Sykes: 

As part of the settlement terms, Martin would have to agree not to speak publicly about Douglas or Isabella Adkins, or C4GC co-founder, Jodi Riddleberger. 

Riddleberger contributes a column to the local daily. Could Martin write an LTE about it? Join a comment thread someone else started about it? Jodi is very active in local politics -- if she said or did something on behalf of CFGC, is that off-limits? 

Both Jodi Riddleberger and Isabella Adkins have public Facebook profiles and post frequent photos of themselves, often dressed up in costumes or in formal attire...The settlement terms require that Martin not publish photographs that might be considered private. 

"Might be considered private" by whom? Is a photo published on a public profile private?

This thing's got more holes than that book about the kid who had to dig all those holes (it was called Holes).

Comments

[Fec]

I'm sticking to my guns about keeping a copy of the blog.

Regarding the plaintiffs, I've said the same things about them so many times that I'm tired of it.

Speaking of which, deconstructing Hammer's latest weekly blather has also become a drudge.

Maybe it's time someone else took on the work.

Besides, I have a new target I'm excited about.

[Fec]

In the absence of a response, I have just been notified that Coleman has reiterated our position.

BTW, there is no new content up at the Rhino. WTF?

[Spag]

Litigation is expensive, but that seems like an extreme compromise for anyone who believes in the First Amendment.

[Andrew Brod]

He can't write about the Adkinses or Jodi Riddleberger, but Brett Riddleberger is fair game?

[Andrew Brod]

Never mind. I just read Sykes' post: "Martin would limit his speech or writings about Brett Riddleberger to factual statements."

What Spag said.

[Triadwatch]

Click on last weeks rhino picture and it has this weeks paper

[Fec]

file:///home/chronos/user/Downloads/Adkins.pdf

Here's their settlement agreement.

I've asked Coleman for his opinion, but I don't think I'm gonna sign it.

Hey, we kid and play, but I greatly value your opinions.

[Triadwatch]

Hammer on lawsuit " the blogging community in Greensboro is relatively small" , how the hell would you know hammer

[Fec]

I understand the link I provided is inaccessible. No matter, the settlement is no different than that cited above. The plaintiff remains unmoved.

Coleman has brought in a local pro bono attorney to whom I proposed the following action:

Since killing the blog as an act of goodwill and contrition may have been interpreted as weakness, I have proposed restoring the blog.

It will then disappear again as a condition of settlement.

It is obvious to me that Adkins and Culbertson cooked up this scheme and encumbered the PAC and other plaintiffs without their knowledge. I regard them as reckless and foolish.

While the media continues to bring notoriety to the plaintiffs, I am prepared to act in my best interest to end this ill-considered civil action.

Restoring the blog will assist the media in verification of the allegations.

However, I contend the links to the strip clubs were the actual target of sanction.

If the plaintiffs continue to remain unmoved, I may be persuaded to continue my discussion of their activities. After all, nothing I have done to date appears to have made any difference.

[john hayes]

Is it possible you have a slightly inflated view of who cares?

[Ed Cone]

Kind of an odd question, John, in a thread about the very topic he's discussing as a primary player.

[Andrew Brod]

Is it surprising that an act of contrition would be interpreted as weakness?

[Roch]

Welcome back, John. What would Ed's blog be without you hounding people with important reminders of how unimportant their interests are? Ah, good times.

[NitWitCharmer]

...care...

Care about the politcs or FEC?

[Fec]

Wow.

[Fec]

I will wait until I have heard the advice of my attorneys before taking any action.

[Fec]

Ed, I am no longer prepared to be forthcoming in this space so long as you continue to allow this troll fest.

[NitWitCharmer]

FEC, if it were any other local blogger I'd be in their corner. From Joe to Ed to Spag, and even with their propensity to ban dissenting opinion, Lex and Roch.

In your case, however, you drifted over an ill defined but socially recognized line of decorum.

You might label the evident lack of pity for you trolling, but where was your pity, that pity that would have served to moderate your heartless tone, for those you trolled with your blog? Hell, you took trolling from simple comments to the local blogging scene as a whole.

