Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Miscellaneous Blogs -> Fannie's Room

Miscellaneous

: Fannie's Room

To Clear the Air: Is Opine a Modern-Day Scooby-Doo Gang?

By Fannie

It's been brought to my attention that the idiots at anti-gay group blog Opine Idiotorials are accusing me of posting under multiple names at Opine.

Long story short:

I'm not. I haven't posted there since I wrote this article

The Opiners, of course, have no way of proving that I am posting under multiple names. But that doesn't stop them from falsely accusing me of doing so and stating such belief as fact. They are, in fact, so utterly convinced that I am out to deceive them that proof is irrelevant. "On Lawn," in his typical know-everything smug fashion, *just knows* I am being dishonest and has informed of as much. You see, psychic extraordinaire "On Lawn" knows what I am doing better than I know what I am doing.

But most importantly, I wonder this: How are their false accusations relevant to their blog's stated purpose of "defending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity"?

It's not. "On Lawn," knows it's not and has stated that he "doesn't care" if I login as someone other than "Fannie." He, in fact, "doesn't care" so much that he continues to say it over and over again (the part about me supposedly being dishonest). What's that about propaganda and lies? Repeat something enough times and people eventually think it's true. "On Lawn" has certainly nailed that tactic.

It is readily apparent, in fact, after a simple perusal of Opine that "respect" for all human beings is not an Opine family value. "On Lawn" has bragged that the Opiners have left debates "only when kicked out." It is curious that he thinks being "kicked out" of blogs is indicative of respectful dialogue. (Although he chalks being banned up to gay hypersensitivity as opposed to his own assholery.) It is also rather telling that some of Opine's longest posts are dedicated, not to "defending marriage," but to ridiculing Opine opponents and detailing some back-and-forth where he eventually, and undeservedly, declares victory.

"On Lawn," not much for words in his anti-gay posts, nevertheless manages to write novella-length attacks on his opponents. "Op-Ed," also not much for words (nor actual analysis on an issue) nevertheless manages to assemble enough words to chime in with some attack on his opponent, mischaracterization of an argument, or out-of-context quote. (Like here, where he comes out of the woodwork to state as a fact his lie about me posting as "TINO," who in reality is a friend). (Or here, where he accused me of being "Hammerpants" who, in reality, is my girlfriend). (Or here, where "On Lawn" implies that I am "Jane Know," who in reality is a friend). (Or here, when "On Lawn" implies that "Hammerpants" is me). (Or here, where "On Lawn" informs me that I am "TINO." Which, of course, is news to TINO and me. Also on display here is "On Lawn's" most-used dishonest tactic where he states his faulty conclusions as fact).

I wonder if they, even, can keep track of who they believe I am and am not. Or, maybe they don't care so long as they can try to discredit my character.

"Op-Ed," in fact, is the ultimate anonymous internet fuckwad. And I say that giving him all the respect he deserves. (In the Opine sense of the word "respect.") I don't care who the little shit is in real life. My problem with his internet persona is that he offers none of his identity or analysis to any discussion while lurking in the shadows only to chime in to attack someone. For instance, after falsely accusing me of posting under multiple names, he takes it further and accuses me of being a hypocrite for supposedly doing so. When. I. haven't.

Do I care that much about "tricking" the Opine idiots to take time out of my day to create multiple Google accounts and create fictional characters? No. In fact, the Opiners think pretty highly of themselves if they believe they warrant that much.... effort. To be honest. Sounds pretty delusional and narcisstic to me. One would also think they would be happy to attract more people to their *so very logical and respectful* blog. But they're not. They remain paranoid and convinced that their opposition consists of one lone person.

If anything, however, it also sheds yet more light on their worldview. The conclusions that "On Lawn" draws from his perceptions of the world are seriously flawed and pessimistic. Whether it be diagnosing someone he's never met with some sort of personality disorder, psychicly ascribing mal intent to someone, or stating his flawed assumptions as fact. And if he's reading this I hope he ponders this: Life isn't always doom and gloom and evil and people out to hurt and trick you.

For instance, the Opiners find it unfathomable that friends, who live in the same city, would come to another's defense online. And, because their views of reality are so warped and paranoid they chalk up the fact that many people oppose them as being the conspiracy and evil master plan of one person.

Now, dear readers, do you find it hard to believe that not one, but many, people would find something to oppose on Opine? Do you, having good friends of your own, find it odd that friends would come to another's defense in a largely defamatory article?

That the Opiners regularly assume the worst about human nature is sad and pathetic. Which makes their use of these tactics expected, as they have been utterly unable to discredit me on any basis that exists in reality. And, perhaps they have more in-depth experience and knowledge of sock-puppetry as one of their own ("Christian") was recently busted for doing what exactly what they accuse me of.

Oh, and for the last time Opine Idiots: I have not been posting on your idiotic blog and have no interest in doing so.

And don't quit your days jobs in hopes of starting a super-sleuthing agency.

[UPDATE! Ah, for anyone curious as to who the "On Lawn" Opine character is and why he would accuse me of sock puppetry: He may be guilty of the very thing he has falsely accused me of. Projection much?]

Full post as published by Fannie's Room on January 02, 2008 (boomark / email).