You've never groped anyone in your life???

What a shame. You're really missing out.

Oh, in my *heart*...

hahahaha

I grope people with my heart on a daily basis.

Are you referring to the "Grope in the Dark" slur on your site's moniker?

Red: it's half of my social life.

E-Blo: I can neither confirm nor deny that.

Between having one of the most popular blogs in Minnesota and having a radio program that is heard in the Twin Cities and around the world on the web, I would think you're pretty much a "public figure."

I recall your reaction to Eva Young's harmless "Grope in the Dark" swipe at your site's name, here:

http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2005/08/as-stomach-turns.html

Your response: "So you're accusing me of being a sexual harasser? Pretty defamatory!"

If that's the basis for your complaint, you might want to familiarize yourself with the non-sexual meaning of the word "grope."

http://www.answers.com/grope

1. To reach about uncertainly; feel one's way: groped for the telephone.
2. To search blindly or uncertainly: grope for an answer.

Obtusion, thy name is E-Blo.

You know dang well nobody involved is using either of those definitions.

Can we get a link or something? I can't tell you anything without seeing what they wrote in context

Mitch, unless you can show that this caused you to lose esteem by someone whose esteem you value*, I don’t think you’d be able to show damages.

And even then, “grope” has multiple meanings and “Grope in the Dark” at least to me sounds more like someone “groping around in the dark” rather than “groping someone in the dark” (particularly given that it’s a play off of “Shot in the Dark”) which makes it rather hard to argue that you’re being associated with sexually harassing someone.

My advice would be to consider whether the person who wrote that has any real credibility to harm you or anyone else for that matter and whether this is just a ploy for attention by a lonely pathetic individual.

Side note: sorry I wasn’t able to make it Sunday. I came down with something on Saturday so I got to spend most of my three-day weekend in bed with orange juice and Advil.

* Judging by Red’s initial comments, I’d say it had the opposite effect ;)

Thorley: I think you're right. And, er, yeah :-)

CCK: It's a site who I will not favor with any traffic.

If I'm correct in my hunch, that Eva's li'l slur is the basis for your complaint, then you are groping in the dark, indeed!

You are incorrect.

Ooops.

I mean - you're right; as I suspected, there's nothing I can do about it. And as noted earlier, it's on a completely insignificant site.

But it's not Eva Young. I haven't read any of her blogs in a while.

Wha? You're clear as mud.

Incidentally, the phrase "grope in the dark" has its precedent in the book of Job.

http://bible.cc/job/12-25.htm

If it were the book of hand Job, then you'd have a case.

Well Mitch did claim "libel" on Dump Bachmann a few weeks back.....

http://dumpbachman.blogspot.com/2005/09/whiner-berg-threatens-to-sue.html

Eva,

Throughout this little scuffle, I've tried to stay civil. I've not descended to your level of petty, childish name-calling ("Whiner Berg?"), I am not wired to pretend to your level of ethical slackness, and I'm thankfully not an internet stalker.

However - you can't possibly be stupid enough to think there was a "threat to sue" anyone anywhere in there, can you?

For crying out loud, Eva, I've been a public figure of one petty form or another for (off and on, mostly off) twenty years now. And unlike you, I know the rules.

THe point of both posts was to highlight the dismal extent to which your little blog relies on defamation, name-calling, dim-bulb innuendo and outright lies. My point is pretty well proven.

I doubt, by the way, that your public record of ethical self-indulgence would faze most of the reporters who've plugged you in the past few months; Jeffrey Dahmer could do a "Dump Bachmann" blog and the local media would gobble it up. Still, it'd be nice if the local media had a complete picture of their "Source" on this stuff.

But the more I think about it, the more I realize this is a good thing. "Dump Bachmann" will probably be worth a part of a point *for* Bachmann in a Congressional race, and probably one or two in a race for her Senate seat. If every citizen in the Sixth and/or Stillwater were to read the Dump, and see the petty, childish nature of the whole thing (not to mention the gabbling cretins who clog your comment section), an "undecided" with half a brain would figure "Anyone who draws THIS kind of enemies must be OK!".

So keep up the good work, Eva. Keep passing off half-truth and innuendo. Keep trampling on copyrights (make sure you copy EVERY FECKING WORD of this comment into your next post, OK?). Just for giggles, why don't you forward this to a couple of dozen gay-wackjob mailing lists with my personal email, while you're at it? (Oh, wait - I learned never to let that anywhere NEAR you ever again).

Get over yourself. And maybe learn some social skills, while you're at it.

Groping at Straws, eh Mitch? As I said before, lighten up. Don't take yourself so seriously. After all, noone else does.

" Don't take yourself so seriously."

Did someone teach you a new phrase, Eva? I never have.

On the other hand, you seem to have a pretty solemn, thin-skinned mania about your little obsession.

"After all, noone else does."

Could be. It might be that I have 2,500-3,000 hecklers a day coming to the site. It's distinctly possible.

But this isn't about me. This is about your unplumbable moral turpitude.

Tell ya what, Eva: From now on, your name is "Ethically-challenged Stalker Young".

Hahaha! Lighten up!

Aw Mitch, you really are groping.... It doesn't role off the tongue the way "Whiner Berg" does - and doesn't have the same rhythm as "Whine in the Dark....."

