Santa Clara Resident Shoots Burglar Trying to Kick In Door to Home

City of Santa Clara police reported today that they charged a 26-year-old Los Gatos man wounded in a July 11 breakin attempt with burglary. The suspect was shot and wounded by a resident as the intruder kicked in the rear door to a residence in the 1000 block of Santa Clara Street, police said in a statement.

On Sunday, July 11, at about 1:49 am, Santa Clara officers responded to the 1000 block of Santa Clara Street on a report of a prowler, police said. “The reporting party said a male suspect was in the backyard of their home,” police said. “As units responded to the call, they learned that gunshots had been fired.”

The subsequent investigation revealed that the occupants of the home were awakened by the sounds of pounding and kicking on their doors and windows.  The suspect broke a window at the front of the home, police said, then forcibly kicked open a rear door, “at which time the resident fired multiple shots at him.”

“The gunshots immobilized the suspect,” police said There are no known associations between the suspect and the residents, according to police.

Police identified the suspect as Spencer Olson, a 26-year-old male resident of Los Gatos.  He was arrested for burglary and transported to an area hospital for treatment.

The victim was not named, and was identified as a 51-year-old male resident of Santa Clara.  He has been cooperative with the investigation, police said.

Anyone with information regarding this incident should contact Detective Sergeant Jake Malae at (408) 615-4846, Detective Adam Wilson at (408) 615-4818 or via the Anonymous Tip Line at (408)615-4TIP (4847).

 

 

53 Comments

  1. Let’s hope that the DA doesn’t go all PC and charge the homeowner. An aggressive stranger breaking into an occupied home in the middle of the night warrants force.

    About 10 more righteous self-defense shootings will drop the crime rate substantially.

  2. HB<

    As long as an investigation proves enough just cause for the event, I cannot argue against you.

    But doesn't that mean Ashli Babbit got what she had coming on Jan 6?

    Just curious?

  3. Was this an attempted burglary or an impairment-related mistake? Kicking in residential doors at that hour is neither stealthy nor a familiar M.O., but it is a not unheard of occurrence around bar closing time. I suspect young Mr. Olsen may have been attempting to continue his wild night out, possibly following up on a promise, and wound up at the wrong house getting a bang like he never imagined.

  4. PTE: HIs motives don’t matter. The homeowner has no knowledge of what the intruder’s intentions are. The only considerations should be;

    1. It was at night
    2. It was violent and aggressive
    3. What was the homeowner’s state of mind. Did he believe that he or his family was in danger of great bodily harm or death? What did the intruder say? What did the homeowner say?

    Maybe the suspect would be eligible for a Darwin Award nomination — but the homeowner doesn’t know that at the time.

    If the DA wants to beat Mr. Kahn in the upcoming election, he had better start providing the voters with an option to Kahn. If Rosen stays as far left and looney as Kahn, the voters might as well vote for Kahn — or just not show up to vote for Rosen.

  5. Yes, a mistake indeed was possible, and it’s the kind of mistake that can be fatal.

    Let us hope that the state’s decline doesn’t include prosecution of the homeowner for a) having and b) using a gun [gasp; shudder].

  6. FUNNY,

    ALL OF YOU PROCLAIMED THAT ASHLI BABBIT WAS MURDERED BY THE CAPITOL POLICE ON JAN 6, AND NOW SAY THAT THIS HOMEOWNER HAD THE RIGHT TO POSSIBLY KILL ANOTHER HUIMAN BEING WITHOUT A TRIAL AND WITHOUT DUE PROCESS?

    THE CONTRADICTION IS SO EXTRME I CANNOT BELEIVE IT.

    BUT I WILL AGREE WITH ALL OF YOU REGARDING THE HOMOEOWNERS RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, AND THUS STATE THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM IN THE CAPITOL HAD THE SAME RIGHTS.

    TIME TO STOP TRYING TO POLITICIZE THIS. i AM NOT EVEN ARGUING THAT THE PERSON HAD THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVE HERE. I AM JUST SAYING TO CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

  7. ALL OF YOU PROCLAIMED THAT ASHLI BABBIT WAS MURDERED BY THE CAPITOL POLICE ON JAN 6, AND NOW SAY THAT THIS HOMEOWNER HAD THE RIGHT TO POSSIBLY KILL ANOTHER HUIMAN BEING WITHOUT A TRIAL AND WITHOUT DUE PROCESS? — Steven Goldstein

    Let’s reverse engineer the above statement.

    1. First component, “All of you people,” a straw man fallacy unsupported by evidence (e.g. I’ve never described the killing as a murder), but arguably necessary to justify Mr. Goldstein’s use of all caps.
    2. Incorrectly equate the killing of Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed protester part of a mob illegally inside a government building, with the right of a homeowner (endangered by an intruder about whom nothing could be known) to use deadly force in defense of himself and his family. In the former, the justifying threat to life is questionable and has, as yet, to be established; in the latter, the justifying threat is widely recognized and accepted by the public, not to mention traditionally recognized by the law.
    3. Pervert what is meant by due process, which applies to legal matters, not the manner in which a civilian reacts to immediate peril. The homeowner cannot be assumed to have had the opportunity to await police (his only avenue to due process), lacking both a safe deescalation option and certainty of survival. That is not to say his actions will not be subjected to investigation and possibly prosecution, only to acknowledge the existence of the presumption that a home-invader represents a life-endangering threat to occupants. The actions of the Capitol police officer, on the other hand, have yet to be sufficiently revealed to allow for an evidence-based assumption that his life, or that of another, was in immediate peril when he shot Ms. Babbitt.

    Mr. Goldstein’s statement demonstrates a profound deficiency in critical thinking. The only thing these two cases have in common is that one person decided to shoot another, a similarity far too thin to make them analogous.

  8. PHU TAN ELLI Jul 18, 2021 @ 9:58 am

    “1. First component, “All of you people,” a straw man fallacy unsupported by evidence (e.g. I’ve never described the killing as a murder), but arguably necessary to justify Mr. Goldstein’s use of all caps.”

    GRANTED I OVERSTATED, BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH YOUTUBERS TOO MAKING OUTRAGEOUS CLAIMS THAT THE POLICE OFFICER WAS A MURDER BUT YOU WROTE:

    “2. Incorrectly equate the killing of Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed protester part of a mob illegally inside a government building, with the right of a homeowner (endangered by an intruder about whom nothing could be known) to use deadly force in defense of himself and his family. In the former, the justifying threat to life is questionable and has, as yet, to be established; in the latter, the justifying threat is widely recognized and accepted by the public, not to mention traditionally recognized by the law.”

    THE FACTS ARE THE INTRUDER WAS ALSO UNARMED, AND ASHLI BABBIT WAS BREAKING INTO A SECURED ROOM, WITH A CROWD WIELDING WEAPONS SURROUNDING THE DOORWAY. AND THE VIDEO PROVES IT. SO THE OFFICERS WERE JUSTIFIED TO USE SUFFICIENT FORCE TO PREVENT ENTRY. AND YOU CANNOT SAY THIS IS NOT TRU.E YOU WROTE:

    “3. Pervert what is meant by due process, which applies to legal matters, not the manner in which a civilian reacts to immediate peril. The homeowner cannot be assumed to have had the opportunity to await police (his only avenue to due process), lacking both a safe deescalation option and certainty of survival. That is not to say his actions will not be subjected to investigation and possibly prosecution, only to acknowledge the existence of the presumption that a home-invader represents a life-endangering threat to occupants. The actions of the Capitol police officer, on the other hand, have yet to be sufficiently revealed to allow for an evidence-based assumption that his life, or that of another, was in immediate peril when he shot Ms. Babbitt.”

    AS THE VIDEO SHOWED, THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY TO DE-ESCALATE ANYTHING THERE. IT REQUIRED IN EFFECT DEADLY FORCE TO INTIMIDATE THE ATTACKERS ON JAN 6 BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WAY THEY WERE GOING TO STOP WITHOUT IT. THAT WAS ALSO ON THE VIDEO. THE VIDEO SHOWED PEOPLE WITH THE INTENT TO HARM ANYONE THAT THEY PERCEIVED TO BE THEIR ENEMY AND YOU KNOW IT. AS FAR AS A SUFFICIENT INVESTIGATION IS CONCERNED, THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE PERSON’S POLITICAL MOTIVES, AND YOUR WOULD NEVER BE SATISFIED NO MATTER WHAT. I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE HEARINGS IN THE FUTURE. AS FAR AS YOU ARE SAYING:

    “Mr. Goldstein’s statement demonstrates a profound deficiency in critical thinking. The only thing these two cases have in common is that one person decided to shoot another, a similarity far too thin to make them analogous.”

    I JUST CLARIFIED THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO AVOID THE SIMILARITIES AND SYNTHESIZE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE SIMPLY INVALID AND JUST MAKING UP REASONS TO STILL ATTACK THE PROPER RESPONSE TO A DANGEROUS SITUATION LIKE JAN 6.

  9. “THE FACTS ARE THE INTRUDER WAS ALSO UNARMED” — Steven Goldstein

    Facts? Was it factually known by the resident the intruder was unarmed at the moment he fired his weapon? Was it factually known by the resident the intruder, if unarmed, did not represent a physical threat to him (or his family)? The answer to both questions is no, which makes that which became known about the perpetrator after the fact (whether he was armed, what his intent was, his sobriety, identity, criminal record) completely irrelevant when judging the actions of the resident. The reasoning standard for judging him is whether his actions constituted a reasonable reaction to the facts perceptible by him at that moment.

    Mr. Goldstein’s inability to comprehend such distinctions is not only regularly in evidence here, it was documented in his failed lawsuit over a police error involving a vehicle equipment technicality. Cited for what appeared to be an obvious violation, one that was later, after a surgical dissection of the applicable code, deemed within code, Mr. Goldstein concluded the officer should be terminated.

    “ASHLI BABBIT WAS BREAKING INTO A SECURED ROOM, WITH A CROWD WIELDING WEAPONS SURROUNDING THE DOORWAY. AND THE VIDEO PROVES IT.” — Steven Goldstein

    Notice what Mr. Goldstein does not mention: he says nothing about Ms. Babbitt being unarmed, despite his contrary stance in the Santa Clara shooting case. In the Capitol case, the existence of a video he judges sufficient to justify the shooting, despite the fact that the obligatory, official explanation (and step-by-step breakdown) has, for reasons unknown, yet to be provided to the public.

