Friday, May 25, 2007

BVBL post slanders, falsely charges new republican voters

Updated to make this about the blog, not the person.

In an astounding post over at BVBL (where my comments are summarily deleted), a post makes false, slanderous, and totally uncalled-for attack on new Republican voters (at least it did up to the time I was blocked from reading the blog, which I still am):

In the blog entry deceptively titled 51st District Delegate Form Issues, BVBL says :

You’d think that when a delegate signs his form, which states that they’re eligible to vote, they wouldn’t then have to run out and try to make themselves eligible to vote after the fact. It’s too bad those forms don’t contain a statement which would make false statements legally punishable.

The highlighted words are false. The delegate form does NOT "state that they are eligible to vote".

BVBL's owner knows what the forms say, because he had to sign one for this convention. Here is the relevant text, read the form at this link:

I have read the Qualifications for Participation and affirm that I am in accord with the principles of the Republican Party, and state my intention to support the nominees of the Republican Party in the ensuing election. If I have participated in the nomination process of a party other than the Republican Party since March 1, 2004, I hereby renounce any affiliation with that party.
That's it. Nothing about being registered to vote. Nothing about meeting the qualifications for delegate. The only thing the signature says is that you will vote republican and that you are a republican, and that you READ the qualifications. You are NOT affirming that you MEET the qualifications at the time you sign the form -- because in fact you do NOT have to be registered until the actual convention, and further you don't even HAVE to be registered, in some cases, you simply have to have FILED for registration before the convention.

So the post's statement: "signs his form, which states that they’re eligible to vote" is a false statement. And where the post says "make false statements legally punishable", BVBL is accusing newly signed-up republicans of making false statements, which is a false statement. And BVBL wishes they could be "prosecuted" for these "false statements".

BVBL owes the new signed-up delegates, at LEAST all those who make it through the registration process, an apology. He should stand up AT THE CONVENTION and apologize personally to them.

So I call on BVBL's owner -- Do the right thing. Take down your false posts. Apologize to those new voters you slandered. Retract your untrue attack against their character.

I first tried to handle this within BVBL. I posted a nice comment to the blog pointing out his error. That comment was deleted.

Later, several other commenters have picked up and expanded on the false accusation. I tried to answer each with a one-sentence response that they are wrong. Those comments were deleted.

Then I was banned from posting and reading the blog.

So not only did the owner of BVBL make a false charge against the new voters, the owner has perpetuated that charge, prohibited answers to that charge, and encouraged others to believe and propogate the lie.

My only recourse was to post this to my own blog. I'd much rather BVBL have handled this like he did the last two times he was completely wrong about documents, when he apologized and corrected his posts. My guess is BVBL couldn't take another blow to his already-damaged reputation of inaccuracy.

This seems highly unethical blogger behavior, to allow lies to continue on simple factual matters after having them pointed out. We cut blogger's some slack on the facts because they are amateurs and often-times sloppy, but the expectation is they will fix their mistakes when pointed out. When a blogger refuses, it harms the reputations of ALL of us. We will ALL be judged by the unethical and reckless actions of a blog like BVBL, if we don't speak out.

Could my comments have been out of line? Here's one that was blocked, you be the judge:
JM, Lars: The form's signature does not require you to be registered. The signature only affirms your adherance to republican principles and your pledge to vote republican in the fall.

Is there an issue with taking delegate forms from unregistered people? Obviously not. If you found a person who was not registered, but was willing to be a delegate, you would GIVE them a form for registration with a delegate form. You'd collect the delegate form, and tell them to file the registration form with the registrar.

So obviously, at the time they signed the delegate form, they would not ALREADY be registered. Far from being some illegal act, this would be the standard procedure.

Update 5/26m 11:25am:

BVBL noticed this post, and had the nerve to respond to it AT BVBL. I say nerve, because remember I am blocked from READING or RESPONDING. BVBL is trying to dismiss my claim without allowing me to know or answer.

Fortunately, the net is a lot bigger than BVBL, so I have this from his site:
UPDATE: Lest anyone be confused about this, the statement which applicants sign begins with this:
Qualifications for participation: All legal and qualified voters of the 51st District under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Apparently a few readers making comments elsewhere haven’t quite figured this out.
As I noted above, the signature says you READ the qualifications, not that you currently meet them. This is another attempt to mislead BVBL readers. And note how I'm called a "reader" when I'm blocked from reading, and chastised for making comments "elsewhere" when I am blocked from commenting there. Classless. Further, slightly down the page from the partial quote without link BVBL provided it's readers, it says this:
A person who has made application for registration and meets all other
qualification requirements, but whose name does not appear on the local registration books solely because of the books having been closed in connection with a local election, shall nevertheless be deemed a legal and qualified voter.
So anybody who applies to register before the election meets the qualifications BVBL is complaining about -- and that could include the 68 new voters. BVBL is intimately familiar with this section -- it's the one BVBL falsely claimed was NOT in the RPV plan, when it clearly was.

Since the BVBL, and his average reader apparently, seem incapable of understanding simple english or comprehending things they are signing, I have taken the time to write an extensive post on the entire section of the delegate form, explaining what it means in words so simple even a BVBL reader should understand. The post is called BVBL and his followers should e made to affirm their oath.

Oddly, after attacking new republicans falsely, it seem obvious BVBL plans to violate HIS agreement that he signed on his form, to vote for Faisal Gill in the general election. BVBL wishes those who "falsely" sign the form could be prosecuted. Will BVBL pledge to vote for Faisal Gill in the general election?

No comments: