The Shotgun Blog
« Sneaking in through the garage | Main | Sorry Baghdad, Our Forces Are Broke »
Thursday, October 14, 2004
I didn't write this post
You didn't hear it from me, but apparently Warren Kinsella is threatening bloggers who write things about him that he doesn't like.
None of this has been proven in a court of law.
(Thanks Nealenews.com!)
Posted by Kevin Libin on October 14, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83456f63e69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I didn't write this post:
» Warren Kinsella, Insufferable Twit from small dead animals
So, what's new? The insufferable Mr. Kinsella pulled the same stunt when he was a "guest" on a talk radio show in Saskatchewan last year after the retirement of Jean Chretien. A caller raised the fact that Chretien's daughter was... [Read More]
Tracked on 2004-10-14 9:26:56 PM
Comments
Well, then, let's get in on the lawsuit action.
Warren Kinsella smells funny. And he doesn't know his asshole from the number 9.
Posted by: Orlande Hi | 2004-10-14 5:05:26 PM
I can't believe a veteran political operative could be so thin skinned.
If you check out the comments section beneath that post, you'll see Jay Currie comporting himself very well, btw.
Posted by: Kathy | 2004-10-14 5:27:18 PM
Here's my little litmus test to see if Warren is interested in civilized discussion or simply crushing dissent:
http://www.polspy.ca/items/2004/10/14/835.html
Posted by: Sean | 2004-10-14 11:44:10 PM
I haven't much paid attention to Warren Kinsella this recent event. These threats of legal action against these bloggers, and now specifically Ian Scott have certainly jerked my attention.
I have a hard time believe he'll actually persue litigation, since he has no hope of winning his claims of damage, at least not in a Canadian court. Under Canadian tort law, proving damages for immaterial things is very difficult. Not to mention that Mr. Scott has done nothing wrong.
Mr. Kinsella appears to have reached an apex of such, where his self-centeredness and self-importance has achieved a level, where-as it blinds him from the hypocricy and absurdity of this sudden lashing out.
He demands such a high-standard of respect, showing no tolerance for those who would question his character, but in response to all this will throw in a statement such as this:
"The fact that I did so offended rightist bloggers, however. That's okay, I guess. Those kinds of guys - and they're mostly white, angry and aroused by Mark Steyn's web site - get offended by all sorts of things."
The bottom line is, this guy is really asking for a lot of attention in a very negative way. By the looks of it, that's already starting to happen. And-uh-Warren, good luck with that.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2004-10-15 12:42:17 AM
Sorry for the grammar errors there. It's late, and I didn't proof read before posting :)
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2004-10-15 12:43:59 AM
Warren Kinsella posted a blog about his litigiousness here: http://warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm
His take? They offended his parents. And he's not going to take that lying down. He won't take accusations of responsibility for the death of military fathers either. "But when one of them wrote that I was actually responsible for the death of that child's father," writes Kinsella, "that wasn't okay. I demanded that he take down his post. He wouldn't. I told him I would sue, and the post disappeared."
Then he called right wingers mouth breathers, and pissed on Mark Steyn.
What sort of insult is "mouth-breather" anyway? Since when did nose-breathing become the urbane, bourgeois, and genteel thing to do? Or is he just pointing out the obvious? Let's see if this works: Kinsella, the leg-walker. Or how about: Warren, types-with-fingers, Kinsella. I don't know...
(Oh, and hey, Kinsella, one space after the period! One. Not two. This goes for all of you.)
Posted by: Peter M. Jaworski | 2004-10-15 4:42:39 AM
h, and, as a post script, scroll down on his site and check out that photo of him in that t-shirt. Is it just me, or should former government employees not wear t-shirts like that?
It has a picture of George W. Bush with "International Terrorist" written on it. I saved the photo, in case they take it down. I'd post it here, if only I knew how...
Here's a link to the photo: http://warrenkinsella.com/images/DOA-Oct-20
Posted by: Peter M. Jaworski | 2004-10-15 4:48:51 AM
I say when "Web of Hate" starts dropping legal bombs on our fellow bloggers, we change our mastheads to read: "Warren Kinsella is a Pompous Tool". What's he gonna do...sue the entire internet?
Posted by: Jay Jardine | 2004-10-15 10:08:31 AM
Kinsella is a dweeb.
Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2004-10-15 1:51:30 PM
I've not found it difficult to deal with Kinsella--as long as one is as careful about writing about him as you'd expect someone writing about you to be.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2004-10-15 2:40:15 PM
Norman, I try to follow the Golden Rule too, but its legal standing is rightly somewhere below the Charter and our other laws.
I just don't see how the statement "You were part of the problem" passes mustard as libel, which was Brooks' graf that started this whole thing.
Posted by: Matt Fenwick | 2004-10-15 2:52:32 PM
I'd say he was a minor part of the problem. Most of his defense is of a technical nature, so one must be very precise in the wording, but it any case it would not be correct to attribute major responsibility to him.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2004-10-15 5:10:06 PM
I have a suggestion: let's all stop writing about Warren Kinsella and just wait for him to disappear in a puff of banality.
Posted by: Alan | 2004-10-15 9:11:43 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.