Ken Explains it All - Lori & Ken Alexander - Part 3

[Curious]

So I googled Lori Alexander and this is what you are led to by google. Technically it comes up as the second hit in the drop box of the google search term Lori Alexander.

I'm assuming this is what Ken is objecting to?

He doesn't like the 'f' word being used. His wife's name being attributed to her words or the word 'monster.'

He's A-OK with her telling people to hit a two year old child with a wooden spoon on their bottom until it hurts though.

This is a very world strange we live in.

He's objecting to the "fucking monster" from what I can tell, but it's an opinion and since there is a link to her blog and her exact words are quoted so anyone following the link can see exactly what she said for themselves, people are free to come to their own conclusions about what she said. If someone that is pro-spanking followed the link, they would wonder what the problem was, I'm sure.

As you can see when you google initially, there is NOTHING that identifies which Lori Alexander the link is referring to.

I also just noticed that Ken exaggerated (read: fibbed) again too. Our link is not "just under my wife's name, and blog." Lori's blog link is first (as I would hope it would be, if not she should be embarrassed) and we are the 4th link after that. Before our link there is the google image search stuff. On my screen, which is a widescreen and fairly large, our link isn't even "above the fold."

So if someone was search for Lori, they would see her blog link first, likely not even see our link (which again doesn't identify her as the subject) and just hit her blog link and visit her site.

Much ado about nothing. Welcome to the internet. Not to mention, look at the date on the post. It's 9 months old.

[latraviata]

I realize spanking a child is very controversial in today's climate. However, I will always teach what the Bible teaches regardless of what "the experts" are saying. Rebellion is a terrible thing and must be dealt with or you may end up having a child that causes much pain in your life later on.

With the same right (and disdain) Lori Alexander mentions "the experts" (I am one of the experts) we commented on her detestable parental advice.

[salex]

Someone is going to have to help me here, but has Ken posted a list of this "libelous" or "defamatory" stuff he keeps referring to?

[meda]

Ken, our forum rules and TOU are here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15380

You should read them. You probably should have read them before you started trying to bully, mansplain, and babble on about civil liberties and defamation to all the silly little FJers who disagree with you and your wife, but better late than never.

[polecat]

Well, I'll give Richard Meyers one point for understanding the difference between libel and slander, which is more than I can say for some people *cough*Ken Alexander*cough*. However, he loses ALL the points for not knowing what libel actually is (hint-it's not quoting someone's exact words back to them).

It's not actually libel if it's true. Since people used their own words, well, how much truer can it get?

[polecat]

Ken, defamation? Really? Here's the definition of defamation: "Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person."

The keyword there is "intentional false communication." People aren't making stuff up about you. They're repeating your and your wife's words here. Your own words. No one is making anything up.

As for "manipulating Google," given your occupation, I'm sure that you're aware people do this (legally, no less!) all the time. It's called SEO, and again, I know you know this. There's no way you don't. Now sure, there's black hat and white hat, but even that doesn't apply. No one is stuffing, no one is cloaking, no one is doing anything (that I've seen) that goes against Google's own rules. If you have seen an actual instance of lying or fabrication -- which would constitute libel or defamation" -- then link it to bring it to the attention of the admins. If you've seen someone actually violating Google's rules, then take it to Google. But for goodness' sake, stop whining about people doing stuff you don't like. Your penis gives you no special powers here.

ETA: Any attorney worth his or her salt would tell you to stop what you're doing and disengage from the forum before continuing with any legal action. Soooo ....

[formergothardite]

You know what's funny (in an ironic sense, not a haha sense), I went to Ken's (business) website a few days ago and looked around it and read quite a bit of it. Part of the reason that I hung in with him so long and tried again tonight is that I think that somewhere in there he actually knows this stuff based on what I read there.

I really think that had he married someone that was....not Lori, he probably would be a decent, fun person. You can see shades of it here once in a while.

Then he goes and says something like we are just like rapists and I lose all hope again. It's too bad, he doesn't use his leadership to pull them out of the extremism that Lori appears to have drug them deeper into. Sometimes the wife getting her way 95% of the time isn't the best move, maybe.

I had read his website too and he isn't dumb. Somewhere in his mind he has to know that the way his wife dispenses advice is unwise.

He has accused us of being biased, of making assumptions, of jumping to conclusions without knowing the whole story, and yet Lori does this constantly. We aren't the ones giving advice. She is the one who is. And according to their own Bible she must be held to a higher standard.

He keeps telling us to make our own blogs, why would we do that? None of us are claiming to be qualified to give marriage advice over the internet. We are saying that it would be dangerous to do so because there is no way to know the whole story. And if we did give out advice we wouldn't give blanket advice. Even the members here who have said they believe in biblical submission have said they wouldn't give out the advice to "submit more" like Lori does. She has shown an appalling lack of discernment.

The fact is, when giving advice over the internet like she does, Lori doesn't know if she is dealing with a Raquel who is saying her husband is horrible and what she really means is that he doesn't want to spend his evenings reading letters she wrote when she was 13 and didn't carry her out to dance in the rain or if she is dealing with an Autumn who is saying her husband is horrible and what she really means is that he started abusing her two days after the wedding, no matter how hard she tries he demeans her every move and threatens her with a gun. Lori always assumes it is a Raquel when it could very easily be an Autumn. What both situations would really need, though, is advice from someone who could hear the entire story from the couple and give professional advice. They do not need blanket, biased advice from someone on the internet who doesn't know the whole story.

[latraviata]

I had read his website too and he isn't dumb. Somewhere in his mind he has to know that the way his wife dispenses advice is unwise.

He has accused us of being biased, of making assumptions, of jumping to conclusions without knowing the whole story, and yet Lori does this constantly. We aren't the ones giving advice. She is the one who is. And according to their own Bible she must be held to a higher standard.

He keeps telling us to make our own blogs, why would we do that? None of us are claiming to be qualified to give marriage advice over the internet. We are saying that it would be dangerous to do so because there is no way to know the whole story. And if we did give out advice we wouldn't give blanket advice. Even the members here who have said they believe in biblical submission have said they wouldn't give out the advice to "submit more" like Lori does. She has shown an appalling lack of discernment.

The fact is, when giving advice over the internet like she does, Lori doesn't know if she is dealing with a Raquel who is saying her husband is horrible and what she really means is that he doesn't want to spend his evenings reading letters she wrote when she was 13 and didn't carry her out to dance in the rain or if she is dealing with an Autumn who is saying her husband is horrible and what she really means is that he started abusing her two days after the wedding, no matter how hard she tries he demeans her every move and threatens her with a gun. Lori always assumes it is a Raquel when it could very easily be an Autumn. What both situations would really need, though, is advice from someone who could hear the entire story from the couple and give professional advice. They do not need blanket, biased advice from someone on the internet who doesn't know the whole story.

Who has no qualifications other than (self appointed) being a wise, always learning and godly wife. Ignorance, manipulative and cruelty are not exactly the qualifications required for givig advice, not even to the neighbour.

She helped thousands of women, really? I would love to read their stories. Fact is, by submitting more to an abusive husband will not get any less abusive, au contraire.

[Hane]

Still waiting to see how direct quotations can be construed as libelous or defamatory.

Think I'll get an answer on that around the time that KISA explains how patriarchy would benefit me, personally.

Meanwhile--I'm overdue for a mani-pedi. I've been playing it safe with a pale, iridescent pink. Any color suggestions, gals?

[J'ean Skirt]

Ken really needs to do some research in the Striesand effect before going off on his project to sue us all. He may also want to count his pennies before doing it. My company does expert witness work for a couple law firms, specifically related to tracking down eople posting on forums. It's not cheap, just for the expert research. I have no idea how much the lawyers are making, but I expect it's at least an order of magnitude more than what they are paying us.

[childerowland]

I don't understand how Ken can be so concerned about Free Jinger harming his reputation when he is perfectly happy to write and post articles like the following on Lori's blog, which advocate the 'discipline' of wives by husbands:

lorialexander.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/dealing-with-rebellious-wife.html

lorialexander.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-self-discipline-of-one-flesh.html

For someone who is allegedly

not on a crusade for Biblical submission

he spends a remarkable amount of time passionately defending the right of husbands to 'discipline' their wives and for wives to take whatever their husbands dish out.

Anything that is likely to harm his reputation is all there plain to see on Lori's blog - written by Lori and himself.

[latraviata]

Still waiting to see how direct quotations can be construed as libelous or defamatory.

Think I'll get an answer on that around the time that KISA explains how patriarchy would benefit me, personally.

Meanwhile--I'm overdue for a mani-pedi. I've been playing it safe with a pale, iridescent pink. Any color suggestions, gals?

Revlon's Rose Indien

[latraviata]

I don't understand how Ken can be so concerned about Free Jinger harming his reputation when he is perfectly happy to write and post articles like the following on Lori's blog, which advocate the 'discipline' of wives by husbands:

lorialexander.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/dealing-with-rebellious-wife.html

lorialexander.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-self-discipline-of-one-flesh.html

For someone who is allegedly

he spends a remarkable amount of time passionately defending the right of husbands to 'discipline' their wives and for wives to take whatever their husbands dish out.

Anything that is likely to harm his reputation is all there plain to see on Lori's blog - written by Lori and himself.

Koala tried to explain that to him, page after page after page.

[polecat]

I don't understand how Ken can be so concerned about Free Jinger harming his reputation when he is perfectly happy to write and post articles like the following on Lori's blog, which advocate the 'discipline' of wives by husbands:

lorialexander.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/dealing-with-rebellious-wife.html

lorialexander.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-self-discipline-of-one-flesh.html

For someone who is allegedly

he spends a remarkable amount of time passionately defending the right of husbands to 'discipline' their wives and for wives to take whatever their husbands dish out.

Anything that is likely to harm his reputation is all there plain to see on Lori's blog - written by Lori and himself.

Slander! Libel! Defamation! Bullying! Free speech!!!!!!!!

Did I miss anything? :shifty-kitty: Oh, yeah, someone call the Google police!!!

[Coconut Flan]

Just in case Ken missed it the first time:

Curious said:

He's objecting to the "fucking monster" from what I can tell, but it's an opinion and since there is a link to her blog and her exact words are quoted so anyone following the link can see exactly what she said for themselves, people are free to come to their own conclusions about what she said. If someone that is pro-spanking followed the link, they would wonder what the problem was, I'm sure.

As you can see when you google initially, there is NOTHING that identifies which Lori Alexander the link is referring to.

I also just noticed that Ken exaggerated (read: fibbed) again too. Our link is not "just under my wife's name, and blog." Lori's blog link is first (as I would hope it would be, if not she should be embarrassed) and we are the 4th link after that. Before our link there is the google image search stuff. On my screen, which is a widescreen and fairly large, our link isn't even "above the fold."

So if someone was search for Lori, they would see her blog link first, likely not even see our link (which again doesn't identify her as the subject) and just hit her blog link and visit her site.

Much ado about nothing. Welcome to the internet. Not to mention, look at the date on the post. It's 9 months old.

That's what I found last night. He's complaining about a thread from last year.

Oh and Ken if people had done what you are accusing them of trying to manipulate Google at least a couple of dozen people would have used that tag line to end their posts repeatedly and you'd see it hundreds if not thousands of times in these threads. They didn't so quit saying that they did. Yes, someone suggested it, but it was NOT carried out.

I think I should give Ken up for Lent.

[salex]

Just in case Ken missed it the first time:

Curious said:

That's what I found last night. He's complaining about a thread from last year.

Oh and Ken if people had done what you are accusing them of trying to manipulate Google at least a couple of dozen people would have used that tag line to end their posts repeatedly and you'd see it hundreds if not thousands of times in these threads. They didn't so quit saying that they did. Yes, someone suggested it, but it was NOT carried out.

I think I should give Ken up for Lent.

Note: The monster even the effing monster bit about Lori had been around for quite some time. Only when the question was asked--

what would clients and potential clients say if they knew what Ken says about women

did Ken come riding in on his white steed to try to fix the internet (for Lori's sake, really) . Since even the "threat" was not to defame Ken, but to get his own words and his wife's blog out to more people--not more people coming to FJ, but more people to read Ken's own words on his wife's own blog-- well, unless he is embarrassed or sees what he says on her blog as shameful and could be damaging to his business reputation, why would he care?

[Mama Mia]

Note: The monster even the effing monster bit about Lori had been around for quite some time. Only when the question was asked--

did Ken come riding in on his white steed to try to fix the internet (for Lori's sake, really) . Since even the "threat" was not to defame Ken, but to get his own words and his wife's blog out to more people--not more people coming to FJ, but more people to read Ken's own words on his wife's own blog-- well, unless he is embarrassed or sees what he says on her blog as shameful and could be damaging to his business reputation, why would he care?

I can see why he would be angry about a threat to his business. I understand why he would be angry about a Google bomb campaign. I'd be angry about either if those things too. I'm sure I would get even angrier and more and more irrational and wound up if I was engaging in an on-going argument about it with a ton of people. I sure I'd probably be freaking out the same way he is.

But, I would never put my full name on a blog. I don't want every possibly controversial opinion I have out there for the world to see. I don't want to have to think about how any comment would effect my kids or co-workers if they read it. It's hard enough just staying semi-Annonymous by remembering to change some identifying details.Probably when Lori started her blog and put her real name on it she didn't think ahead and realize what a huge monster the Internet is, especially if she's had it for awhile. I'm sure it's difficult, but it just is a fact of life in 2014 that if you put your name on the Internet and tie all your opinions to it, people you don't like or agree with can see your name and opinions and comment on them.

The best way to not have the Google bomb attempt come to the top of the list is to just let it die. He can certainly engage in conversation here, and I think some people were having an interesting dialogue with him. But when he starts freaking out and it devolves into an insult match all the bad comments are going to rise to the top again. If he stuck to engaging in some of the theological debates he was having, or the conversations where he did seem to be sharing ideas back and forth, the civil words would be seen more frequently by the web crawlers ( right? )

[salex]

Ken really needs to do some research in the Striesand effect before going off on his project to sue us all. He may also want to count his pennies before doing it. My company does expert witness work for a couple law firms, specifically related to tracking down eople posting on forums. It's not cheap, just for the expert research. I have no idea how much the lawyers are making, but I expect it's at least an order of magnitude more than what they are paying us.

I mentioned to him somewhere in the second or third section of this endless thread that he was connecting himself and Lori to FJ more by all his posts here than we ever could have.

[geeklove]

Ken, I want to put your “bullying" into perspective. I want you to Google Sandra Fluke. Look at the nasty, vulgar things written about her. Check out the Photoshopped images. Think about what she did to deserve that. She testified in front of congressional members about her belief that birth control should be an expense covered by insurance. That's it. She didn't advocate for government sponsored orgies; she merely felt that women should have the same consideration as a man needing Viagra.

Can you honestly say that Lori has been subject to that level of vulgar derision? Have any of FJ's member even remotely come close to that?

Now, remember in the beginning of this conversation when you defended spanking by saying that the world was a tough place and one should prepare your children for it? I think you and Lori need to go back over that lesson.

[OkToBeTakei]

Ken really needs to do some research in the Striesand effect before going off on his project to sue us all. He may also want to count his pennies before doing it. My company does expert witness work for a couple law firms, specifically related to tracking down eople posting on forums. It's not cheap, just for the expert research. I have no idea how much the lawyers are making, but I expect it's at least an order of magnitude more than what they are paying us.

I TOTALLY read that as penises.

You do know if he comes back he will just carry on with the blah blah blah mischaracterisation, defamation, slander, libel etc etc. as if the last two pages of explanations and posts do not exist? We do all know that right?

He will claim he does not have time to read all the posts ( time to write ye ole long wall 'o' texts though, bloke loves the sound of his own voice methinks.)

So far and I'm losing count FJ is one collective person.

Some are OK for a while, then they are not ok when Ken decides.

All feminists.

All unsaved.

Not the right kind of Christians.

There was hope for some according to Ken, sadly that ray of hope is no longer there.

We are ALL a bunch of blooming hypocrites who are sad.

We are all angry and upset.

Ken does not wish to stoop so low as those at FJ. (keeps on doing it though :lol: )

He keeps changing his story as to why he came here. Today it seems to be to get google not to say fucking monster when his wife's name is entered.

Another day it was to correct mischaracterisation of his wife's words.

Another day it was to enter into debate to try 'understand' a differing view point.

Another day it was to try and 'save' a few.

Another day it .........oh you get the picture.

Oh I forgot. Yesterday it was because he wanted to make friends but then he got sad.

This bloke is downright exhausting. I'm thinking he should take up golf or embroidery he really needs another hobby. There are some stunning golf courses in his part of the world I've been lucky to play quite a few. Both hobbies use long pointy things so ......manly.

