# The end of WASP 101?



## Hayek (Jun 20, 2006)

Quite possibly. This must be some of the better internet stalking I've seen:

https://www.ivy-style.com/is-wasp-101-blogger-north-carolina-state-rep.html


----------



## Dieu et les Dames (Jul 18, 2012)

scandalous, really.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Haha, I just read that a few minutes ago. Not sure how I feel about it if it's true. There's much to be ashamed of on both sides.


----------



## Hayek (Jun 20, 2006)

hardline_42 said:


> Haha, I just read that a few minutes ago. Not sure how I feel about it if it's true. There's much to be ashamed of on both sides.





hardline_42 said:


> Haha, I just read that a few minutes ago. Not sure how I feel about it if it's true. There's much to be ashamed of on both sides.


I'm not at all surprised that someone did the research and figured it out. He really came off as very off putting, and all it takes is one individual out of the entire internet to devote a relatively modest amount of time to putting the pieces together. Whether Christian was right to make a post about it is a different story I suppose. But I've always found Ivy Style to be an exceptional resource and Wasp 101 good for little other than awed bemusement, so I'm sympathetic to Christian.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Hayek said:


> I'm not at all surprised that someone did the research and figured it out. He really came off as very off putting, and all it takes is one individual out of the entire internet to devote a relatively modest amount of time to putting the pieces together. Whether Christian was right to make a post about it is a different story I suppose. But I've always found Ivy Style to be an exceptional resource and Wasp 101 good for little other than awed bemusement, so I'm sympathetic to Christian.


While I read Ivy Style occasionally and like Christian's blogging style, I was never a reader of Wasp 101 and only knew of his reputation from others, so I can't really find fault with Ivy Style on this one. He just posted what one of his readers brought to his attention. I suppose that a politician being outed as a blogger with some rather unsavory characteristics is probably a good thing for his constituents


----------



## TradThrifter (Oct 22, 2012)

This is really weird, but also really entertaining. No one wants to be a "Richard". And now we can put a face to it.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

But what does *Muffy* have to say about it?


----------



## frosejr (Mar 27, 2010)

Flanderian said:


> But what does *Muffy* have to say about it?


+1!

FR


----------



## Trad-ish (Feb 19, 2011)

hardline_42 said:


> Haha, I just read that a few minutes ago. Not sure how I feel about it if it's true. There's much to be ashamed of on both sides.


I agree.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Ha! This was fun. Good ole Richard.

He looks to have been so far down the meat, potatoes and hard liqueur trail as to look positively Russian.

I'm amazed he actually had a real wife. I thought she was rental fo sho, given his lousy attitude towards women.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

And there's a job for that investigator as a G man....


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Another (self-proclaimed) Ivy guru has met a rather sticky end recently. I understand he was once a very, shall we say, prolific poster on our Trad forum.....

This is faintly amusing:

https://wasp101sucks.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/common-reaction-to-reading-retards-blog.html


----------



## Dieu et les Dames (Jul 18, 2012)

A good bit of the older material is accessible through the way back machine.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120120180023/https://wasp101.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I may have to start this back up again...

https://lifewithoutrichard.blogspot.com


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

As excited as Ivy Style seems to be about "busting" Wasp101, I wonder if Richard really cared if he was found out.

Richard left clues all over, which makes me wonder if he cared who figured it out (or maybe he was truly nuts). As far back as 2008, Richard seemed to be dropping clues like this https://suzanne-marques.blogspot.com/2008/02/perfectly-prep.html that could allow anyone to search who he might be based upon the address shown. I thought he was strangely amusing, in a very annoying way.

I have no idea what motivates people to create strange internet characters, or the people who get obsessed with exposing them. It is crazy that an elected official would have a site with his pictures all over it. In a strange way, I think I will miss the weird posts of Wasp101. Would love to know why he kept up the charade for years though.


----------



## sjk (Dec 1, 2007)

When he first started getting noticed, some were asking if he was really serious or actually doing some sort of Andy Kaufman-like cyber-performance art. 

​I also recall someone who wrote in asking if he created the blog as a tool to inoculate himself from the effects of public criticism, prior to going into politics. Amazingly prescient, I'd say.


----------



## Hayek (Jun 20, 2006)

sjk said:


> When he first started getting noticed, some were asking if he was really serious or actually doing some sort of Andy Kaufman-like cyber-performance art.
> 
> I also recall someone who wrote in asking if he created the blog as a tool to inoculate himself from the effects of public criticism, prior to going into politics. Amazingly prescient, I'd say.


The longer it went on for the more I suspected that the whole thing was real. But it's still so odd to me that Richard spent so much time playing in the Trad ballpark, but never really getting it. He would have some tradly duds and then ruin it with a terrible fit or some strange pocket square.

He was like a baseball player that fouls out at each and every at bat. You'd think that, over time, through sheer probability, Richard would have posted at least one pic or made at least one post that--even if it wasn't a home run--would at least get him to first. But no, never. He fouled it with each post. Each. And. Every. One.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Hayek said:


> The longer it went on for the more I suspected that the whole thing was real. But it's still so odd to me that Richard spent so much time playing in the Trad ballpark, but never really getting it. He would have some tradly duds and then ruin it with a terrible fit or some strange pocket square.
> 
> He was like a baseball player that fouls out at each and every at bat. You'd think that, over time, through sheer probability, Richard would have posted at least one pic or made at least one post that--even if it wasn't a home run--would at least get him to first. But no, never. He fouled it with each post. Each. And. Every. One.


I only occasionally looked at his blog, but I got the same impression: he really didn't have much of a grounding in men's clothing in general, but had a stack of older Ralph Lauren catalogs.

BTW, I saw a sidebar on someone's site (too lazy to read it) that said the NC Rep went on WRAL in Raleigh and denied it was him.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Hayek said:


> The longer it went on for the more I suspected that the whole thing was real. But it's still so odd to me that Richard spent so much time playing in the Trad ballpark, but never really getting it. He would have some tradly duds and then ruin it with a terrible fit or some strange pocket square.
> 
> He was like a baseball player that fouls out at each and every at bat. You'd think that, over time, through sheer probability, Richard would have posted at least one pic or made at least one post that--even if it wasn't a home run--would at least get him to first. But no, never. He fouled it with each post. Each. And. Every. One.


Thank you for bringing Chensvold's well-done article to our attention!

That Richard and Holloway are one and the same is beyond doubt to anyone except those still firmly convinced of the corporal nature of both the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny.

The only sadness is that we will now always be deprived of the rich ambiance of fox hunts (chicken farms) and chunky gal pals (legislative receptionists) as Richard explains to us how real WASP's conduct their lives.

- Such as the time he disrobed to prove to us all that he wasn't fat.

- His drooling over images of teenage females.

- Or the description of his treatment of his house guest, "Before I knew it, I punched him in the nose, kicked him in the crown jewels, and drug him by his hair onto the porch."

- That he was a man among men, over whom any woman that came into contact with him lusted.

No, Richard was most definitely not just another fashion blogger.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

To be honest, I find Richard the character a lot less annoying now that the guy behind the curtain is revealed, one more doofus blowing off steam on the internet.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

All closet WASP 101 fans should now stand as one and shout, loudly and defiantly, "I'm Richard!"

This unjust persecution of a misguided elected official who whiles away his hours in a fantasy land of women, bombastic monetary transactions, mismatched (and usually wrinkled) clothing, and more women must be stopped! 

It's Richard today. Tomorrow, it could be one of us!


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Dieu et les Dames said:


> A good bit of the older material is accessible through the way back machine.
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20120120180023/https://wasp101.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html


Thanks so much. That was more bizarre than I expected, with the tales of getting hit on by a "vampires," a loud fart at a party or nearly coming to fisticuffs over wearing an ascot. His photos always have an odd shapelessness to them, but that might be his bent leg and open coat pose.

The fact that his receptionist was a contributor is equally strange.


----------



## Bandit44 (Oct 1, 2010)

I'm not sure which is weirder, a state representative blogging under the pen name "WASP" or "the competition" dedicating time/resources to expose the guy. It's like a men's fashion Game of Thrones.


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

It's even funnier that the UK troll Russel street signed on to help out on WASP101 shortly before this. Too funny. 

EwS


----------



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

I did enjoy reading from time to time, even if as a self-parody it seemed to be. There was one long rant I remember against AAAC which was a bit bizarre. 

The whole fox hunt facade did tick me off a little though... It's not England in 1904 anymore.


----------



## Hayek (Jun 20, 2006)

I wonder if his wife refers to him as "The Senator," just like the Angela character (married to a state senator) from The Office.


----------



## Titus_A (Jun 23, 2010)

Something I didn't even know existed has been brought to an end (apparently?). I'm having trouble finding the proper word for the situation.


----------



## LordSmoke (Dec 25, 2012)

Titus_A said:


> Something I didn't even know existed has been brought to an end (apparently?). I'm having trouble finding the proper word for the situation.


+1 :icon_scratch:


----------



## rhdeis (Feb 12, 2013)

This quote from the documentary "I Like Killing Flies" seems apt. 

​“Decent people treat other human beings with respect, even people that don’t deserve it. Which is the big demarcation point I think in human behavior. If you treat people with respect who don’t deserve it, it’s a mark of high civilization. Because you never know who’s only temporarily deserving of bad behavior. So you try to treat everybody with a morality that makes you a good person, not whether or not they deserve to be treated well.”Kenny Shopsin


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

I don't think I was ever aware of this guy.

What an interesting story though. The part about sabotaging the other guy's realtionship -- sounds like pure fantasy.

Edit -- didn't see the above posts before I posted this, very funny Titus!

:icon_jokercolor:


----------



## emb1980 (Dec 28, 2012)

rhdeis said:


> This quote from the documentary "I Like Killing Flies" seems apt.
> 
> "Decent people treat other human beings with respect, even people that don't deserve it. Which is the big demarcation point I think in human behavior. If you treat people with respect who don't deserve it, it's a mark of high civilization. Because you never know who's only temporarily deserving of bad behavior. So you try to treat everybody with a morality that makes you a good person, not whether or not they deserve to be treated well."Kenny Shopsin


Sounds like a variation of one of my favorite lines in Shakespeare:
"Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping? Use them after your own honor and dignity. The less they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty."


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

I like Christian's stuff. He's very good. And I never really read WASP 101, but certainly gather he was a bit...off putting. Still, doing a take-down post broadcasting the personal details of another blogger seems like opening a Pandora's box the blogging world does not need. Why is the anonymous stalker given the courtesy of anonymity when the WASP 101 fellow is not? I concede it makes you want to rubber neck at the train wreck of it all, but I can't applaud it.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Flanderian said:


> Thank you for bringing Chensvold's well-done article to our attention!
> 
> That Richard and Holloway are one and the same is beyond doubt to anyone except those still firmly convinced of the corporal nature of both the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny.
> 
> ...


Having never seen this blog before, I am saddend by the loss. The blog you describe is definitely something I would read - pure gold.


----------



## roman totale XVII (Sep 18, 2009)

It certainly is car crash tv and no-one's going to come out with any credit (and maybe some hefty legal bills). I don't care for Chensvold too much as he is clearly a career 'writer' who has very little passion or insight into what he promotes. I often used to pop into WASP 101 to see if Richard was ever going to come clean about the fact it was a meticulous, long term wind-up, just like our very own Howard. As someone mentioned already, I really thought it was a Kaufmanesque piece of performance art.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Titus_A said:


> Something I didn't even know existed has been brought to an end (apparently?). I'm having trouble finding the proper word for the situation.


Inconsequential?


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

AlanC said:


> I like Christian's stuff. He's very good. And I never really read WASP 101, but certainly gather he was a bit...off putting. Still, doing a take-down post broadcasting the personal details of another blogger seems like opening a Pandora's box the blogging world does not need. Why is the anonymous stalker given the courtesy of anonymity when the WASP 101 fellow is not? I concede it makes you want to rubber neck at the train wreck of it all, but I can't applaud it.


This is well said. I certainly think any poster here who tracked down a fellow member and posted private details would/should be banned and the post removed by the moderators.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that any such a spirit exists when it comes to press coverage of politicians. I think that we have probably gone to far in terms of journalistic scrutiny of politicians private lives, but I dont think a politician's anonymous use of social media falls or ever fell into the private realm.


----------



## Hayek (Jun 20, 2006)

roman totale XVII said:


> It certainly is car crash tv and no-one's going to come out with any credit (and maybe some hefty legal bills). I don't care for Chensvold too much as he is clearly a career 'writer' who has very little passion or insight into what he promotes. I often used to pop into WASP 101 to see if Richard was ever going to come clean about the fact it was a meticulous, long term wind-up, just like our very own Howard. As someone mentioned already, I really thought it was a Kaufmanesque piece of performance art.


Really? He never really struck me as being less passionate/interested in this stuff as any of the other bloggers.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

AldenPyle said:


> This is well said. I certainly think any poster here who tracked down a fellow member and posted private details would/should be banned and the post removed by the moderators.
> 
> On the other hand, I'm not sure that any such a spirit exists when it comes to press coverage of politicians. I think that we have probably gone to far in terms of journalistic scrutiny of politicians private lives, but I dont think a politician's anonymous use of social media falls or ever fell into the private realm.


Indeed, anonymity is a privilege, not an inalienable right, and one clearly forfeited upon entering the the fray of elected public service! The electorate certainly has a right or at least certainly an expectation of knowing it all. In the present instance, the "senator/blog author strikes me as a confirmed horse's ass, whose writings reflect personal values that I for one do not admire!


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> Indeed, anonymity is a privilege, not an inalienable right, and one clearly forfeited upon entering the the fray of elected public service! The electorate certainly has a right or at least certainly an expectation of knowing it all. In the present instance, the "senator/blog author strikes me as a confirmed horse's ass, whose writings reflect personal values that I for one do not admire!


Yes, this is the point.

This was not a case of someone just having an anonymous fashion or life style blog as a side interest. This was someone who created a whole character with strange bragging stories and some controversial posts. It was fun to read, in a train wreck way, but how could an elected official, who is in the public eye and known to so many people think he would not be noticed by one of his constituents or colleagues. If I lived in his district, I would wonder about his judgment.

It is a bit uncomfortable to read the level of someone's obsession that they went to the trouble of searching facebook and other sources to expose him, but Richard is a smart guy and had to figure someone might try to call "bs" after his outrageous stories.

Since he seemed to enjoy controversy, I think Richard would be better served by admitting it was him and claiming it was satire to entertain the blog world.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Tom Buchanan said:


> It was fun to read, in a train wreck way,


I.e., Wasp 101 was The Jerry Springer Show of sartorial blogs. (Same instincts, slightly different presentation.)

https://www.complex.com/style/2013/05/bryan-holloway-republican-menswear-blogger-denial


----------



## Reptilicus (Dec 14, 2004)

A lot interesting stuff has come to light recently. Here is a link to a site that has 13 pages of comments on the Wasp 101 site: https://getoffmyinternets.net/forums/fashion-bloggers/wasp-101/page-12/

I had no idea Richard's blog was so simultaneously loved for its comedic effect and reviled for it's classism/sexism. The site drove me nuts, but I"ll miss it. I'll miss it like I would miss never getting to see a car wreck again.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Reptilicus said:


> A lot interesting stuff has come to light recently. Here is a link to a site that has 13 pages of comments on the Wasp 101 site: https://getoffmyinternets.net/forums/fashion-bloggers/wasp-101/page-12/
> 
> I had no idea Richard's blog was so simultaneously loved for its comedic effect and reviled for it's classism/sexism.


_Wasperger_ Syndrome! :thumbs-up: :thumbs-up: :thumbs-up:

I LIKE IT!!!









(As spoken by a true WASP!)


----------



## Trad-ish (Feb 19, 2011)

Flanderian said:


> _Wasperger_ Syndrome! :thumbs-up: :thumbs-up: :thumbs-up:
> 
> I LIKE IT!!!
> 
> ...


Wow, a "Modern Problems" reference! I haven't seen that movie in ages.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Chensvold defends himself against critics of his outing of Richard -

https://www.ivy-style.com/

and I, essentially, agree. When someone publishes, irrespective of whether it's on paper or the Internet, they have no right to anonymity. They may *want *it, and *seek* it, but they cannot *demand* it. The public has a greater claim to the source of *public* comments in a *public *medium than a publisher has of privacy.

Now some politicians often seem to think that the anonymous smear, or distortion isn't just an under-handed tactic, but a God given right. And perhaps that's Richard's frame of reference.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Chensvold is acting as if he's pulled off some terrific journalistic coup. Unless North Carolina has is a law against being a weirdo, or being tasteless, what exactly has this dim bulb of an obscure pol done?

The time the man spent writing his unfunny blog could have been spent creating lousy legislation. The Tarheel State may have had a narrow escape.

A note on anonymous sources: I work at a newspaper. I almost never use them. One instance in eight years, when I was writing about people in recovery from drug addiction, and people involved in the drug trade. Even then all I did was change names and in one case gender.

My editor and my publisher both knew the actual identities of these people. 

Why is this important? Because with an anonymous source, it is very easy to get suckered into being the front man for someone with a grudge. 

