What a d-bag. Seriously.

Wow, a politician being untruthful. What are the odds?

I've agreed with quite a few of Canfield's posts on various blogs, but I have to say... someone in his position posting anonymously is pretty chickenshit. I won't pay any attention to him any more.

Wow. I'm gobstopped.

He once linked to me. At one time he was someone I thought I could at least talk to even if I didn't agree with his politics. The link to my blog disappeared as the sidebar became filled with links to dreadful people like Michelle Malkin and LGF.

Sad. Very sad.

Councilor Canfield should be ashamed. Not because he disagrees with anyone, but because he used an anonyblog to let his inner Bad Self run free and said the nastiest possible things he could.

I read his blog posting ... well, made myself read it. So, okay, anonymous commentary is good and legal and all that. But that's not the point and never was. So, like the last refuge of the scoundrel, the letter of the law is hidden behind.

This says something about character. It's what you are when you don't think anyone knows its you.

For those interested, here is the contact page for the Troutdale city council:

http://www.ci.troutdale.or.us/mayor-council/contact.htm

In case you live there and want to express your objection to a slanderer holding a public office.

I look forward to seeing what the good people of Troutdale, whom he represents and works for, think of his horrible, anonymous hate-filled writings. I guess we'll all find out next time he's up for re-election. Nice job, Jack.

I agree with him about anonymous political speech, sure there is a place for it -- but he crossed the line into anonymous *personal attacks* long ago. He has no case. I feel bad for the people of Troutdale. And Bill, you made me LOL -- again.

I guess we'll all find out next time he's up for re-election.

As I understand it, he's not running for re-election -- someone else is taking his seat.

Re: Wobboh's speech in his own defense.

Defending anonymous speech as a way for the little guy to speak truth to power has merit, unless the person using that defense is really just hiding behind a pseudonym so he can avoid responsibility for excessively malicious and untruthful personal attacks.

Wobboh is the latter.

What a tool...seriously. Kind of looks like Dennis The Menace all grown up.

Where does this cherub-cheeked little lardo get off calling you nancy boy?

Sorry this happened to you Jack; you seem like a good guy.

@ MachineSaidFred:

You forgot to follow your comment up with "FIRST!"

Way to go, Troutdale. NOT.

What is the name of the guy who contributes daily to LIARS programming ... Canfield? Something like that. If it's not him, don't say the correct name.

'wob' is a regular LIARS caller-in, though.

Some of Canfield's bluer prose, copied from his blog:

Obama's Audacity of Socialism

Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of 'social change.'

*********

Ah yes, that old "socialism" label coming from a GOP office holder.

Socialize benefits: Evil "socialism"
Socialize risk but privatize benefits: sound fiscal policy

You're kidding. THE Robert Canfield. Boy, when you pick a fight Jack, you really start at the top.

I assume the "false and defamatory statement about [your] competence as an attorney" you are complaining about was his statement, "What else would you expect from a lawyer like Bogdansi, who couldn't cut it as a lawyer in the real world, and now hides out as a law professor at the left wing sandbox otherwise known as Lewis& Clark College?"

Admittedly a cheap shot, but if you think that is actionable defamation, you may just be proving him right.

Canfield's protests over your "outing" him ring very hollow.

I can think of several legitimate reasons to blog anonymously: whistle-blowing within one's profession or industry, taking on groups which have advocated or resorted to violence against their opposition, etc.

An elected public official, however, cloaking his or her political statements under a veil of anonymity deprives the electorate of information to which they are entitled, and desperately need in order to make informed voting decisions.

Even so, in the instant case, no "outing" was threatened or taken until the "free speech" at issue crossed the line between political opinion and personal slurs.

To spin this whole sorry episode otherwise requires an rpm level which is on beyond dizzying.

you may just be proving him right.

Sad that you would come to his defense, Jack Roberts. But I am not going to discuss the merits of my claim against Mr. Canfield here.

Wasn't being a councilman in Troutdale anonymous enough?

I gotta say that the anticipation was better than the reveal. I hope that tonight's season finale of Wipeout is better.

When you have to resort to quoting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in your spirited defense, you obviously have no defense.

