Wickedpedian thugs fine-tune attacks on Yecke
One Wickedpedian thug appropriately named "Odd nature" wrote on the discussion page of the Wickedpedia bio of Cheri Yecke,
Well, we can't suggest that maybe the record could use some clarification, now can we? And how could ReputationDefender possibly "change the record" to reflect Cheri Yecke's views?
Another Wickedpedian thug inserted the following in the section titled "Allegations of Nepotism":
.
No one claimed -- or could claim -- that "his qualifications . . . significantly distinguish him from the rest of the qualified candidate pool available in Florida." He is not a rocket scientist. His Florida state position is just one of general administration and requires no specialized knowledge. According to a news report, his background is undistinguished --
Anyway, how did the hiring of Dennis Yecke for his positions in Florida and Minnesota suggest "nepotism"? What authority or influence might Cheri Yecke have had in selecting him for those positions?
Anyway, I am digressing. It is not my purpose here to just defend Cheri Yecke -- my purpose here is to stop Wickedpedia censorship. Truth is a defense against charges of libel but is not a defense against charges of arbitrary censorship. And Wikipedia is run by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit outfit and Cheri Yecke is a candidate in a public election and the IRS says that her Wikipedia bio must therefore be presented as a "public forum" that is "conducted in a non-partisan manner."
.
The article is looking better. My only concern is that in the recent change to "hired the Internet accuracy-watchdog service ReputationDefender to help clarify the record" implies that the record was indeed inaccurate, something that has subsequently been shown not to be the case. I think "hired the Internet accuracy-watchdog service ReputationDefender to change the record to reflect her views" or simply "hired the Internet accuracy-watchdog service ReputationDefender" are more accurate. Odd nature 21:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, we can't suggest that maybe the record could use some clarification, now can we? And how could ReputationDefender possibly "change the record" to reflect Cheri Yecke's views?
Another Wickedpedian thug inserted the following in the section titled "Allegations of Nepotism":
.
. . . Yecke's husband was hired as the deputy secretary of professional regulations by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation amid allegations that his qualifications do not significantly distinguish him from the rest of the qualified candidate pool available in Florida.
No one claimed -- or could claim -- that "his qualifications . . . significantly distinguish him from the rest of the qualified candidate pool available in Florida." He is not a rocket scientist. His Florida state position is just one of general administration and requires no specialized knowledge. According to a news report, his background is undistinguished --
While she [Cheri Yecke] was education commissioner in Minnesota, her husband was appointed to an $84,000-a-year position as a deputy commissioner with the state's economic development agency.
Dennis Yecke held a number of executive positions with the U.S. Marine Corps. He has a bachelor's degree in business administration from University of Wisconsin-River Falls, according to his resume.
In addition to his two-year stint in Minnesota, he was also a budget analyst for the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget for 10 years.
Anyway, how did the hiring of Dennis Yecke for his positions in Florida and Minnesota suggest "nepotism"? What authority or influence might Cheri Yecke have had in selecting him for those positions?
Anyway, I am digressing. It is not my purpose here to just defend Cheri Yecke -- my purpose here is to stop Wickedpedia censorship. Truth is a defense against charges of libel but is not a defense against charges of arbitrary censorship. And Wikipedia is run by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit outfit and Cheri Yecke is a candidate in a public election and the IRS says that her Wikipedia bio must therefore be presented as a "public forum" that is "conducted in a non-partisan manner."
.
Labels: Cartoons (new #1), Cheri Yecke #2, Internet censorship (new #2), Limericks and other poetry, Wikipedia
posted by Larry Fafarman | 7/17/2007 07:13:00 AM
13 Comments:
> Well, we can't suggest that maybe the record could use some clarification, now can we? <
You could have had you not been banned for mindless ranting.
> And how could ReputationDefender possibly "change the record" to reflect Cheri Yecke's views? <
They could engage in an edit war, for example.
> Another Wickedpedian thug inserted the following in the section titled "Allegations of Nepotism": <
You belive that adding a true statment makes someone a "thug"?
> Anyway, how did the hiring of Dennis Yecke for his positions in Florida and Minnesota suggest "nepotism"? <
Find a dictionary somewhere (I know that you have never seen one) and look up "nepotism".
> What authority or influence might Cheri Yecke have had in selecting him for those positions? <
Sheeesh! He's for real, folks. He actually doesn't see it.
I am the "thug" responsible for the latest addition to the nepotism section in addition to being the original contributor of the whole controversy section. I am glad that my latest addition was deemed worthy of mention in your blog. The more attention this gets, the better, especially in Florida. The more people that know of Ms. Yecke's unethical and documented behavior, the less likely she will be elected as education commissioner and spread this intelligent design blight on an already struggling education system. I'm counting on your support!
Anonymous --
I thought that this was just a non-notable, disreputable, crappy blog, so how much help could I give you?
As I pointed out, Wickedpedia is run by an IRS 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable organization. The IRS says,
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. . . . . Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including the presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity.
When rebuttals of the charges against Yecke are not allowed, her bio is not a "public forum" that is being "conducted in a nonpartisan manner." How much longer you can continue to get away with this I leave to your imagination. "King Jimbo" himself is participating in the editing of Yecke's bio, so he is aware of the violation. Yecke says it is difficult to help now because she is very ill and that is one reason why Wikipedia has been able to get away with this so far -- though I am wondering why she hasn't contacted an attorney or others who could help her.
> I thought that this was just a non-notable, disreputable, crappy blog, so how much help could I give you? <
Good grief! Is there anything that doesn't go over your head?