If I screw something up, I get fired. Bloggers don't answer to anybody, except in settings like this.


----------



## Reldresal (Oct 13, 2011)

Chensvold is absolutely wrong. Here are the facts, let's decide what the right thing is to do:

1. An author writes a blog and wishes to remain anonymous.
2. A reader is so incensed by the blogger and the content that he decides to track down the blogger and expose him.
3. Upon finding enough information to reasonably conclude who the blogger is, the investigator informs Chensvold.
4. Chensvold decides to publish the information.

That's it. The blogger did no harm to anyone. But, gee, he published, so let's air any disgruntled person's findings for the purpose of...uhhhh...well, no purpose except to expose the author publicly.

Civility is dead. Is it too much to expect people to respect one another's wishes (so long as no harm is being done) online as well as off? Rhetorical, but I can answer it affirmatively, to the great shame of the species.



Flanderian said:


> Chensvold defends himself against critics of his outing of Richard -
> 
> https://www.ivy-style.com/
> 
> ...


----------



## Corcovado (Nov 24, 2007)

I had never heard of this blog before but the tempest in the teapot is interesting. What sort of posts was the author of WASP 101 making that were considered objectionable? Examples?


----------



## rwaldron (Jun 22, 2012)

I've come across WASP 101 a couple of times, but I never followed, simply because it seemed completely devoid of any actual content. On that note, I feel that this guy is getting penalized pretty harshly for the crime of writing a bad blog. I hope people don't feel about my blog the same way they feel about his (and if you do, please let me know so I don't have toons day endure the same thing).


----------



## leisureclass (Jan 31, 2011)

As usual, AAW gets it just about exactly right: https://anaffordablewardrobe.blogspot.com/


----------



## MikeF (Feb 26, 2010)

He got it perfectly right. The WASP guy is/was to be made fun of and probably pitied but what the stalker did and then Chensvold published was vile and scary. I started reading this stuff a day ago and have been thinking about it since then. I've come around to the view that the guy who did the discovery is probably at least a little disturbed, he did a lot of work to take down a nobody. The really scary part is that he could have done real physical harm to the WASP guy if he had been a little bit crazier. He wasn't thankfully but his work should have never been given a forum.

Anyone with any online presence at all ought to be horrified that someone with motivation and time can track someone else down for the tiniest offence and proceed to ruin their lives in a completely anonymous fashion.



leisureclass said:


> As usual, AAW gets it just about exactly right: https://anaffordablewardrobe.blogspot.com/


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Patrick06790 said:


> The time the man spent writing his unfunny blog could have been spent creating lousy legislation. The Tarheel State may have had a narrow escape.


Hadn't considered that . . . . could be far more legislators should be required to blog! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

MikeF said:


> what the stalker did and then Chensvold published was vile and scary.


 Not everyone seems to have much knowledge regarding the persona of Richard. If he were simply an innocent but inept sartorial blogger, I might have more sympathy. But behind his self-congratulatory tales and silly pronouncements is a condescending and possibly sociopathic attitude that he peddles to the young and ignorant as superior. To the extent that this is accepted by these impressionable youngsters, it is Richard who is vile and scary.

The Internet is a public place. A blogger shares the same responsibility for his or her remarks as anyone that makes them in any other public place. The (Likely apocryphal.) anonymous informant and Chensvold did not crawl into Richard's bedroom or inspect a spouse's petticoats, but rather held a public person responsible for their public remarks in a public forum. Far from being vile and scary, they (Or he.) performed a public service.

If this is sensational, it is not because light was shown on this man, but because of his need to flee from responsibility for his own behavior.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Flanderian said:


> Not everyone seems to have much knowledge regarding the persona of Richard. If he were simply an innocent but inept sartorial blogger, I might have more sympathy. But behind his self-congratulatory tales and silly pronouncements is a condescending and possibly sociopathic attitude that he pedals to the young and ignorant as superior. To the extent that this is accepted by these impressionable youngsters, it is Richard who is vile and scary.
> 
> The Internet is a public place. A blogger shares the same responsibility for his or her remarks as anyone that makes them in any other public place. The (Likely apocryphal.) anonymous informant and Chensvold did not crawl into Richard's bedroom or inspect a spouse's petticoats, but rather held a public person responsible for their public remarks in a public forum. Far from being vile and scary, they (Or he.) performed a public service.
> 
> If this is sensational, it is not because light was shown on this man, but because of his need to flee from responsibility for his own behavior.


Agreed.

That blog was a murky misogynistic pool of hogwash. I could probably support my views expressed online publicly, and if you really, really can't (and you're not blogging from North Korea or about your secret sex change) then there's probably something amiss.

Sartorially, we're better off as well. Chensvold also did no more than make the information public (funnily so) and the investigator did no more than devote some time and energy to some rather interesting detective work. Stalking is something else entirely.

Civility isn't leaving things be, treating misogynists as fellow gentlemen. You can civilly puncture someone with a sword, or as here, with a pen.


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

Flanderian said:


> Not everyone seems to have much knowledge regarding the persona of Richard. If he were simply an innocent but inept sartorial blogger, I might have more sympathy. But behind his self-congratulatory tales and silly pronouncements is a condescending and possibly sociopathic attitude that he pedals to the young and ignorant as superior. To the extent that this is accepted by these impressionable youngsters, it is Richard who is vile and scary.
> 
> The Internet is a public place. A blogger shares the same responsibility for his or her remarks as anyone that makes them in any other public place. The (Likely apocryphal.) anonymous informant and Chensvold did not crawl into Richard's bedroom or inspect a spouse's petticoats, but rather held a public person responsible for their public remarks in a public forum. Far from being vile and scary, they (Or he.) performed a public service.
> 
> If this is sensational, it is not because light was shown on this man, but because of his need to flee from responsibility for his own behavior.


If you think the person who wrote a silly blog full of obviously apocryphal tales is "sociopathic," and not the "journalist" who exposes his identity on a niche fashion blog for no reason other than to eliminate a competitor whose output he didn't like, your moral compass might need adjustment.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

boatshoe said:


> If you think the person who wrote a silly blog full of obviously apocryphal tales is "sociopathic," and not the "journalist" who exposes his identity on a niche fashion blog for no reason other than to eliminate a competitor whose output he didn't like, your moral compass might need adjustment.


Obviously apocryphal tales that were pretty sucky towards women. I think anyone who wants to defend Richard in this should be required to defend his blog content, which was not really about fashion but about a certain package behavior. So, not really a competitor.

All we are getting now is a bunch of kids "standing up for the small guy" while the small guy is a grown man, politician, who writes schlock on the Internet.

Largely unimpressed with ASW:s take on this. Again, go right ahead and defend the guy(s blog content).


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

Bjorn said:


> Obviously apocryphal tales that were pretty sucky towards women. I think anyone who wants to defend Richard in this should be required to defend his blog content, which was not really about fashion but about a certain package behavior. So, not really a competitor.
> 
> All we are getting now is a bunch of kids "standing up for the small guy" while the small guy is a grown man, politician, who writes schlock on the Internet.
> 
> Largely unimpressed with ASW:s take on this. Again, go right ahead and defend the guy(s blog content).


There is no need to defend the content of his blog to find Christian's behavior deplorable. See, what most people do if they don't like the content of a blog is to stop reading it.


----------



## MikeF (Feb 26, 2010)

Agreed, no one has defended Wasp, in fact it's been pretty well written off as stupid and pathetic. The problem most of us have is that someone devoted an immense amount of time and energy to exposing him. To me that is the problem, that person's energy could have been devoted to anyone online who he didn't like. You guys who defend him maybe think that you are beyond reproach but there are still things about you that shouldn't be public knowledge, address, account numbers and the like. In your minds Wasp deserved it (and he showed his unfitness for his job by his blogging) but what if it's you next?



boatshoe said:


> There is no need to defend the content of his blog to find Christian's behavior deplorable. See, what most people do if they don't like the content of a blog is to stop reading it.


----------



## nonartful dodger (Nov 24, 2011)

These two have been at it with each other for awhile now. This outcome is hardly a surprise. I have no sympathy for Richard as he has always seemed eager to engage in some drama or another in the past. 

The thing that has turned me off is all the "I'm better than this" commentary from other bloggers that I've enjoyed in the past. If they are truely sickened by Christian's outing of one of their own, why post a scolding commentary and threaten removing "Ivy Style" from their blog list? Simply go ahead and do it without all the fanfare. It reeks of being self serving.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

MikeF said:


> Agreed, no one has defended Wasp, in fact it's been pretty well written off as stupid and pathetic. The problem most of us have is that someone devoted an immense amount of time and energy to exposing him. To me that is the problem, that person's energy could have been devoted to anyone online who he didn't like. You guys who defend him maybe think that you are beyond reproach but there are still things about you that shouldn't be public knowledge, address, account numbers and the like. In your minds Wasp deserved it (and he showed his unfitness for his job by his blogging) but what if it's you next?