So, Canfield thinks you’re a Left-Wing-Anti-Family-Uber-Liberal? And here I thought you were an independent thinker with moderate leanings and a desire for responsible and accountable government. My mistake, obviously.
I read Canfield’s screed on anonymous speech; the guy is in serious need of various forms of help. Reading through the fellow’s comments, I started to hear the crunch of goose-stepping jack-boots. Hang in there, Jack!

The personal slur seems to be part and parcel of Portland area politics. Hope those who remain in the news media will catch on soon. They have a history of joining in and kicking those who are being attacked, which may be why people like Canfield think they can get away with it easily.

This probably did wonders for his hit count.

Canfield has many chimers-in. It's been a truly revealing experience for me. Suffice it to say that my honeymoon with Oregon's creepy right wing is over.

This probably did wonders for his hit count.

In two weeks or less, the hits will be gone.

Oh, what has spawned in the backwaters of the Republican Party! Palin and now "wob". Will it ever be safe to go out again?

This whole "outing" fiasco seems childish and unbecoming of a law professor. Not that Canfield is any better, but you're stooping to his level. (Posted anonymously)

If you can't see the difference between what he did and what I did, I can't help you, friend.

BTW, "Joe," I can see that you posted from a URL belonging to, shall we say, "a diverse engineering, construction, technology, fabrication, environmental and industrial services organization with 27,000 employees in strategic locations around the world." And so, you see, you didn't "post anonymously." There is no such thing.

Canfield used to be a regular commenter on this blog, was he not? I seem to remember feeling compelled to reply to his insane comments. Maybe he was bitter he got banned for being a general d-bag?

Jealousy is a mistress scorned. Anonymity - the tool of the spineless. Exposure - the light of day. Bravo.
Just remember:
"There is no revenge so complete as forgiveness." Josh Billings
But:
"Nothing inspires forgiveness quite like revenge." Scott Adams
Finally:
"Justice is the perpetual will to allot to every man his due." Domitus Ulpian
You've given this anonymous wimp exposure, unfortunately courage is not a gift, but must be found within.

Canfield used to be a regular commenter on this blog, was he not?

He has commented here many times -- part of why it was so easy to find him.

One of my tactical complaints about the Dem Party's style of electioneering is that they rarely go after the lies/misrepresentations/untruths spread by the opponents. Probably some thought that addressing it only dignifies it. Republicans strategists have it right: the only proper response is to attack. Gore and Kerry both made this mistake; Obama is starting to make it as well.

Glad to see that Jack has understood that lesson. I can't wait to see where this ends up.

Jack, I didn't agree with all your decisions about the Palin posts, but you know what? You made them under your own name, and you stand by them, and that makes it entirely different from scurrilous things said by anonymous attackers. You are 100 percent right that there is no comparison between saying something for which you are willing to take responsibility and saying something for which you are not. I do understand the importance of anonymous speech in dealing with oppressive and powerful forces, but I fail to see what that has to do with claiming that a law professor whose writing you disagree with is defrauding his employer.

I didn't/don't understand the vituperative tone of the Palin posts.

I don't get the anonymous thing,
or the way too personal stuff,
or the "outing".

Are we there yet?

Are we there yet?

We are; but you apparently got left behind.

Great Snap of Robert, reminds me of 1930's "Brown Shirt" era.
Well it does!

Bullies always take the position of the wronged when they're called out, but good Christ, what a pathetic attempt at defense and bluster over at Canfield's blog.

Sad little man, in the sad-little-man mold of John Edwards and Larry Craig -- only able to admit his wrongdoing when cornered, while offering up excuses why it wasn't wrong.

Sad, sad little man.

We are; but you apparently got left behind.

That, from the sound of things around here lately, is not necessarily a bad thing.

But thanks, Allan; so sweet of you to notice.

Wasn't being a councilman in Troutdale anonymous enough?

I don't care who ya are - that there's funny!

Wow. I'm gobstopped.

Gobsmacked...

...apparently

Did he ever post on this blog as 'Oregon Reality'?

Way to go, Jack!

There may be a handful of legitimate situations calling for anonymity on the Web. But so much ass-hattery pours forth from anonymous comments in blogs and online articles. People need to be called out and shamed when they cross certain lines -- especially if they are public servants who should know better.

Eric

"... my honeymoon with Oregon's creepy right wing is over."

Praise all blessings flow.

In backing away from tolerance of totalitarianism, Please do NOT stop half-way in the 'neutral zone' of apathy, turning a blind eye, a deaf ear, and ignoring the psycho-sicko broadcast pandemic, saving yourself only.
Please, Jack, do NOT "just change the channel if you dislike what you hear being broadcast," to quote the sentence the fascists assert as the punishment they are willing to accept from law-abiding decent folks.

Do NOT simply 'get over it.'

The fascist damage is poison, mental health disease. We do NOT ignore disease spreading in our community and mean ourselves to stay away.

We confront it and we fight it. We eradicate disease.

Canfield is mentally unbalanced and unstable, not fit for public employment with his powercrazed condition. And broadcast fascism is what poisons him, in emulating them.

Palin is NOT free to lie that she was pregnant. May NOT falsely claim 'success' for her crude selfish credo when it fails her; whereas consensus comity is the success of all of us.

We confront it and we fight it. We eradicate disease.

Spoken like a true fascist.

Canfield is mentally unbalanced and unstable...

Spoken like a true expert.

I have to admit, I haven't followed every nuance of this story. What's the verdict? Was the "outing" righteous?

We haven't witnessed this kind of suspense since "Taoiseach" was outed as a staffer to Mitch Greenlick, both of whom were working a one/two cyber assault against Steve Novick.

As the author of a pseudonymous blog, I have say it was the height of douchebagery though when Blue0's chief cook and salad spinner (Kari "full disclosure" Chisholm) posted links on my site to my actual bio on a university site. It seems my sin was to have penned some critical comments about his clients.

Careful with the tenor there Tensk or Canfield might out you.

If you can't see the difference between what he did and what I did, I can't help you, friend.

BTW, "Joe," I can see that you posted from a URL belonging to, shall we say, "a diverse engineering, construction, technology, fabrication, environmental and industrial services organization with 27,000 employees in strategic locations around the world." And so, you see, you didn't "post anonymously." There is no such thing.

Posted by Jack Bog | September 16, 2008 12:49 PM

======

Jack,

You are behaving like a doofus. You embarrass yourself much more than anybody else does.

Are you really losing your mind? Seriously, see a doctor, one who specializes in mental cases.

Oh come on, already. As much as I enjoy this blog (and I read it often) it's really gone off the deep end the last couple of weeks.

And this by Tensky - "Canfield is mentally unbalanced and unstable, not fit for public employment with his powercrazed condition. Palin is NOT free to lie that she was pregnant." - is WAY MORE slanderous and libelous than anything Canfield wrote.

There are a few commentators here who regularly slander others, and the pitch has become increasingly shrill and vile over the last month.

"Doofus"? "Nancy boy"?

The dialogue of Jack haters is getting just too highbrow for me!

Canfield used to be a regular commenter on this blog, was he not?

He has commented here many times -- part of why it was so easy to find him.

Posted by Jack Bog
====

I do say good job on busting this public servants.

But glad that you can smoke out the bad guys. Like that Torrid Joe (Mark Bunster), who still to this day, blogs and comments from his Fire Dept computer massively during work hours on the public payroll.

Here is really what you do, Jack, what your efforts obtain for all of us -- The Peeps, not just your peeps.

... Keeps Lying, and Lying, and ..., by Eugene Robinson, © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

Maybe Palin cynically believes she can keep using the "no thanks" line and manage to stay one step ahead of the truth police. Maybe she calculates that audiences would rather believe her than their lying eyes. Or maybe she really believes her own fantasy-based version of events. Maybe the Legend of Sarah Palin has become, on some level, more real to her than actual history.

The McCain campaign would like us to see a straight-talking, gun-toting, moose-eviscerating, lipstick-wearing frontierswoman. Instead, we're beginning to discern an ambitious, opportunistic politician who makes no bones about rewarding friends and punishing those who stand in her way - and who believes that truth is nothing more, and nothing less, than what she says it is.

And that (Palin lying) is the model lifestyled by the maligning mouths in broadcast, hiding not in pseudonym but still as unaccountable, in bunker isolation, behind a one-way microphone. And weak-minded Canfield-types is the victim, of 'commonwealth' uncaring, of the 'greed is good' model.

Every time one of us outs a failed instance -- a shameful "cheap shot, but" not lawfully "actionable defamation," said in mincing terms -- of the 'Big Lie fascism' being broadcast over all of us, then the celebrity-figure in the cult media, (or malperforming in public office), losing each disciple dittohead, shrinks smaller, and smaller, swirling down the drain.

Thanks, Jack. Big up.

"There are a few commentators here who regularly slander others, and the pitch has become increasingly shrill and vile over the last month."

=====

If you can't stand the heat, get outta the kitchen.

It is Jack's sandbox, let him and his playmates have their fun. Even if it does smell rather ripe ... maybe time for a diaper change, eh Jack?

If you don't like this blog, don't read it. Same with the comments. If you don't like them, don't read them. It's really not that difficult.

Mr. Canfield preaches a good sermon but the content of his posts demonstrate that he doesn't follow his own gospel.

There's a difference between simply stating a position, indulging in civilized discourse, debate and the acknowledgment of difference of opinion vs resorting to personal slams rife with ad hominem attacks and defamatory and libelous statements, often provoking the same or worse in others reading or listening to this material. To launch such an attack anonymously is even worse.

Slanderous statements (while still serious and actionable) are ephemeral; they are defined as oral and made in immediate speech or personal situations. Libel is defined as an untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media (which includes internet blogs), that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. The latter has the potential of reaching a very large audience and there is therefore a greater potential for damage.

Mr. Canfield's freedom of speech and privacy arguments do not protect him in this case.

The inability of many bloggers, politicians and even members of local businesses and organizations to discuss the various aspects of a situation without resorting to personal attacks upon those with whom they disagree is one of the most disappointing aspects of modern discourse. The topic (and its merits or lack thereof) is what should be under discussion, not those discussing it.

Wob looks like the poo found in a sandbox.

"If you don't like this blog, don't read it. Same with the comments. If you don't like them, don't read them. It's really not that difficult."

Agreed. The same could be said for Oregon Reality.

The topic (and its merits or lack thereof) is what should be under discussion, not those discussing it.

So, are you saying we should be discussing how old Jack is, why he decided to become a father this late in his long life, if his job as a Professor at Lewis & Clark University will not allow him to both raise his children and perform his Professor job, and also perform his duties ranting and railing against many peoples in his blog?

I feel quite free to call O-R a nutcase p***y for his anonymous stuff, since it is quite easy to find me.

Marge, I'm not talking about banter, conversation or good-natured nudges. I'm speaking about vicious personal attacks that do nothing but injure others and do not advance the discussion. Someone can disagree with my opinion and even call me an old loon. They wouldn't hurt my feelings. But if they insinuated things that not only weren't true but which could harm me professionally I wouldn't like it any better than Jack does.

Well, I wasn’t going to add to a discussion that doesn’t need any additional opinions, but I am a little uncertain over the degree of importance being placed on the nature of this or any BLOG. Am I correct in assuming that bringing a suit of libel or slander requires proof of damages? What real damages are there in an open forum where any one can say anything unchecked? I refer to this blog many times daily because real issues that may not appear elsewhere, or may be presented in a different light, are available. And the discussion is interesting, too - but limited to a pretty small number of the same folks. So I wonder, isn’t this and any blog really just a sort of verbal clique? Which is fine! I’m here and I guess I’m part of it. And I agree that the comments made toward Jack and his profession, family, etc., by “Oregon Reality” anonymously are wimpy and mean… but damaging? Good on Jack for exposing Canfield - all’s fair, after all. But not this or any blog qualifies for any elevated status above what they are. Sometimes enlightening, often entertaining, certainly sometimes aggravating forums relatively new in the world of communication, but certainly not to be taken too seriously. Most fools do a good enough job of indicting themselves - I refer to Canfield here. I seriously doubt any degree of Jack’s professional status is in any way harmed by any one’s comments. Being called names in grade school or high school by some other clique only affected me if I let it. And yes, that’s what I teach my kids. And no, it isn’t easy to let it go sometimes.

