Aug 1, 2017

The Dour Molovinsky

Bernie O'Hare wrote an attack piece against me yesterday, in which he claims that I allowed Rolf Oeler to threaten Bill White, because White called me dour. White did describe me as dour, thank you, several years ago. However, after seeing a psychiatrist numerous times, I came to grips with the description. It appears however, that Bernie O'Hare hasn't come to grips with his resentment towards me. He got angry when I called his disclaimer about contributing $25 dollars to Morganelli an understatement. Anyone who has read O'Hare's adulation of Morganelli understands that $25 pales in comparison to all the free public relations given to him over the years.

The comment by Oeler did have some hostility, but it was interesting and informative. It was about a politician and developer sitting in a place they created with our tax money, with the newspaper men who promote it for them.  It was in no way an actual threat against Mr. White.  I believe that the only real aggression was O'Hare's post about it.

Call me dour,  but don't tell me who can comment on my blog.


Jeffrey Anthony said...

I guess the real question here is what Bill White has to say about it.

Has he said anything?

michael molovinsky said...

jeffery@2:39, i had an exchange with him about it yesterday. It would out of place for me to quote, but after reading oeler's comment he didn't feel threatened, but certainly less than flattered.

I will also note that white commented yesterday on your facebook post in regard to it, and didn't mention being threatened.

clearly O'Hare was looking for some target for his usual monday morning bash. for someone who doesn't link to this blog, he sure spends a lot of time reading it.

Jeffrey Anthony said...

It's a grey area, but I know how White must feel.

I had some creep (three time criminal defendant, ex long-time drug addict -- we know who I mean) report on his blog the exact details of my morning walk -- the time of morning, where I went, what I was wearing, mentioned my wife by name to imply she was home alone.

That sort of thing isn't prosecutable unless it happens multiple times, but it certainly feels like it should be.

I'm not taking sides here vis a vis you and Bernie -- and not to speak for White -- but if I were the subject of some creep's posting my comings-and-goings, I guess I'd want it left up to serve as "strike 1" should the creep continue doing it...

michael molovinsky said...

jeffrey@3:33, putting aside your experience, there is no comparison. oeler was a customer of the bar, he didn't follow white into the place, nor was he there to spy on him. furthermore, and much more important, your person in mention does actively try and intimidate, while oeler simply wrote a blog comment. O'Hare chose to emphasize a couple unfortunate sentences in a long comment, and take them out of context.

Jeffrey Anthony said...

That's a good point.

ironpigpen said...

Bill White was not supposed to feel flattered.

Bill White was supposed to feel silly about his precious "I have to admit I wouldn't be so crazy about the NIZ if I lived in say, Altoona" statement made in one of his NIZ cheerleader pieces for The Morning Call many, many moons ago. Why is it that no one ever questioned Mr. White about why he would not be so excited about the then only proposed Neighborhood Improvement Zone if he actually did reside in midwestern Pennsylvania city of Altoona? Was it because Mr. White fully understood the likelihood of him hanging out with free money guru/millionaire J.B. O'Reilly would not be anywhere near as high if Mr. White actually did live in Altoona?

Bill White was supposed to take note that, aside from myself, it was noticed by a good number of people that the state senator who wrote the one of a kind NIZ Law, the real estate developer who directly benefited enormously from said NIZ legislation and the well-known columnist from the local The Morning Call newspaper were all pow-wowing together downtown in the Potemkin Village only days after Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski was indicted for fifty-something counts of fraud/corruption.

More than a few people wondered aloud what kind of monkey business goes on when 800 million dollars of free money is flying around and how much of what Pawlowski was allegedly involved with is connected to the NIZ; I made it a point to mention that I concur with a local blogger's belief that whatever the mayor was allegedly up to, it did not involve the development of the NIZ.

Bill White's takeaway was supposed to be that while everyday, ordinary, hard-working citizens may buy the distinguished TMC columnist drinks ... this does not mean that everyday, ordinary, hard-working citizens buy some and/or all of the stuff he sells in his articles sometimes.

As for the stalker stuff, it would be entirely too easy for me to subpoena employees of the establishment, who would have no choice but to testify that I have been patronizing that place with regularity pretty much since the place first opened; I could also subpoena some people who own a few of the businesses located above the bar knowing but they would have no choice but to corroborate the employees' testimonies. In other words, the Three Wise Men walked into my hideout and not the other way around. So, since all things ridiculous seem to be the order of the day with regards to this matter, I demand that it be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Browne, O'Reilly & White were not there to stalk me!

And, so long as outright character assassination seems to be another requirement for participation in this discussion here and elsewhere on the blogosphere, I will also point out that Senator Browne has been arrested for drunk driving on multiple occasions whereas I, myself, have never ever been arrested for drunk driving --- I wonder if award-winning blogger Bernie O'Hare, the same guy who somehow lost his license to practice law yet still likes to scrutinize everybody else's criminal records whenever it suits his obvious agendas, can say that?


michael molovinsky said...

rolf@9:05, Bernie certainly likes to sit in judgement. today he commented in response to a comment I made, .... The primary objective of most of your posts is to provide readers with opinions based on misinformation from meetings you no longer attend and research you fail to do... i allowed you one comment but no will be deleted from this point. generous of bernie to denigrate my posts, then not allow a reply. my comment concerned a new o'hare fav, howard kutzler, and wehr's dam. having attended dozens and dozens of SWT meetings, I'm well qualified to comment on those topics. I only wish that the township commissioners were as familiar with the dam as me. Bernie's MO should be clear to his readers, whoever those anonymous said's are.

ironpigpen said...

Mr. Molovinsky,

I have always found Bernie O'Hare's constant deleting of comments to be quite revealing because I was always taught that censorship is the preferred tool of all despots and dictators. I was always taught that one way to determine exactly how 'free' and 'open' a society and its officials are would be to note exactly how much 'right / leeway' the society and its officials in question allow its dissenters.

I like how Bernie O'Hare allows certain anonymous comments to remain unmolested while other anonymous comments are maligned without mercy and said to be the work of "cowards" --- judging --- based on how BO runs his blog, is there any doubt if BO was the referee at the basketball games he enjoys so much that BO would gleefully call fouls left and right on one team while allowing the other team to do all the exact same things that their opponents are getting whistled for?

I have always had to believe that BO's modus operandi HAS to be clear to his readers because I have come to the conclusion that NO ONE can be THAT oblivious. Bernie complains that you "preach to your choir" and yet that is exactly what he, himself, does on a consistent basis. I think Bernie does that a lot --- accuses others of playing the exact same dirty tricks that he, himself, has clearly mastered if not perfected.

I've said it before and I'll say it again --- I sincerely think you, Mr. Molovinsky, do a very good job of enforcing your own rules evenly across the board. I have always thought that if you were a referee, you could always be counted upon to call the same game for both teams consistently. Players and coaches don't even really care if any given referee is actually 'good' or 'bad' at his job because all they really, really want if for any given referee to just call the exact same game for both teams each and every time.