Mike, with all respect, you seem not to distinguish among a number of very different issues, and to lump all of them together under some concept of Internet privacy.

- How Chensvold, or anyone else uses their time is their business, not mine.

- Chensvold and anyone else involved did not in anyway violate Richard's privacy. He *has* none! No one hacked his computer, e-mails or any other electronic medium. No one visited his home, place of business or interrogated his friends or family. They simply used information that *he himself provided* in a *public forum *to reveal the obvious. Yes, Richard outed Richard!

- Anyone who engages in a public forum must be willing to stand by his or her remarks. And few deserve to be called to account for them more so than Richard.


----------



## Reptilicus (Dec 14, 2004)

Flanderian said:


> - Anyone who engages in a public forum must be willing to stand by his or her remarks. And few deserve to be called to account for them more so than Richard.


I wonder how all the women in Richard's universe would feel about the fact that he knowingly posted a blog piece telling women how to dress appropriately for a man? If I were Richard's wife, I'd kick him squarely in the nuts. If he personally devalues women this much, I wonder how that manifests itself in his legislation?

Richard was a first-class turd hiding behind anonymity on the Internet. The minute his name was linked to the Blog, the Blog disappeared. Apparently, he wasn't proud enough of his work to embrace it in the light of day.


----------



## Ekphrastic (Oct 4, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> You can civilly puncture someone with a sword, or as here, with a pen.


Best quote of the day (out of many other very good ones)--thanks.


----------



## Reldresal (Oct 13, 2011)

This attitude is chilling. Dissidents? Drug/alcohol addicts? Psychological forums? Even consensual, adult only, sex forums and blogs? I could not disagree more with the sentiment.



Flanderian said:


> - Anyone who engages in a public forum must be willing to stand by his or her remarks. And few deserve to be called to account for them more so than Richard.


----------



## MikeF (Feb 26, 2010)

Flanderian, believe it or not I mostly agree with you but as a recipient of an attempted stalking and threats, I cannot excuse what was done to Wasp. He is a very unsympathetic person who showed his unfitness for his office by doing what he did. But his best punishment would have been ignoring him. There is an old line about wrestling with pigs that fits this situation perfectly. No one has come out of this clean.



Flanderian said:


> Mike, with all respect, you seem not to distinguish among a number of very different issues, and to lump all of them together under some concept of Internet privacy.
> 
> - How Chensvold, or anyone else uses their time is their business, not mine.
> 
> ...


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

Flanderian said:


> - Anyone who engages in a public forum must be willing to stand by his or her remarks. And few deserve to be called to account for them more so than Richard.


Flanderian, I am a great fan of yours. However, in this instance, I believe you are wrong. In support of anonymous speech, I cite the Federalist Papers and Publius.

Here is the Electronic Frontier Foundation on anonymous speech:

_Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:__Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society._​_The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius " and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment._
_The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus in 2002 the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door._
_These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox."
_
I have no particular objection to "Richard" being outed. In this case, however, the outing comes from a fellow (Chensvold) who supports anonymity by one of his own staff (e.g. Taliesin) because he is "a government employee." Let's say "Richard" is who Chensvold says he is. Umm, since he's paid by the State of North Carolina, "Richard" too, is a government employee.

If Chensvold "outs" both Richard and Taliesin, he's cool with me. If he outs neither, still cool with me. If he outs "Richard," but still argues for "Taliesin's" anonymity, well, Chensvold is practicing situational ethics. Such abridgments in logical thought are, to me, are either slimy or intellectually flawed. At the moment, I'm leaning toward slimy. Nonetheless, I'm often wrong, but never in doubt. :smile:


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Flanderian said:


> Not everyone seems to have much knowledge regarding the persona of Richard. If he were simply an innocent but inept sartorial blogger, I might have more sympathy. But behind his self-congratulatory tales and silly pronouncements is a condescending and possibly sociopathic attitude that he pedals to the young and ignorant as superior. To the extent that this is accepted by these impressionable youngsters, it is Richard who is vile and scary.
> 
> The Internet is a public place. A blogger shares the same responsibility for his or her remarks as anyone that makes them in any other public place. The (Likely apocryphal.) anonymous informant and Chensvold did not crawl into Richard's bedroom or inspect a spouse's petticoats, but rather held a public person responsible for their public remarks in a public forum. Far from being vile and scary, they (Or he.) performed a public service.
> 
> If this is sensational, it is not because light was shown on this man, but because of his need to flee from responsibility for his own behavior.


Agree will all of this...except it should be "peddles." (Sorry, just the old editor in me coming out.) Well said anyway.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

JLibourel said:


> Agree will all of this...except it should be "peddles." (Sorry, just the old editor in me coming out.) Well said anyway.)


Thank you!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

MikeF said:


> as a recipient of an attempted stalking and threats.


I am very sorry to learn that you were. That is abhorrent!

But in all candor, I cannot agree that Richard was, IMO, the subject of either.

Use of a nom de plume has been common since publishing began. And revealing those behind them, *just* as common. Both are fair play.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Billax said:


> Flanderian, I am a great fan of yours. However, in this instance, I believe you are wrong. In support of anonymous speech, I cite the Federalist Papers and Publius.
> 
> Here is the Electronic Frontier Foundation on anonymous speech:
> 
> ...


I have absolutely no objection to a non de plume! But equally, I have no objection to any member of the public seeking to learn the identity of the writer and making it known.

And think it's important not to confuse the rights of the citizenry with the limitations placed upon their government to protect them from it.


----------



## Hayek (Jun 20, 2006)

Now that the dust is starting to settle on this, I must say that I'm quite disapointed in Christian. He has revealed himself to be an unbelievably small and petty person, hiding behind journalistic ethics and the idea that publishing something is a public act that affords someone no privacy. I think this is all quite silly. We all post on forums for a variety of different reasons, sometimes to blow of steam and say things that we wouldn't want to otherwise say, and I don't think that someone who hasn't voluntarily revealed his identity deserves to be outed like this, unless that person has done some really terrible things. I don't think that Richard's crimes--being a rube and having poor style--really warrants any of the vitriol that has been heaped upon him and the invasion of his privacy. It isn't as if Christian is revealing some sort of terrible sort of government corruption or anything, and it blows my mind to think that he can take this sort of thing so seriously.

I post on another board where people have been outed, and I've seen the chilling effect that it has on the culture--people become much less inclined to be involved and to share information. One blogger (Yankee Whiskey Papa? Did I get the name right?) Has already said that this incident has motivated him to quite blogging. The whole thing is really just bizarre and disappointing.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Personally, I have really enjoyed seeing Chensy piss himself over his moment of glory as a bonafide journalist. His most recent post really shows his readership how petty and childish he is, as he self-righteously tries to portray "real" bloggers as some sort of war-hardend journalists. He took the YWP blog (a blog which I have never heard of and is likely not a very noteworthy site) thing way too personally and I felt that there was a healthy dose of irony in his last post, with regard to how hardened bloggers need to be to criticism. I get the feeling that he thinks his own blog is just about the best thing on the internet (except, of course, Muffy's corner of the web, as he puts her celebrity status on par with Obama and Tom Cruise). I've never cared for his blog and always found it to be lacking originality, but I have read some of his interviews here and there, disregarding his apparent belief that he is an excellent writer and is on the cutting edge of whatever it is he thinks he's doing. To be sure, I won't waste my time viewing it again.


----------



## Natsoi (Mar 20, 2013)

Well if behaving like a D-bag on the internet is an offense which is worthy of being hounded by other bloggers and public humiliation, then we're all f**ked.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Reldresal said:


> Chensvold is absolutely wrong. Here are the facts, let's decide what the right thing is to do:
> 
> 1. An author writes a blog and wishes to remain anonymous.
> 2. A reader is so incensed by the blogger and the content that he decides to track down the blogger and expose him.
> ...


Agreed.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Natsoi said:


> Well if behaving like a D-bag on the internet is an offense which is worthy of being hounded by other bloggers and public humiliation, then we're all f**ked.


Pretty much.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> I think anyone who wants to defend Richard in this should be required to defend his blog content...


You can defend "Richard" without defending the content of his blog. That is the essence of free speech.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

With rare exception, I use my own name on the Internet, including this forum. I think that anonymity tempts bad behavior. And in fact I have observed such behavior from anonymous AA members from time to time. That said, it would never occur to me to try to discover the identity of any member who prefers anonymity, including those who behave badly. Such an impulse is rather pathological I think.