I don't really care what you say about me - I just consider the source - but you can't even be funny about it. I find it interesting that you don't have the balls to say whatever it is to my face. When I saw you at Flash, you said nothing about how I reposted a post to some gay lists where you said the lesbians who were roughed up by the cops at Lucy's bar probably had it coming, because in your experience, Lesbian bars were typically dens of street fighting mean and bad lesbians.... I'm not sure where you got all your experience at Lesbian bars - but whatever. You backed up this pearl of wisdom by claiming that Lesbians were more likely to be violent and abusive than straight men. This wasn't a private post - this was a post you did on the St Paul List - a public list. And that's what this is all about, Mitch - you can't address this directly - so you rant and rave about it from your blog.

This is all about you, Mitch - it's about how you trolled around on your blog for free legal advice about suing DB or the Michele Bachmann Fun Page for "libel" over the phrase "Grope in the Dark". Parody apparently isn't something you are familiar with.

Well here's a response over on DB! Enjoy!

http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2005/09/bachmann-supportive-blogs-impersonate.html

"Aw Mitch, you really are groping.... It doesn't role [sic] off the tongue the way "Whiner Berg" does - and doesn't have the same rhythm as "Whine in the Dark....."

Maybe, but it has the added benefit of being *true*. You are a person of deeply self-indulgent ethics.

"I find it interesting that you don't have the balls to say whatever it is to my face. When I saw you at Flash, you said nothing about how I reposted a post to some gay lists"

Because I was *at my friend's birthday party*, you self-obsessed moron! How fucking self-absorbed ARE you? Picking an argument at a *non-political* social event put on my a friend would be *grossly* inappropriate.

The fact that you even suggest it at all speaks volumes about what an incredibly solopsistic little no-class troll you are.

By the way - not only are you ethically challenged, you have problems with logic as well. Because *I* didn't pick a fight with you, at *my friend's birthday party*, then *I'm* the one without "balls"? Why don't you pick your own fights?

Not only are you a creep and a liar, you're a passive-aggressive coward!

" where you said the lesbians who were roughed up by the cops at Lucy's bar probably had it coming,"

Um, not what I said - not that misrepresentation and lies are outside your MO in any way.

"This wasn't a private post - this was a post you did on the St Paul List - a public list."

THE EMAIL ADDRESSES WERE NOT PUBLIC!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mn-stpaul/message/7961

See the little Ellipsis at the end of my email address? Did it ever occur to you that it means the address is *not public*?

Screw it. I'm going to do better than that.

And that's what this is all about, Mitch - you can't address this directly"

Er, wrong. I've given the facts, a couple of times - directly. And after hearing your self-serving, self-indulgent rationalizations, over and over, and connected them to your pattern of behavior in other venues, I've directly said you're a person with big ethical challenges.

" Parody apparently isn't something you are familiar with. "

Er, let's get back to me in a minute. What "parody" have you ever written?

Avidor? That's not parody.

I notice you're going on a commenting and linking-back offensive lately, Eva. I also notice that your traffic and incoming links on the Bear are VERY flat - almost as if nobody cares your little site exists.

Is there a connection? Why aren't you posting about it?

Developing...

So let me get this traight, Eva Young. You want Mitch to start an argument with you at a third party's social occasion?

I'm not much of a Michele Bachmann fan, but you are starting to look like a real lunatic.

As in, everyone involved, Bachmann and Berg and Swift and probably some of your co-bloggers, should get restraining orders just to be safe. I know I would. You are sounding more and more like a real creepy person.

Mitch - I was not suggesting that you pick an argument - I was just suggesting that if you really still were stewing over this old issue - you could have talked to me about it - in a civil and direct way - at Flash's party. There's no need to make it into an argument. Instead you said something about this all being "business, nothing personal" or whatever.

EY:
"Aw Mitch, you really are groping.... It doesn't role [sic] off the tongue the way "Whiner Berg" does - and doesn't have the same rhythm as "Whine in the Dark....."

Maybe, but it has the added benefit of being *true*. You are a person of deeply self-indulgent ethics.

EY: Thanks for catching the typo. That is your opinion. It's my opinion that much of what you say is whining. And in both cases, it's name calling - and doesn't get into facts.

On the Lucy's incident - here are the links to my posts about this.

Mitch:

" where you said the lesbians who were roughed up by the cops at Lucy's bar probably had it coming,"

Um, not what I said - not that misrepresentation and lies are outside your MO in any way.

EY:

Here's what you said:

There is dispute on this point, but lesbians seem to be statistically at least as disposed to violence as any other group, and some would say more so. This has been my experience. This is not a knock on lesbians - but there does seem to be a physically aggressive streak among a sizeable minority.

The police record and "word on the street" about Lucy's would not tend to bring dispute to point 4, above. It's a toilet. Leave aside that it replaced the wondrous "Blues Saloon" which used to be in that space - it has a rep for being pretty rough. While I'm sure the publican involved would deny it to the grave, Tom's cite of the police records is telling.

http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2003/11/more-on-lesbians-are-violent-theory-by.html
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2003/10/mitch-berg-research-techniques-i.html
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2003/10/blogger-berg-is-called-out-and.html
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2003/10/blogger-berg-opines-his-lesbians-are.html

"I was not suggesting that you pick an argument - I was just suggesting that if you really still were stewing over this old issue - you could have talked to me about it - in a civil and direct way - at Flash's party."

And I am suggesting that discussing a blog ethics malfunction at a *friend's birthday party* sounds about as fun as a root canal without anaesthetic. (Although no worse than dealing with the zealot who cornered me until I had to leave...)

"Here's what you said:"

I have a better idea. Now, and with no prevarication, show me EXACTLY the passage in which I said that lesbians "had it coming." No excuses, no bullshit.

Or admit you've been slandering me for two years, and drop it.

mattress pedic product review tempur