> When rebuttals of the charges against Yecke are not allowed <
It seems that they are in general. Your mindless "wet hen" rantings are not.
At the "Wiki," they've a 501(c),
But say, "We're campaigning, free!
We'll defeat that Yecke
With political heck: she
Has defied our partisan decree."
LOL. Good one, Jim.
There once was a website named "Wiki,"
whose pages were really quite shitty.
"We'll get away with this,
on the rules we will piss,"
they said of tax status as charity.
I wonder what is your purpose for taking this cause? Did Yecke promise you something in return for your support? Money? Cushy government job? Are we looking at Larry Fafarman, Florida's newest director of sanitation and waste management any time soon? We all know that ideology is the least significant motivation for what you right wingers do. How much of a kick back are you getting for your efforts? I'd bet the IRS would like to know too...
Anonymous said...
>>>>>>I wonder what is your purpose for taking this cause? Did Yecke promise you something in return for your support? <<<<<<<<
You obviously have not been reading this blog for very long -- otherwise you would know that I have a vendetta against Wickedpedia. To get some idea, just click on the "Internet censorship" post labels in the sidebars of the home and archive pages.
>>>>> How much of a kick back are you getting for your efforts? I'd bet the IRS would like to know too <<<<<
Please squeal to the IRS -- they are going to find out about Wickedpedia's shenanigans at the same time.
Okay, you have me there. I'll admit I didn't read much of your blog, but after a painful review of your past articles, I still stand by my opinion that you are a right wing nutcase. I mean, it just pure coincidence that all your censorship rants over this issue happen to be about how unfair the conservative points of view on intelligent design and evolution are treated. You and I both know where and how you really stand on this issue.
>
Please squeal to the IRS -- they are going to find out about Wickedpedia's shenanigans at the same time.<
You seem to bring this point up several times over your last couple of posts. Why don't you go ahead make the report to the IRS yourself and give us the aftermath of where the IRS laughs at you and threatens you with a fine for wasting government resources?
>>>>> I mean, it just pure coincidence that all your censorship rants over this issue happen to be about how unfair the conservative points of view on intelligent design and evolution are treated. <<<<<<
I wouldn't call those points of view conservative -- I would call them different. Anyway, I have not focused on the issue of the differing points of view on intelligent design and evolution. What I have focused on are the following issues:
(1) Wikipedia's refusal to list "Of Pandas and People," the book that Judge Jones ruled could not even be mentioned in Dover classrooms, in the Wikipedia list of banned books -- Wikipedia went so far as to completely rewrite the banned book article just to avoid listing Pandas.
(2) Discriminatory breaking of the Wikipedia rule against using personal blogs as sources -- on the bio of Cheri Yecke, Wikipedia is allowing references to some personal blogs but not mine. The arbitrary excuse given is that my blog is "crappy" while the other blogs are "reputable" and "very notable."
(3) By not allowing rebuttals to attack ads on the bio of a candidate in a public election, Cheri Yecke, Wikipedia is violating the IRS rule against partisan political campaigning by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable organization.
>>>>>> Why don't you go ahead make the report to the IRS yourself and give us the aftermath of where the IRS laughs at you and threatens you with a fine for wasting government resources? <<<<<<<
You stupid fathead, the IRS does not threaten people with fines for tax fraud reports that turn out to be false -- the IRS does not want to discourage people from filing tax fraud reports. In fact, these reports can even be filed anonymously. The instructions for IRS Form 3949 A for reporting suspected tax fraud says,
Enter your name, street address, city, state, zip code and telephone number where you can be contacted . . . . This Information is not Required to Process Your Report. (emphasis in original)
In fact, the IRS says that "you may . . .be entitled to a reward" for reporting tax fraud.
Anyway, my case against Wikipedia is airtight, and no one has even attempted to show otherwise.
ViW wheezes,
>>>>> Find a dictionary somewhere (I know that you have never seen one) and look up "nepotism". <<<<<<
You are the one who needs to find a dictionary somewhere, dunghill, to look up the word "applicability" -- as in the "applicability" of the word "nepotism" to the present situation.
>>>>>> What authority or influence might Cheri Yecke have had in selecting him for those positions? <
Sheeesh! He's for real, folks. He actually doesn't see it. <<<<<<
You are for real, dunghill -- a real bag of hot air who disagrees but can't say why.
I can see why you don't mind making stupid comments here -- the reason is that you are posting anonymously. But you should think about how your stupid comments reflect on your fellow Darwinists.
> (1) Wikipedia's refusal to list "Of Pandas and People," the book that Judge Jones ruled could not even be mentioned in Dover classrooms, in the Wikipedia list of banned books <
Because it was not banned. They also refuse to list "polar bear" among kinds of spiders.
> (2) Discriminatory breaking of the Wikipedia rule against using personal blogs as sources -- on the bio of Cheri Yecke, Wikipedia is allowing references to some personal blogs but not mine. <
Sometimes discrimination is good. Why should they use a crappy blog for a reference when they can use reputable ones?
> (3) By not allowing rebuttals to attack ads on the bio of a candidate in a public election <
They do not allow attack ads either. Writing the truth about someone is not an "attack ad".
> In fact, the IRS says that "you may . . .be entitled to a reward" for reporting tax fraud. <
Don't spend it yet.
> Anyway, my case against Wikipedia is airtight, and no one has even attempted to show otherwise. <
As usual you are covering your eyes and believing that makes you invisible to others. Let me give you a hint. The emperor has no clothes.
You should think about how your stupid comments reflect on your fellow right wing lunatics.
Post a Comment
<< Home