----------



## Ron_A (Jun 5, 2007)

I never have been a big fan of "Richard" (or a big reader of Christian's blog), but I find this all quite entertaining. From what I have seen of Wasp 101, it goes beyond a discussion of clothing and shares some views (on women, for example) that are somewhat misguided. If "Richard" were the guy next door, or some random village trustee somewhere, I would agree that he has been wronged by being "outed." But, the fact that he is a U.S. Congressman takes things to a different level. I am not one of Holloway's constituents, but, at a minimum, the fact that he engaged in such behavior reveals bad judgment on his part.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

To clarify, he is a member of the NC state legislature, not US. I don't see how that has any bearing on his right to privacy, though I think anyone in public office should probably adjust his expectation to privacy.


----------



## Ron_A (Jun 5, 2007)

Tilton said:


> To clarify, he is a member of the NC state legislature, not US. I don't see how that has any bearing on his right to privacy, though I think anyone in public office should probably adjust his expectation to privacy.


My bad - I thought that he is a member of the U.S. House. But, the analysis is the same (in my view). An elected official is held to a higher standard and, as such, shouldn't engage in conduct that would lead to embarrassment (or may demonstrate a lack good judgment to constituents) if exposed to the light of day. Christian may have his own agenda, but I think that people are underestimating the actual newsworthiness of this story (based on the comments on Ivy Style blog and here) as it relates to an elected official -- in whom the public has placed its trust -- engaging in some really questionable conduct.


----------



## swb120 (Aug 9, 2005)

I may be late to the dance, and don't have a full appreciation of why this blogger was so "offensive" to some, but I would tend to agree with Hayek's comments. When I first read the "outing" post, I thought the same - that the author seemed petty and really needed more to do in his/her spare time than scrolling through all of the photos and wedding announcements of NC Reps. But perhaps I'm missing something...



Hayek said:


> Now that the dust is starting to settle on this, I must say that I'm quite disapointed in Christian. He has revealed himself to be an unbelievably small and petty person, hiding behind journalistic ethics and the idea that publishing something is a public act that affords someone no privacy. I think this is all quite silly. We all post on forums for a variety of different reasons, sometimes to blow of steam and say things that we wouldn't want to otherwise say, and I don't think that someone who hasn't voluntarily revealed his identity deserves to be outed like this, unless that person has done some really terrible things. I don't think that Richard's crimes--being a rube and having poor style--really warrants any of the vitriol that has been heaped upon him and the invasion of his privacy. It isn't as if Christian is revealing some sort of terrible sort of government corruption or anything, and it blows my mind to think that he can take this sort of thing so seriously.
> 
> I post on another board where people have been outed, and I've seen the chilling effect that it has on the culture--people become much less inclined to be involved and to share information. One blogger (Yankee Whiskey Papa? Did I get the name right?) Has already said that this incident has motivated him to quite blogging. The whole thing is really just bizarre and disappointing.


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

Got to agree with Hayek, excellent response. 

Whats most ironic for Christian, is that it appears JFM's assessment of him may very well be accurate. How infuriating that must be for such a small minded individual...


----------



## Reldresal (Oct 13, 2011)

Thankfully we all agree on what constitutes "disreputable shenanigans."



Tempest said:


> If this WASP101 fellow were not ashamed of his blog, how exactly has he been wronged? Of course he clearly is rightfully embarrassed, so this is a theoretical question. But still, the only repercussions he suffers are accountability for his actions, which seems more like justice than injustice. I see a big difference between wanting anonymity and conducting yourself admirably and wanting anonymity while engaging in disreputable shenanigans.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

According to articles in the North Carolina press, this Bryan R. Holloway seems to have been involved in some very, well, "questionable" activities regarding campaign finances and whatnot. If Chensvold's "outing" threw more light on this creep, all I can say is, "Bravo, Chris!"


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> According to articles in the North Carolina press, this Bryan R. Holloway seems to have been involved in some very, well, "questionable" activities regarding campaign finances and whatnot. If Chensvold's "outing" threw more light on this creep, all I can say is, "Bravo, Chris!"


https://www.camelcitydispatch.com/rep-bryan-holloway-farmboy-to-wasp101/


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

AldenPyle said:


> https://www.camelcitydispatch.com/rep-bryan-holloway-farmboy-to-wasp101/


Absolutely stupefying!

The beefcake photo is priceless!

Richard is far more charming than I realized.

Wonder if _Kipp_ was working overtime while posing at Richard's pied-à-terre? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Jeez Louise....under the revealing light of full disclosure, Holloway seems a rather sad and pathetic little puppy, not at all like the character he painted with his vivid and perhaps fevered and over active imagination and his obvious skill with the written word. Is/was he but a "legend in his own mind?" LOL.


----------



## Troglodyte (Sep 7, 2012)

I feel a little dirty reading it all. It's like the fight in Syria, or the Eastern Front in WWII--I am not fond of either of the warring parties.

Cordially,
Trog


----------



## redmanca (May 29, 2008)

Christian should re-name the post "Russell Street was right."


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Troglodyte said:


> I feel a little dirty reading it all. It's like the fight in Syria, or the Eastern Front in WWII--I am not fond of either of the warring parties.
> 
> Cordially,
> Trog


More on the importance level of Kardassians, or "Real Housewives"


----------



## Troglodyte (Sep 7, 2012)

phyrpowr said:


> More on the importance level of Kardassians, or "Real Housewives"


Much better stated! Thank you.


----------



## jkidd41011 (Jan 20, 2010)

Flanderian said:


> Absolutely stupefying!
> 
> The beefcake photo is priceless!
> 
> ...


I personally thought Kipp was shaggable....yeah baby.

I loved reading Wasp101....thought it was pretty funny. Anyone who took him seriously after the whole Ralph Rugby thing....


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

jkidd41011 said:


> I personally thought Kipp was shaggable....yeah baby.


Hmmm . . . . :icon_scratch:



jkidd41011 said:


> I loved reading Wasp101....thought it was pretty funny. Anyone who took him seriously after the whole Ralph Rugby thing....


Pathetic pomposity is more the phrase that comes to mind. Guess you can take the boy out of the chicken farm, but you can't take the chicken farm out of the boy.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

redmanca said:


> Christian should re-name the post "Russell Street was right."


Good one.

What bugged me about CC's Woodward/Bernstein expose (your Pulitzer is in the mail, Christian) was that right at the start he implies that his problem with Richard was that Richard's ancestors didn't stumble off the Mayflower (drunk? or just wobbly legs from months at sea?), which was a bit of posing. CC's family might be a bit more upmarket than Richard's, but I doubt by much. Still, the whole situation is too crazy to get too upset about!


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

I'm looking for the preppy girl theatre, or whatever he called his gallery of chicks.

Can anyone link to an archived page for that?

Well I am just curious, what with all the controversy and all . . .


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Also, he makes mention of having a history of some kind of a war with the AAAC crowd, does anyone remember that?

He says it in the content of Ivy Style starting to take pokes at him.


----------



## Troglodyte (Sep 7, 2012)

zzdocxx said:


> Also, he makes mention of having a history of some kind of a war with the AAAC crowd, does anyone remember that?
> 
> He says it in the content of Ivy Style starting to take pokes at him.


Yikes! I hope he doesn't out me as one of the Geico cavemen...

Cordially,
Trog


----------



## TweedyDon (Aug 31, 2007)

Flanderian said:


> Guess you can take the boy out of the chicken farm, but you can't take the chicken farm out of the boy.


There's nothing wrong with chicken farming!


----------



## Dieu et les Dames (Jul 18, 2012)

jkidd41011 said:


> I personally thought Kipp was shaggable....yeah baby.


woof!



zzdocxx said:


> Also, he makes mention of having a history of some kind of a war with the AAAC crowd, does anyone remember that?
> 
> He says it in the content of Ivy Style starting to take pokes at him.


https://web.archive.org/web/2011091...m/2008/08/wasp-101-v-ask-andy-trad-forum.html


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

TweedyDon said:


> There's nothing wrong with chicken farming!


Yeah, some of my favorite guys started out as chicken farmers! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Reldresal (Oct 13, 2011)

Didn't Sherwood Anderson write (paraphrase) that all philosophers were raised on chicken farms?


----------



## TweedyDon (Aug 31, 2007)

Reldresal said:


> Didn't Sherwood Anderson write (paraphrase) that all philosophers were raised on chicken farms?


"Most philosophers must have been raised on chicken farms." -- The Egg

A perfect quotation for me, as I am a philosopher who has a (very small!) chicken farm!


----------



## Anthony Charton (May 7, 2012)

Dieu et les Dames said:


> https://web.archive.org/web/2011091...m/2008/08/wasp-101-v-ask-andy-trad-forum.html


'personally I could care less.'