    “IT REQUIRED IN EFFECT DEADLY FORCE TO INTIMIDATE THE ATTACKERS ON JAN 6 BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WAY THEY WERE GOING TO STOP WITHOUT IT.” — Steven Goldstein

    Here Mr. Goldstein reveals he considers deadly force justified when used “to intimidate,” but not when used by a resident to defend himself, his family, and his home from a terrifying intruder in the middle of the night. Need I say more?

  10. Phu Tan lli You wrote:

    “THE FACTS ARE THE INTRUDER WAS ALSO UNARMED” — Steven Goldstein

    “ASHLI BABBIT WAS BREAKING INTO A SECURED ROOM, WITH A CROWD WIELDING WEAPONS SURROUNDING THE DOORWAY. AND THE VIDEO PROVES IT.” — Steven Goldstein

    “Notice what Mr. Goldstein does not mention: he says nothing about Ms. Babbitt being unarmed, despite his contrary stance in the Santa Clara shooting case. In the Capitol case, the existence of a video he judges sufficient to justify the shooting, despite the fact that the obligatory, official explanation (and step-by-step breakdown) has, for reasons unknown, yet to be provided to the public.”

    ACTUALLY, IF YOU READ WAS BOTH WERE UNARMED, BUT YOU WANT TO CHANGE MY LANGUAGE TO SUIT YOUR POINT OF VIEW. You wrote

    “IT REQUIRED IN EFFECT DEADLY FORCE TO INTIMIDATE THE ATTACKERS ON JAN 6 BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WAY THEY WERE GOING TO STOP WITHOUT IT.” — Steven Goldstein

    Here Mr. Goldstein reveals he considers deadly force justified when used “to intimidate,” but not when used by a resident to defend himself, his family, and his home from a terrifying intruder in the middle of the night. Need I say more?”

    I ACTUALLY AM SAYING THAT BOTH THE HOME OWNER AND THE CAPITOL POLICE DID THE RIGHT THING, AND THE CAPITOL POLICE INVESTIGATIONS SHOWED IT AND THE FUTURE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE WILL VERIFY IT. I AM NOT SAYING THE HOMEOWNER DID ANYTHING WRONG, I ACTUALLY SAID:

    “BUT I WILL AGREE WITH ALL OF YOU REGARDING THE HOMEOWNERS RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, AND THUS STATE THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM IN THE CAPITOL HAD THE SAME RIGHTS.”

    AND:

    “ALL OF YOU PROCLAIMED THAT ASHLI BABBIT WAS MURDERED BY THE CAPITOL POLICE ON JAN 6, AND NOW SAY THAT THIS HOMEOWNER HAD THE RIGHT TO POSSIBLY KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING WITHOUT A TRIAL AND WITHOUT DUE PROCESS?”

    AS I KEEP SAYING IF YOU WANT ASHLI BABBIT’S SHOOTER PROSECUTED YOU WILL ALSO HAVE TO PROSECUTE THE HOMEOWNER I PROPOSE THE HOMEOWNER WILL BE INVESTIGATED AND CLEARED OF ANY WRONGDOING JUST LIKE THE CAPITOL POLICE WAS AND WILL BE AGAIN. THIS REALLY DEMONSTRATES THE HYPOCRITES MENTALITY HERE

    STOP TRYING TO MAKE UP HISTORY

  11. Ashli Babbit was not on private property.
    Steven I think your CAPS LOCK key may be stuck on your keyboard. Or are you trying make your false arguments true by yelling them?

  12. ROBERT MOSEBAR,

    SHE WAS BREAKING INTO A SECURED LOCATION, AND NO POLICE OFFICER GAVE HER PERMISSION TO DO SO. THOSE OFFICES ARE IN FACT PRIVATE SPACES IF YOU ARE CAREFUL ABOUT THE LAYOUT OF THE CAPITOL. PUBLIC SPACES ARE CLEARLY SIGNED.

    YOU LIKE SO MANY ARE SIMPLY NEVER BEEN THERE. I WAS THERE WORKING IN 1993 AND I WAS PROPERLY EDUCATED ON THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN “PUBLIC” SPACES AND “SECURED” ONES. BUT ALL YOU ARE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE UP AN EXCUSE FOR THE CRIMINAL ACT SHE DID IN CROSSING THE THRESHOLD OF THE WINDOW ON THE VIDEO.

  13. Those who have been judged as mentally ill cannot possess firearms.

    That actually explains so much…….

  14. Willioam Ashbless you wrote:

    “Those who have been judged as mentally ill cannot possess firearms.”

    This statement is a fragment without context, what does this mean? Dores it mean that BOTH the HOMEOWNER and the POLICE OFFICER were mentally ill? You wrote:

    “That actually explains so much…….”

    ACTUALLY YUOR WRITING IS NOT CLEAR AT ALL, YOU MUST BE ABLE TO PROVIDE BETTER CLAIRTY IN YOUR THOUGHTS?

  15. Willioam Ashbless you wrote:

    “Those who have been judged as mentally ill cannot possess firearms.”

    This statement is a fragment without context, what does this mean? Dores it mean that BOTH the HOMEOWNER and the POLICE OFFICER were mentally ill? You wrote:

    “That actually explains so much…….”

    ACTUALLY YOUR WRITING IS NOT CLEAR AT ALL, YOU MUST BE ABLE TO PROVIDE BETTER CLARITY IN YOUR THOUGHTS?

  16. What Mr. Goldstein can’t seem to understand is that it is his confusion, and nothing else, that leads him to see the two cases as similar.

    No one said the homeowner had the right to kill without due process because no one, besides Mr. Goldstein, has confused self-defense (a natural, extrajudicial right) with due process (a strictly administrative right). The homeowner’s right to claim self-defense is assumed but subject to review.

    The Capitol police officer is entitled to no such assumption. His claim of self-defense (or other justification) must be measured against, and meet, a much higher standard. Unlike the homeowner, the officer’s actions are subject to administrative and training policies meant to serve public, not personal interests. Thus, the public’s right to know (if the shooting was in policy) is much higher in the Capitol case, despite both the government and the disgraced media behaving as if it is not.

    3rd attempt to post

  17. A certain whackadoodle continues to derail the arguments on SJI… Sadly this is what the left does when they know they are on the wrong side of history. The current climate will not play out well for them in the long run….

  18. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “No one said the homeowner had the right to kill without due process because no one, besides Mr. Goldstein, has confused self-defense (a natural, extrajudicial right) with due process (a strictly administrative right). The homeowner’s right to claim self-defense is assumed but subject to review.”

    BUT YOU DID IN FACT SAY:

    “3. Pervert what is meant by due process, which applies to legal matters, not the manner in which a civilian reacts to immediate peril. THE HOMEOWNER CANNOT BE ASSUMED TO HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO AWAIT POLICE (HIS ONLY AVENUE TO DUE PROCESS), LACKING BOTH A SAFE DEESCALATION OPTION AND CERTAINTY OF SURVIVAL. That is not to say his actions will not be subjected to investigation and possibly prosecution, only to acknowledge the existence of the presumption that a home-invader represents a life-endangering threat to occupants. THE ACTIONS OF THE CAPITOL POLICE OFFICER, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAVE YET TO BE SUFFICIENTLY REVEALED TO ALLOW FOR AN EVIDENCE-BASED ASSUMPTION THAT HIS LIFE, OR THAT OF ANOTHER, WAS IN IMMEDIATE PERIL WHEN HE SHOT MS. BABBITT.”

    AS I POINTED OUT, THOSE LIKE YOURSELF WILL NEVER BE SATISFIED BECAUSE YOU HAVE A POLITICAL AGENDA, YOU ARE A TRUMPER THAT ALSO SAYS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE WERE CONDUCTING THEMSELVES APPROPRIATELY. I KNOW THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ME TO CHANGE MINDS LIKE YOURSELF, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT YOU ARE IN MO POSITION TO JUDGE ANYTHING SINCE YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE OFFICER DID NOT CONDUCT THEMSELVES ACCORDING TO APPROPRIATE SELF DEFENSE. IN FACT YOU CLAIM THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO SELF PRESERVATION WHEN YOU WROTE:

    “THE CAPITOL POLICE OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO NO SUCH ASSUMPTION. His claim of self-defense (or other justification) must be measured against, AND MEET, A MUCH HIGHER STANDARD. Unlike the homeowner, the officer’s actions are subject to administrative and training policies meant TO SERVE PUBLIC, NOT PERSONAL INTERESTS. Thus, the public’s right to know (if the shooting was in policy) is much higher in the Capitol case, despite both the government and the disgraced media behaving as if it is not.”

    WHAT STANDARD ARE YOU PROPOSING? WHAT STANDARD ARE YOU EVEN CRITICIZING HERE? THIS CONSTANT ATTEMPT TO IN EFFECT DEFAME THE POLICE OFFICER IN THIS FORUM IS GETTING VERY STALE. THE REALITY IS THAT THERE WAS A PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE OFFICER, THE OFFICERS CONDUCT WAS INVESTIGATED AND FOUND NO ACTIONS THAT WOULD VIOLATE ANYONE’S RIGHTS HERE. THE FACT IS THE OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO TAKE STEPS TO PRESERVE THEIR OWN LIFE TOO. THEY ARE NOT SECRET SERVICE OFFICERS THAT ASSUME THAT THEY ARE TO SACRIFICE THEIR LIFE TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT. ASHLII BABBIT CROSSED THE WINDOW PANE OF THE DOORWAY, THUS COMMITTED A THREATENING ACT ALONG WITH A CROWD ISSUING LOUD DEADLY THREATS TO ANYONE THEY PERCEIVED WAS THEIR ENEMY INCLUDING MIKE PENCE

  19. THERELIABLEINFORMER you wrote:

    “A certain whackadoodle continues to derail the arguments on SJI… Sadly this is what the left does when they know they are on the wrong side of history. The current climate will not play out well for them in the long run….”

    FIRST, YOU NEED TO PROPERLY SUBSTANTIATE THE TERM WHACKADOODLE AND IN WHAT WAY I AM DERAILING AN ARGUMENT? SECOND, WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE JUDGMENT OF ME BEING A “LEFT” WHEN I AM AN INDEPENDENT VOTER WHO HAS 2 BUSINESS DEGREES AND SIMPLY PUT, I RIDE THE “CENTER” OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. THIRD WHEN YOU SAY THE CURRENT CLIMATE WILL NOT PLAY OUT WELL FOR THEM IN THE LONG RUN, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, DOES THAT MEAN TRUMPERS ARE GOING TO START FORMING AN ARMY AND ATTACKING SO-CALLED “LEFTISTS” OR “CENTERS”?

