This Blog Should Not Exist, Part 3.001: A response to precisely "nobody"...

 And now, I get to address "nobody".

For those not following along:  Whoever this person is, made a claim I lied in everything I said in Repeat Attenders about *checks watch* two weeks ago(?).

And I said I would answer him in a Part 3.001.

So here it is.  Two important disclaimers:

What he says is the common "reasonable person" response.  So he probably would be declared correct under the relevant flavor of the law.

Secondly, as such, I have a very reasonable charge for this idiot.  Anyone who knows of Deborah's immediate career would understand that by this reasonable person test, if this guy believes half the shit he posts, he needs me out of the picture by no less than tomorrow.  And that is without joke or hesitation.

And remember, what I really believe and what I really will do has no bearing, vis-a-vis the law.  So does this idiot have the nutsack to get it done?  I have no intention of doing anything in that regard -- I believe the arrest was God telling me I was needed elsewhere, by force (and that force continues to this day that I not be violent against those who almost-certainly DO deserve it!).  But the law has no merit in that regard.

So let's see what he responds with.

"You saw her as the perfect star above all else,"

It is about here that I almost start laughing.  If there were two reputations I had among the fanscape, the OTHER ONE was that I was known, as one Deb-friend said it, not to have a cow -- but to have the whole damn dairy farm!!!

Now, to tie this over to more endemic matters to this blog, to say this would actually require the same degree of ignorance as a normal sports fan is required to have to enjoy anything in sports.  Because...  Let's be kind about it and say Deborah is not that bright with respect to the intelligence of the general American moron.

I can count numerous times where she actually would do something that was, on surface, completely reasonable and above-table, except for the fact that it would completely invalidate her work in every feasible respect.  Happened on her third album and her fourth -- and she hasn't been on a major label since.

And it is also not something other fans, even those she trusts, haven't said as well.  Some of the invective regarding her 2005 Playboy shoot (and it's aftermath) would be quite eye-opening.

Do not confuse the person with the conceptualization.

"yet the moment she changed formats from what you believed made her perfect, and after you looked at other stars' career paths similar to what you believe she was going down, you became obsessive over saving her from herself,"

This is probably about the most correct statement he makes, except for two problems:

It wasn't "format".

And second, even before the change in "format", there were weeks, when she was touring theatre productions, where actually getting her to the stage door (something she would do, on default -- because she very highly enjoyed it, and still does (at least to the extent she understands it is now a for-pay situation!) was, at best, about a 50-50 proposition.  And, many times, it was, in fact, because of what I called the "horror stories" like the guy who, as I said, really felt he was going to going to marry Deborah, scoop her (and the rest of us!!!) up, and we would all live in a happy little enclave in the Rocky Mountains.

I am deathly serious.  That was a guy who showed up at the stage door in San Diego the Sunday night I was down there to see Deborah in the production of "Grease" in January of 1996.  He might want to be thankful I was neither there nor identified him, but I did find out about him afterward.

I wish I had one of the tools I've gained in dealing with the few people I choose to have contact with -- the concept of "It is not you I do not trust..."  Deborah, even before this situation, would tell us to trust her infrastructure to take care of things.  All it takes is one.  I learned that in the joint.  Had I had the temerity, the desire, and the willingness to do as it is believed I would have wanted to do, I would have done it, and only a bullet would've stopped me, which is why that bullet needed to be expended, for the very reason I told you.

"and it reached the point where you decided to confront her after numerous attempts to get you to stop."

The only efforts I was made aware of before "Mr. Falkner, put your hands against the wall" were from the fans.  Fans I hated, did not trust, and did not have any regard for their motives -- with respect to either myself or her.

Most of Deborah's fans, at least of that vintage, should've been chucked into the ether, even if it meant Deborah were forced to retire as a direct result. Not only as a function of stories like the above, but it was clear there was a general idea that she was on their beck and call.

And do not think for 15 seconds I did not try to get official word, even if it was to stop.  To stop me, you were either going to have to shoot me or get one of the three people I _would_ trust on the situation (and they were all named "Gibson" -- and one of them is, regretfully, no longer with us).

I don't take hints very well, bitch.  (See much of the content of Part Three, including much non-Deb material.)  At this point, about the only hint which MIGHT take would be lethal.  That's why they should've killed me 25 years ago -- because not only did that mean the belief had passed the reasonable person test, but it also invalidated all antecedent acts, within or outside of the Deborah situation.

I felt Deborah was a rape (from somebody else) waiting to happen.  And the only wrong I now believe with respect to it is that I believe that the media, etc. would've feasted on it -- in the same vein as they literally feasted and tap-danced on the grave of Amy Winehouse.  I gave the world too much credit:  They wanted a spectacle, no matter who it hurt!

And a lot of people weren't happy when I didn't give them one on Court TV.

"You aren't the hero you thought you were being, and ever since then you embraced being the heroic villain with tendencies and ideas that criminally insane people get shocked by."

Oh nonononononono, shithead.  There's nothing heroic left of this.  It's one of the reasons I've even told my family, to great sense of alarm, that God has to literally choke me out to keep me from doing the most monstrous of acts.  He has purpose for me here, but, to carry it out, He has to make damn sure I don't exercise either free will or freedom.

The last heroic act I felt I made was the instant before the two plainclothes cops showed up.

But the fact of the matter is, if that's invalid, so is everything else.  At that point, there's no "heroic villain" at all -- and it's just someone you need taken out.

If there is a first flaw I will admit to, it is that I see no good in the world at all -- it all comes from the outside.

I also do not believe in bullshitting people -- and the problem is that it appears life itself in America (and far more than just here) is reliant on not only the ability to bullshit the fuck out of people, but to accept being bullshitted and turn off your damn brain and be the ignoramus you (and most of America) is required to be to be functional or enjoy anything!

"No wonder you frolic on a message board with dozens of Nazis and history remembers you as nothing more than an obsessed stalker who most likely wanted her dead."

I could ask you "Which one?", but I've been banned from them both.  (Are we talking Market Ticker, Zero Hedge, or both?)

Let's address both of these points:  Unlike the likes of you (and this basically relates to any stripe of Americana at this point -- again, the reliance on stupidity and acceptance to enjoy anything), I want to carry out research as to my personal and otherwise opponents.  I want to know what Karl Denninger is thinking, and not be blind-sided should (and, I will freely admit, WHEN) I believe his side gets sufficient power.  (Which I give 3-24 months...)

I do not believe in freedom, not in the way America falsely views it or the rights Deborah appears to conflate with the concept.  Neither is true -- you have to be of "legitimate purpose" to even think of getting the first (and, even then, that requires that legitimate purpose not destroy your freedoms in the first place) and you have to be "acceptable" to have the freedom to be who you are (which see much of the marginalized demographics of this country -- many of whom, it is believed, they don't even have the right to be who they are, under pain of no less than death!).

On the second, if I wanted her dead, I'd have tried it -- and we wouldn't be talking.  The fact is, that is what people believed I was going to do, and, because solely of that fact, the NYPD failed her safety, their safety, and that of not only their citizenry, but the one in my then-hometown by not killing me outright as a direct result of that belief.  And that I didn't want to has no bearing on that result.

The MOMENT that belief passed the actionable threshold, they needed to open fire, even by sending their compatriots in my then-hometown to do it for them.  And no other result would've been sufficient.  They wanted the double-spectacle -- and they only got one.

In what you say on the back side of this, you get to the core of why This Blog Should Not Exist.  Both as a function of the protection of law enforcement AND a lifetime of acts for which there can be no Earthly recompense.

"You've been relegated to nothing more than a Talkin' Broadway post, and a small footnote on Debbie Gibson's wikipedia page, and it's all you've been, yet you act like you're some hunted down renegade, daring anyone who doesn't like you to shoot you."

Pretty much, but that goes far beyond the simple concept of Gibson.

That alone would be sufficient, but it is no longer a necessary condition, for two reasons.

First, the classic question I love to ask morons like you:  Who the fuck are you to expect any better?  And, please note, that's universal.  If I'm going to be seen as you say, then the fact remains that (and people have told me this since) I am a threat to anyone I come into contact with -- on an a priori basis.

Second, the very real economic reality, especially if you are a Conservative (going double if you're a Libertarian, since personal responsibility can only come from shooting those who refuse) that, to actually deal with the debt and deficits, every person of my like MUST die.  And now.  I realize this doesn't fit your narrative, as it especially relates to the specific post -- but the fact of the matter is, if you don't like what I'm doing, I don't take hints very well.  You pretty much have to put a gun to my head and be prepared, then, to pull the trigger.

If you don't believe me, cost me my home by cutting off the Federal spending and see what happens pretty quick.  And you CAN take that as a threat -- many claims to some of the programs I get take years.  Mine took maybe 3 - 3 1/2 months.  It was because even they know it's a bribe to keep me on the straight and narrow.

"You're the homeless guy people give Jack Links to for some good karma, quit acting like you're the savior of the world. You lied so people could think you changed,"

The author and the creator of the documentary, Mark Dooley, would beg to sorely differ with you.

About 24 or so months ago, he was at a showing in the country of New Zealand, and was, correctly, queried by a female viewer of the film as to my continued danger.

He (and I apologize to him if he ever reads this -- he asked me not to respond to trolls, and it's clear you are one, but this is for more than your edification) told me to my face he watered it down.

He knows.  Trust me, he damn well knows that the only way to get rid of the threat is to put me in the ground.  He's just more tactful about it than I am.  And he treated me well and fairly, thank you very much.  Both to my face and to the media and any viewer who asked the question at a post-showing Q&A.

If anything, I've changed for the worse, realizing every positive act I have ever committed in my life has been, on some level, a criminal act.

I'm actually genuinely shocked that the other superfans chronicled in the movie didn't shoot me -- and you'd think they had cause, given that putting me in the movie ties them down to the same extent, in a number of viewers' eyes.  Putting us in the same movie factually endangers them.

So what's your excuse?

(PS:  Said Federal benefits have kept a roof over my head pushing 16 of the 25 years.  So let's get the facts right.)

"when in reality, the only change that happens around here is your profile from "54, opinionated, and not usually very happy," to "55, opinionated, and not usually very happy." Think about that while you shitpost on that Nazi College Football board of yours"

rec.sport.football.college?

You do realize I am openly calling on several former correction officers and military who post to the site to do exactly as you've said -- not only on a "threat prevention" level but on a very economic/political level.

But if you think that place is Nazi, the two I mentioned before would be even worse.

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

"nobody":  You best have me out of the picture.  I don't think I have to tell you the reality of what's going on here -- even though I am well-tasked here and am willing to remain here and on-task.

You got a set of balls, or, like the rest of the Nazis, do you just love to talk and think you know what you're doing?

Remember, son, and this is no exaggeration:  It took a literal New York Police Department All Points Bulletin and at least nine NYPD cars to shut me up for about a year, add a couple months before I started posting again on the Net after release...

Again, what's your damn excuse?