_I don't think it means what you think it means._

The whole thing truly appalls me. His sense of style is decent; the classism, narcissism, and his misogynistic, objectifying view of women I can't stomach.



jkidd41011 said:


> I personally thought Kipp was shaggable....


Let us not stoop to WASP's standards. She may not be the best, most interesting human being that ever walked the earth, but she's still a person.


----------



## Dieu et les Dames (Jul 18, 2012)

TD, the following comment still makes me laugh.




TweedyDon said:


> The thing that really jumped out at me was that the man doesn't know his poultry. Muffy doesn't hold a "fancy chicken"--she's holding a Plymouth Barred Rock, which are great basic dual-purpose hens. Cold-hardy, too! I love mine.


----------



## jkidd41011 (Jan 20, 2010)

Anthony Charton said:


> Let us not stoop to WASP's standards. She may not be the best, most interesting human being that ever walked the earth, but she's still a person.


Ummmmmm you do know that shag is British slang for fornication???


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Dieu et les Dames said:


> https://web.archive.org/web/2011091...m/2008/08/wasp-101-v-ask-andy-trad-forum.html


Thanks!


----------



## roman totale XVII (Sep 18, 2009)

Hayek said:


> Really? He never really struck me as being less passionate/interested in this stuff as any of the other bloggers.


His background is as a 'fashion correspondent' and his previous 'dandyism.net' website. Both of which are about clothing, but not the Ivy aspect - he could just as easily found himself writing about 70s disco wear if he thought it was an ownable niche. He has nothing to bring to the Ivy/ Trad game, he's just an aggregator who borrows and re-purposes other people's writings and ideas. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it isn't a basis for trying to become a subject matter expert or interjecting yourself into a world that doesn't really need you.


----------



## Anthony Charton (May 7, 2012)

jkidd41011 said:


> Ummmmmm you do know that shag is British slang for fornication???


I live in the UK. I'm fairly aware of its slang. All I'm saying is that the woman in question probably doesn't deserve that comment, and neither does this website. WASP101 decided to speak of women as _objects_ of lust; I'm sure that we, the AA crowd, can be gentlemanly enough to not follow his example.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Anthony Charton said:


> 'personally I could care less.'
> 
> _I don't think it means what you think it means._
> 
> ...


The best part is "Mrs. Richard" response. She says something to the effect of "Couldn't/Could care less really mean the same thing. If you'd gone to public school, you would know that!"



jkidd41011 said:


> Ummmmmm you do know that shag is British slang for fornication???




Yes, I think he totally understood what you meant. Does all of this talk of objectifying women being a bad thing just really mystify you? I'm sort of getting that impression after that bit of gold...


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Anthony Charton said:


> I live in the UK. I'm fairly aware of its slang. All I'm saying is that the woman in question probably doesn't deserve that comment, and neither does this website. WASP101 decided to speak of women as _objects_ of lust; I'm sure that we, the AA crowd, can be gentlemanly enough to not follow his example.


The irony here is that jkidd might be thinking that there is no way any woman would be offended by that.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Doctor Damage said:


> Good one.
> 
> What bugged me about CC's Woodward/Bernstein expose (your Pulitzer is in the mail, Christian) was that right at the start he implies that his problem with Richard was that Richard's ancestors didn't stumble off the Mayflower (drunk? or just wobbly legs from months at sea?), which was a bit of posing. CC's family might be a bit more upmarket than Richard's, but I doubt by much. Still, the whole situation is too crazy to get too upset about!


Well, Richard's whole schtick was being some sort of preppy/patrician/old money type. You were supposed to believe he went to some school like Groton or St. Marks, then on to Yale or Amherst, probably as a fourth- or fifth-generation student. I have known a few guys who were somewhat like that, but they sure didn't bog about being such. He always seemed to be trying too hard. In hindsight, he reminds me of the peasant pretend-samurai in "The Seven Samurai."

In brief, to taunt a guy simply because his father was a chicken farmer and he's an alumnus of Appalachian State would indeed be snobbish and cruel. (Of course, depending on the magnitude of the chicken farm, Dick could have quite a lot of money behind him.) However, to pop the balloon of a pompous, snobbish, condescending pretender and phony is delicious.

As to "objectification" of women, I think all women like to be seen as the objects of desire, they are just more particular than we are about who is lusting after them. I don't see any great harm in liking and desiring attractive women (Don't we all?), but Dick did seem excessively preoccupied with the subject.

I have heard some claims made in these threads that WASP 101 was "racist," but I never particularly noticed it, although I was not a regular reader.


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

JLibourel said:


> Well, Richard's whole schtick was being some sort of preppy/patrician/old money type. You were supposed to believe he went to some school like Groton or St. Marks, then on to Yale or Amherst, probably as a fourth- or fifth-generation student.


That isn't true. Read this:

https://webcache.googleusercontent....my-days-in-nba.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us



JLibourel said:


> As to "objectification" of women, I think all women like to be seen as the objects of desire, they are just more particular than we are about who is lusting after them. I don't see any great harm in liking and desiring attractive women (Don't we all?), but Dick did seem excessively preoccupied with the subject.
> 
> I have heard some claims made in these threads that WASP 101 was "racist," but I never particularly noticed it, although I was not a regular reader.


I more or less agree. I think most of the people making the misogynist argument are just trying to rationalize why they are delighting in Richard's downfall. Many other "preppy" blogs have posted and still post cheesecake from time to time and no one seems to care. Chensvold has never struck me as a third wave feminist. Quite the opposite. Funny that the white knights posting in this thread aren't upset that Chenners posted a pic of Richard's wife for no apparent reason other than to be cruel.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Thanks Jan.

Now, about that "preppy girl theatre", only interested per the context of this discussion of course.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

boatshoe said:


> That isn't true. Read this:
> 
> https://webcache.googleusercontent....my-days-in-nba.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


If Dick is telling the truth here. I must say that it strikes me as quite odd that a guy who went to Hotchkiss and Yale would end up as a chicken farmer in the Piedmont of North Carolina, but life and destiny sometimes take strange turns. Also, that a guy whose father was a Yale man would end up at Appalachian State. Perhaps we should call him "Tumble Down Dick."


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

Who knows about his father. Dicky made an awful lot up, I agree. But remember, he got burned because he gave away factual details about his circumstances.


----------



## Hayek (Jun 20, 2006)

boatshoe said:


> That isn't true. Read this:
> 
> https://webcache.googleusercontent....my-days-in-nba.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
> 
> I more or less agree. I think most of the people making the misogynist argument are just trying to rationalize why they are delighting in Richard's downfall. Many other "preppy" blogs have posted and still post cheesecake from time to time and no one seems to care. Chensvold has never struck me as a third wave feminist. Quite the opposite. Funny that the white knights posting in this thread aren't upset that Chenners posted a pic of Richard's wife for no apparent reason other than to be cruel.


Yeah, I never noticed much in the way of misogyny in his posts, unless posting photos of pretty girls is now _verboten_. You bring up a good point, and I tend to agree with you that people have exaggerated Richard's nefarious influence on the youth to justify this whole thing to themselves.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

To be honest, this thread is my first exposure to his blog. I really haven't seen anything offensive yet. Pretentious and clearly a bit fanciful, but nothing I would get my panties in a wad over.


----------



## Anthony Charton (May 7, 2012)

After reconsideration, it's also hilarious.

'In all three establishments, I was presented with drinks sent over from another lady. The cougars were on the prowl today, and I can't help but think the shirt played a role. Regardless, upon returning home, the only lady that I allow to get my engine running was ready to go when she saw her husband in his athletic fitting shirt. It was a good day.'

https://web.archive.org/web/2013021...-max=2011-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=50

This degree of lewdness and wishful thinking combined saddens and amuses me at once.


----------



## Typhoid_Jones (Jan 21, 2012)

*Typhoid Jones Vintage Menswear*



Anthony Charton said:


> 'In all three establishments, I was presented with drinks sent over from another lady. The cougars were on the prowl today, and I can't help but think the shirt played a role. Regardless, upon returning home, the only lady that I allow to get my engine running was ready to go when she saw her husband in his athletic fitting shirt. It was a good day.'
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/2013021...-max=2011-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=50


----------



## jkidd41011 (Jan 20, 2010)

Tilton said:


> The irony here is that jkidd might be thinking that there is no way any woman would be offended by that.


Actually that was a joke in reply to the original post about Kipp actually being Richard's assistant which was quoted.

Actually when she did post pictures of herself...I liked her look. More women need to take the time to dress better. The company I work at is horrible.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> As to "objectification" of women, I think all women like to be seen as the objects of desire, they are just more particular than we are about who is lusting after them.


