I'm counting on you to expose this person, apology or no. That sort of craven, anonymous slander is distasteful and corrosive (in addition to the legal claims it may give rise to).

All I can say - and it's painfully obvious - is that Jack expresses his opinions and offers an active forum for discussion under his full name for all to see.

"Oregon Reality" - whoever he or she may be - chooses to post anonymously.

I got a chuckle out of the blog page's tagline:
"If it's real, it's at Oregon Reality"

I will out him (it is a he) on Tuesday at noon, regardless of what he does or does not do. Between now and then, he will reveal more about what kind of person he is. Many people in the community will be interested.

This is fantastic! This reminds me of the end of that movie, EdTV.

bojack readers should start a thread guessing who it is.

MATT ZAFFINO, reveal yourself!!! ;)

Who the heck calls anyone a "nancy" these days unless you have unresolved, latent "nancy" issues of your own?

It is not Matt Zaffino.

I really like Matt Zafino.

Oh, please let it be Dave Reinhardt!!!!

The easy guess is LL, but I would expect that he would be too smart for that.

I came up with a name, but it didn't ring any local bells for me. E-mailed you privately since I'll let you reveal it when you choose.

As Spock would say: "Fascinating."

I went on the Oregon Reality blog to lodge a complaint about the tenor, tone and content of the series of postings at issue, all of which I personally know to be baseless. I was greeted with "no anonymous postings accepted". Anyone who puts forth a blog with that credo should not have to be exposed. Cowardly, irresponsible, shameful, I could keep going with the adjectives but I don't feel like wasting my keystrokes.

It is not Reinhardt. And please note, this is not intended to be a guessing game. From now 'til Tuesday, don't take my silence about particular names as any indication of anything.

For the internet illiterate here, me, how does one go about finding the owner of a blog? I know how to find the owner of a web site, but not a "blogspot" blog. Thanks in advance.

WTF are we supposed to do till then??!!

Sign ze papers, old man! Ve haff vayz of making you talk!

Don't touch that dial!

Jack: We are looking forward to Tuesday.

I hope the fellow in question shows enough decency to 'fess up before then.

I followed the link here from oregonlive.com. Just out of curiosity, why wait?

I would like to give the guy a chance to admit his mistake and say he's sorry before the reaction sets in. If he doesn't, that's yet another strike on him.

The link on Oregonlive.com says:

"Vicious anonymous right-wing blogger is about to be outed" and takes the curious here.

That's oregonlive's wording. Seems like others agree that someone has stepped over the line.

No, when you submit a post to the Reddit system on Oregonlive, you get to make up the headline. I submitted that post, and I wrote that headline.

I hope it's not me.

Oregonreality is giving anonymity a bad name.

"Anonymity" is the worst thing about the internet, people puffed up with their own self-importance, while scribbling screeds on toilet stalls behind locked doors. "Gutless" is the word that comes to mind.

At a time when jouralism is on the ropes, when the media too often seems cowed into silence and "investigative" and "reporter" no longer are words that naturally flow together, the blogs play a strange but interesting role. A "free press" is well-served, I think, but part of that process is being true to who you are and sharing that...which is, to my thinking, impossible while hiding in the shadows, throwing spitballs.

Go get him, Jack.

Well played, sir. Well played.

It's High Noon all over again. Way to call him/her out Jack.

The thing I dislike about the many blogs out there is that they are forums for hate. Look at all the mean, untruthful,nasty things out there that people post about the political candidates. It's terrible. It's like The National Enquirer, but worse!!!

GOJack, GO! I am dying, just dying to know who it is! And as for people who don't use their real names as commenters, well...sometimes ya just want to be below the radar of friends, neighbors, family, etc.

Jane Doe

This all becomes very interesting when people find out their anonymous posts are not really all that anonymous after all. Frank, I am not sure that anonymity is the worst thing about the Internet. I know there are workplaces for instance that offer the opportunity for potential whistle-blowers to express concerns, while at the same time promising anonymity. Then there are the anonymous posts to authorities from those reporting sex abuse or drug crimes. Will they come to know they may be outed if they report this way? There are all lot of folks like me, who post questions while anonymous, because we are too embarrassed that we didn't already know the answer. Lastly, there are posts that tear apart the character and good name of another person. Should those persons remain anonymous? Good subject for debate I guess, but I agree what the poster wrote about Jack wrong in many ways.

forums for hate

Blogs aren't alone. Have you listened to you radio lately? Does anyone think this flood of venom and phony outrage is a good thing?