    CARL SAGAN WARNED US IN 1995 THAT THE INTERNET MIGHT BE THE SOURCE OF THE EXTINCTION OF MANKIND. CARL SAGAN WARNED US ABOUT THE CURRENT PATH TO DESTRUCTION. HOW?

    BECAUSE IT WILL DISINTEGRATE THE HUMAN SPECIES TO SUCH A DEGREE THAT A NATURAL OR ACCIDENTLY RELEASED BIOHAZARD OR GEOLOGICAL DISASTER OF OUR OWN MAKING , OR THE INHERENT NATURE OF HUMANITY BEING A VIOLENT CULTURE DEMANDING ONLY ONE POINT OF VIEW MUST DICTATE ALL OTHERS OF OUR OWN MAKING IS GOING TO WIPE US OFF THE PLANET. THE HUMAN SPECIES WILL NOT COPE WITH IT AND IT WILL DIE OFF. PLEASE READ HIS BOOK “THE DEMON HAUNTED WORLD”?

    REMEMBER THE “INTERNET” STARTED AS “ARPNET” AND IT WAS RESTRICTED TO ONLY RESEARCH AND NOT ALLOWED TO BE ABUSED BY ITS USERS. TODAY THE INTERNET IS FULL OF ABUSE VIA THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF POLITICS AND CONSPIRACY CONTENT. IN EFFECT THE “INTERNET” AS A VALID SYSTEM OF INFORMATION HAS BEEN BROKEN FOR MORE THAT A DECADE. SIMPLY BECAUSE IT NEVER WAS AN “INFORMATION” PLATFORM, ONLY A MEANS OF MOVING DATA FROM DEVICES, WHAT DATA IT CARRIES IS NEVER CHECKED FOR ITS ACCURACY OR VALIDITY.

  20. “AS I POINTED OUT, THOSE LIKE YOURSELF WILL NEVER BE SATISFIED BECAUSE YOU HAVE A POLITICAL AGENDA, YOU ARE A TRUMPER THAT ALSO SAYS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE WERE CONDUCTING THEMSELVES APPROPRIATELY.” — Steven Goldstein

    A search the archives of this site will find no evidence of my having a political agenda (my comments reflect my opinions and a desire to debate, not promote), no evidence of my membership in any Trump-specific organization, and not one word alleging the Jan. 6 mob acted appropriately.

    As has become quite apparent, Steven Goldstein’s posts are constructs of his prodigious ego and erratic, amplified emotional processes. The result is in evidence in the above quote, which reveals nothing about me and everything about his paranoia.

  21. If you are in your home, and a lawful, registered gun owner – then you have every right to defend your household against an intruder. This is one of several cases, recently, where a law abiding gun owner protected themselves, in their own home, from someone trying to kick down a door, or come through the window.

    Even if a suspect is unarmed – the homeowner will not know that at the time, nor should they take the chance (especially if elderly and vulnerable) to allow an intruder to grab a hold of them and do who knows what. What runs through my mind in that scenario, is “what if they overpower me, and get to my kids.” It’s not happening. No other human has a right to break down your front door and enter your home, and you have every right to defend yourself at that point. Simple as that.

  22. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “A search the archives of this site will find no evidence of my having a political agenda (my comments reflect my opinions and a desire to debate, not promote), no evidence of my membership in any Trump-specific organization, and not one word alleging the Jan. 6 mob acted appropriately.”

    BUT AT THE SAME TIME WHENEVER ANY INDEPENDENT UNBIASED EVIDENCE THAT DISPROVES THE CLAIMS YOU MAKE HERE ARE PRODUCED, YOU PERSONALLY ATTACK ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH YOU. YOU CLAIM DEBATING, BUT YOU NEVER FOLLOW THE RULES OF DEBATE. I ACTUALLY COMPETED IN A DEBATE TEAM MYSELF. ONE RULE IS THAT IF CONFRONTED WITH INDEPENDENT UNBIASED EVIDENCE YOU CANNOT DISCOUNT WITH ANOTHER RESOURCE OF INDEPENDENT UNBIASED EVIDENCE, YOU MUST ACKNOWLEDGE IT. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO JUST SAY “I DON’T BELIEVE YOU” OR THAT IT IS JUST “FAKE” INFORMATION. You wrote:

    “As has become quite apparent, Steven Goldstein’s posts are constructs of his prodigious ego and erratic, amplified emotional processes. The result is in evidence in the above quote, which reveals nothing about me and everything about his paranoia.”

    LET’S LOOK AT SOME OTHER WRITING YOU HAVE DONE HERE:

    PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “So now I’m a fake person? Do you have any idea how nuts you are? I’m not surprised you’re certified.”

    YES YOU ARE IF YOU DON’T PROVIDE ANYTHING TO SUPPORT ANY EXPERTISE OR JUDGEMENT TO THE READERS HERE. SORRY THAT’S REALITY YOU WROTE:

    “Here’s a question: if a man about whom you know nothing is standing in a public square sharing his political concerns with anyone who will listen, is he a fake person?”

    NO HE IS NOT, BUT HE IS ALSO NOT WEARING A MASK, NOT CONCEALING WHO THEY ARE, IN EFFECT VALIDATING THEIR CLAIMS BY NOT BEING DECEPTIVE. YOU ARE BEING DECEPTIVE HERE You wrote:

    “If not, how is what he is doing different than what I do here?”

    I JUST POINTED OUT THE DIFFERENCES. BUT YOU CAN NEVER EVEN IMAGINE THAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE SO GREAT. YOU ARE JUST MAKING EXCUSES FOR BEING A FAKE IDENTITY. You wrote:

    “If so, what must he do to satisfy your particular requirements to become a real person?”

    I ALREADY TOLD YOU IT BUT YOU DIDN’T BOTHER TO READ IT I SAID: YES, A RESUME, A CERTIFICATION, AN AUTHENTICATION OF EVERYTHING YOU WRITE AND I WILL ADD AN AUTHENTICATION OF WHO YOU ARE. You wrote:

    “Also, must he satisfy the requirements of everyone gathered, assuming that differences exist, or are your requirements the only ones that matter?”

    I SAY THIS APPLIES TO EVERYONE EQUALLY, I CHOOSE TO STOP USING ANY FAKE NAMES YEARS AGO BECAUSE I REALIZED THAT IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE KIND OF INSANE POSITINGS LIKE YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS HAVE DONE, IT WAS TIME TO STOP ALLOWING THAT KIND OF BEHAVIOR. YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO STIR UP VIOLENCE LIKE TRUMP DID ON JAN 6.

    AND:

    Phu Tan Elli you wrote:

    “Since I specifically qualified the public square speaker in my hypothetical as being someone “about whom you know nothing,” your conviction that his exposed face somehow validates his claims speaks volumes about your gullibility. It is arguable that more people have been duped by the trustworthy faces of con artists than they have by their fraudulent claims.

    When your back is put to the wall you make as much sense as an hysterical child.”

    TYPICAL REACTION BY A CLASSIC NARCISSIST. WHEN PRESENTED WITH EVIDENCE THAT PROVES YOU INCORRECT, YOU USE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE, WHICH IN ITSELF IS NOT RATIONAL THOUGHT OR RECOURSE:

    “There was a time in America when the punk inclinations that come natural to some would be targeted for correction by parents, siblings, and, when necessary, neighbor kids. The effect of this cultural convention was that punk behavior seldom persisted past adolescence, sparing adults the annoyance of having to share their world with that particular form of hemorrhoid.

    Things have, obviously changed, to the detriment of all except, apparently, journalism schools.”

    YOU WENT ON A RANT BUT PROVIDED NO SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE YOUR POINT, AND AGAIN YOU ARE NOT EVEN A REAL PERSON, I SUSPECT YOU USE MULTIPLE NAMES ON VARIOUS PLACES TO MAKE IT APPEAR YOU ARE NOT ALONE. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS DISTRACTING FROM THE TOPIC BY CRITICIZING THE AUTHORS WAS SAD. YOU WENT ON TO SAY:

    “The blue line flag was around long before Derek Chauvin was sacrificed in service to the national campaign to absolve African-Americans of the heartbreak, blood, and chalk stains left on our streets by the conduct of the worst of their kind. Earlier sacrifices made on behalf of the trash (that the majority of blacks disdain), other than those made by law enforcement over the last five decades, include the safety of once-safe neighborhoods (by Section 8 shenanigans), the prestige of a college degree (which now means less than a H.S. diploma once did), the educational environment of public schools (disruptive, even thuggish behavior now protected), and, most ominously, the merit system.

    But don’t blame Steven Goldstein for his ignorance, for he (like so many others) has been sucking on the tailpipe of the Wokemobile so long he exhales its exhaust with his every thought.”

    AGAIN YOU WENT ON A RANT WITH NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR POINT, I WOULD THINK THAT THE READERS HERE SHOULD EXPECT CONDUCT EQUAL TO TESTIFYING IN EITHER A CITY COUNCIL, AN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, THE STATE LEGISLATURE, OR THE CONGRESS, AND NOT THE CONDUCT YOU PERSIST TO ACT OUT ON. YOU WENT ON TO SAY:

    “Mr. Goldstein,

    Thank you for your incontinent responses as they provided a welcome respite from an existence otherwise dominated by a reasoning process so robust that, in an era of nation-wrecking political adolescence, it can be a very taxing possession. Had you opted not to comment I might have had no choice but to seek relief by walking through the grounds of an asylum or tuning in to CNN.”

    WHAT CAN I SAY, ANOTHER RANT BUT NO CONSTRUCTIVE DISCOURSE HERE. YOU WROTE:

    “That’s the commission to which Adam “I’ve got hard evidence on Russiagate” Schiff has just been named. If that clown can get you excited you must really enjoy circuses, Steven.”

    CLASSIC NARCISSIST, WHEN PRESENTED WITH EVIDENCE TO SHUT DOWN ONE ARGUMENT YOU CHANGE THE SUBJECT AND USE PERSONAL INSULTS. YOU WENT ON TO WRITE:

    “That’s 0 for 5 on the fascism count, you blithering idiot. Get out your dictionary (it may hidden by your comic books and Star Wars collectibles) and find a new word for a man you hate for reasons you can’t explain.”