I make no claims to be a wise or experienced man when it comes to women, but I do know that JLib is 100% correct. I think it's the women who don't think like that who are the ones with problems (and should be avoided). Not long ago I had a woman who is a lady in every respect, and who is actually an accomplished sailor (suck on that, Muffy), tell me that she would like to be tied up and treated like my toy. It was out of the blue and I had no response other than a stunned look. Needless to say, my natural tendency to be indecisive and to miss life's opportunities took over and nothing came of it, which I'm sure I will regret for the rest of my life. But it was educational to hear something like that come from someone like her. Life is too short to be a posturing prude. However, Richard, as a husband and public figure, should not have allowed his fantasies to run so free or so publicly.


> I have heard some claims made in these threads that WASP 101 was "racist," but I never particularly noticed it, although I was not a regular reader.


I never noticed that myself. I suspect whoever made those claims might have issues of their own.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

JLibourel said:


> If Dick is telling the truth here. I must say that it strikes me as quite odd that a guy who went to Hotchkiss and Yale would end up as a chicken farmer in the Piedmont of North Carolina, but life and destiny sometimes take strange turns. Also, that a guy whose father was a Yale man would end up at Appalachian State. Perhaps we should call him "Tumble Down Dick."


 Quite a few of the chicken farmers in that part of the state aren't the kind with a bucket of feed, going out to their coop for feeding time. More like a bucket of money, going out to their plane for lunch on the coast


----------



## Reldresal (Oct 13, 2011)

Hopefully happier than the narrator of the story. Amazing what lines stick with one after all the years. I haven't read that for 20 years.



TweedyDon said:


> "Most philosophers must have been raised on chicken farms." -- The Egg
> 
> A perfect quotation for me, as I am a philosopher who has a (very small!) chicken farm!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

boatshoe said:


> That isn't true. Read this:
> 
> https://webcache.googleusercontent....my-days-in-nba.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
> 
> I more or less agree. I think most of the people making the misogynist argument are just trying to rationalize why they are delighting in Richard's downfall. Many other "preppy" blogs have posted and still post cheesecake from time to time and no one seems to care. Chensvold has never struck me as a third wave feminist. Quite the opposite. Funny that the white knights posting in this thread aren't upset that Chenners posted a pic of Richard's wife for no apparent reason other than to be cruel.


Nope. His misogynist piggism is apparent in his postings. It's the reason for 90% of my happiness at his predicament.

I don't find the same in Chensvolds postings, and as has been stated before and more eloquently by Flanderian, there really is no issue of privacy here.

I don't feel I'm knighting here though, I rather feel its you guys knighting for Richard. What color knights that make you I'm not really sure. Brown?

The shaggeable comment above comes more into line with a proper defense of Richards blog. I applaud it, from the opposing side, for making clearer who's who in this debate. Added to the gallery request that pretty much nails it. The League of Richards Brown Knights. Suffragettes beware 

Leaving someone be in privacy who sports appalling views publicly is not gentlemanly, it's just lame. If someone feels obliged to post misogynist views on women then he's fair game. I think we are at that position, in 2013, in civilized society.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Doctor Damage said:


> I make no claims to be a wise or experienced man when it comes to women, but I do know that JLib is 100% correct. I think it's the women who don't think like that who are the ones with problems (and should be avoided). Not long ago I had a woman who is a lady in every respect, and who is actually an accomplished sailor (suck on that, Muffy), tell me that she would like to be tied up and treated like my toy. It was out of the blue and I had no response other than a stunned look. Needless to say, my natural tendency to be indecisive and to miss life's opportunities took over and nothing came of it, which I'm sure I will regret for the rest of my life. But it was educational to hear something like that come from someone like her. Life is too short to be a posturing prude. However, Richard, as a husband and public figure, should not have allowed his fantasies to run so free or so publicly.
> 
> I never noticed that myself. I suspect whoever made those claims might have issues of their own.


I'm sorry for you, in several ways.


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

Bjorn said:


> Nope. His misogynist piggism is apparent in his postings. It's the reason for 90% of my happiness at his predicament.
> 
> I don't find the same in Chensvolds postings, and as has been stated before and more eloquently by Flanderian, there really is no issue of privacy here.
> 
> ...


I feel more sorry for you now knowing that you are not feigning outrage. I hope monsieur is accompanied by a capable manservant bearing a fainting couch as he encounters Appalling Views daily, even in our civilized society.

In general, when you encounter views you don't like on a blog, how long do you take before launching into a full-scale investigation of the blogger's identity? See, I've just been closing out the window and not visiting it again. But apparently I've been doing it wrong.

And judging by your ignoring the issue, I assume you think it was fine for Chenners to post the wife's picture?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

boatshoe said:


> I feel more sorry for you now knowing that you are not feigning outrage. I hope monsieur is accompanied by a capable manservant bearing a fainting couch as he encounters Appalling Views daily, even in our civilized society.
> 
> In general, when you encounter views you don't like on a blog, how long do you take before launching into a full-scale investigation of the blogger's identity? See, I've just been closing out the window and not visiting it again. But apparently I've been doing it wrong.
> 
> And judging by your ignoring the issue, I assume you think it was fine for Chenners to post the wife's picture?


Monsignor makes do, barely. Appalling views mostly bore me.

I mainly launch small-scale, very efficient investigations. But if I don't, I sure will not complain about someone else doing it. I'm sure you're doing a bunch of things wrong. Thank you.


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

Bjorn said:


> Monsignor makes do, barely. Appalling views mostly bore me.
> 
> I mainly launch small-scale, very efficient investigations. But if I don't, I sure will not complain about someone else doing it. I'm sure you're doing a bunch of things wrong. Thank you.


Oh, no. I hope you're not after me! I'm guilty, guilty, guilty. Why just today I left the house without first checking my privilege.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Doctor Damage said:


> I make no claims to be a wise or experienced man when it comes to women, but I do know that JLib is 100% correct. I think it's the women who don't think like that who are the ones with problems (and should be avoided). Not long ago I had a woman who is a lady in every respect, and who is actually an accomplished sailor (suck on that, Muffy), tell me that she would like to be tied up and treated like my toy. It was out of the blue and I had no response other than a stunned look. Needless to say, my natural tendency to be indecisive and to miss life's opportunities took over and nothing came of it, which I'm sure I will regret for the rest of my life. But it was educational to hear something like that come from someone like her. Life is too short to be a posturing prude. However, Richard, as a husband and public figure, should not have allowed his fantasies to run so free or so publicly.
> 
> I never noticed that myself. I suspect whoever made those claims might have issues of their own.


Be consoled, for opportunities like this do come along fairly regularly. You mustn't consider it a potentially lifelong regret.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

boatshoe said:


> Oh, no. I hope you're not after me! I'm guilty, guilty, guilty. Why just today I left the house without first checking my privilege.


I'm sure you have special privileges... But don't worry, you're not much of a blip on the radar


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Be consoled, for opportunities like this do come along fairly regularly. You mustn't consider it a potentially lifelong regret.


With the advent of the Internets social applications, even less so...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> With the advent of the Internets social applications, even less so...


Some of those ladies I met via the internet would have made Caligula blush.

Happy days. :icon_smile:


----------



## fishertw (Jan 27, 2006)

Eric W S said:


> It's even funnier that the UK troll Russel street signed on to help out on WASP101 shortly before this. Too funny.
> 
> EwS


have not heard that. Name in a while!


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I ran a search on this name to learn more, and the mysterious Richard and Russell seem to have some history. I was wondering if he was the leak?
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...-The-Latest-from-WASP-101&p=797823#post797823


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

Wow, look at this old post.



CMC said:


> I've always been tempted to offer a reward for confirmation of his true identity.


https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?81036-WASP-101&p=1254395#post1254395

I hope Christian never got around to offering a reward or he's gonna have to launch Steampunkism dot net a few years ahead of schedule to finance it.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Be consoled, for opportunities like this do come along fairly regularly.


 Well, you cheeky, young rascal, you! :icon_smile_wink: At this point in my life such fantasies will remain such. Though in fairness to Doc D, I once received an even more alarming request from an accomplished, mature woman I had been seeing for only a few weeks. Sadly, not my cup of tea. :icon_scratch:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Well, you cheeky, young rascal, you! :icon_smile_wink: At this point in my life such fantasies will remain such. Though in fairness to Doc D, I once received an even more alarming request from an accomplished, mature woman I had been seeing for only a few weeks. Sadly, not my cup of tea. :icon_scratch:


I'm concededly a rather curiosity driven creature by nature and this most especially aroused by such an enticingly cryptic statement! Is this an alarming request you would care to reveal? PM is just fine by me if it's too vulgar for public consumption. :redface:

More generally - whilst WASP101 did read like the fantasies of a very frustrated chap, such adventures are out there to be had and in my experience the better educated the lady... well permit me a measure of candour but you may imagine the conclusion of this sentence I am certain.