Jack,

Oregon Reality is clearly authored by a goon.

But I don't see how your comments regarding Sarah Palin and her pregnancy are any less defamatory, malicious, or untrue.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be an asshat, which is where anonymity becomes a more nefarious shield (because you lose the shame of being an asshat).

Some people just really give Bloggers a bad name.

I detest cowardly trolls.

Hi Jack,
I know for a fact what a loving father you are and what a great connection you have with your girls! You spent the day with us on our houseboat having lunch and then going on a boat ride...I saw no anxious... got to get back to my computor behavior! In fact if you stayed any longer we were thinking of making dinner!

Best,
Kimberlee Jaynes
PS Love to have you and the girls anytime!

I'm going to come down on Jack's side here but with a caveat from my old tavern days: Fools cancel out fools. Sometimes you have to take the insults, even if they cross into actionable abuse, and let it go.
Once there was a dramatic confrontation in a tavern and as one guy left he turned and said, "Tonight you swim with the fishes." I was not involved but for some reason, I said, "Actually that's an old Mafia phrase, and it's really "Tonight you sleep with the fishes."" At this point he punched me in the nose. I let it go partly because I was seeing stars and partly because it's just not worth escalating some situations.

Of course, it's different when they get your family involved. One guy used to yell out, "Your mother thinks you're a phony", which was hurtful because Mom DID think I was a phony. Just kidding. Anyway, one day I took a large pitcher and slammed it down in front of him on the bar making a hell of a bang. Then I said, "Let's go" and began to fight. He backed down and it was always a respectful nod after that.

But you have to remember they use what it takes to get you engaged and that often involves family. Sometimes you're honoring your family more by not getting into bigger trouble.

Tuesday at noon...again. Is that a reference I'm not getting? Is that from an old cowboy movie or a western novel?

Ahh, this Sarah Palin character has really stirred things up, hasn't she? The thing I objected to most about the anti-Palin frenzy was that it made her a more sympathetic character to many. It didn't help and I felt like Karl Rove was holding up a hoop for the bloggers to jump through. And did they ever.

We have to focus on what a loser Sarah Palin really is, and the comedy writers of America are on it, believe me. In the history of comedy nobody has ever done a more brilliant impression than Tina Fey did of Sarah Palin last night. Not when you factor in appearance, voice, and material. I was so proud of her I almost wept. I thought that was positive whereas this confrontation doesn't pass the risk/reward test.

It reminds me too much of my tavern drinking days.

Jack,

I find myself in the uncomfortable, for two reasons, position of having to agree with Bill. The first is obvious - I have to agree with Bill - the second is that I've been stunned by the vicious and persistent nature of your Palin attacks and feel I must say so plainly.

It seems so unlike my previous impression of you. I don't get it, and it saddens me.

That it should have engendered the Oregon Reality sort of thing isn't the least bit surprising to me. I can't say the posts there are without fault, but I can't they're very far over the line you drew with your stuff.

What is surprising is you dignifying it, in a way, by this reaction. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

Bill's tavern analogy is exactly right.

The posts here regarding Palin have not been vicious--they raise serious questions/issues about the VP candidate that should be addressed.

Bill, it's good to see you back. To those who disparage Jack's criticism of Palin, you miss the point: under the best of circumstances her supporters describe, she recklessly endangered the life of the baby she was about to deliver, and that's not good decision-making -- which after eight years of executive idiocy and incompetence, is worth some attention.

A lawyer using the words "untrue and defamatory" and "made maliciously" suggests, at a minimum, there's some entertainment value ahead. Posting the offending material rules out pointless litigation, however, and embarrassing the deranged blogger is the best response anyway. Good for you, Jack.

I thought pursuing the whole "she pretended she was pregnant to shield her daughter" thing was a loser. And that's no matter how it turned out.
That's why God created the National Enquirer.
Incidentally, Conan had a tremendous line: "Sarah Palin says she has enough experience and clearly her daughter has too much experience."

If you know in your heart that something isn't true than why bother challenging it and throwing a spotlight on it? How do you win doing that?

Take the Internet addiction thing. I had a theory about why Jack does this blog and I asked him point blank when he took me to the Knicks game. He readily agreed.
When your professional life involves wading through the tax code you need some other mental activity to keep your brain alive. It's that simple.

One reason I got it was I do the same thing - only stopping when it becomes more of a drag than a payoff. I write around 50 jokes a day and I have to exercise other parts of my head or something bad is going to happen.

Yes, there is an element of the Internet that is addictive but Jack's reason for doing this blog is positive.

Knowing that, I don't see getting upset about someone who doesn't have a clue.

the vicious and persistent nature of your Palin attacks

I have criticized her for her handling of her pregnancy (if indeed it was hers) and asked her to show her tax returns in connection with her per diems. I stand by both points. Neither was vicious, and there are only two points there.

Believe me, if I said everything negative that I could say about Sarah Plain, this blog would have been about nothing else for the last two weeks.

But that's not the point. Whatever I said about Gov. Palin, I said under my own name. If she wants to know who's criticizing her, she doesn't have to play internet detective. In contrast, "Oregon Reality" is a very small man who wants to say vicious and untrue things from behind a wall. On Tuesday, his wall will come down.

I don't see how your comments regarding Sarah Palin and her pregnancy are any less defamatory, malicious, or untrue.

Either she faked the pregnancy (which she denies) or she showed extremely poor judgment flying from Dallas to Anchorage and driving to Wasilla after her water broke. The baby was obviously in distress, or else why did they induce delivery at eight months?

I don't see getting upset about someone who doesn't have a clue.

Actually, I'm not upset. Outing "Oregon Reality" is going to be cathartic. And I want him to get maximum exposure.

Well, see? Vicious or not, your positions on Palin are persistent. We can't have that.

It seems to me that the guys on the right are out to make martyrs out of Palin, because there isn't much else they can do with her. I had Lars Larson trying to get me on his show all this week to talk about her. Guys like "Oregon Reality" keep baiting me into talking about her. Then they get nasty, wanting me to get nasty, so that they can say, "See? She's a victim of wrongdoing."

Dunno, Jack, seems like there's plenty of dirt to go 'round on this one. I'd have to say your comments on Ms. Palin have been far less than objective. Let's debate issues all day, but when you and others go after her personal life and family, that crosses the line.

I'm tempted to add a "reap what you sow" comment but there's no excuse to attack a person's family, no matter what side of the aisle you sit on. On that we do agree.

You have been over the top a few times wrt Sarah Palin, but I don't mind to much because you're helping to make the Republican base stronger! You're not deserving the type of abuse this dude is generating.

BTW, Matt Zefino is not perfect. He once cut in front of me to get some wood cut at the Home Depot and didn't apologize. I get my revenge by not watching him on TV. Afterall, he is just a weather presenter who gets his information from the experts, so why should I watch him.

Jack,

Regardless of if I agree with your political views, I've always enjoyed your site and have had a high level of respect for you.

I have to say though, this new drama you're brewing seems childish and totally uncharacteristic of you.

Why even give this anonymous blogger the time of day? You're pushing way too much attention his way and I fear that in the end, you'll come out looking more like a bully than anything else.

It was all going so well for the Palin Plan until she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was.
That's the opening. That's the key into why she shouldn't be President.
Plus it brings up a discussion that I'm sure the Christian Right doesn't want to have:
"How do we reconcile our faith with attacking someone - not in self defense - but because we think they could be a threat to us sometime in the future."
That's the problem at the heart of the Bush administration and Sarah Palin went right to it.
That's the war crime:
The Doctrine of Preemptive Strikes.
Ask Lars to explain that in Christian terms. He's worried about a War on Christmas. The Bush administration was a War on Christianity.
That's why they proceed right to the fall-back line:
Jesus told us it was okay.
Sarah Palin originally said Iraq was a task from God but then started lying about that during the interview.
Gee, she lies a lot, but I guess it's okay if you're doing God's plan.