    BUT THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISED WERE ANSWERED, THEY WERE NOT EVIDENCE IN FACT BECAUSE A QUESTION IS ONLY A QUESTION, IT IS AGAIN AN ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AND PERSONALLY ATTACK ANYONE THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU. YOU WENT ON TO SAY:

    “Evidence of his delusional cognition: that he was, in defending his grossly inaccurate portrayal of Donald Trump as a fascist, able to double-down on his delusion and support it based solely on contrary evidence. To wit:”

    AGAIN, YOU TRY TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AND DECLARE TO ALL READERS THAT THE VIDEOS OF ALL CONDUCT OF DONALD TRUMP WERE TO BE IN EFFECT ERASED FROM HISTORY. CONSTANTLY TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AND PERSONALLY ATTACK ANYONE THAT DOESN’T AGREE WITH YOU. Again, this is not a DEMONSTRATION of RATIONAL THOUGHT OR DISCOURSE, IT WAS NOTHING BUT A RANT AND DID NOT EVEN PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENTS. I REALLY HOPE THE READERS HERE ARE SEEING THE PATTERN, YOU WROTE:

    “In support of your hysterical perspective of Donald Trump’s presidency, I invite you to educate the rest of us regarding the ways in which his policies restrained your personal freedoms.”

    IN WHICH I RESPONDED WITH THE ATTEMPTS TO KILL LEGALLY CAST VOTES. WHICH THEN YOU SUMMARILY IGNORED AND ATTEMPTED TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AGAIN AND TRY TO PERSONALLY ATTACK THAT INFORMATION. YOU WRITE:

    “It’s quite apparent you cannot name a single way in which your freedom was restrained by what you insist were the fascist policies of the Trump administration, so I’ll make it easier: provide the name of, and manner in which, a fellow American’s freedom was impaired by Trump fascism.”

    IN WHICH OF COURSE I POINTED OUT WAS A STUPID ARGUMENT, ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT, AND PERSONALLY ATTACK ONE THAT CLOSES YOUR ATTEMPT TO DISTRACT BY PROVING YOU INCORRECT. CLASSIC NARCISSISM. YOU WENT ON TO SAY:

    “Over a thousand words in response and not one example of a loss of freedom under an administration you describe as fascist. Hardly a surprise, as there is no rational defense to be found for a delusion that, unfortunately, you share with millions of other deranged souls.”

    CLASSIC “ERASING” THE HISTORY BY A NARCISSIST, AND ALSO JUST TRYING TO AVOID THE TOPIC YOU BROUGHT UP WAS A FAILED RANT. IN THE END YOU CAN ONLY PERSONALLY ATTACK PEOPLE, AND THE READERS HERE SHOULD SEE IT. YOU WROTE:

    “With your crazed cut-and-paste method you can mount a defense for your every position, no matter how delusional. Sometimes your rantings offer others the opportunity to attack them, not so much to disabuse you of them, but as a way to expose their folly, lest any others fall victim to them. But frequently your comments are treated as background noise, meaningless static that goes ignored by some of this site’s most interesting participants (all apparently smarter than me).

    Chalk up this exchange as another win for you. Get yourself a “Trump is a Fascist” bumper sticker and display it with pride, for if it is your fate to be shackled by indestructible delusions, you might as well enjoy them.”

    CRAZED “CUT AND PASTE” DOES PROVE SO MANY “DELUSIONAL” PERCEPTIONS OF REALITY BY A NARCISSIST IS WRONG, AND THUS YOU CONSTANTLY WILL JUS PERSONALLY ATTACK ONE THAT GIVES YOU ANSWERS YOU DON’T WANT TO HEAR. YOU WENT ON TO SAY:

    ““BUT YOU DID NOT PROVE ANY OF MY EVIDENCE IS FALSE…” — Steven Goldstein, with apologies to Chicken Little, Creationists, Marshall Applewhite (Heaven’s Gate), Chappaquiddick Ted, OJ Simpson, the Flat Earth Society, and every one of the Russiagate prosecutors.”

    THERE IT WAS AGAIN, WHEN PROVEN WRONG YOU JUST TRY TO PERSONALLY ATTACK THE MESSENGER. YOU WENT ON TO SAY:

    “It just goes to show that Donald Trump was an attempted DICTATOR…” — Steven Goldstein, off his meds.”

    DO I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF HERE? THE HISTORY IS OUT IN THE OPEN BUT NARCISSISTS CANNOT ACCEPT ANY “VERSION” OF HISTORY THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THEM. THUS ANOTHER PERSONAL ATTACK, YOU WROTE:

    “This is the same “journalist” who fabricated the story of the three-count indictment of Trump by Robert Mueller, just one of many such fabrications in his earlier book on Trump. The indictment never existed but the TDR herd mooed its approval and stampeded the book stores, as they will do once again.

    Thanks for the fresh cow pie, Steven.”

    IN WHICH I PRESENTED EVIDENCE TO PROVE HE WAS FAR MORE TRUSTWORTHY THAN AN MYSTERY WRITER THAT HAS NOTHING PUBLISHED OR RECOGNIZED. TO WHICH YOU AGAIN CHANGED THE SUBJECT AND THREW OUT ANOTHER PERSONAL ATTACK. YOU WROTE:

    “I am not anonymous. I use a name here, just as you do. When someone agrees or disagrees with a comment of mine they can, just as easily as they can with you, address me about it, attribute it to me, or decide not to pay me any further attention.

    Is there something more you require? Are you, like the NSA, unwilling to allow people their privacy? If so, why? If another driver honks his disapproval of you must you know his identity? Would you deny the value of a Bitcoin because its inventor used a pseudonym? Do you, Steven, have trust issues?”

    AS I POINTED OUT IF THIS IS A TRUE PUBLIC FORUM, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO CONDUCT YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY. YOUR CHOICE TO WRITE ON THIS FORUM IN EFFECT EXPLICITLY REMOVES YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF YOUR THOUGHTS, AND YOUR HOMESPACE, BUT WHEN YOUR ACTIONS INVOLVE PUBLIC CONSEQUENCES, IN EFFECT YOUR CLAIM IS WRONG. BUT AGAIN ANOTHER CHANGING OF THE SUBJECT AND PERSONAL ATTACK. YOU WROTE:

    “So now I’m a fake person? Do you have any idea how nuts you are? I’m not surprised you’re certified.

    Here’s a question: if a man about whom you know nothing is standing in a public square sharing his political concerns with anyone who will listen, is he a fake person? If not, how is what he is doing different than what I do here? If so, what must he do to satisfy your particular requirements to become a real person? Also, must he satisfy the requirements of everyone gathered, assuming that differences exist, or are your requirements the only ones that matter?”

    IN WHICH I GAVE YOU EXACTLY HOW DIFFERENT THAT PERSON WAS TO YOU, BUT THAT WAS AGAIN A CHANGING OF THE SUBJECT AND A PERSONAL ATTACK. YOU LITERALLY ARE GRASPING AT ANYTHING TO TRY TO MANIPULATE THE READERS, AND I JUST SHOW THEM IT WAS A FALSE IDEA.

    THE READERS HERE DESERVE BETTER, PLEASE GIVE US SOMETHING OF SUBSTANCE AND NOT JUST THROWING OUT QUESTIONS THAT RESULT IN ANSWERS YOU REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEGE?

    AND:

    “PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “I don’t think anyone other than you has accused me of trying to manipulate them, which speaks well for their mental health.”

    AND WHO ARE YOU TO DIAGNOSE ANYONE’S MENTAL HEALTH? BOY TALKING ABOUT DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR HERE. YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO EVER IMPLY WHAT ANYONE THINKS OF FEELS ABOUT THE TOPIC IF THEY ARE NOT WRITING ANYTHING ABOUT, THAT’S REAL RATIONAL THINKING. YOU WROTE:

    “I suspect, of course, that you being alone in your perceptions is the rule, rather than the exception.”

    SUSPECT ALL YOU WANT, BUT YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT. YOU JUST THROW OUT SPECULATIONS, AND WHEN DIRECTED TO PROOF OF THE OPPOSITE, YOU PERSONALLY ATTACK AND CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

    BY THE WAY DONALD TRUMP TRIED TO IMPLEMENT A DELAY OR CANCELLATION OF THE ELECTION OF 2020 BASED ON RECORDS OBTAINED BY THE AUTHOR OF A NEW BOOK, THIS IS NOT CONJECTURE< THERE IS PROOF OF IT. You wrote:

    “Asylum’s are full of such people, as is, I presume, the IT security field, which attracts people who share much commonality with frustrating and inanimate objects.”

    ACTUALLY 90% OF MY WORK UNFORTUNATELY IS DEALING WITH PEOPLE USING THE TECHNOLOGY WRONG, MOST OF THE TIME IT INVOLVES PEOPLE ADDING GARBAGE OR WORSE INTO A SAFE SYSTEM. RENDERING THE SAFE SYSTEM UNSAFE. DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR TO WHAT I AM DOING HERE?

    BUT CONTINUE TO LIVE IN YOUR ALTERNATE REALITY.

    And:

    “PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “Actually, making assumptions based on the absence of a particular reaction is something mentally sound people do every day. For instance, if no one in heavy traffic is honking at you in anger it is quite reasonable to assume your driving is not offending them. Or if you’re making comments during a round discussion and no one casts a disapproving glance your way, you can assume you’re doing okay.”

    YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING? FIRST, YOUR PREMISE IS WHOLLY UNRELATED TO THE TOPIC. SECOND, IT SIMPLY DOES NOT REPRESENT AN EXAMPLE THAT IS REALISTICALLY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. YOU ARE JUST MAKING EXCUSES AND THUS TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT. AND AS FAR AS ASSUMING YOU’RE DOING OK, THE FACT THAT NO ONE MAKES A COMMENT OR REACTS ONLY MEANS THAT MANY HAVE THE SELF-DISCIPLINE TO NOT REACT TO INSANE IDEAS. BUT IN A FORUM LIKE THIS, THERE NEED TO BE SOMEONE TO BRING US BACK FROM FANTASYLAND. YOU WROTE:

    “Based on your comments I suspect you are seriously lacking in social awareness and personal skills. You remind me of others I have met, people who are, as they say, “on the spectrum.” Maybe I should take it easy on you, but then again, given your obsessive-compulsive nature, maybe an outlet is what you need most (and especially needed by those poor souls who have to live with you).”

