cease and desist letter for serial harassment and unhinged rantings, state of receipt (update 5)
You’re joking, right?
I want to take this opportunity, as I wait for the USPS to find and forward me the letter that someone paid an attorney good money to draft and then mail to an address where I don’t live — and couldn’t have lived for the past nearly 5 years (though we don’t know what address that is, or when the mail was sent, just as we don’t know when my serial cyber-harassment was supposed to have taken place, nor from what email account these “unhinged” “rants”, as they’ve been described by a DDA who claims never to have seen them or read them but who nonetheless felt comfortable classifying them, emanated) — to re-post links to the various essays of mine that started (and then re-started) this whole ugly ball rolling. Because as I was revisiting them over the past few days, I was struck by just how concerned they were with trying to engage with ideas (mostly about language), and were really anything but the “attacks on honor” the DDA and his band of howler monkeys has subsequently made them out to be.
But don’t believe me. Look for yourselves:
1) On Nobility. In which the “good man” trope is born.
2) Outlaw Speak (the follow-up).
3) Letterman’s “rape” joke (Frey waited, then later noted that I had “defended child rape” — I shit thee not! Lots of very good debate in the comment section. Note, most people disagreed with me, and I managed to argue throughout a 600 comment thread without pretending anyone issued a death threat and banning him or her.)
4. how I learned to stop worrying and love the f bomb, guest-posted on Hot Air (back before Frey’s campaign to have me booted from polite company hit its highest gear).
4) In which I don’t defend child rape, despite the claim that I do.
5) More language lessons, revisited — the post in which I detailed why the public method Frey deployed to vet Stacy McCain was linguistically flawed (and a bit unseemly).
6) Which of course, led to Frey’s series of posts about how Jeff Goldstein is violent; an intellectual fraud; not a man of substance; likes to play the race card, etc. My response was to show Frey how his OWN arguments defending his “investigation” of Stacy McCain’s (potential) racism works, and the dangers inherent to it — clearly spoofing Frey’s own posts and using the opportunity to point out the linguistic problems with such arguments.
And there are others, but you get the point. And can see the pattern.
I am re-posting these because I want people to pay attention to my actual arguments, not to the meta-narrative that has been pushed to describe them. Are they really the kinds of personal attacks that should have provoked the kind of response they did? Or do they fit in perfectly with my myriad other critiques of language (a constant site theme since its founding), namely, that allowing the validity of certain linguistic and hermeneutic assumptions will necessarily create and/or strengthen the foundation for a progressive takeover of our epistemological assumptions, and so determine our very “knowledge”?
These are big, important questions, I believe. But rather than allowing them to be asked, Frey has been more concerned with making sure the asker is diminished and removed from the public conversation.
And that’s just sad, in my opinion.
Be that as it may, I spoke to the special investigator in the LA County DA’s office today and outlined my concerns over Frey’s continued recalcitrance in releasing information that could help me clear my name and find who has taken on my identity and used it in the course of a potential crime. For those of you interested, I provide an overview of that conversation here.