I love a good whodunnit.

Is he bigger than a bread box?

"Sarah Palin originally said Iraq was a task from God but then started lying about that during the interview"

This, of course, is a lie in itself as that has not what she said. This sort of thing has catapulted McCain/Palin into the lead, and I applaud everyone who makes these kinds of claims and urge them to keep it up. Obama is now behind in the Electoral College at a point where Kerry was way ahead four years ago. As McCain/Palin get stronger and stronger in the weeks to come, the loonies are just going to get funnier and funnier.

Rev. Wright is in the on-deck circle.

"(if indeed it was hers)"

Is this a simple case of asserting that the VP candidate bears the burden of persuasion and production and whether the standard should be by clear and convincing evidence?

I will assume that The Anonymous One is familiar with both issues, for some other class of candidates. (And would be familiar with how attacking the decision maker, as a tactic, would play out. Unfit for membership, or to judge?) The voter here is the judge.

I liked Sue's Spock point. But I have thought of The One as nerdy in a Spock sort of way; triggered when someone tried to chide him for use of the phrase "monopoly on violence," for which he clearly would never claim to have coined himself. Can someone objectively (as opposed to subjectively) try to compare and contrast our "military" forces from a "paramilitary" force. I suppose it requires Spock-like logic skills to not set off any verbal tripwires. Try doing so without reference to anonymity and unaccountability.

Good for you, Jack. I spent far too many years dealing with that sort of attitude when I was younger, and that sort of petty bulls*** always, and I mean ALWAYS, came from some twerp who thought he was doing God's work by stopping to that level. (In Texas in the early Eighties, this was literally true. I'm always amazed at the Bible-thumpers who think that the little advisory about "thou shalt not bear false witness" either didn't apply to them or was written without the "not" in the original Aramaic.) It won't stop the twit, but watching him cry like a little girl with a skinned knee about how he's being unfairly picked on will be grand entertainment.

There are times when anonymity is ok when there's a good reason for it. Being anonymous to launch personal attacks on people just seems gutless.

There were no anonymous signers of the Declaration of Independence.

John Fairplay,
Here's the transcript:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side. That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie.
(Later in the Interview)
GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?
PALIN: I don’t know if the task is from God, Charlie.

John, It sounds like she's talking one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco to use her line.

She's clearly abandoning her religious beliefs for political expediency.
Much as our current President, it's a task from God unless it isn't.

I'm sure you've got some convoluted explanation for all this, but spare me. And I'm sure she isn't lying about the Bridge to Nowhere or anything else in your opinion.

Then there's the stuff where I think she's lying. If she said she didn't blink when offered the VP job, that's really troubling. Oh, I know. God told her she was on a task like the task he sent us on to Iraq.

The strategy here is to keep Sarah Palin under wraps as much as possible so the American Public won't see how unprepared she is. Next up: An interview on FOX. Ooooo. That should be hard-hitting.

This thread is not about Sarah Palin. It's about me and "Oregon Reality."

Lets see, he's a he, probably repub. or extremist indie, he's attempting to silence your views suggesting your time spent blogging is at the expense of family time or employment responsibilities, he has no courage (anonymity) - I like the idea of outing him, it will give him the notoriety he deserves.
My guess is a PDC member, a City Council staffer, or Gordon Smith.(lack of spine - anonymity)

I think I discovered the mystery man's identity.

All I did was Google the name of his blogspot blog to find his preferred internet pseudonym (and other interesting anonymous messages), and that nae led me to his other blog, where he is not anonymous.

If it is who I think it is, Professor Bogdanski is right that he is someone a lot of people in the area will recognize, and Tuesday will be an interesting day for local small-town politics.

Shhhhh! Sounds like you've got him. Don't spoil it -- let's watch what he does.

Actually, I wonder if "Oregon Reality" is going to come out ahead in all of this. It looks like he/she was just talking to crickets before... now, each blog post may gather more than one or two comments.