    HE WE GO AGAIN TRYING TO INFLICT PERSONAL DAMAGE BECAUSE YOUR LACK OF EVIDENCE AND THE INABILITY TO TOLERATE ANY OTHER PERSON’S PERSPECTIVE IS QUITE OBVIOUS. IN THE END YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT RANT AGAIN NOT EVEN ON TOPIC.

    I AM REQUIRED TO RESPOND TO ANY PERSONAL ATTACKS, AND I DO SO WITH EVIDENCE AND PROOF, BUT YOU PROVIDE NONE OF EITHER. THIS IS NOT THE INDICATIONS OF SOMEONE THAT THE READERS CAN TRUST. ALONG WITH A PERSON BEING “FAKE”.

  23. “I ACTUALLY COMPETED IN A DEBATE TEAM MYSELF.” — Steven Goldstein

    It’s a wonder you weren’t lynched.

  24. Phu Tan Elli,

    WELL, IS THAT YOUR ONLY RESPONSE, GIVEN I PROVE MY POINT WITH ONLY ONE STORIES POSTINGS?

    I HAVE 10 MORE I CAN PRODUCE TOO.

    HERE IS THE REAL PROBLEM TOO MANY “ALPHA” WANNABEES LIKE YOURSELF AND DONALD TRUMP THAT SAYS IF WE CAN OUTSTYLE YOUR OPPONENT INSTEAD OF SHOWING GOOD RESEARCH AND UNBIASED VALID EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR POINT, YOU WIN.

    THAT IS THE ULTIMATE PRESCRIPTION FOR DISASTER, I REMEMBER A MOVIE CALLED “THE DAY AFTER THOMORROW” WHEN A POLICE OFFICER ORDERS A LARGE GROUP OF SURVIVORS IN THE NEW YOUR LIBRARY THAT THEY MUST FOLLOW HIM TO WALK SOUTH TO SURVIVE.

    OF COURSE THE SON OF THE SCIENTIST IS THERE AND HE WAS TOLD ABOUT THE SEVERITY OF THE STORM AND TOLD THEM YOU GO WITH THE “ALP[HA DOG” (COP) YOU ARE GOING TO BE DEAD.

    LATER ON IN THE FILM HIS FATHER AND FATHER’S FRIEND ON THE WAY TO NEW YORK WALK PAST THE BODIES.

    THIS IS WHAT COVID DID TO US ALL OVER THE WORLD, AND DONALD TRUMP SAID LIES ABOUT IT AS THE “ALPHA DOG” AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ARE DEAD AND MILLIONS WILL BE DISABLED.

    I AM NO ALPHA IN ANY SENSE, I AM JUST A SCIENTIFIC DOUBTER AND DO NOT LET ALPHA’S GET AWAY WITH THE SALES PITCH, I EXPECT PROOF.

    SHOULD YOU LISTEN TO A “FAKE” AND UNEDUCATEDNOR INEXPERIENCED PERSON? OR SHOULD YOU DO YOUR OWN HOMEPWORK, PREPARED TO NOT LISTEN TO THE “CHARELTONS” DEFINED BY CARL SAGAN, FIND UNBIASED INFORMATION FROM REAL EXPERTS, AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND? i AGREE WITH THAT.

  25. “AS I POINTED OUT, THOSE LIKE YOURSELF WILL NEVER BE SATISFIED BECAUSE YOU HAVE A POLITICAL AGENDA, YOU ARE A TRUMPER THAT ALSO SAYS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE WERE CONDUCTING THEMSELVES APPROPRIATELY.” — Steven Goldstein

    A search of the annoying and exhausting response Goldstein posted above will reveal no evidence of my having a political agenda (my comments reflect my opinions and a desire to debate, not promote), no evidence of my membership in any Trump-specific organization, and not one word alleging the Jan. 6 mob acted appropriately. In short, no evidence that any of his accusations were accurate. Pardon my caps, normal readers, BUT ANOTHER FAIL FOR STEVEN.

  26. Ashli Babbit was unarmed and attempting to petition her govt for a redress of grievances, since the govt had unilaterally decided to shut down the civil process by refusing to hear ANY of the hundreds of cases filed for that purpose.

    She was not breaking into a residence, but rather entering a govt that is owned by the citizens of the US, of which she was one, and is a public institution in which the public servants who serve at the pleasure of the citizens gather, not a private residence.

    Yes, Ashli Babbit was murdered, and by the way had not engaged in any violent behavior, in addition to being there for a lawful and Constitutionally protected purpose, as opposed to a home invader whose actions are violent and intentions clearly unlawful.

  27. SEBASTIAN,

    I WILL HAVE TO REMIND YOU

    SHE WAS BREAKING INTO A SECURED LOCATION, AND NO POLICE OFFICER GAVE HER PERMISSION TO DO SO. THOSE OFFICES ARE IN FACT PRIVATE SPACES IF YOU ARE CAREFUL ABOUT THE LAYOUT OF THE CAPITOL. PUBLIC SPACES ARE CLEARLY SIGNED.

    YOU LIKE SO MANY ARE SIMPLY NEVER BEEN THERE. I WAS THERE WORKING IN 1993 AND I WAS PROPERLY EDUCATED ON THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN “PUBLIC” SPACES AND “SECURED” ONES. BUT ALL YOU ARE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE UP AN EXCUSE FOR THE CRIMINAL ACT SHE DID IN CROSSING THE THRESHOLD OF THE WINDOW ON THE VIDEO.

  28. PHU TAN ELLI How about these comments that establishes you are a TRUMPER, pelae stop denying what you are:

    “TRUMPERS WERE FASCISTS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING” — Steven Goldstein

    Mr. Goldstein, a fascist government is marked by:
    — centralization of authority under a dictator (Trump was elected, made no attempt to nullify Congress or the Supreme Court, and stood for re-election, thus failing to meet the definition on this count).
    — an economy subjected to stringent controls (Trump worked to free the economy from such controls, thus failing to meet the definition on this count).
    — violent suppression of the opposition (the only violence, and there was lots of it, came from Trump’s opponents, thus failing to meet the definition on this count).
    — a policy of belligerent nationalism (Trump’s Make America Great Again was conducted through diplomatic and trade-related channels, his lack of hostility and aggression thus failing to meet the definition on this count).
    — a policy of racism (Trump appealed to American’s of all races, promoted economic policies favorable to all, and proposed no legislation of a racist nature, thus failing to meet the definition on this count).

    That’s 0 for 5 on the fascism count, you blithering idiot. Get out your dictionary (it may hidden by your comic books and Star Wars collectibles) and find a new word for a man you hate for reasons you can’t explain.

    REPLY
    STEVEN GOLDSTEIN Jul 2, 2021 @ 3:36 pm
    Phu Tan Elli you wrote:

    “— centralization of authority under a dictator (Trump was elected, made no attempt to nullify Congress or the Supreme Court, and stood for re-election, thus failing to meet the definition on this count).

    WHAT WAS JAN 6? Case closed there. You wrote:

    “— an economy subjected to stringent controls (Trump worked to free the economy from such controls, thus failing to meet the definition on this count).”

    Believe it or not the “REMOVAL” of controls actually creates new ones. But most people like yourself do not understand it. For example, by removing the requirement of maintaining clean water from pollutants, is a means to promote the production of unsafe water. The reduction of regulations regarding air quality forces those to live with unsafe air. So I hate to say this but you got that all wrong. Case closed You wrote:

    “— violent suppression of the opposition (the only violence, and there was lots of it, came from Trump’s opponents, thus failing to meet the definition on this count).”

    And DONALD TRUMP DEFENDED THE CHARLOTTSVILEE MURDER, HAS BEEN DEFENDING HIS ARMY FROM JAN 6. AND ALSO ENCOURAGED PEOPLE BEING BEATEN UP AT HIS RALLIES Case closed there. You wrote:

    “— a policy of belligerent nationalism (Trump’s Make America Great Again was conducted through diplomatic and trade-related channels, his lack of hostility and aggression thus failing to meet the definition on this count).”

    HIS ARMY WAS VERY HOSTILE AND WAS SHOWN BY MAGA HATS ATTACKING ANYONE THAT DIDN’T AGREE WITH THEM ON MANY OCCASIONS. HE USED HIS EXECUTIVE POWERS TO IMPOSE TARIFFS THAT DID NOT EVEN HELP ANYONE BUT HIS OWN EGO. ECONOMIC TERRORISM IS STILL TERRORISM, DID YOU EVER WATCH BATMAN BEGINS? You wrote:

    “— a policy of racism (Trump appealed to American’s of all races, promoted economic policies favorable to all, and proposed no legislation of a racist nature, thus failing to meet the definition on this count).”

    REALLY, IT WOUD LOOK LIKE THAT WAS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE VOTERS IN GEORGIA, ARIZONA, NEVADA, and other states that voted for him in 2016 REJECTS THAT CLAIM. And you know it Case closed.

    I LOVE THAT HIS CHILDREN ARE ALREADY NEXT IN LINE REGARDING PROSECUTION IN NEW YORK BY THE WAY. BECAUSE THEY RAN THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION ON THE RECORD.

  29. “Biography of Steven Goldstein” — the working notes of Phu Tan Elli

    Evidence of his delusional cognition: that he was, in defending his grossly inaccurate portrayal of Donald Trump as a fascist, able to double-down on his delusion and support it based solely on contrary evidence. To wit:

    1. To conclude that a president is a dictator based solely on an event that occurred two weeks before he left office, one for which there exists no compelling evidence of his dictating the outcome.
    2. To believe stringent controls can be achieved by the removal of controls.
    3. To see violent suppression in speech devoid of violent encouragement.
    4. To see hostility and aggression in a patriotic hat, or in a corrective tariff.
    5. To see racism in the voting results of the various states.

    This represents a remarkable, Nancy Pelosi-level feat of lunacy, suggesting Mr. Goldstein may have what it takes to become a major player in the Democratic Party.

    REPLY
    STEVEN GOLDSTEIN Jul 3, 2021 @ 5:24 pm
    PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    Evidence of his delusional cognition: that he was, in defending his grossly inaccurate portrayal of Donald Trump as a fascist, able to double-down on his delusion and support it based solely on contrary evidence. To wit:

    1. To conclude that a president is a dictator based solely on an event that occurred two weeks before he left office, one for which there exists no compelling evidence of his dictating the outcome.”

