In the comments section of this blog.
Chuck Adkins' interest in commenting here, which he does by way of anonymizers, seems to have been renewed by my having posted on Stacy's response to Paul Lemmen's charges of 'elitism.' Among the charges in these comments, in which he tries to convince people that he is Karen, The Lonely Conservative, Adkins claims that Zilla is faking her illness in order to pay for alcoholism treatment for her husband, and that she vacationed with her kids at Disney World, neither of which is true.
Like other people who say similar things—such as Seth Allen, who charges others of trying to steal his destiny—Chuck is deeply concerned about the 'elitism' of bloggers who pay him no heed. Recently, when he assumed his umpteenth new Twitter identity, having beshat all of the previous ones, he made a point of asking why I didn't follow him. Was it because I was superior?
Here's the problem. Let's say (hypothetically) that Stacy McCain continues to be friends with Ali Akbar, and you don't like Ali Akbar. Suddenly, Stacy becomes suspect by connection. Reciprocally, when you use the charge of elitism to try to rally hostility towards someone, and complete asshats do the same thing, someone might feel that it reflects badly on you. That may seem to you unfair, but it's true. Guilt by association can take a lot of forms. You may not associate with Chuck Adkins, but he associates with you, and there are others who instrumentalize your unhappiness to their own ends.
Your attacks on Ali Akbar and 'elitists' such as Stacy McCain aren't responsible for fraudulent attacks on Marezilla by a fake Karen any more than Innocence of Muslims is responsible for the murder of the Americans in Benghazi. Some accounts state that J. Christopher Stevens prolonged his stay in the "safe haven" portion of the embassy when it was under attack in order to destroy documents that featured the names of Libyans who were working with Americans. Some of those would have been involved in trying to track down the MANPADs and other dangerous weapons that were 'liberated' from Gaddafi's warehouses as his regime collapsed, and which have fallen subsequently into the hands of people who wish to do Americans harm, and some would have been co-operating with American officials in other ways. All who were mentioned in those documents would have been placed in grave danger had they also fallen into the hands of al-Qaeda.
Regardless of the pretexts, allies of Kimberlin-Rauhauser, through proxies, mostly, have been trying to gather actionable intelligence on people who have engaged in speech that has offended them. Butthurt people have aided them. I'm certainly not going to say that Paul or anyone else whom I know has been instrumental in that regard. But the fact remains that a lot of people have been played. Ali Akbar and Stranahan and Aaron Walker have been villified in a fashion similar to the director of Innocence of Muslims as a pretext, and some people have supplied information that has been useful to a terrorist and his operatives, because they have been deceived by the misdirection.
I say you are no more responsible for that than Stacy McCain is for whatever one of the targets of these operations has said or done. Not a whit more; not a whit less. Which is to say, not at all. I will say, though, that there are parties who are abusing your legitimacy in order to provide cover for their agendas. You need to be aware of this. When you ask me to denounce such-a-one, or when someone else tries to browbeat me into it, I will naturally ask you to do the same. As I've elsewhere noted, each of us has only so much attention to devote to such matters, and each of us resents other people trying to conscript our labors into their own channels. A deeply psychologically compromised person like Chuck Adkins, who undoubtedly thinks that he is very clever using an anonymizer to comment at someone's blog as though he were a third person whom he feels envious towards and wishes to defame, is of little use except insofar as he is capable of harassing and defaming the low-information reader—but that is nevertheless useful in a small way. It causes bloggers like me to have to write posts such as this one, when I could be more profitably engaged dealing with serious issues.
Regarding Chuck Adkins, his treatment of Karen and Marezilla springs from pure malice, and probably from head-pats he's receiving from some more able malicious fraud—who's attached to a yet greater Screwtape—who calls him brave and smart. Unfortunately, he probably also finds ego gratification in this post. That's how messed up these minion pismires are.
UPDATE: After contretemps with Larry Sinclair on Twitter, sustained phishing attempt through WordPress.
REUPDATE: And now an email with a malicious link, pretending to be from Clarice Feldman.