Glenn, I believe, is afraid of what I could do (and what many others could do) if we were in a position to be able to speak freely. If we were not "silenced" as it were. This blog is my first step in "breaking" that silence and there will be many more steps and firsts as my child gets older and I can be assured of protection for us.
I have noticed that Glenn has disabled all comment links on his website. My question for him is why are you doing this? Are you afraid at what the general public will discover should they go to your site and click on one of those names?
Now onto "Glenn's Rules.":
1) Personal attacks.
2) Profanity or vulgarity.
3) People who want to endlessly carp over tiny points.
4) Comments which advocate, suggest, condone, justify, or imply support for violence.
5) Comments demanding that I post/not post on the commenter's favorite subject, as opposed to comments on the subject itself.
6) People who stray too far from the issue being discussed. I'm pretty tolerant of this, but it has limits.
7) People who make potentially libelous statements. This includes statements about ex-wives or ex-husbands which use their last names.
8) Derogatory comments about people's looks.
9) Comments whose main purpose is commercial advertising or solicitation.
10) People acting based on a personal grudge instead of the issue at hand.
11) Nazi/Hitler analogies, use of "feminazi," "Nazi," etc. to describe opponents. To learn more, click here. Likening opponents to the KKK is also discouraged.
Glenn has stated that I was "banned" due to my personal threats. I do not threaten, first and foremost. I am a pacifist and abhor any type of controversy for the most part (that is why this blog is actually surprising me). I was accused of lying about my story and insinuations were made that I could not or would not offer "proof" of my claims. How else was I to do that than by revealing my personal identity. And then allow a "fringe" MRA to contact my crazed ex? I do not think so. I also conversed with numerous commenters on his blog who did reveal their true identity to everyone. I attempted to verify one person's story and imagine my surprise (not) when I discovered not just one, not just two, not just three, but a total of 6 domestic violence injunctions to which he was a party. Imagine my surprise also when it was revealed in my research (which this commenter invited me to do) that he had been divorced twice, was in arrears in his child support to his first wife numerous times, several of those times resulted in DL suspension hearings. There is more, but I will not reveal this person's identity on my blog because I believe in the privacy of each person. I will note this though:
If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, gee could it be a duck? Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...............
I will also share that this commenter has no issues revealing his exes' location, her employer, and his name and his own location which will not make it difficult to locate her. This is scary that Glenn would allow this to occur given his rule number seven. We only have this commenter's uncorroborated testimony that he was abused. We have no other verifiable source for this claim. So his statements could potentially be libelous. At the very least this is dangerous to his ex-wife. But Glenn has no feelings about this because he allows it to continue. This also goes in line with rule number 10 as well.
But this commenter agrees with everything that Glenn writes so of course he will not be banned nor warned about this posting behavior. (more in another post)