It is worth pointing out, I think, that Kurt Mausert entered the public sphere by running for office. When you run for an important office (and I believe Family Court judges play a very important role in their community), you need to be prepared for criticism of your campaign tactics and commentary about the public persona you present in the campaign. In the context of political commentary, I believe the use of adjectives such as “whiny” and “insipid,” and of clipart depicting a mosquito, are well within the bounds of acceptable, and even “civil” punditry, editorializing, etc. Some reasonable people would consider them to be rather tame.

Abraham Lincoln was no coward, and his thick-skinned attitude toward criticism is, I believe, a wise and dignified example to be followed by those in the public eye — both politicians and pundits.

Here’s another voice from this inconsequential blawgosphere (and I agree that it’s inconsequential): you’re not looking good. Quit, now. Bury this, let it go. Forget all about it and move on.

If you’ve built your practice without caring what others think about you (and I don’t doubt you have), why waste your time on this inconsequential blog? You’ve said your piece.

Trust me, I’ve been in your position; I know what it feels like when you can’t let something go. But I’ve learned the hard way that the harder I fight the worse I look. Which, I’m afraid to report, is the case.

As Scott says, this is David’s house. He lets us be here. Accept that and move on.

I don’t defend David. He can make you disappear any time he wants. You, dear Kurt, are the only one who doesn’t get it, because you, dear Kurt, prefer to curse the darkness than light a candle.

This is David’s house, not yours. You are a guest, as am I. If I were David, I would throw you out the door for your behavior, though David is far kinder than me.

Do you think that the “whining” characterization, complete with the “no mosquito” cartoon was either civil or respectful. If so, well…you and I have different ideas of what those words mean. If you don’t, why are you defending their author? Why don’t you advise David to adopt your own professed standards of being “civil and respectful”? Or are fellow bloggers exempt and since I’m not a member of that club I must live with a different standard?
KM

This is David’s blog. He doesn’t owe you a soap box, though it has been fun to watch for a while, wondering how long it would take you to catch on. Now that’s clear you won’t, it’s just tedious.

Threatening litigation proves 3 things: the voters of Schectady got one thing right, you think more highly of your skills than others and you lack the discretion and temperament to ever sit as a judge.

Want to go after David (or me for that matter, and you need only click on my name to get all the information about me you need), start your own blog, rant away and see how many people care what you have to say. Beyond that, I can’t understand why David allows you to continue this idiocy any longer.

To the extent your reputation might be harmed, you’ve already accomplished that on your own.

Welcome to the blawgosphere, Kurt. Push it any further and you may learn what the blawgosphere really thinks of you.

[Ed. Note: Kurt says that I caused his latest spurt of accusations and complaints (starting Jan.2, 2009, with Comment #23 above, and a comment at another post), by writing about him again and “starting the ball rolling” eight weeks earlier, on Nov. 5, 2008, the day after the election. My election coverage is at the very top of this post and Kurt responded to it on Nov. 5, 2008, in Comment 22. I also wrote about Kurt Mausert in a post on October 28, 2008, with a brief update on November 5, 2008; here’s what I said in that post:

Upset that f/k/a called him “whiny” and would not remove that word from our headline, and feeling that his positions were being distorted, lawyer Kurt Mausert spent much of the past few days assaulting the Editor (and even Scott Greenfield) instead of focusing on his campaign to become Family Court judge in Saratoga County, New York. You can judge for yourself whether the mud he is slinging at us repaired his image or not. update (Nov. 5, 2008): As we report here, Mausert was defeated by Judge Hall, receiving about 42% of the vote.

Here’s the bottom line. You now look like some nutty cyberstalking, lacking the ability and discretion to let go, and making the rookie error of thinking the more you write, the stronger your stand, the better you look. It just doesn’t work that way, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. You clearly don’t understand what you are doing to yourself.

David’s original take on your whining was relatively inconsequential. Your bizarre “tough guy” stance makes you look borderline psychotic. If that’s not what you are attempting to achieve, then it’s time you came to the realization that your efforts are misdirected and simply drop them.

David has a great deal of credibility as a blogger. You, as a commenter, have no credibility. As a loser for a judgeship, you have even less. As a stalker, you not only have zero credibility, but are begging for a healthy dose of the Streisand Effect. Google it if you don’t know what that is.

You are on the verge of learning what it means to be perceived in the blawgosphere as a psycho. If this isn’t you, then take a deep breath and go find some more productive way to spend your time. You are doing yourself terrible harm by perpetuating this nonsense. Discretion is the better part of valor. Learn how to graciously exit a bad situation, and do so immediately.

“Upset that f/k/a called him “whiny” and would not remove that word from our headline, and feeling that his positions were being distorted, lawyer Kurt Mausert spent much of the past few days assaulting the Editor (and even Scott Greenfield) instead of focusing on his campaign to become Family Court judge in Saratoga County, New York.”

I never “assaulted” you (unless you consider standing up for myself an assault against you. And you had no basis to assert a “fact” about how much time I spent writing to you and claiming that I did this instead of focusing on my campaign. I spent a few minutes of my time responding to your postings—I spent hours every day for months on my campaign. You inference to the contrary is inaccurate and demeaning.

You claim to want to be rid of me–so why do you keep taking cheap, inaccurate shots at me? Do you expect me to let you smear my name without replying?

It is very simple—I am not even going to ask you for an apology since I don’t think enough of you to believe you would offer one–if you want me to go way, then stop writing about me. Otherwise, I will continue to respond. Block my responses and I think your “objective reader” could view that as an act of a coward.

When I fail to “debate” someone at my website, it is usually because I believe that our positions can be judged directly by readers, or that the point made is not worthy of response (either due to be off point or just off). At other times, it is because my health condition requires that I stay out of the fray.

Meanwhile, I refuse to go point by point through your litany of complaints. And, I continue to believe that a neutral, reasonable person who read my original post and our discussion in the comment section would think that you’re doing yourself more harm than good by continuing this discussion and repeating all your points again and again.