3:
ReplyDeleteIf Ginny again raises formal complaints about the library, I will decide if they are legitimate, even in part, and I may support those parts that are legitimate. For example, if she calls for Internet filters like those found constitutional in US v. ALA, I will support her. If she calls for filters to remove content about, e.g., squirrels, I will not support that part of her request.
What's not legitimate, in my opinion? Opposing material based on religion, homosexuality, morality, or anything that is not backed by legitimate sources, such as local law, legal opinions, likely community standards, and common sense.
If anyone opposes materials for discussing that the Earth is older than 6,000 years, I will not support him. If anyone opposes books for containing homosexual content, I will not support him. You may not know this, but I advise people not to oppose books on those and similar grounds.
COMMENT PART 3 OF 3:
ReplyDeleteIndeed, sometimes patrons can blame libraries for anything, so much so it can become a joke. In such cases I might even defend the library. I have done so here, for example: "Extensive Therapy For Library Thief; Crestview Public Library Not Responsible For Child's Losing His Mind Over Stolen Adult Material."
So honest people would not label me as homophobic because I support the legitimate concerns of people.
On the other hand, I fully understand the propaganda value of tying people together with the express purpose of smearing one with the other's supposed or actual crimes or misdemeanors. But people who do this are not being honest, and honest people can see through it rather quickly once the novelty has worn off.
I can assure you, I am not and will not be intimidated in the slightest by propagandistic means to smear me. Actually, it helps me illustrate that those doing the smearing do so because they have no substantive, legitimate argument to make to support why children should retain access to sexually inappropriate material it is perfectly legal to protect them from.
I think the URL should redirect to here:
ReplyDeleteSafeLibraries' Abuse of the US v. ALA Decision, where it is pointed out how Danny continually mis-reads his favorite excerpt of the US v. ALA.
Or maybe simply Why SafeLibraries is Not to be Believed.
Oooooh snap! Dan just got schooled.
ReplyDeleteDan, I interpret your comment (part 1 of 3) to mean that you think Ginny's complaint about the YA library materials was a legitimate one. Have you read her original (and only) letter to the library board and her Request for Reconsideration of Library Materials form lately? There is no mention of sexually explicit books, worries about minor library patrons' access to "inappropriate" websites through library internet use, etc. It is all about "homosexual books" and the lack of books about becoming "ex-gay." It calls for the removal of or password protection for the formerly named "Out of the Closet" (now Over the Rainbow) booklist on the West Bend library website. (The information/her original complaint documents can be found at westbend.pbworks.com Timeline under February 2009.
ReplyDeleteAs we all know, over time her complaint morphed into a complaint about sexual content and her list of books included more than 80 titles, including many that have NO sexual content. If you think her complaint had merit, where is the supposed pornographic content in "Heather Has Two Mommies," for example?
Her petition asked the library to "restrict access to library-produced sexual content online" (I believe this refers to the Over the Rainbow list.) How is a list and brief summary of book titles "library-produced sexual content"? How can the synopsis of a book consisting of a few brief sentences be pornographic?
I have come to view you as a reasonable person, even though we vastly disagree on key library issues. I would love to hear how you feel these requests had merit.
Maria - to Ginny the act of *being* gay is pornographic.
ReplyDeleteMiss West Bend, look in Blogger's comment spam. If I am not mistaken, one from Maria will be there as I got an email with her comment that is not published here. Please consider publishing it.
ReplyDelete