What still amazes me is that out of the entire bible the two things Ken and Lori chose to live their lives by are submission and hitting kids. I am no biblical scholar but there has to be other stuff they could have chosen to get closer to God. I guess those two things just fit with what they wanted to do anyway.

[Ken]

Someone is going to have to help me here, but has Ken posted a list of this "libelous" or "defamatory" stuff he keeps referring to?

L.ri Al.x.nd.r is a F..king M.nst.r

1 ... 456by GeoBQn » Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:15 am

It begins here and the conspiracy is born with this first post. Many FJers jump on happy to help in the process of moving the defamation/libel up the Google Search Engine.

To Curious again:

Ken says: are you kidding me? Go back and look at the thread again... Curious said: c) we don't control Google search in general and the person who suggested pushing a certain term to up the odds on hits didn't proceed with it.

At least be honest about it. Your group purposely manipulated the Google Crawler to defame my wife. Period and have refused my repeated requests to remedy the harm done. Solve the problem. I am not trying to curtail what you all say in the Forum, but it should stay here and not spew all over the Internet. You are the one's wielding the bat and causing harm.

GeoBQnPepsi is My Idol

Posts: 2951

Group: Members

Joined: Jun 15, 2011

ETA: Her full name in the title of the thread, so it will appear if someone searches her name in Google.

noni alabasterSpeshul Snowflake

Posts: 91

Group: Members

Joined: Oct 27, 2011

I suggest we start a " L... Alex….. is a F..king M nst r " campaign, similar to the " D..g Phi..ips is a T.ol, " movement.

I'd love to see that phrase pushed to the top of searches for this hateful, hateful woman.

salexPurity Baller

Posts: 2006

Group: Members

Joined: Jan 06, 2013

Given that L... Alex….. is a F..king M nst r and D..g Phi..ips is a T.ol, there should be no reason not to do this

RowanRobotkin

Posts: 659

Group: Members

Joined: Jun 12, 2011

L... Alex….. is a F..king M nst r.

Wow, 6 words that explain so much!

thoughtfulBuddy Team Captain

Posts: 5432

Group: Bloggers

Joined: Jun 12, 2011

Might I suggest “L... Alex….. is a m.nst.r," so that anyone with profanity filtering still gets to learn that Lori Alexander is a monster.

Such a Thoughtful Bully you are Thoughtful

clarinetpowerGot A Horse from God

Posts: 1289

Group: Members

Joined: Jun 12, 2011

Only one teensy problem: there's a porn star called L.ri And.rson. Apparently, she is F..king a lot of things.

Jeneric DuggarBlanket Trained

Posts: 25

Group: Inactive

Joined: May 30, 2013

I'll bet she'll be really pissed off when she finds out about 'our' L.ri And.rson (who is a monster). Talk about giving someone a bad name.

Ours???

dairyfreelifeMade My Blog Private

Posts: 1794

Group: Members

Joined: Sep 22, 2011

Oh, and someone mentioned above about a porn star named L.ri And.rson. The surnames are different, so no worries.

2xx1xy1JDSleeps With The Purity Bear

Posts: 3865

Group: Members

Joined: Oct 16, 2011

L... Alex….. is a m.nst.r!

I tried it again with another comment. Let's see if it works. I hope I'm using the words right. I actually believe in the gist of what I'm posting, so I think it's legit - it's just that I wouldn't use that language if I wasn't talking to a fundie.

I guess I violated this rule:

Never Respond to Cyberbullying Directly

The most important thing to remember about dealing with cyberbullying is to never, ever respond to the bully. I know it's difficult to do. I made the mistake of asking, begging, and pleading with my bully to stop this harassment, and it has led to a site dedicated to defaming and harassing me, complete with my full name, my husband's full name, and my family's information. Remember that bullies are often lacking something crucial in their lives and they seek pain in others, so do not fill this void for them by giving them a reaction. Your reaction is exactly what they are seeking. Instead, document everything, and seek the proper authorities (up to and including your local FBI bureau). Trust me, I know it is very, very difficult to not react when you see yourself and the people you love being attacked.

[OkToBeTakei]

I mentioned to him somewhere in the second or third section of this endless thread that he was connecting himself and Lori to FJ more by all his posts here than we ever could have.