Probably should have kept my mouth shut. Or my fingers away from the keyboard, I guess.

"The same could be said for Oregon Reality."

I totally agree with this. Of course, when someone is saying something defamatory about you specifically, then it's acceptable to fight back.

By the way, "Oregon Reality" has all of four (4) comments... Whoopee!

I meant to say Canfield's cover in "troutdale.blogspot.com" has only four comments.

Another good dust up on the Bogjak’s Sandbox Show!

A couple days of laughs, outrage, mystery and a madcap asshat!

Our latest episode features a Headwear Wearing Rectum confused about where to squat! In one litter box he spews his rants without standing behind them (also called graffiti, littering, and malicious mischief) and in it he defecates on another’s Name, Family, and Job. When he is exposed (with his pants down) he then whines in another of his own litter boxes (named after his political position, but this does not represent his position?) about being caught, then has the audacity to not only pretend he is like a citizen protesting his government, but that a politician can hide when he is criticizing another group of politicians. This of course has nothing to do with his latest stool! But he thinks he gets points because he didn’t out an anonymous blogger that messed in his!?!

This is a very frustrated little boy who doesn’t know were to potty and still needs help wiping.

Politicians don’t get to anonymously take potshots at citizens.
People have a right to have there own sandbox on the intertubes apart from their job, as an individual.
Naming your sandbox “Septic Tank Sally (but does not represent Sally the Plumber)” shows that you don’t get it and probably never will. (My apologies to Plumbers and Sally’s everywhere)

What madcap adventure will next week bring? Stay ‘tooned

@ Joe Smith:

You are behaving like a doofus. You embarrass yourself much more than anybody else does.

Are you really losing your mind? Seriously, see a doctor, one who specializes in mental cases.

Why don't you let us decide how we feel about the way The Bogman acts.

We can handle it. Trust me.

What's with this "sandbox" bs about **** College? That gutless toad Canfield has a lot of 'splainin to do for his slam against an awful lot of students, including us grad students who sweated bullets putting ourselves through grad school at night.

Hey Canfield, you readin' this? Go Canfield yourself!

"... commentators here who regularly slander others, ... Tensky - ... - is WAY MORE slanderous and libelous ...."

I say calling someone a LIAR who in fact LIES, is not slander and not libel.

And NOT calling them on it, is aiding and abetting, is harboring a malefactor. When the LIAR comes in public media or in public office representation.

I think Jack shows awareness of that distinction in outing public employment frauds but not private jerks.

Being (or having) a jerk as a friend, lying, is a private matter ... and so are blogs and the internet in general: private. In it, repute is self-organizing, and is not a public provenance.

The internet / massmedia distinction is why websites can show dismaying porn that public broadcast can't. Just as conversely, public office-holder pregnancy (or abortion) does no credit (or discredit) repute for the constituent public. But there, LIES do.

An internet transaction (of information) is a private phone call, whether a 2-party or a conference call. Emptor (self set-forth eavesdropper) beware.

Jack,

I don't understand the jihad against Sarah Palin or Robert Canfield. You're smarter and better informed than either of them, but you diminish your reputaion by attacking them.

In the case of Canfield, you take a small town bully and give him a larger audience and a louder voice.

In the case of Palin (where legitimate questions about her experience and readiness abound), you attacked her in a manner that only leads moderates (women in particular) to question why male candidates aren't scrutinized in similar ways.

It would be like George Bush waging an online protest against Cynthia McKinney for President: it only elevates her visibility and opens Bush to charges of racism.

Sticks, stones, etc.

...Kinda looks like Milton from Office Space...

Anna: Banning people from the site who disagree with him - which is of course his right; it's his blog - wasn't enough.

I haven't ever witnessed Jack banning someone solely because he disagrees with viewpoints posted. But acting like a troll, posting ad hominum attacks, being generally a jerk, or otherwise violating Jack's terms - yep, you get banned.

Maybe disagreeing and being in the latter group is just coincidence?

Jack,

I think you did the right thing since this guy practically dared you, no...... double dog dared you, to do it. And I'm sure he sweated it out more than one evening wondering if his political life would sustain the hit. (and hopefully the blogosphere remembers when he runs for a house seat) So good on you. However, I also think Jack Roberts has a good point - the legal case is thin, very thin.