    Again there has been far more VIDEO demonstrating DONALD TRUMP (JIMJONES OF THE YEAR 2021 of JONESTOWN of far more encouragement of the claim of “FAKE NEWS”, encouraging violence regarding news reporters and others at his “RALLIES” and you choose to selectively perceive it ou also said:

    “2. To believe stringent controls can be achieved by the removal of controls.”

    YES PRIVATE DICTATORSHIP VIA THE REMOVAL OF PUBLIC SAFETY, MAYBE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND IT. You wrote:

    “3. To see violent suppression in speech devoid of violent encouragement.”

    AGAIN YOU CAN SEE HOURS OF VILOENT ENCOURAGEMENT AGAINST THE FREE PRESS AND INDIVIDUALS AT TRUMP EVENTS ALONG WITH THE TEAR GASING IN WASHINGTON TO GET A PHOTO OP OF HIM HOLDING A BIBLE UPSIDE DOWN You wrote:

    “4. To see hostility and aggression in a patriotic hat, or in a corrective tariff.”

    AGAIN, UNILATERAL ACTIONS TAKEN WITHOUT APPROVAL OF TRADE TREATY IS AN ECONOMIC WARFARE ACT, IN EFFECT AN ACT OF ECONOMIC WAR. You write:

    “5. To see racism in the voting results of the various states.”

    THAT IS YOUR MADE UP CLAIM, THUS IT DOESN’T EVEN WARRANT A RESPONSE You wrote:

    “This represents a remarkable, Nancy Pelosi-level feat of lunacy, suggesting Mr. Goldstein may have what it takes to become a major player in the Democratic Party.”

    I just saw a documentary about Jim Jones of Jonestown, and I just have the strongest understanding that Donald Trump is Jim Jones. That his followers will never accept anything other than the messages of Donald Trump over all reality. And I think when there is a complete investigation of Jan 6, a major crime against all of the U.S. by a GANG, the conflict will continue. I just think Donald Trump could have been used to destroy the U.S. and create a new Civil War.

  30. Phu Tan Elliwrote:

    “Donald Trump is Jim Jones… I just think Donald Trump could have been used to destroy the U.S. and create a new Civil War.” — Steven Goldstein

    In support of your hysterical perspective of Donald Trump’s presidency, I invite you to educate the rest of us regarding the ways in which his policies restrained your personal freedoms.

    STEVEN GOLDSTEIN Jul 4, 2021 @ 8:48 am
    Phu Tan Elli,

    His LIES and INCOMPETENCE regarding COVID KILLED more than 600,000 people.

    His ability to cause so many people to die and be disabled is the ultimate cost of his presidency.

    AND AS THE SIGN SAID THE BUCK STOPS AT THE PRESIDENT. HE IS ULTIMATELY ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALL AGENCIES UNDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH INCLUDING THE CDC, THE NIH, AND THE HHS. The fact he told so many about miracle cures and that the virus was under control in 2020 was laughable

    To try to say what did Donald Trump do to me is a FALSE QUESTION. The bottom line is you are a TRUMPER, and you are willing to attack anyone regarding any “disloyalty” to him.

    The guy is going down as the WORST president in the history of the U.S.

  31. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “It’s quite apparent you cannot name a single way in which your freedom was restrained by what you insist were the fascist policies of the Trump administration, so I’ll make it easier: provide the name of, and manner in which, a fellow American’s freedom was impaired by Trump fascism.”

    THE FACT THAT TRUMP FAILED TO INVADE THE CAPITOL TO THWART THE ELECTION IS EVIDENCE ENOUGH. THE FACT THAT TRUMP TRIED OVER 60 TIMES TO KILL VOTES IS AN AMERICANS FREEDOM THREAT THAT FORTUNATELY FAILED. GIULIANI’S SUSPENSION AND EVENTUAL DISBARMENT FOR TRYING TO USE FALSE ALLEGATIONS AND EVIDENCE IS PROOF THAT DONALD TRUMP IS A THREAT TO ANYONE’S FREEDOM. SO PLEASE GIVE US SOMETHING TO PROVE THAT HE DID NOT ACTUALLY TRY TO KILL LEGALLY CAST VOTES? AND WHEN ALL FAILED HE RESORTED TO VIOLENCE ON JAN 6. ANY THREAT TO ANYONE’S VOTE IS A THREAT TO MINE REMEMBER MARTIN LUTHER KING SAID:

    “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere! – Martin Luther King Jr.

    What does that mean?

    This quote makes an obvious point, but too many people don’t understand it. When an injustice is done to one person, everyone else has to wonder what it would take for that same injustice to be done to me.

    Sadly, that is a question that many people I know just don’t think about. They may say that it is a shame that something bad happened, but they don’t usually consider the possibility that it could happen to them.

    If you have faith in the system, and faith that the incident was only a one time mistake, that might be a justifiable reaction. But that isn’t the kind of incident that this quote is about.

    This quote is about a system with bias. A system that targets some people while letting others escape. An uneven and unjust system. And sadly, as humans are uneven and unjust, so are the systems we design. Thus the quote urges us to work towards being as even as we can, so all may have justice.

    Why is even application of laws (justice) important?
    It might start out slowly, with the occasional traffic stop motivated by the race or ethnicity of the driver. But once the public decides that this level of injustice is acceptable, is it more likely that the abuses will stop, or that they will get worse?

    Eventually, you become one of the targeted groups. Now what? It may already be too late. Atrocities like these started small but grew quickly in the totalitarian regimes of World War II (see the treatment of “lesser” people in occupied Europe, culminating with death camps).

    While that is as extreme as it gets, we could look to South Africa only a few short decades ago for a country wide, institutionalized form of injustice. In America, you have to go back a little further for the worst of it, but there are still pockets of injustice and retribution going both ways in a few places.

    Being equal in the eyes of the law is the reason why the statues of justice are seen with the scales held in one hand, and a blindfold over the eyes. Everything should be weighed on the merits of the case and the law. Anything less is, by definition, injustice.”

    Where can I apply this in my life?

    Because of the power of the word ‘injustice,’ many people abuse it and try to apply it to situations where uninformed people will react by taking their side in an argument. While it’s sad and frustrating when children use this trick, it is much worse when large groups or even countries try to use this.

    Yes, there is injustice in the world. As I mentioned earlier, we are an imperfect species and all that we do is, by definition, imperfect. But this quote isn’t about a random error, but about a systematic bias. While it does exist, it isn’t as common as some people like to claim. Be wary of being drawn into their fight and used as a human shield.

    That said, the only thing we can directly change is ourselves. Yes, it would be nice to change others and make people be nice to one another, but what about us? How nice are we to others? How about *THOSE* people, whoever they might be?

    It is human nature, in our DNA, to show a preference towards those we like and be far less kind or respectful to those we don’t. Usually there is some solidarity by group, whether it’s nerds or jocks, blacks or whites, boys or girls.

    But not always so clean or well defined. How should a group of male nerds treat a female nerd? Does their combined nerdiness outweigh the gender difference? How would you want to be treated, and how do you think you would treat someone else, were the positions reversed?

    This bias, something we all have to some degree, is the basis of this quote. One person having a bias is noise, often counterbalanced by another with an opposite bias. However, when a large group of people (or a small group of people with a large amount of power or authority) have the same bias, things can get ugly rather quickly.

    So what do we do if we see an act of injustice on the street? Do we sink to their level and do an injustice back to them? Does that make the world more just? I don’t believe it is the best course of action. There are usually ways defined to handle such injustices, and that’s what I would try to do.

    There is much beauty in humanity. However there are other aspects to humanity, and we must start by working constantly to become a better person. From there, we can encourage others to follow their own path to becoming a better person.

    We can be the example for others we wish someone had been for us. Or we can emulate someone we consider to be a shining example of who we wish to become. We can only be more just ourselves, and then try to help others to become so as well.

    Together we can help fight injustice, wherever it might be. It won’t be easy, but it is the best path forward of which I am aware.”

    HOW IS THAT MY FRIEND?

  32. PHU TAN ELLI Jul 4, 2021 @ 1:52 pm

    Over a thousand words in response and not one example of a loss of freedom under an administration you describe as fascist. Hardly a surprise, as there is no rational defense to be found for a delusion that, unfortunately, you share with millions of other deranged souls.

    PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “Over a thousand words in response and not one example of a loss of freedom under an administration you describe as fascist. Hardly a surprise, as there is no rational defense to be found for a delusion that, unfortunately, you share with millions of other deranged souls.”

    I just love the fact that CNN has just released audio recordings of TRUMP advocates like GULIANNI trying to KILL ALREADY LEGALLY CAST VOTES!!! The so-called Maricopa Audit is going to find nothing and the GOP is going to continue to claim that it was “dirty” with NO EVIDENCE to support it. The facts are there is proof of everything I have stated in court records, on video, on audio, and yourself. The fact that the REPUBLICAN PARTY (ONCE THE PARTY OF LINCOLN) has now reversed roles in politics. The DEMOCRATS were VERY GUILTY of SUPPORTING SLAVERY prior and after the CIVIL WAR by Jim Crow and Poll Taxes. But now the GOP is the ones doing it.

    I just think of Crispus Adams who was slaughtered by the British in the Boston Massacre. Also Prince Estabrook that died in the battle of Lexington. And the countless “FREE” African Americans that fought and died for the American Revolution. And what did that get them? And you wonder why I get so angry about any person trying to be taken away their right to VOTE!!! They have fought and died for this country from the very beginning and still are given hostile treatment, ESPECIALLY from the GOP at this time.

    You simply provide nothing in the way of evidence for your argument, nothing but name calling, the “so what’s your point”, or that “YOU AREN’T BEING IMPACTED SO YOU SHOULD KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT” excuses. I hope the readers here can see that you have no justification for making any of your failures to even have a constructive conversation

    “You simply provide nothing in the way of evidence for your argument, nothing but name calling…” — Steven Goldstein

    My argument against your depiction of Trump as a fascist was based on the definition of the word, the elements of conduct that distinguish it from other forms of governance. Your inability to provide a single example of his policies having restricted anyone’s freedom prompted you, in John Nash fashion, to assemble mad bits of irrelevant information and present them as supporting evidence.