Does trash like that deserve to be dignified with a response and the resulting publicity? Or increased site traffic? I guess we'll find out tuesday if it's worth it...

That being said, his/her comments were beyond the pale and it's hard not to respond.

It's a he.

He has posted all over the internet as "Oregon Reality," and under another internet name. It is not just his blog that will be tied to him come Tuesday.

Who knows? Maybe he'll be portrayed as a hero of the right wing. But he won't be anonymous any more.

The easy guess is LL, but I would expect that he would be too smart for that.

Seriously? I would never expect him to do anything anonymously. With all the stuff he actually says on the radio, there would never be any reason to be anonymous online.

Besides, there's no limelight. And I really doubt he has the time to maintain a blog anyway.

As someone who is of "the right wing," I could tell you straight out that the type of behavior that "Oregon Reality" exhibited with regards to you is not someone who I believe the right wing would portray as a hero, or a martyr. I should hope not, at least, as I found it reprehensible.

While I did disagree with everything you wrote about Governor Palin, I found myself cringing at the highly inappropriate, nasty nature of the posts attacking you. My $0.02.

Okay, I googled "oregon reality" and I figured out who it is.

It's that drunk little person, Matt Roloff, right?

I kid. I kid.

Huh. I think I've figured out who it is, too, and if so, he's pulled the blog that identifies him by name.

Shoot. I only thought the abusive horse breeders, trainers and handlers that got outed on Fugly Horse of the Day pulled that trick!

Me thinks I smell something "fishy"

It's Barbara Sue Seal. Oh, wait. That's "Realty".

Are you afraid to spar with Lars Larsen.

Thought so ......

@ Nancy:

Oh, please let it be Dave Reinhardt!!!!

Unlikely. He exhibits more writing skill than The Reinman.

Although the painful sensation i get from it is the same as the one I get when Reinman thinks he's David Sarasohn and tries humor.

Ouch.

Although I did stick up for him once. Someone did tell me that Reinman wasn't fit to lick Sarasohn's shoes. I defended him; I said he sure was.

Darn!...we have to wait till Tuesday?
Don't feed the trolls folks, just be patient.
You go get 'em Jack.

Actually, no. Heavy levels of censorship are deployed here on a regular basis.

True, Cynthia. So true.

Good grief. If he/she doesn't like what you write, why does he/she read it? They don't HAVE to come here. Humanity baffles me.

Thank you, Jack, for allowing me to post a comment again. Although I've been kicked out for a while, I have read your blog every day. It really is about as good as you can get in Portland. And I think it represents a pretty balanced outlook all the way around. I do think there is some arbitrary censorship, but it is your blog after all. So I never complained. I realize this has nothing to do with this topic... but maybe it has everything to do with it. Thanks anyway. But I have to ask, whatever happened to the mantra I grew up with: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?"

Well...words have been hurting us all.

Lies...from our leaders.

"...But I have to ask, whatever happened to the mantra I grew up with: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?"

We all grew up and learned that words can be a lot more damaging than sticks and stones.

This was not just someone calling Mr. B names, this was a personal and professional attack on his reputation. I don't know how you were raised, but I was taught that you fight back when someone tries to harm you or your loved ones. Maybe that is just the mid western conservative values that I was raised with, who knows?

Go get him, Mr. B. We are all awaiting the "Smackdown in Fishtown!"

Ah! I have him also, thanks to following the method outlined by anonymom 16 or 18 posts above. Very interesting!

Are you afraid to spar with Lars Larsen.

No. I have been on Lars's show several times. Lately I have been too busy with paying work to do so, however. Maybe the week of the 22nd.

It's interesting, though, that while we on the left are being crucified for raising questions about Sarah Palin's fitness to serve, right-wing talk show hosts are calling us up to ask our opinions on the same subject. As I say, it's baiting so that they can hold her out as a martyr -- there is nothing else good to say about her.

Palin was not pregnant. That is the only point.

She lied.

I'll make sure i have Lars Larsen dialed in on week of the 22nd. I feel a good debate coming up. People like yourself and Palin make good topic material. You'll go head to head with your equal...Good Luck

Yeah, don't bother dialing up Lars. Just listen to the podcast. Lars doesn't need anymore listeners.