Think I did the same salex. He's too busy trying to SAY and not listen. (or write and not read.)

It surely would take less time to actually read the replies he generates than it takes for him to write all that hyperbole. Which kind of negates his claim he has no time to read.

[OkToBeTakei]

I have a serious question for the legal brains here.

Is it illegal to call somebody a fucking monster? In the written word, or on the internet?

I don't personally recall being involved in the thread mentioned or the TOOL one, I just thought it was not my thing hey ho.

BUT is it illegal to call somebody who advocates hitting a child harder, a profanity laden title. It might not be pleasant, but is it illegal?

[Ken]

I TOTALLY read that as penises.

You do know if he comes back he will just carry on with the blah blah blah mischaracterisation, defamation, slander, libel etc etc. as if the last two pages of explanations and posts do not exist? We do all know that right?

He will claim he does not have time to read all the posts ( time to write ye ole long wall 'o' texts though, bloke loves the sound of his own voice methinks.)

So far and I'm losing count FJ is one collective person.

Some are OK for a while, then they are not ok when Ken decides.

All feminists.

All unsaved.

Not the right kind of Christians.

There was hope for some according to Ken, sadly that ray of hope is no longer there.

We are ALL a bunch of blooming hypocrites who are sad.

We are all angry and upset.

Ken does not wish to stoop so low as those at FJ. (keeps on doing it though :lol: )

He keeps changing his story as to why he came here. Today it seems to be to get google not to say fucking monster when his wife's name is entered.

Another day it was to correct mischaracterisation of his wife's words.

Another day it was to enter into debate to try 'understand' a differing view point.

Another day it was to try and 'save' a few.

Another day it .........oh you get the picture.

Oh I forgot. Yesterday it was because he wanted to make friends but then he got sad.

This bloke is downright exhausting. I'm thinking he should take up golf or embroidery he really needs another hobby. There are some stunning golf courses in his part of the world I've been lucky to play quite a few. Both hobbies use long pointy things so ......manly.

What still amazes me is that out of the entire bible the two things Ken and Lori chose to live their lives by are submission and hitting kids. I am no biblical scholar but there has to be other stuff they could have chosen to get closer to God. I guess those two things just fit with what they wanted to do anyway.

NO we live out lives by the WHOLE of God's word in context. It is this group that has tried to narrow us down to two issues, both of which I have basically dispelled.

Biblical Submission looks a lot like a healthy Egalitarian marriage, but that comment gets whacked too because FJ does not want to look at the 98% we have in common on the concept of a healthy marriage, but the 2% we disagree upon.

Same with spanking... I say spanking should be modest with a goal not to leave any bruises and used sparingly along with many other disciplinary "time out" approaches. That is not good enough for the group as it is all or nothing.

As far as why I jumped into the Forum I made it clear I had no one specific reason, but made a request to remove the libelous URL's and remedy the problem, and stated I wanted to clear up much of the misinformation and mischaracterizations.

What I am discovering is that no matter how many mischaracterizations I clear up, you and others come up with new one. Rarely if ever does any FJer apologize for the mischaracterization or misinformation, but instead excuses it and moves onto another one. Now have recently reviewed what Cyber Bullying is all about, I am beginning to see the pattern. can't win, because as fast I I dispel the lies the faster new one are formed, and even those slightly sympathetic will say, "He should not have come here... so it is his fault."

So you again are wrong on most counts, but you say it with such conviction that you actually think it is true.

I actually thought that maybe some here were interested in the truth, but my patience is wearing thin with the inability to process reality and logic. I could clearly refute almost every one of your assertions, but what is the use, you will still parade your bad thinking and poor research as if it is reality. It is not even opinion... it is just plain wrong.

If I state up front that I do not know for sure why I am in this Forum or that I have various purposes... why can't my story keep changing to try and respond to the nonsense?

[Mecca]

Ken thought he could sashay over here and use his magical penis powers to make people stop talking about them. When that did not work and his ego became very bruised in more ways than one, he pulls out misused legal terms to try and intimidate people into shutting up. Charming.

Sorry, but I refuse to feel sympathy for a set of people that have very questionable beliefs on many subjects and put those views out there for public consumption attached to their full names. That is no one's fault except their own. They are always harping about other people being responsible for their words and actions, so it is time they practice what they preach. You cannot have it both ways, Alexanders.