And while legally I believe you would win if you were to choose that path you should take from this episode that you have lost socially no matter the path you choose.

You are where you put yourself.

[Andrew Brod]

Now you did it. He's not going to be forthcoming in this space anymore.

[Andrew Brod]

The relative lack of pity might derive, at least in part, from the dissonance between Martin's quick settlement and his tough-guy personna as Fecund Stench, who speaks truth to power! and gives 'em what for! Mind you, most people would have settled this. Litigation is brutal and it's sane to avoid it. But most people haven't spent the last few years trying to persuade everyone how tough and brave they are.

[Roch]

"even with their propensity to ban dissenting opinion, Lex and Roch."

Huh? Are you aware that I curate Greensboro 101 at which, at any given time, one is just as likely to find posts from Triad Conservative as they are from to find posts from, well, Ed Cone? You are mistaken in your characterization.

[john hayes]

Big fat "like " to Andy's insight above. Also he's understandably apoplectic about the incivility in this blog, given the laudable standard he sets in his own. Maybe we all need some sensitivity training in regards to the tough and the brave.

[NitWitCharmer]

You bumped, for no reason other than ideology, polifrog.blogspot.com from Greensboro 101 more than once.

Thinking it was either a mistake or an automated error beyond the curator's control I reconnected with Greensboro 101 only to be bumped multiple times.

Personal experience.

At this point I prefer yettipad.com, their open door policy to all feeds and their commitment to pseudonymity in both their feed section as well as their discussion section.

[Hugh]

In other news, the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man has a comfortable lead in the N&R Poll for: Who's the biggest, baddest giant monster out there?

http://www.news-record.com/go_triad/article_9fd0cf3a-dbdd-11e3-ba34-001a4bcf6878.html

[Hartzman]

Roch eliminated Billy Jones and I from Greensboro101 when the Barber story broke.

I believe The last time before that seemed like when Roch appeared to try a bit of extortion on the Billy Yow web address fiasco, in which Roch put up Yow's racial piss picture at a web address Roch owned, and then tried to sell to Yow, in my view.

[NitWitCharmer]

I'd forgotten that Yow stuff and his threatening to remove your from Greensboro 101 due to your writing style.

However, I respect that it is his blog/aggregator to do with as he wishes and as Roch hasn't trolled the whole of Greensboro he has a deeper well of potential pity.

[Hartzman]

I miss the competition of the old version of Greensboro101.

The most hits counter on a back page.

I enjoyed the competition.

[Roch]

I see. As I pointed out, there are numerous blogs that feed Greensboro 101 that express opinions with which I do not agree, so, on its face, that eliminates the possibility that I've removed blogs because of "dissenting opinions."

I have removed blogs that continually and intentionally peddled demonstrably false information. Three, in nine years.

[Roch]

" in which Roch put up Yow's racial piss picture at a web address Roch owned, and then tried to sell to Yow, in my view." -- George

Perfect timing for a perfect example. "In my view" is not an escape hatch for lying.

[hartzman]

My unstanding is that the statement is true, confirmed by roch Smith jr. Of which I have documentation.

Please provide the documentation of false information.

[Roch]

What I explained to you, George, was that Yow's attorney called me to ask if the domain was for sale. That makes all the difference. Did I try to sell the domain? No. Did Yow express an interest in buying it. Yes, but I did not sell it which makes me a terrible extortionist but still leave you a very good liar.

I know you must have been upset by me posting a reminder of the racially charged past of a candidate you officially endorsed, but lying about what happened is neither going to impugn me or punish me. It will add to your long record of deceit though.

[NitWitCharmer]

I said nothing false ... got bumped ... meh, your call.

[Roch]

I confess, in your case, I no longer remember the specifics. Resubmit if you'd like.

[Hartzman]

"candidate you officially endorsed"

Please document I officially endorsed Yow, along with the documentation of false information you haven't provided, but cited as proof of "removed blogs that continually and intentionally peddled demonstrably false information."
.
.
"I have removed blogs that continually and intentionally peddled demonstrably false information. Three, in nine years."

"I confess, in your case, I no longer remember the specifics."

Roch Smith Jr.
.
.
lol

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Roch]

George, responses to requests like yours I reserve for people who have discussions in good faith; for whom, if I don't at least respect them, I do not loath as intentionally duplicitous.

Were I to provide anything you've asked for (as experience with you has taught me), you will not apologize, offer a correction or even acknowledge. You'll simply redirect your fire. It's as if everyone is to abide by your high standards but you. You are disqualified.

[Hartzman]

Good one.

How about you on the Barber "silly" Ed?

Want to do what Roch just did?

Quite the rhetorical pho pa.

[Billy Jones]

Everything comes back around, you'll all be talking about a landfill in a week or two.

[Hartzman's little helper]

"I think this may be about me supporting Billy Yow,
who is running against Howard Coble,
who's campaign website is managed by Roch.

Same thing only different with our differences
on Zack, Robbie and Roy..."

Posted by: Hartzman.blogspot.com | February 21, 2012 at 08:42 AM

------------

[Hartzman]

"candidate you officially endorsed"

When did I officially endorse Billy Yow?

[Andrew Brod]

He appears to be making an issue of "officially." This is not interesting.

[Roch]

Again, Hartzman is applying higher standards to others than he would ever dream of for himself. The man who causally flings unsubstantiated accusations of criminal conduct against other as his regular mode of operation is suddenly a stickler for accuracy.

How about this? George Hartzman officially endorsed Yow, in my view.

[NitWitCharmer]

Again, Hartzman is applying higher standards to others than he would ever dream of for himself.

Hmmm, sounds like every attack made by FEC as well as every attack made by a Democrat claiming another of being a hypocrite.

[Andrew Brod]

Troll.

[NitWitCharmer]

Agreed, and a point I made in regard to FEC upthread.

[Andrew Brod]

Point misser.

[NitWitCharmer]

Nah. Just taking an opportunity to define an utterance by a lazy commenter.

[Hartzman]

Why would an endorsement of Billy Yow against Howard Coble include Roch's name, after Roch tried to shake down Billy for cash by holding Billy's name hostage via a web site address?

I would rather have had Yow win at the time, as Howard wasn't exactly doing much, but I am not a Republican, nor pro life, nor anti gay marriage etc...

By these measures, I "officially" endorsed Mark Walker.

The context of the thread at the time which Gaurino took down was all about Roch.
.
.
tbs, Roch stated "I have removed blogs that continually and intentionally peddled demonstrably false information. Three, in nine years" which he then backed off of in writing within this thread, and declined to document as to veracity.

So, my blog was removed Hartzman's from Greensboro101 recently.

Therefore, Roch is saying I "intentionally peddled demonstrably false information" which Roch doesn't want to or most likely can't identify.

I don't want to be put back on fwiw.

If Roch fails to identify what was "intentionally peddled demonstrably false information", Roch lied.

It wouldn't be the first time, as evidenced by Roch already above.

[Andrew Brod]

I can identify an instance in which you intentionally peddled demonstrably false information just a few inches above this comment.

[NitWitCharmer]

Hartzman, don't use Greensboro101.

Roch and Greenboro101 feigns objectivity offering only insecurity to non progressives.

Dump Roch. He has already dumped you, me as well as Billy.

Why support him with your presence?... I don't get it.

[Hartzman]

Thanks NitWit,

I don't use Greensboro101.

I created the Greensboro's Triaggregator

http://triaggregator.blogspot.com

and recently found yettipad.com, which looks pretty all inclusive of Greensboro stuff.
.
.
Interesting both times I have been taken to task on Roch's were instances where he had an interest. Coble and Barber.

Since Roch doesn't seem to want to identify any deficiencies with the facts, I suppose Ed Cone may want to reconsider his "silly" comment concerning the Barber/Wyndham stuff.

Barber has made great efforts to make the issue go away. More than I remotely expected.

Ed, Andrew and Roch seem to be in his camp, regardless of facts pointing to other conclusions.

Cognitive Dissonance I suppose.