I told Lars, Thanks but no thanks for his opinion. Then I accepted his pledge of $398 million to build a new bridge to Gresham in hopes of finding Republican voters in Multnomah County.

As an anonymous blogger, I say thanks Jack.

You're in a position, with knowledge, capacity, some affluence, a supportive family, and the ability to go without sleep, which provides important insight into our body politic. As A J Liebling said, "Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one." As print journalism withdraws, individuals and groups with capacity will move in, providing the service with skill. This friction is just an old paradigm vacating for the new.

For the record, since I've been asked, it's not me.
I may be a woman, but if I issue a throw-down, I'm man enough to do it under my own name.
Jack, we may part company on some of the Sarah Palin stuff, but you can still come over to my house for dinner and we can have another dignified chat with a little single malt. You can use the Hooters glass. Promise.

Pardon me for foregoing the internet detective route, but I've been trying to guess, and a thought came to me last night: It's election season, and we haven't heard anything from Lon Mabon in a long time. Did he go to prison?

A lawyer using the words "untrue and defamatory" and "made maliciously" suggests, at a minimum, there's some entertainment value ahead.

Yep. I noticed that right away as well. Those aren't words that a lawyer would use casually.

Good for you, Jack, for going after this guy. I know a lot of people believe in turning the other cheek, but that doesn't usually solve the problem.

If you allow bullies to get away with their taunts and lies and attacks, you are sending them the message that it's okay to be a bully. You stood up to this guy, and I'm cheering. I'm glad Obama has responded to attacks on him; it was frustrating as hell when Kerry didn't do battle with the swift boaters four years ago.

If the guy doesn't apologize, could you sue him? I know you requested an apology, but did you request a retraction?

Go get him!

I confess. I did it while prophesying.

What is a moonbat?

"Moonbat" from the dictionary at www.littlegreenfootballs.com:

moonbat - An unthinking or insane leftist — in other words, most modern leftists. Moonbat can also be used as an adjective, e.g. a moonbat professor. According to the Wikipedia entry for moonbat, the word was coined in 2002 by the Editor of Samizdata, Perry de Havilland, and was a variation on the name of radical British activist and columnist George Monbiot. Originally, the term “moonbat” was intended to be more politically neutral, and described wackos on the left and the right, but it quickly acquired its current usage of being applied almost exclusively to those on the left. The term also references the moon much in the same way that “lunatic” refers to the insanity-causing powers of the full moon (luna = moon). LGFers occasionally analyze the behavior patterns of various moonbat “species” as if they were actual animals, and even give them satirical Linnaean taxonomical names, such as moonbattus berkeleyensis. According to Charles: “Moonbat was originally coined by Perry at Samizdata, I believe. But LGF probably played a much bigger part in popularizing it.” The entry in the Samizdata glossary indicates that Perry originally coined the full phrase “barking moonbat”; apparently “moonbat” is just a subsequent shortened version of “barking moonbat,” rather than being a pre-existing term that was lengthened to barking moonbat. The term “moonbat” was first used by Charles on Little Green Footballs June 14, 2002.

If you allow bullies to get away with their taunts and lies and attacks, you are sending them the message that it's okay to be a bully.

Sure, let's just do away with that whole First amendment thing.

cinders

Who is denying this turd the freedom of speech? Doesn't Jack have the same rights?

Funny, if I've got it right on who he is, there is just one hook that I could find between his two online personas. Not careful enough!

Since, my friend, you have revealed your deepest fears

I sentence you to be exposed before your peers

TEAR DOWN THE WALL!!!!

That should've been all italics. I had the chance. I blew it.

let's just do away with that whole First amendment thing.

1. Some of what "Oregon Reality" said about me was false and malicious. The First Amendment has limits.

2. Whatever your First Amendment rights may be, you have no legal right to anonymity. If that's what you want, you need to protect your identity, and "Oregon Reality" didn't do so carefully enough.

You can express your sympathies to him tomorrow afternoon. He'll be easy to find.

I am closing comments on this thread. There will be room for comments on my Sep. 16 post about "Oregon Reality."