----------



## Yuca (Feb 19, 2011)

boatshoe said:


> Wow, look at this old post.
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?81036-WASP-101&p=1254395#post1254395
> 
> I hope Christian never got around to offering a reward or he's gonna have to launch Steampunkism dot net a few years ahead of schedule to finance it.


I recall Chris also once offered a reward of $50 for a photo of R Street.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Tempest said:


> I ran a search on this name to learn more, and the mysterious Richard and Russell seem to have some history. I was wondering if he was the leak?
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...-The-Latest-from-WASP-101&p=797823#post797823


No, Jimmy/Russell/Big Tony/Topstitcher/whatever-the-hell-else-he-is-calling-himself-today is a vigorous champion of Dick the WASP and a bitter enemy of Chensvold over on Devil's Island (FNB). Something strange is going on at FNB. A guy just PM'ed me at SF to see if I could contact the new mods there to find out why he was banned. When I tried, I found out that I, too, was banned!


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

JLibourel said:


> No, Jimmy/Russell/Big Tony/Topstitcher/whatever-the-hell-else-he-is-calling-himself-today is a vigorous champion of Dick the WASP and a bitter enemy of Chensvold over on Devil's Island (FNB). Something strange is going on at FNB. A guy just PM'ed me at SF to see if I could contact the new mods there to find out why he was banned. When I tried, I found out that I, too, was banned!


There is a lot of banning about on FNB at the moment!


----------



## Reldresal (Oct 13, 2011)

Jimmy is pathological. I don't believe he is a mere troll. He is out of his mind.


----------



## wacolo (Jul 21, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> Something strange is going on at FNB. A guy just PM'ed me at SF to see if I could contact the new mods there to find out why he was banned. When I tried, I found out that I, too, was banned!


I have been banned too! Honestly, I don't ever recall joining :icon_scratch:


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

JLibourel said:


> No, Jimmy/Russell/Big Tony/Topstitcher/whatever-the-hell-else-he-is-calling-himself-today is a vigorous champion of Dick the WASP and a bitter enemy of Chensvold over on Devil's Island (FNB). Something strange is going on at FNB. A guy just PM'ed me at SF to see if I could contact the new mods there to find out why he was banned. When I tried, I found out that I, too, was banned!


In a sort of cosmic irony, one of the mods inadvertently banned everybody. They're sorting out the issue.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

wacolo said:


> I have been banned too! Honestly, I don't ever recall joining :icon_scratch:


If this is the right place, then it does appear that literally everybody has been banned! Does this universal ban apply to the moderators too, meaning everybody got locked out?
https://forums.filmnoirbuff.com/


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

Too FUnny. Universal Ban at devils island? Cool. I say good riddance...


----------



## Yuca (Feb 19, 2011)

Eric W S said:


> Too FUnny. Universal Ban at devils island? Cool. I say good riddance...


If you've had problems with certain fnb posters then I can understand your animosity, however I'm not the only one who's happy visiting fnb's forums and this one.

(Not that I'm visiting them at the moment - we're all locked out.)


----------



## Yuca (Feb 19, 2011)

Tempest said:


> If this is the right place, then it does appear that literally everybody has been banned! Does this universal ban apply to the moderators too, meaning everybody got locked out?
> https://forums.filmnoirbuff.com/


I believe so.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Yuca said:


> If you've had problems with certain fnb posters then I can understand your animosity, however I'm not the only one who's happy visiting fnb's forums and this one.
> 
> (Not that I'm visiting them at the moment - we're all locked out.)


Absolutely right Yuca.

The culture of the FNB forum may not be to everyone's taste but there is no denying that there are some extremely knowledgable (and highly likeable) gentlemen to be found amongst the membership.


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

Yuca said:


> If you've had problems with certain fnb posters then I can understand your animosity, however I'm not the only one who's happy visiting fnb's forums and this one.
> 
> (Not that I'm visiting them at the moment - we're all locked out.)


A few minor tame internet trolls. Nothing big there. Used to a more rough and tumble feel on forums anyway. I dislike the holier than thou attitude over there. There is more animosity from that group towards US folks than the other way round. Why I do not know. They know and are versused in UK Ivy and refute most other opinions on what ivy is or is not even from folks closer to the source.


----------



## Yuca (Feb 19, 2011)

Eric W S said:


> A few minor tame internet trolls. Nothing big there. Used to a more rough and tumble feel on forums anyway. I dislike the holier than thou attitude over there. There is more animosity from that group towards US folks than the other way round. Why I do not know. They know and are versused in UK Ivy and refute most other opinions on what ivy is or is not even from folks closer to the source.


Not in my experience. I can think of only one poster who sometimes has animosity towards those from your country. (One too many, of course, however now that there are new mods, I trust anyone with something to contribute will be welcome.)


----------



## TradThrifter (Oct 22, 2012)

I didn't even know there was anything else outside of AAAC and SF. So apparently there is FNB and a "Fedora Lounge"?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Shaver said:


> I'm concededly a rather curiosity driven creature by nature and this most especially aroused by such an enticingly cryptic statement! Is this an alarming request you would care to reveal? PM is just fine by me if it's too vulgar for public consumption. :redface:


 Sorry, no, not really suitable for the forum. I will PM.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

TradThrifter said:


> I didn't even know there was anything else outside of AAAC and SF. So apparently there is FNB and a "Fedora Lounge"?


Another new clothing forum is "Well Dressed, Well Versed" www.wdwv.net/. It's sort of a rowdier version of Style Forum Most of the participants are SF veterans. There is also the London Lounge, dedicated to bespoke, the Cutter and Tailor Forum, run by Andyland veteran Sator, and I am sure some others.


----------



## THORVALD (Jan 30, 2007)

Haven't been here for a long while. Yes, I did read many of the WASP 101 stuff by the then unknown "Richard". Great photo detective work @ . I know the blog got a lot of people upset, but it didn't really bother me.


----------



## 15575 (Dec 9, 2004)

Not trying to troll here, but was just curious if anyone had any update or information on the WASP 101 saga?


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

^

What should we expect from a man that believes that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old !? :icon_pale:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_R._Holloway


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Here's Holloway :


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Brio1 said:


> ^
> 
> What should we expect from a man that believes that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old !? :icon_pale:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_R._Holloway


https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...-or-lack-thereof-thread&p=1565379#post1565379


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

JLibourel said:


> Another new clothing forum is "Well Dressed, Well Versed" www.wdwv.net/.


Oddly, the former wdwv.net, now www.dressedwell.net , has a Jimmy Frost Mellor contributing. He also came on board WASP 101 shortly before the demise...so he may or may not still be in touch with the man himself.


----------



## jkidd41011 (Jan 20, 2010)

I hate to admit it.....I miss WASP101. It was so over the top it was comical.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Well , here he is :


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

... that made me ill on so many levels. He's like a living stereotype.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Indeed, we may have seen both the best of Trad and the worst of Trad, all in one video! lol.


----------



## Hayek (Jun 20, 2006)

Brio1 said:


> Well , here he is :


Good lord. This is flat out painful to watch. What a putz.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

^
And this knucklehead taught high school prior to a career in politics. :icon_pale:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Brio1 said:


> ^
> And this knucklehead taught high school prior to a career in politics. :icon_pale:


Students should appeal their grades.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Is there an archive somewhere? I came around after he took the blog down.


----------



## WillBarrett (Feb 18, 2012)

...........


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Do it all you want (I disagree that she need be raked over coals), but how you can even compare the two is beyond me.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Brio1 said:


> Well , here he is :


Well, I'm one of those evil conservative evangelical Christians, but, sorry, I can't abide hypocrisy or using religion for political purposes. This is the same guy who had the appalling article on his blog about how he stole his girlfriend from another guy by sending her forged letters purporting to show the boyfriend was being unfaithful to her. I could have the details slightly off, but essentially that was the gist of it.


----------



## thegovteach (Dec 2, 2012)

Brio1 said:


> ^
> And this knucklehead taught high school prior to a career in politics. :icon_pale:


Sadly, there are more of these guys out there. 
I taught history/civics for 30 yrs and you would be amazed at what NOT is being taught. 
I literally had to teach World History, US History, World Geography in my 12th grade US Government class....and these nitwits think there is only one side to EVERYTHING.....including the belief it's okay to teach their form of Christianity in the classroom....( The parents of non-evangelical kids were too afraid to complain for fear of being ostracized in the community.) :icon_headagainstwal


----------

