Well, the culmination of this whole “hide the HPV post” game with William Stewart is that he has shown his true colors. I used to think he was mostly harmless — just an immature, inexperienced, annoying young Republican with an over-inflated ego. But it turns out that when someone hurts his little fee-fees, his lying, vindictive dark side comes out.
Rumor is (from Republicans even!) that Will doesn’t really handle it well when people challenge him, and that whenever he enters a room, people have to step aside to get out of the way of his swelled head. Moving on to William’s dark side. . .
First, there were the insults he hurled at Jim McKay for being, well, basically just for being a father.
One of the liberals [who hurt his fee-fees] is an unemployed dad and has plenty of time on his hands, so I can understand his angst: it’s either write about me or dust furniture.
It turns out that Jim McKay is very much employed. After being corrected, Will only concedes that Jim “claims he is employed,” which is pretty damn irresponsible of him, since if he wanted to verify the fact that Jim works where he says he works, all he has to do is check the web site of the organization Jim says he works for.
So when Will thought Jim was what normal people call a “stay-at-home dad” (but William calls an “unemployed dad”) he thought that was worthy of denigration. I’m sure all of the stay-at-home parents out there would be pretty incensed if Will reduced the work they do in taking care of their children and their households to merely “dusting furniture.” I thought Republicans were into traditional family values. I guess that only applies when those values are maintained by parents who fulfill traditional gender roles. Will probably thinks it’s “unmanly” to be a stay-at-home dad.
And apparently Will believes that men who dare take care of their children at all — whether they stay home or not — are worthy of ridicule. After learning that Jim is employed, Will later made this disparaging comment:
It never ceases to amaze me how you say I’m a nobody with an inflated ego, yet you spend your free moments from burping the baby gracing my blog.
Can’t you feel the scorn and ridicule just dripping from that comment? This is the same Will who once wrote:
On a side note, if Logan’s Law had passed in the regular legislative session, it would have taken affect 5 days ago on June 11th. But because of the Democrat’s delay,
Logan’s LawThe “Child Protection Act of 2006” will now go into affect on October 1st. Let us hope our children can hang on until then.
Oh, spare me. It’s all politics to William. He doesn’t actually care about helping children, unlike people like Jim McKay, who devote their careers to it.
Will has now deleted all of the comments and closed off commenting altogether on that post, probably because he got scared when I told him I thought he may have committed libel. But thanks to a screenshot, they are not forgotten. He accused Jim’s wife, a Methodist pastor, of calling him something so obscene that he had to censor the comment.
I happened to read the comment before he censored it, so I knew he was lying. The way Will routinely handles comments that do contain profanity is to simply delete them, pursuant to his commenting rules. Hippie Killer has a habit of going over to Will’s place and dropping f-bombs, but those comments just disappear; they aren’t censored. Will explained his deletion and closing of the comments on that post thusly:
Because the comments on this article have turned from actually discussing the issue to pettiness and name calling by a liberal minister and her husband, I have turned off the comments for this article. For those of you wondering what she called me, it is too crude to actually post up here or even link to the definition. After the comment was posted by the minister’s husband, he asked me to take it down. Because I know if I were in her position I would hate to have this reputation, I have agreed to his request.
This site remains dedicated to free discourse as long as all parties remain civil. However it remains my site and I will delete and edit comments as I see fit. Those not willing to accept the totalitarianism inherent with blogs are welcome to go here.
Emphasis mine. Why he couldn’t just delete the “offensive” comments and let the comments that were discussing the issue stand, only William knows.
So what word did Will have to censor from Jim’s comment? What word is so crude that he can’t bring himself to type it out or even link to the definition? What word can he not believe a minister would utter, even in private?
I kid you not. Apparently “[Jack nut] is a pet phrase offered by the character of Judy Miller (Jami Gertz) on the CBS family sitcom ‘Still Standing‘. “ It’s a piece of hardware. When hurled as an insult, it’s in the same family as “wing nut,” which is also a piece of hardware. If Will thinks “jack nut” is so offensive that he won’t even publish it on his blog, then I suggest he put in a call to the FCC to report this obscenity that is repeatedly being uttered on a so-called “family sitcom” so that CBS can be properly punished.
Apparently Will got the notion that he was being called something crude by consulting the Urban Dictionary, that oh-so-reliable source of information. The term “jack nut” isn’t in there, but he discovered that the definition of “jack nuts” is “when a gentleman has very small testicles (or possibly humongously large ones).” For example, one might say: “Check out the jack nuts on him!” Based on Urban Dictionary’s definition, “jack nuts” isn’t the same thing as “jack nut;” it’s not even the same part of speech. Jim’s wife said that William Stewart is a Jack Nut, not that he has jack nuts. But those super-conservative, moralizing Republicans’ minds are always in the gutter, aren’t they?
I swear this is the last time I’ll be writing about this little blog dust-up, but after all of this bullshit, I am left with one great big, glaring question that is just begging to be answered: If the topic that started this whole mess had been some other kind of vaccine for something that is not sexually transmitted, would William even have written about it?
If the topic that started this whole mess had been some other kind of vaccine for something that is not sexually transmitted, would William even have written about it?
Or would have you?
i think will is right…you should get off his back. It’s his blog and he can do whatever he wants to.
It sounds like you are doing your own version of libel…
Hey Red,
It was actually me that posted the Urban Dictionary link on Jim’s comments. You seem to feel it’s not authoritative. Care to share why? I’ve found it to be a pretty good source of current common usage definitions.
And just for the record, in the “jacknut” yields a different result than “jack_nut” in the UD.
Aw, some William Stewart fans. I never said he couldn’t do whatever he wants on his blog. He can, and I can criticize him for it. You might want to look up the definition of “libel,” because I haven’t said anything about him that isn’t true or just my personal opinion.
Would I have written about the vaccine if it were for something other than a sexually transmitted infection? Not as much as I have, because the Daily Mail probably wouldn’t have published an editorial that misrepresents the facts about the vaccine and it likely wouldn’t have been on Will’s radar. But if the vaccine were for something that only women are at risk for, then there’d probably be some other basis on which these guys would be opposing it, and then I’d be writing about it.
Stanton, Will emailed me the Urban Dictionary link. That’s where I first saw that particular definition. I’m sure the UD is authoritative on some things. I’ve looked things up there before. But there’s also a bunch of crap in there, since it’s basically a user-edited site and definitions that get lots of votes move to the top. It’s ridiculous for Will to find one definition of something close to what was said and claim that that is what was definitely meant. I don’t think for a second that Jim’s wife was referring to William’s balls when she made that comment, and I don’t think Will believes that either.
To me, it’s obvious that he’s overreacting to the insult as a tactic for making Jim and his wife look bad. Like I said, he usually just deletes profanity and says nothing about it. Why does he have the vapors over it this time? All of this “I can’t believe a minister would say such a thing!” is completely manufactured.
The Urban Dictionary?
I remind everyone that its number 3 definition for “Eric Clapton” is “our Lord and savior.”
Besides, it was “jack nut” not “jack nuts.” Please come off the sanctimonious high horse.
First, anyone who plays guitar knows Eric Clapton nickname is/was “God”. So his name should have been first, not third.
Secondly who drags their wife into a “discussion” of this type? WabiSabi should apologize to his wife for involving her in this drama/comedy in the first place.
Thanks for having my back. I wasn’t too worked up until he falsely claimed that Carol was spreading obscenities. His insults to my manhood are an obvious response to his own insecurities.
It’s interesting that Will emailed you. He has yet to email me. I tried emailing him through his web site, but he probably claims that he didn’t receive it.
This all stems from his use of an audacious claim that 80% of cancer comes from premarital sex before the age of 18. He still hasn’t provided a citation.
He deleted my comments asking about the citation and then blamed their disappearance on a website “glitch”. Later he admitted that he deletes my comments on a “regular basis” and proved his “glitch” story was a lie.
Finally, no matter what someone may have posted in the Urban Dictionary, Carol’s use of the term “Jack Nut” is clearly not sexual or obscene. Will knows it, yet he continues to state otherwise.
Jackie, Carol did call him a “Jack Nut”. It was a weak attempt at humor on my part to say so, but Will is the one that twisted it into something it’s not, defamed her reputation, and escalated the whole thing.
Trust me, Carol doesn’t need me to come to her defense. She’s more than capable to do so on her own. She can go Old Testament if she needs to.
Will should stick to insulting me, because he will be overmatched quickly if he picks a fight with her.
As much as I enjoy a good backyard brawl, I can’t help but be reminded that this debate began over a proactive effort to save some lives…
oh, the movie never ends, it goes on and on and on…
It’s clearly a case of someone calling Will a name and not knowing what it truly meant. She should apologize and let that be that.
Uh, it’s clearly a case of someone calling Will a harmless name, and Will’s mind instantly going to the gutter. She could have just called him jackass, but Will would have probably though that had something to do with anal masturbation.
Strangers, waiting, up and down the boulevard…
It’s clearly a case of some guy who got called a name and figured out how to use that to distract from the real debate.
On the nose, film geek. William is never going to tell me where he got that supposed statistic that “80% of all cervical cancer is caused by promiscuity or sex before age 18.” (Of course, he wouldn’t have been able to tell me, since he made it up, but you get my point.)