I've enjoyed this blog for quite a while even though most content is about Portland/Multnomah bs which most Eugenians can't stand.

But my bigger question is - do you know where I am posting frrom? (and google searches are not allowed)

James
(currently in Morocco) You name the city.

OrgName: African Network Information Center
OrgID: AFRINIC
Address: 03B3 - 3rd Floor - Ebene Cyber Tower
Address: Cyber City
Address: Ebene
Address: Mauritius
City: Ebene
StateProv:
PostalCode: 0001
Country: MU

Morocco Trade And Development Services

I can't come up with a city in Morocco. But you were here at 1:23 p.m. PDT and again at 6:39 p.m. PDT. You are using an Apple computer and browsing on Safari.

"You are using an Apple computer and browsing on Safari."

And your socks don't match.

Now can't we all just get along?

Sign ze papers, old man! Ve haff vayz of making your IP address talk!

Zey are killing ze girl tonight...

Libel per se - does not require proof of economic damages, the Jury is instructed to award damages based upon the harm to reputation. Proof of damages is not the sticking point, whether Jack is a "public figure" presents the highest hurdle. If he is, then he must prove "actual malice" on the part of the defamer. That's a tough nut to crack.

"I cannot sign the papers"

"Why can you not sign the papers, old man!"

"Because you have broken both of my hands ..." (sob) ...

Good times, yes, indeed, good time here at More Science High ...

Does Canfield look like a younger Karl Rove (but with a bit more hair) to anyone else but me?

This whole 'thing' evolved in the antagonistic and insipid Failin Palin debacle.

Look, McClone, give it up. She's worthless, if not dangerous. What Jack said, to begin with -- she's outta here. Catch and release, throw her back, and fish around for something plausible.

Some similar comic relief: Cheney Misled GOP Leaders, New Book Says, The Washington Post, September 16, 2008

... the inside story about how Cheney managed the process that led to his selection as vice president. Gellman reveals that Cheney did not fill out his own questionnaire for potential running mates; that ostensible top contenders for the ticket were not actually interviewed by Cheney or Bush; that the heart surgeon who vouched for Cheney's health never met him or reviewed his medical records; and that longtime counselor Dan Bartlett warned Bush "we're getting our asses kicked in the media" because the campaign knew so little about Cheney's record.

The whole GOP ditzies beyond Keystone Kop klutzery. It is a disgrace of America. Absolutely no accord.

Well Jack, we don't agree about everything. Namely public funding for stadiums, but that's cool. I understand your point. Thanks for calling this idiot out! Huge ups to you my man!

@ genop:

Libel per se - does not require proof of economic damages, the Jury is instructed to award damages based upon the harm to reputation

In that case, the good Councilor better file papers against himself poste haste.

And someone get that gun out of his hands before he shoots himself in the other foot.

I love Mr. Canfield educating all of us d-u-m bloggers on the fact that the internet is not anonymous. All commenters are now suddenly semi-anonymous. So, if he knew the internet was not anonymous, why not just be a jerk-off with his name attached?

Oh how getting caught suddenly adds to one's piousness.

I have to agree with him however -- to the trolls out there, unveil yourselves! Let your true d**bag nature be free!!

This has all been strangely very satisfying.

Rabat, Morocco, population 2 million.

Congrats HMLA267 - Rabat it is. I have no freakin idea why my IP address would show up as Mauritius which is not even remotely close to here. I'm going to ask my provider.

Jack, keep it up. This and the "stupid filter" have been some of the most interesting stuff I've read in a while.

James
Rabat, Morocco

I have no freakin idea why my IP address would show up as Mauritius which is not even remotely close to here. I'm going to ask my provider.

The domain may be registered to a company there? No idea. In contrast, here's how you look on a tracking system known as Clicky, which at least narrows it down to the country:

And to think that a person like this has made it into the public realm, working in a city position. Tsk. Tsk. I was awaiting this big 'reveal' with bated breath when I ended up in the hospital for a couple of days with emergency surgery. But my first full day back in the 'real world' and I just had to stop by and find out who it was! What a classless boob.