    With your crazed cut-and-paste method you can mount a defense for your every position, no matter how delusional. Sometimes your rantings offer others the opportunity to attack them, not so much to disabuse you of them, but as a way to expose their folly, lest any others fall victim to them. But frequently your comments are treated as background noise, meaningless static that goes ignored by some of this site’s most interesting participants (all apparently smarter than me).

    Chalk up this exchange as another win for you. Get yourself a “Trump is a Fascist” bumper sticker and display it with pride, for if it is your fate to be shackled by indestructible delusions, you might as well enjoy them.

  33. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “My argument against your depiction of Trump as a fascist was based on the definition of the word, the elements of conduct that distinguish it from other forms of governance. Your inability to provide a single example of his policies having restricted anyone’s freedom prompted you, in John Nash fashion, to assemble mad bits of irrelevant information and present them as supporting evidence.”

    BUT YOU DID NOT PROVE ANY OF MY EVIDENCE IS FALSE, DID YOU? NO, YOU DIDN’T IN FACT YOU JUST WANT TO TELL EVERYONE TO ACCEPT YOUR CLAIM OF REALITY. YOU SHOW NO PROOF THAT WHAT I PRESENTED DID NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN? You wrote:

    “With your crazed cut-and-paste method you can mount a defense for your every position, no matter how delusional. Sometimes your rantings offer others the opportunity to attack them, not so much to disabuse you of them, but as a way to expose their folly, lest any others fall victim to them. But frequently your comments are treated as background noise, meaningless static that goes ignored by some of this site’s most interesting participants (all apparently smarter than me).”

    OK, THAT IS RICH, YOU CALL ME DELUSIONAL, BUT IGNORE ALL REALITY? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU STATED. I THINK THE READERS HERE ARE FAR MORE REALISTIC. OF COURSE, YOU JUST PUT IN IT THE COMON VERNACULAR “FAKE NEWS” You wrote:

    “Chalk up this exchange as another win for you. Get yourself a “Trump is a Fascist” bumper sticker and display it with pride, for if it is your fate to be shackled by indestructible delusions, you might as well enjoy them.”

    AGAIN, I CAN SAY YOU TRYING TO CALL ME DELUSIONAL IS COMEDY. BY THE WAY TRUMP RECENTLY ACTUALLY SAID HE KNEW HE WAS A TAX CHEATER YOU CAN READ THE ARTICLE HERE (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-acknowledges-tax-schemes-behind-charges-denies-theyre-crimes-2021-7) “Trump seemed to acknowledge the existence of tax schemes the Trump Org is being prosecuted for, while denying they are crimes”

    EVERYONE WITH ANY SENSE ON REALITY KNOWS IT IS A CRIME TO EVADE TAXES. TRUMP HAS LOST HIS SENSE ON REALITY POSSIBLY WHEN HE SAID:

    “”They go after good, hard-working people for not paying taxes on a company car,” Trump said.

    “You didn’t pay tax on the car or a company apartment. You used an apartment because you need an apartment because you have to travel too far where your house is”

    “You didn’t pay tax. Or education for your grandchildren. I don’t even know. Do you have to? Does anybody know the answer to that stuff?”

    “Think of it, think of how unfair it is. Never before has New York City and their prosecutors or perhaps any prosecutors criminally charged a company or a person for fringe benefits. Fringe benefits. Murders, okay. Human trafficking, no problem — but fringe benefits, you can’t do that.”

    ACTUALLY, YOU CAN AND IT WAS DONE REMEMBER AL CAPONE? DONALD TRUMP AND HIS ORGANIZATION IS ABOUT TO SEE A TSUNAMI OF PROSECUTIONS BECAUSE HE TOOK ACTIONS THAT HE IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR AS LONG AS HE SIGNED THE TAX RETURNS. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT EVEN IF THEY WERE PREPARED BY ANOTHER PERSON OR COMPANY THE TAXPAYER IS LIABLE FOR EITHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CONDUCT. HE REALLY JUST THINKS HE IS FREE TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.

  34. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “BUT YOU DID NOT PROVE ANY OF MY EVIDENCE IS FALSE…” — Steven Goldstein, with apologies to Chicken Little, Creationists, Marshall Applewhite (Heaven’s Gate), Chappaquiddick Ted, OJ Simpson, the Flat Earth Society, and every one of the Russiagate prosecutors.

    REPLY
    STEVEN GOLDSTEIN Jul 5, 2021 @ 12:27 pm
    Phu Tan Elli,

    I would have expected a more intelligent conversation. But it appears you just like to talk with no substance. I live the fact that DONALD TRUMP just DUMPED RUDY GULLIANI. If you read the following story here (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-cut-off-rudy-giuliani-annoyed-asked-payment-michael-wolff-2021-7) “Trump has cut off Rudy Giuliani, and is annoyed that he asked to be paid for his work on challenging the election, book says”

    It stated:

    “Donald Trump’s family has cut off Rudy Giuliani, and the former president has been irked that the lawyer asked to be paid for his work challenging Trump’s loss in the 2020 election, a new book says.

    On Sunday, The Times of London published an excerpt from “Landslide: The Final Days of the Trump Presidency,” the coming book on the Trump presidency from the author Michael Wolff.

    In the extract, Wolff delves into Trump’s postpresidential life at his Mar-a-Lago resort and describes Trump as frustrated by the lack of progress in his quest to overturn the 2020 election result.

    GIULIANI, A LONGTIME ALLY AND PERSONAL LAWYER OF THE PRESIDENT, STARTED LEADING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN’S EFFORTS TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 4 BUT DEPARTED SOMETIME IN FEBRUARY AFTER A SERIES OF SETBACKS.

    SINCE THEN, REPORTS HAVE DETAILED HOW GIULIANI AND HIS ALLIES HAVE SOUGHT TO GET PAID FOR THE LEGAL WORK, BUT TO NO AVAIL, FALLING FOUL OF THE PRESIDENT IN THE PROCESS.

    “TRUMP IS ANNOYED THAT HE TRIED TO GET PAID FOR HIS ELECTION CHALLENGE WORK,” WOLFF WROTE, PER THE TIMES.

    The excerpt said Giuliani had “gotten only the cold shoulder” while seeking payment from Trump amid the prospect of expensive legal battles of his own.

    Trump’s family has “cast out, cut off” Giuliani, the excerpt said, without specifying which members of the clan.
    Giuliani is the subject of a Justice Department investigation into whether he broke foreign lobbying laws while working as Trump’s lawyer. Giuliani has not been charged with a crime.

    ACCORDING TO WOLFF, TRUMP HAS ALSO TAKEN TO ASKING VISITORS TO HIS MAR-A-LAGO RESORT “IF THEY KNOW ANY GOOD” LAWYERS TO HELP HIM CONTINUE HIS PLAN TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION VIA THE US COURTS.

    Representatives for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Insider.

    The amount owed to Giuliani by Trump is not known, but at one point Maria Ryan, an aide and rumored girlfriend of Giuliani, told the Trump campaign that his rate for working on the election challenge was $20,000 a day, The New York Times reported.”

    It just goes to show that Donald Trump was an attempted DICTATOR, played the plan set forth by ADOLPH HITLER in Germany in the 1920-30s And you do nothing but name calling me is amazing!!!

  35. Really Goldberger, you have pushed a bad hand over the cliff and declared your self a winner again.
    Time for a drink and some happy pills!

  36. IRGIL STARKWELL you wwrote:

    “someone here has way too much spare time…”

    Actually I keep records, it takes no time ot replay the RECORD for me.

    M.T.Gunn you wrote:,

    “Really Goldberger, you have pushed a bad hand over the cliff and declared your self a winner again.”

    THERE IS NO WINNERS IN LIFE. WE ALL DIE EVENTUALLY. THE REALITY IS THAT AS FORREST GUMP SAID: “STUPID IS WHAT STUPID DOES”? You wrote:

    “Time for a drink and some happy pills!”

    ALCOHOL AND HAPPY PILLS WILL NOT CHANGE THE WORLD, YOU JUST HAVE TO FACE IT. AND NO ONE CAN LIVE AN ANY FORM OF ALTERNATIVE REALITY. NOW THAT COVID DELTA AND LAMBDA IS ATTACKING CA., IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE GOING BACK TO SQUARE ONE ALL OVER AGAIN.

  37. “IRGIL STARKWELL” — Steven Goldstein

    Finally Goldstein wrote something that made me laugh. Irgil. Anyone else here think Steven is a irgin?

    Pity his finest work is dependent upon typos.

  38. phu tan elli,

    INTERESTING YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT TYPOS, AND YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT STYLE, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO EVIDENCE, YOU HAVE NONE.

    I LOVED THE MOVIE “GOTCHA” IN 1985 BY THE WAY, THE “IRGIN” WAS THE HERO PLAYED BY ANTHONY EDWARDS, AND HE GETS THE GIRL LINDA FLORENTINO.

    WHEN YOU CANNOT WIN THE ARGUMENT, YOU PUT THE PRESENTER DOWN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, THE WORST ARGUMENT TO PROMOTE. A EXPLICIT ADMISSION OF THE ULTIMATE FAILURE.

  39. Despite his droning on for an additional 4400 words trying to obscure his errors, my assessment of Goldstein’s credibility, pasted below, still stands.

    A search of the annoying and exhausting response Goldstein posted above will reveal no evidence of my having a political agenda (my comments reflect my opinions and a desire to debate, not promote), no evidence of my membership in any Trump-specific organization, and not one word alleging the Jan. 6 mob acted appropriately. In short, no evidence that any of his accusations were accurate.

    If anyone knows where this guy lives, please send someone from the nut squad with a big net.

  40. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “Despite his droning on for an additional 4400 words trying to obscure his errors, my assessment of Goldstein’s credibility, pasted below, still stands.

    A search of the annoying and exhausting response Goldstein posted above will reveal no evidence of my having a political agenda (my comments reflect my opinions and a desire to debate, not promote), no evidence of my membership in any Trump-specific organization, and not one word alleging the Jan. 6 mob acted appropriately. In short, no evidence that any of his accusations were accurate.”

    BUT YOU NOT BEING A REAL PERSON, WITH NO CREDENTIALS OR AUTHENTICITY HAVE NO CREDIBLY IN ANY FORM. HOWEVER, WHAT YOU DID IS IN THE FOLLOWING TEXT ACTUALLY THREATENED MY SAFETY RIGHT HERE BY SAYING:

    “If anyone knows where this guy lives, please send someone from the nut squad with a big net.”

    THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I WILL REPORT THIS TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES. MAYBE AFTER SOME “QUESTIONING” BY THE POLICE YOU WILL LEARN SOME LESSONS?

  41. Pretty please, with a cherry on top! Can you share with the rest of us who the ‘Proper Authorities’ would be?

    I would love to see that rapscallion Phu Tan Elli get his comeuppance.

  42. Steven Goldstein (SG): “My safety’s been threatened and I want to file charges”
    Desk Officer (DO): “Okay, what’s the nature of the threat?”
    SG: “To have the nut squad come to my house and throw a net over me.”
    DO: “Who made the threat?”
    SG: “A fake person.”
    DO: “You’re going to have to explain.”
    SG: “It’s an anonymous commenter on a website.”
    DO: “And this anonymous commenter knows where you live?”
    SG: “No, but he appealed to anyone who does to sic the squad on me.”
    DO: “Sir, the situation, as you explain it, does not qualify as a crime.”
    SG: “BUT I’M ANGRY AND FRIGHTENED!”
    DO: “Of what, specifically?”
    SG: “Lots of things, but most of all people who treat me like I’m crazy.”
    DO: “Is that something that happens often?”
    SG: “Yes. Every time I try to talk to a neighbor, a woman, or even a fellow Trekkie at a convention.”
    DO: “Oh, you’re a Trekkie. That explains the weird car in the visitors lot.”
    SG: “THOSE LIGHTS ARE LEGAL, AND THE PHOTON TORPEDO LAUNCHER IS MADE OF STYROFOAM!”
    DO: “Well, that may be true, but the car is illegally parked in a handicapped space.”
    SG: “RIGHT NOW I AM HANDICAPPED BY FEAR!”
    DO: “I’m afraid the citation’s already on the windshield.”
    SG: “I want you to take it back.”
    DO: “Sorry, but I didn’t write it. Officer Tonelli did.”
    SG: “TONELLI! TONELLI! IS HIS FIRST NAME POOH?”
    DO: “No, but I think it might be his nickname.”
    SG: “I WANT HIM ARRESTED! RIGHT NOW! HE’S THE ONE WHO THREATENED ME!”
    DO: “Okay, take a seat while I call down for a supervisor.”
    DO (whispering on the phone): “Hey dispatch, I’ve got a live one in the lobby. Have the Nut Squad respond… and maybe they should bring a net.”

  43. WILLIAM ASHBLESS YOU WROTE:

    “Pretty please, with a cherry on top! Can you share with the rest of us who the ‘Proper Authorities’ would be?”

    FIRST LET CLEAR THIS UP, WHEN PHU TAN ELLI WROTE:

    “If anyone knows where this guy lives, please send someone from the nut squad with a big net.”

    HE SOLICITED A KIDNAPPING, AS LONG AS IT WAS DONE WITHOUT THE PROPER COURT ORDERS INDICATING THAT I WAS A DANGER TO SELF OR OTHERS. THIS REQUIRES A COURT ORDER OR A LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL TO SIGN THE ORDER. PHUT TAN ELLI IS NEITHER OF THEM.

    PROPER AUTHORITIES DEPENDS ON A LOT OF FACTORS, IS PHU TAN ELLIE A RESIDENT OF SAN JOSE, OR SANTA CLARA COUNTY, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OR EVEN OUTSIDE THE STATE? THE FIRST THING THAT WILL BE DONE IS A SUBPOENA OF THIS SITES INFORMATION AS TO THE SOURCE OF HIS POSTINGS, AN ALSO THE IDENTIFICATION OF HIS REAL IDENTITY. AT THE SAME TIME THE RECORD OF CONSTANT HARASSMENT REGARDING PERSONAL INSULTS WILL ALSO BE A FACTOR AS TO WHETHER THE LOWEST OR HIGHEST CRIMINAL OR CIVIL REMEDY MAY BE WARRANTED.

    FOR EXAMPLE, IF HE IS OUTSIDE THE STATE, THE FEDERAL DOJ AND THE FBI WILL BE THE ONES IN CHARGE. IF OUTSIDE THE COUNTY BUT INSIDE THE STATE, THE CALIFORNIA DOJ AND THE CBI WOULD BE IN CHARGE. IF HE IS A RESIDENT OF THE COUNTY, THE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND THE COUNTY SHERRIFF WILL BE IN CHARGE. THAT IS LIKELY SINCE I DO NOT RESIDE IN SAN JOSE BUT IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY

    I would love to see that rapscallion Phu Tan Elli get his comeuppance.

  44. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “SG: “Yes. Every time I try to talk to a neighbor, a woman, or even a fellow Trekkie at a convention.”

    DO: “Oh, you’re a Trekkie. That explains the weird car in the visitors lot.”

    SG: “THOSE LIGHTS ARE LEGAL, AND THE PHOTON TORPEDO LAUNCHER IS MADE OF STYROFOAM!””

    HERE IS THE REALITY, BUT YOU AREN’T GOING TO LIKE IT!!!

    MY CAR WAS A WHITE MERCURY TRACER WITH ONLY A BLACK SPOILER, A BLACK LE BRA FRONT, LEGALLY TINTED WINDOWS, AND SOME DECEPTICON DECALS AS WELL AS A STATEMENT ON THE BACK WINDSHIELD “TO PUNISH AND ENSLAVE” ALONG WITH THE BLUE LED WASHER JETS. IT WAS A UNIQUE BUT NOT INSANELY DECORATED VEHICLE. I GOT A LOT OF GOOD COMPLIMENTS BECAUSE IT WAS ATTRACTIVE BUT NOT “GOWTY”.

    YOUR ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT ME WITH OUTRAGEOUS PERSONAL ATTACKS ARE NOT WORKING

  45. It’s been two weeks. Is the burglar still in the hospital? Handcuffed to the bed? In jail or out on no-cash bail?

  46. Vacancy,

    IDK, it seems there is very litttle being disclosed now.

    I am curious about that myself. I still think if there was anything that would indicate a problem with the homeowners story we would of heard it by now. I suspect he was cleared.

    GOOD FOR HIM NO MATTER WHAT.

  47. “MY CAR WAS A WHITE MERCURY TRACER WITH ONLY A BLACK SPOILER, A BLACK LE BRA FRONT, LEGALLY TINTED WINDOWS, AND SOME DECEPTICON DECALS AS WELL AS A STATEMENT ON THE BACK WINDSHIELD “TO PUNISH AND ENSLAVE” ALONG WITH THE BLUE LED WASHER JETS.” — Steven Goldstein

    My apologies, how could I have ever guessed your ride would be a bitchin’ chick magnet?

  48. PHU TAN ELLI,

    STOP DISTRACTING FROM THE TOPIC AND SINGLING ME OUT FOR PERSONAL ATTACKS

    AND EVERYONE ELSE,

    PLEASE VIEW THIS VIDEO, IT DEMONSTRATES THAT MOST OF THE DISCUSSIONS OCCURING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE RESULTING IN NO CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATION. AGAIN i HOLD UP THE MODEL OF CARL SAGAN (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUgdrno-2xY) TITLED “How Carl Sagan Beat Pseudoscience (The Sagan Method)”

    CARL SAGAN DEMONSTRATED THAT IFWE START LIVING IN THE NORMAL STANDARD THAT EVRYONE CAN LIVE IN AN ALTERNATIVE SENSE OF REALITY, THEN WE ARE ON THE WAY TO OBLIVION

  49. “STOP DISTRACTING FROM THE TOPIC AND SINGLING ME OUT FOR PERSONAL ATTACKS
    AND EVERYONE ELSE,” — Steven Goldstein

    You single yourself out by way of your POMPOSITY, cut-and-paste bullying tactics (trying to bury other commenters under a landslide of crap), boasting (ever notice you’re the only one here citing his academic credentials), weird personal disclosures, etc.

    You pride yourself on your use of a scientific method you simply don’t understand, just one example being your inability to respect that the factual information released about the the January 6 intrusion is minuscule compared to what has been, and will almost certainly remain, hidden. Yet you comment here as if you know something for a certainty, unwilling to acknowledge the reasonableness of those who base their skepticism on a paucity of factual information, and not their fealty to Donald Trump.

  50. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “You single yourself out by way of your POMPOSITY, cut-and-paste bullying tactics (trying to bury other commenters under a landslide of crap), boasting (ever notice you’re the only one here citing his academic credentials), weird personal disclosures, etc.”

    TYPICAL NARCISSIST, WHEN PEOPLE CALL ON YOU TO PROVE SOMETHING YOU ATTACK THEM BECAUSE THEY AREN’T AGREEING WITH YOU. YOU WROTE:

    “You pride yourself on your use of a scientific method you simply don’t understand, just one example being your inability to respect that the factual information released about the the January 6 intrusion is minuscule compared to what has been, and will almost certainly remain, hidden.”

    TYPICAL QANON RESPONSE REGARDING CRITICS REQUIRING PROOF OR EVIDENCE, YOU JUST SAY IT IS “HIDDEN”. IN EFFECT IT IS A MADE UP STORY UNTIL PROOF IS PROVIDED BY RELIABLE SOURCES, INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE NOR A VALID DEBATING APPROACH, IT IS A WASTE OF OUR TIME TO READ IT YOU WROTE:

    “Yet you comment here as if you know something for a certainty, unwilling to acknowledge the reasonableness of those who base their skepticism on a paucity of factual information, and not their fealty to Donald Trump.”

    THE VIDEO OF THE ATTACK ON JAN 6 AND THE CALL TO ARMS BY DONALD TRUMP IS A “CERTAINTY” “REASONABLENESS” OF WHAT PEOPLE SAY IS BASED ON WHAT CAN BE DOCUMENTED AS RELIABLE EVIDENCE NOT PEOPLE MAKING UP STORIES AND USING A CIRCULAR VALIDATION TO IN EFFECT PROVIDE NO PROOF AT ALL. “SKEPTICISM” IS VALID WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE IT. THE “PAUCITY” OF FACTUAL INFORMATION IS NOT FACTUAL INFORMATION BUT SPECULATION AT BEST AND DISHONESTY AT WORST. THE FEALTY OF DONALD TRUMP IS A GIVEN PROBLEM.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *