Sunday, March 17, 2013

FROM SIXTY TO ZERO IN ONE BLOG BIT (Or, UHP! I’M AN IDIOT, AND A “LOSER” TOO!) Part 1 Of 2

.
This is Part 1 Of 2:
.
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness’.”
~ Jesus
.
It has hardly been a habit of mine to use my blog installments to publicly criticize other bloggers. In fact, prior to today, I believe I’ve only done that to one other blogger - Loony Leftist Len Hart, author of the blog ‘The Excremental Cowboy’ ‘The Existentialist Cowboy’ : 'The Cowardly Cowboy Speaks But Only “Owns” The F-Word’ (Or, ‘The Existentialist Cowboy Practices Censorship!’)
.
But Loony Len was begging for it –  the pseudo-intellectual, F-bomb-tossin’, censorship-lovin’, ten gallon hat-wearin’ Texas Liberal.
.
Now, years later, I find myself posting a critical blog bit about another blogger, Susan Shannon (SS) of the blog ‘Short Little Psycho‘Short Little Rebel’ (SLR). Ironically, I have come to think of Susan Shannon as the Conservative equivalent of Leftist Len – two extremists on opposite ends of the spectrum – but both of them tossing irrational barbs at anyone who dares disagree with them, and both of them not hesitating to resort to censorship in order to give the appearance of having vanquished their critics. The difference? Len argues for the Democrats; Susan argues for Jesus.
.
.
It’s no secret that I don’t take a lot of crap from people: I am my Mother’s son and my Brother’s brother. So when Susan Shannon (SS), the Short Little Rebel, suddenly and shockingly turned on me and publicly slandered me, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that THIS blog bit was going to get written. I confess to being only a mediocre follower of Jesus, and when someone hits me, I hit back – and harder.
.
Having admitted that, however, I want it clear from the start that this blog bit is only 6.66% (or maybe 66.6%) about revenge; the rest of it is about regaining my credibility by retracting my past praise for SS and distancing myself from her ‘Short Little Rebel’ (SLR) blog. In my recent 3-part series about Christ and Bible Study - an idea inspired by a post on SLR - I highly and prematurely praised SS and suggested that my readers also become her readers. But a couple of my friends said I was not like her. It took me awhile to realize it, but they were right... thankfully.
.
Because it struck me as being so rare and refreshing, when I first discovered SS’s SLR blog, I was pleasantly surprised to see she seemed so bold, so fearless in facing off against the Socialists, Communists and God-haters. I was immediately impressed by her ability to silence her critics. Here’s one of the very first comments I submitted to her blog, on the post titled What Does a Christian Sound Like?:
.
Stephen T. McCarthy says:
SLR ~
.
>> . . . “Even the rough edges that some of us have.”
.
Ha! In all honesty I can say that if it weren’t for your “rough edge” I wouldn’t be following your blog. It’s the “rough edge” and the way you handle your critics that makes me come back here to this site.
.
One thing I like about you is that you remind me of . . . me. 
: ) No, seriously. I think I may have become so notorious that the Libs won’t even fight with me anymore. *Sniffle* I miss ‘em sometimes.
.
Do you know that Tom Petty song ‘I WON’T BACK DOWN’? That’s you (and me) and some of my other favorite followers of Jesus.
.
In one of your other comment sections I said I’d be mentioning you and linking to your blog in an upcoming blog series about ‘The Bible And A Reading Plan’. I haven’t finished it yet, but I’ve already written the part where I mention and recommend your blog (so THIS particular installment of your blog did NOT influence in any way what I will be posting soon), and I essentially said that I like your writing because you ‘don’t sound like a Christian’ – the milquetoast Ned Flanders variety, anyway.
.
Stay spunky or lose me.
.
~ D-FensDogg
‘Loyal American Underground’
.
She replied in a positive, respectful manner... but then I was praising and agreeing with her, right?
.
On March 1st, I submitted a comment to the SLR installment Obama Wants Supreme Court To Overturn California’s Gay Marriage Ban- WHY? Later I questioned why my comment had not yet been posted (like I do on my blog, SS has the ‘Comment Moderation’ safeguard activated on her blog), and she responded:
.
Stephen, the reason your comment was awaiting approval was the claim that Obama is gay. I wanted to read your link and to do a little research. It’s a compelling article. ... I will leave your comment, however, and let readers make up their own minds.
.
Uhp! I’m an idiot! And that’s why her response to me there was only the very first time I got an inkling that something might not be quite right with SS. I did not care for the way she had twisted my comment and I tried multiple times (on various SLR blog bits) to post a correction but I could never get her WordPress blog to accept my submitted comment. (Incidentally, I believe the rejection was due to a buggy system; I never suspected SS of personally rejecting my submitted correction.) Here’s what I was attempting to post on her blog:
.
SHORT LITTLE REBEL ~
.
>> . . . “Stephen, the reason your comment was awaiting approval was the claim that Obama is gay.”
.
“I did not make the claim that Obama is gay.
(Although having seen him throw a baseball, it's difficult not to have a great deal of suspicion about that. OK, that was a joke... sort of.)
.
“But I always choose my words very carefully, Susan, and what I said was: "Obama’s support of homosexuality MAY indicate that he himself has a vested interest in it. There is reason to CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that Obama himself MAY in fact be a homosexual."
.
“My statement was not a clear, straight-forward (pun intended) declaration that Obama is gay - unlike the comment Bob Jones made, in which he wrote: "It’s not a very well kept secret that Obama is gay."
.
“I myself would not make a statement like "Obama IS gay" until I KNEW he was and believed I had plenty enough evidence to support my knowledge in a serious debate with one of his worshipers.
.
“On the other hand . . . I HAVE seen him throw a baseball.”
.
Well, I figured SS’s remark was probably just an oversight; that she had simply not read my comment carefully enough and noted how I was implying a possibility rather than making a direct accusation.
.
On March 2nd, I posted my 3-part blog bit and the following day, I left a comment on the SLR blog installment Facebook Censors Conservative Speech! There is Another Great Option! in which I said:
.
“...the primary reason for this visit is to inform you that the 3-Part blog bit series I mentioned previously, which was inspired by your ‘May I Suggest A Bible & A Reading Plan?’ post, has now been published on my blog. Therein I acknowledge the inspiration I got from your idea and urge my handful of readers to check out your SHORT LITTLE REBEL blog.
.
“In case you’re interested in taking a look, below is the URL for Part 1. There’s a link to the next installment in the series at the conclusion of each blog bit. Hopefully some of my readers will begin following your excellent blog as well.”
.
Then, while waiting for the Short Little Rebel to acknowledge my post and at least (even if she disagreed with some of my content) say something like “Thanks for the nice compliments and for publicly supporting my blog”, I began responding to the comments left by my friends and my blog’s few ‘Followers’.
.
Exhibiting incredible rudeness for a “Christian”, Susan Shannon never left so much as a peep or any indication that she had bothered to read even the first of my 3-part blog bit series.
.
Some of my friends, however, having taken my advice (sorry ‘bout that, pals) visited the SLR blog and returned with some unfavorable impressions:
.
HeFriend: 
She has some serious unresolved issues; it’s apparent in her posts and comments. ... I think she represents the biggest reason why so many people run away from the Bible, and reject the idea of getting to know Jesus. Who knows, she may be in for a rude surprise come judgment day. ... I don’t think she would understand honest compassion.
.
I was greatly surprised by HeFriend’s comments and I replied: “Other than the ‘obvious’, I’m really not sure what the difference is between Short Little Rebel and me. ... I’m a bit mystified by why you seem to dislike her so. But I value your opinion enough to request and consider [more of] it.”
.
HeFriend: 
It's amazing how similar [your blogs] are. Almost seems like fraternal twins on the surface. SLR is obviously very intelligent, well-versed, and she puts together an immaculate post. She seems to keep a short leash on her comment section, though. I would have liked to hear some of the comments that she didn't allow just so I could read what she considered unimportant, frivolous, and a waste of her time.
.
I don't think of her as "feisty" so much as angry, and self-righteous. In one post, "Jesus Used FaceBook to Rebuke Me", it seems like she had a moment of self-awareness or clarity where she admitted that anger had gotten the better of her. Seems like a recurring theme. It amazes me how such an intelligent person doesn't have the ability to communicate in a manner that could actually further her cause. (If she actually has a cause). She would rather rant about her atheist attacks, or call Facebook or whoever "evil", instead of using her gift and accepting the challenge of stepping out of her comfort zone and actually trying to change the hearts and minds of people who aren't already in her Christian camp. What a wasted opportunity when someone with her ability continually tries to put out fire with gasoline. (Only you can get away with that!)
.
It's not dislike; it's more like disappointment. It's her blog, though. Maybe it's just a way for her to vent, or kick up some dust, and nothing more. Admittedly, she's un-humorously entertaining in a way.
.
You don't see where there's a whole lot of difference between you and her? Read between the lines. You'll never be like her; you're smart enough to realize that to catch a fish you sometimes have to put a little slack in the line. There's only two people who ever got me to crack open a Bible, and you're one of them. Smart as SLR is, she would never have accomplished that feat.
.
I was truly WOWED! by the exceptional compliment from HeFriend (amongst my favorite compliments ever!) Meanwhile a SheFriend submitted some similar opinions:
.
SheFriend: 
I tend to agree with HeFriend that often she [Susan Shannon] uses a sledgehammer to get her point across. ... She has a delivery that comes across more like, "This is it and you better believe it, or else". Certainly she stands up for what she believes, but your posts follow more... like, "Let those who have ears to hear, hear". ... She ... is hard to like. ... [S]he does bring up some interesting points, and follows up with good links, but her basic delivery, is... very different from yours.
.

I've run into many people in my life who want to use The Bible and particularly the Gospel of Jesus Christ to beat you into submission, rather than open your heart to truth and understanding. BTW, I hope it wasn't a disappointment to you that I wrote that in an email as opposed to a comment. I'm reluctant to leave a public comment where I say something negative about another persons blog. I figure they have the right to say things in any manner they like and I have the right to read or not. Although, I doubt she would ever read those comments, because I doubt she bothers to read the blogs of others. She seems far too self-important for that. Your buddy described her perfectly with two words: ‘angry’ and ‘self-righteous’.
.
She's starting to sound  a little crazy along with angry and self-righteous. ... I had not read the SLR post until you directed me there. Looks to me like she's starting to unravel. ... Anyway, she also openly states that she shuts her Facebook account down from time to time to keep liberals 'from pooping on it' (her words not mine). That's also a way to clean up your account and take down comments or discussions you don't like. I recognize there are lots of nuts in the world, but someone like SLR who SEEMS so confident and has ALL of the answers, sure does a lot to keep certain comments and discussions from the eyes of the public.
.
Did I say she was hard to like? Add “hard to trust” to that comment also. I'm starting to think that she is someone who is, quite possibly, doing more harm than good to the cause of spreading the Word of God and Truth about the New World Order.
.
Uhp! Being an idiot, I still really didn’t get where HeFriend and SheFriend were coming from – I thought SS and I were two birds of a feather. However, I felt a Voice inside me say, “Wait and watch”. So I kept monitoring the SLR blog, reading the posts and comment responses from SS. Meanwhile, I wrote to HeFriend:
.
“I have been thinking about what you and my other friend wrote, and I have been reading some of Short Little Rebel's recent posts, and I have been running all of that through the 'Rinse and Spin Cycles' of my mind. ... I WILL be back here again, so please don't give up on me too soon, Brother.”
.
Continued in Part Two. For Part Two, click HERE.
.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.
YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

34 comments:

  1. I have a serious for "HeFriend". Where he says "SLR is obviously very intelligent, well-versed, and she puts together an immaculate post."

    What gave him that idea anyway? I read one of her blog posts and it reflected a severe lack of intelligence. It had no sources backing up any of the statistical claims, and was downright plagued with logical fallacies and pseudoscience. Fallacies included but were not limited to: Non sequitur, presupposition, straw man, false association, and circular reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ANON ~
      Of course I don't know which SLR blog bit you read, and they probably vary in quality.

      On one hand, HeFriend is a very bright guy (one could not be unintelligent and do what he does for a living), so whichever SLR posts he read must have been fairly well written.

      On the other hand, I feel like I want to side with you, because I can't help asking the question: Just how intelligent could SLR be if she was a Liberal to begin with?

      What I will say with confidence is that SLR is a deceitful woman with a repulsive personality. I am convinced she does more harm to the cause of Christ than she does to promote it.

      By no stretch of the imagination do I believe that her primary interest is in bringing people to God, Christ, and The Holy Bible. I think mainly what she seeks to do is shoot her mouth off, antagonize people, and exercise her massive ego.

      I highly suspect that when Jesus spoke of those who call Him "Lord! Lord!" but who will not be accepted by Him, it is people like SLR that He had in mind.

      It is my belief that she needs to find some humility and some genuine love for God's children in her heart, and soon.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

      Delete
    2. Oh, poor little boy. I guess I hurt your widdow feelings, huh? Well, any publicity is good publicity. Stephen, As to Jesus, he is on MY side- not yours. Of that, I feel very assured. As to you, what business do YOU have in disrespecting a fellow Christian? And do YOU now know who will go to heaven? Talk about arrogance. I don't claim to know God's will. But... those who are the true arrogant ones seldom see their own hypocrisy. Here is what I have noticed by those who like to criticize my work: all they know how to do is call names. As to the quality of my work, I DO provide links to all my data. If you can't find them, I really can't help you out. What a little child you are. Why don't you put on a pair of big boy pants and get to the business of God. How many of YOUR posts are dedicated to the mission of Christ? I may not be perfect, little man, but I at least have my nose firmly grinding upon the grindstone of Christ. You, on the other hand, are the pot calling the kettle black. You even admit YOU are a big mouthed arrogant SOB. Ah well, what can you do? When you are a public person, you will get critics. Tell you what: we will meet in front of Jesus some day, ok? He will honor me with that. And then, HE will determine between the two of us. I PROMISE you that he will tell you that you did nothing but attempt to bring HIS messenger down. And you will be ashamed of yourself. I await that meeting between us.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous, please tell me to which article you refer. No? Yeah, I thought so. So easy to criticize with neat little buzz words. A heck of a lot harder to criticize to the writer's face. Let's hear which article you feel was so lacking in logic. I can't wait to laugh at you.

      Delete

    4. SHORT LITTLE PSYCHO ~
      Ha!-Ha! You are hysterically funny! But I mean that in the "Ed Wood" Way. (You know, inadvertent humor; taking yourself deadly seriously while being unintentionally over-the-top loony.)

      Kind of living in the past, aren't you, Sweetie? Like "a year and a half" in the past. I've since moved on - haven't been to your site in ages and had pretty much forgotten all about you... until you just now raised your Short Little Psycho head again.

      Here's what I find so funny:

      >>... As to you, what business do YOU have in disrespecting a fellow Christian?

      >>... Here is what I have noticed by those who like to criticize my work: all they know how to do is call names.

      Oh my, oh my, oh my!

      You dear, little, sweet thing... you are THE QUEEN of criticizing fellow Christians and tossing invective epithets! You "sit as queen" and are "no widow" and you think you "will not see sorrow" (Revelation 18:7).

      Yeah, OK, I'll see you someday in front of Jesus and we'll see what He has to say to us.

      I'll tell you one thing that He will say to YOU that He will NOT say to me...

      He will say you were a liar, a false witness, and as wrong as you could possibly be when you took a comment I submitted to your blog and then altered it to make me seem ridiculous. You edited my comment, completely distorted what I had said, and then posted it on your blog, leading your readers to believe that I had actually written those words. (You know damned well what I'm referring to. I still have in a Word file, somewhere on my computer, what I had actually written, what YOU had changed it to, and a link to where this can be found. You seem to be so "link-happy" here. Well, you better also damned well know that I can provide a link to exactly what I'm talking about here.)

      Oh, that little editing job was SO-OOO "CHRISTIAN" and SO-OOO "BIG" of you, Susan.

      I have NEVER stooped to such a low act against any other blogger. And that's when I washed my hands of you and never looked back. I figured if you couldn't fight fair, and would pass off YOUR OWN WORDS to your readers as if they had been MY WORDS, well, you were a character of vile deceit and no "Christian" by any stretch of my imagination. (I even briefly thought about suing you for slander and for impersonating me in public, but decided you weren't even worth that trouble. Plus, I know what Jesus says about suing others.)

      I never even bothered to tell my general readership what you had done and proved conclusively to everyone how DISHONEST YOU REALLY ARE because, frankly, I just wanted to forget about you as much as possible. And I had been pretty successful at that until you reared up your ugly head again today.

      >>... Tell you what: we will meet in front of Jesus some day, ok? He will honor me with that. And then, HE will determine between the two of us. I PROMISE you that he will tell you that you did nothing but attempt to bring HIS messenger down.

      Yeah, yeah, yeah. What good is a “promise” from someone like you?

      Regarding your comment to “Anonymous”...

      “Anonymous” did not stay around Ferret-Faced Fascists Friends too long. He turned out to be just another Pseudo-atheist (most atheists are in actuality “God-haters”). He tried debating me but fell silent and disappeared after just a few exchanges. That is to say, it was the “same old story, same old song and dance”: He found out that he'd selected the wrong God-loving believer to argue with, gave me the last word, and he left to find easier prey.

      I'm going to go back to not thinking about you again, and I'd appreciate it if you would return the favor regarding me.

      See ya at the foot of Yeshua's throne.

      ~ D-FensDogg
      'Loyal American Underground'

      Delete
  2. We had a similar issue with her that actually caused significant damage. Would you be willing to discuss this further?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello, NANCY R., if you mean to discuss it here in this comment section, then sure, fire away.

      ~ D-FensDogG

      POSTSCRIPT: You may be aware of this already, but the last I heard, Susan Shannon was involved in a lawsuit where a soldier was suing her for falsely claiming he had raped her (at West Point, I believe). I'm not sure if that's ongoing or has been adjudicated.

      Delete
  3. The Riggins v Shannon defamation case was held in Fairfax County, VA Circuit Court and concluded Aug 1, 2017 with a unanimous jury decision awarding COL Riggins with $8.4 million in damages.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NANCY R, I sincerely thank you for the update. I had no idea.

      In fact, I had no idea who you were when you first posted a comment here. There was a great deal of confusion because of circumstances at the time and about a week passed before your actual identity occurred to me.

      I will return here tomorrow and add some additional thoughts on this matter, and mention something you may not be aware of.

      ~ D-FensDogG
      'Loyal American Underground'

      Delete
  4. I look forward to hearing from you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NANCY, my sincerest apology for not getting back to you here today on this matter. I had every good intention to do so but wound up having an unexpectedly busy day which completely got away from me.

      HOWEVER!... tomorrow morning, for sure. I'll yak a little bit here with my morning coffee. (Besides, I'm always best with hot caffeine raging through my bloodstream! :^)

      I shall return! ...As some famous general or famous macho robot once said.

      ~ D-FensDogG
      [Link:) Stephen T. McCarthy Reviews...

      Delete
    2. PART ONE:

      Hello, NANCY, this time I'm really here and before anything else I want to say how pleased I am for you and your husband that this black cloud has finally been lifted.

      I assume you read this particular post long ago, along with the Part 2 as well as the comments attached to them, so you have an idea of my personal history in regards to Susan Shannon. The one thing I want to reiterate is that years ago, in a comment I left on her blog, she went back and edited my words to make me appear as some kind of egotistical lunatic. And if one clicked on my name above the comment, it still linked directly to my Blog's profile page. Therefore, it would have been impossible for anyone to know that it wasn't really I who had written those (altered) words. In other words, she used my own online identity to impersonate me and make me appear to be deranged and nonsensical, thus trying to damage my reputation.

      This was taking the Biblical injunction against "bearing false witness" against another to a whole new level. Or a whole new low, would be a more accurate way of expressing that. Some Christian!!

      I know that in order to successfully sue someone for slander and defamation of character a person needs to be able to show actual damage as a result of the act. I probably could have done that because one commenter on her blog, after reading the fake comment Susan Shannon attributed to me, wrote to her something like this: Wow! Susan, you sure get some strange people posting comments on your blog.

      So, that man, anyway, came away from that edited smear Susan had created impersonating me with a falsely negative view of me. And God only knows how many other followers of Susan's blog read that fake comment and likewise thought poorly of me but didn't bother to express it in writing in that comment section.

      But I decided that attempting to initiate a lawsuit was too much bother and I chose just to forget all about Susan and her ranting blog. That was until she suddenly appeared again, here on my blog, leaving the comments you see above, posted on August 09, 2014.

      Continued below...

      Delete
    3. PART TWO:

      Now here's where it gets a bit interesting: You left your comment here (above) on October 24, 2016. You can tell in my Postscript response to you that I did NOT know who you were. And oddly enough, right around that same time when you left your comment, I was being sort of stalked by some woman online who used a variety of different pseudonyms. My initial thought was that this "Nancy R" who appeared out of the blue in my comment section, was quite possibly -- even likely -- the same woman who'd been hounding me. And I suspected that the 10/24/2016 comment was just a ploy to get me to reveal my Email address. That is the reason I said I would be willing to discuss this matter but ONLY in this comment section, not in private. I was guarding my address from whom I suspected was this stalker that had been bothering me.

      Nothing else developed for awhile after you made contact with me in this comment section. But then, suddenly, Susan Shannon made another appearance on January 12, 2017. She called my attention to a public apology to me that she had posted on her blog. You can find it here. (link:] It's Never Just One Careless Slip...

      I pointed out that blog post "apology" to several friends of mine and the nearly unanimous opinion was that it was mostly a backhanded and not-entirely-sincere apology. There were a number of false statements in the post (for one thing, she tried to make me seem like some overly fawning fanboy of hers), and she still tried to lay a small part of the blame on me (due to my supposedly unclear, convoluted writing style) and she added the remark: "Stephen has his own sins to deal with in this situation and those are between him and God." Uh, right! Funny, but I still can't think of any.

      But the comments she made that had me COMPLETELY PERPLEXED, just ABSOLUTELY MIND-BOGGLED were these: "With great difficulty, especially as I saw that he had actually sided with my rapist’s wife and had, apparently, with some glee, posted about my upcoming rape defamation trial on the same article, I finally read the angry article carefully." /// "Worse, he even joined up with my worst enemy, my rapist who is now suing me for over 2 million dollars in court for daring to say his name in public."

      Continued below...

      Delete
    4. PART THREE:

      I never did respond to that blog post "apology" of hers, but once or twice I was tempted to, solely because for the life of me I couldn't figure out what she meant about me having sided with her rapist's wife and having joined up with her worst enemy, her rapist. I couldn't even imagine what those things meant.

      But then one day a friend of mine tossed out the possibility that perhaps Nancy R was the wife of Wil. I rather doubted that, but just to check, I Googled the story and read an article somewhere which mentioned the family. And my jaw dropped, realizing that you had NOT been my stalker trying to trick me out of my Email addy.

      So, putting this all together, following is the conclusion I've tentatively arrived at. I might very well be wrong about this, but we KNOW that Shannon read this blog post of mine and the comments below it. She knew who Nancy R was even though I didn't. But she may not have realized that I remained in the dark about that for quite awhile. My suspicion (be it right or wrong) is that she may have been concerned that you and I had connected privately and perhaps I might appear as a character witness against her in the trial. Certainly I'd have been able to testify to the level of deception she was capable of -- having impersonated me publicly, online in order to make me look ridiculous to her readers. That wouldn't have won her much confidence in the minds of people trying to determine what sort of character she had, would it?

      So, to make a long story short (way too late for that, I know), although I wish I could say I felt her public apology to me was heartfelt, I have this nagging doubt about it and can't help wondering if it wasn't really just a publicity stunt. Trying to "make nice" and earn some goodwill -- at least partially an act of damage control in the midst of a trial in which jurors would be asked to determine her degree of trustworthiness.

      After this long messy trial, you undoubtedly know her better than I do, and I'm curious to know if you think my final assessment may be at least partially in the ballpark.

      Again, I'm pleased for you and your family that this long nightmare that has been dogging you has finally been concluded. Hopefully a sense of real peace will follow for your family now, even though I know that some of the damage done can't really be repaired.

      ~ Stephen

      Delete
  5. Stephen,
    All I can say is WOW!!! The amount of pain and suffering that has come from this is immeasurable. Susan Shannon will be a very broke woman. This case is just so sad to me. The damage done to Will and Nancy's family is beyond words.

    One thing I found out about Susan Shannon's past is that she and her brother are victims of severe child abuse. Her brothers blog has been taken down, but others talked about it on the liberal mormons older blogs.

    Susan Shannon is not a mentally well person. According to posters on the liberal Mormon she has had major confrontations with her children's school and her former church (one blog poster States she was not welcome at her former church).

    All of this leads me to believe that Susan is not mentally stable.

    I don't know Will Riggins from Adam, but I pray this verdict gives his family some healing. I also pray that Susan Shannon gets the help she needs.

    Br'er Marc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BR'ER MARC ~
      Having read a number of Susan's blog posts years ago, I'm frankly surprised that she even managed to find a church that she WANTED to attend. I would have imagined that she'd always find a number of problems (theological errors, not enough "fire & brimstone" condemnation of others, etc.) to take issue with and keep her perpetually perturbed.

      What I also find sad -- even beyond all the pain and suffering she caused the Riggins family -- is that I see real potential in Susan Shannon.

      I mean, she has zeal about things. (Always an extremist, as I stated just minutes ago in my comment to you in Part 2 of this blog series.) And if she ever really could find the Love of Christ and the Divine Peace of God, I believe she could be a real force for GOOD on behalf of The Father.

      She has the energy and the passion, if she could only sincerely surrender herself to God and His Love she might be able to channel those traits in a positive, God-approved and assisted way.

      Yes, Br'er, this whole affair is so sad on multiple levels!

      ~ D-FensDogG
      (link:] Stephen T. McCarthy Reviews...

      Delete
  6. Stephen,

    I am sorry you were dealing with a cyber-stalker. There are some real jewels out there!

    Thank you for responding. WOW! I had no idea!! I certainly didn't expect that you'd know that Nancy R = Nancy Riggins. You're forgiven! ;)

    We're thankful the trial is over and that Wil's name has been vindicated! Now, if she'd only remove his name from her blogs as she's been directed to do.

    What bothers me the most in all of this is that Susan's followers think we're evil, non-Christian people, as if they know what is in our hearts. They also only know what Susan shared or what very little was included in the 2 media interviews. They have no idea how even her witnesses became our best witnesses! They have no idea how her own testimony had the courtroom gasping in disbelief as her story (this rendition) completely unraveled. Her people seem to believe EVERY word she writes.

    I won't comment on my thoughts about Susan's mental health. I read what she posts but, based on my experience with this case, I hesitate to believe she is really in the funk she's claiming to be in.

    What I've learned through all of this is that most people are lazy (including me) and don't do their own research to learn more about accusations. We simply soak in what MSM (and even bloggers..wink wink) tell us and believe it as fact. We have forgotten that we are, thankfully, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

    This has been a very long 4 years! Oddly enough, the trial was scheduled near the anniversary of Wil's arrest in 2013.

    Lastly, we are truly thankful for the jury's verdict in our favor, for God's grace in all of this, and for our friends and family (and the true anonymous angels among us) who supported us these 4 years.

    Blessings to you,
    Nancy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thank you for getting back to me on this, NANCY. And credit goes to my friend "Girl Wonder" for making the suggestion about "Nancy R". I was too focused on the stalker to think that far outside the box at that time. Which is unusual and even almost amusing because I am ordinarily known for some serious outside-the-box thinking.

      I'll tell you, that is one court transcript I would love to read. Your remarks are intriguing and I can only imagine some of the leaps of logic and the crash-and-burn "roller coaster" ride it must have been!

      Terribly sad, but thankfully it's been resolved finally.

      I have never had a Facebook account, but from some things I read, apparently there was as much if not more fireworks there as in her blog.

      And in the limited time I spent at her blog years ago, I found that she eventually alienated half, if not more, of her readers / commenters, but those who stuck by her were hardcore committed to her -- really, some seemingly to the point of idolization. And for those in the latter group, I doubt there is ANYTHING that could happen or be said that would shake their convictions in Queen Susan.

      So, I guess there will always be some out there who will choose to see you and Wil as the antagonists and view the jury as being in error. It's unfortunate, but some people with brash, forceful personalities tend to acquire an almost cult-like following that remains "bulldog loyal" no matter what the evidence may be.

      Again, I hope you and your family can find some peace of mind, now that Wil has been legally, officially cleared.

      May You Bless And Be Blessed.

      ~ Stephen

      Delete
  7. Stephen and Nancy, I remain shocked that her blog posts accusing COL Riggins are still viewable. Mrs Riggins, is she subject to sanctions for not doing so?

    I wish you and your family peace, and Stephen, I enjoy reading your blog very much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Pizza Driver. That's nice to hear.

      ~ D-FensDogG

      Delete
    2. Hi, Pizza Driver!
      We are keeping a log of every day she keeps his name in those defamatory statements. Our attorney is aware. There is a post-trial hearing in a few weeks and he will bring it to the judge's attention then.
      Thank you for the kind wishes!
      Nancy

      Delete
    3. Nancy, I hope the statements are removed soonest. I had wanted to attend the trial last week but wasn't home (NoVA) til after. Take good care and best always.

      Delete
    4. Stephen, would you mind forwarding these 2 links to Nancy Riggins? I didn't know how else to point these out to hers and figure you have her private contact info. It looks like SLR has taken down her offensive posts accusing COL Riggins of rape, but I found 2 more instances of it:

      Blog post @ link “riggins”
      (she has the post tagged with Riggins but the post itself doesn't; just the tag needs to be deleted)

      https://shortlittlerebel.com/tag/riggins/

      Riggins mentioned by name in the comment posted date/time below:
      Comment January 27, 2016 @ 1112

      https://shortlittlerebel.com/2015/09/29/women-must-unite-to-stop-rape-we-are-the-majority-we-must-change-the-laws-and-the-intimidation-tactics-in-america-we-have-the-power-we-have-the-will/

      Thank you for showing her, I don't expect you to post this comment itself.

      Delete
    5. PIZZA DRIVER, actually I do not have any private contact information for Wil and Nancy. Only through this blog's comment section have we been in touch.

      So I went ahead and posted this here in the hope that she may see it. If she subscribed to receive notifications by Email of new comment posts, then she should become aware of it.

      ~ D-FensDogG

      Delete
    6. PIZZA DRIVER ~
      Just a note to let you know that Nancy Riggins DID see your last comment here in this thread. She and I are now in Email contact with each other and she told me that she had seen your last comment. Thanks!

      ~ D-FensDogG

      Delete
  8. Steven McCarthy, this is an official request that you remove this defaming and false article from the internet asap. I am suing you, FB and every other party that has purposely slandered me on the internet. I just lost an $8 million dollar lawsuit where my online reputation was paramount. Your sentence, "So when Susan Shannon (SS), the Short Little Rebel, suddenly and shockingly turned on me and publicly slandered me, it was pretty much a ..." shows up along with the title of this article and your blog name. You purposely tagged me for the purposes of making sure this false accusation will show in the top ranks of an internet search for 'short little rebel'. Your publication is slander that resulted in my enormous loss of reputation which resulted in my defamation lawsuit case. I highly suggest you remove it now or I will be forced to prosecute and/or sue you to the fullest extent of the law. You can email me to discuss terms or we shall meet in the courtroom. I am no longer willing to allow others to falsely accuse me of things online. Not after you cost me so much. I have taken a screenshot of this official notification to you and the request to take down this article as well as any other articles about me. These screenshots will be used in my civil suit against you if you don't remove the articles asap. Thank you, Susan Shannon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PART 1

      SUSAN SHANNON ~
      One would think that you'd had your fill of court cases after what you've just been through.

      And do you think you can completely ignore what Saint Paul wrote on behalf of God, about Christians suing Christians, and get satisfaction against me in a secular courtroom?

      1 Corinthians 6
      New King James Version (NKJV)
      Do Not Sue the Brethren

      ... Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? ...


      Why would you ignore the Word of God, put your family through more legal proceedings, and incur even greater financial loss?

      Do you now mistakenly believe that you can get some of the money you owe Wil Riggins from me? Apparently so. Otherwise you would have threatened to sue me over this blog post years ago, rather than, instead, issuing a public apology to me.

      On January 12, 2017, you wrote a very long public apology on your blog for having wronged me in the past. You notified me of its existence with the following comment:

      "um.. I left you a rather long apology the other night. I do hope it went through. Based on the way your comment section is behaving today, I'm not sure. In any case, I did leave an apology a couple days ago and promised to leave you a link to a full apology when completed. That's what I just left today. If you didn't get the previous apology, it doesn't really matter as I state all the same sentiments and information in the article to which you now have a link. Susan"

      That article / apology on your blog (which you've just recently deleted from your blog) was titled "It's Never Just One Careless Slip".

      In that blog installment you admitted publicly to your readers that you had previously wronged me and you apologized for it. You also admitted that in the past you took a comment I had left on your blog and, impersonating me, you altered that comment with the intent of making me appear to be stupid so your readers would come away with that impression of me. And that phony comment written by you linked back to my public Blogger profile, so it would appear to be an authentic comment from me.

      Susan, you can be sure that any lawsuit against me will be responded to with a counter-lawsuit against you in which your own confession will be used to prove that, in fact, you are guilty of doing to me what you now falsely claim I've done to you.

      CONTINUED BELOW...

      Delete
    2. PART 2

      In this 2-part blog installment which I posted here years ago, I wrote nothing but the truth. You, on the other hand, admit to having assumed my identity in order to alter a comment I had left on your blog, attributing YOUR words to me, in order to fool your readers into thinking I had written those words which made me appear to be an illogical, unintelligent, raving egotist. And according to a follow-up comment posted by one of your readers, we know that at least one of your readers actually did believe the deception you perpetrated against me. (Yes, I've saved the evidence of this for all these years and can produce it in court! But then you've already publicly admitted to it on your blog, anyway.)

      How do you imagine any judge or jury would evaluate that if we meet in a courtroom, each charging that the other had slandered them?

      I believe you need to pray, and think, long and hard and wait as long as it takes to hear God's Word on it before initiating any lawsuit against anyone. This could not possibly end well for you and your family. Why dig yourself and your family in even deeper?

      Sun Tzu wrote, "Know your enemy and know yourself..."

      Well, if you knew me at all, you'd know that trying to bully me into deleting this post was the VERY LAST tactic you should have attempted. I'm a fighter, Susan, and my natural instinct is always to fight back against a bully, and fiercely so. I never run away from a bully, Susan. Based on our prior history, I'd have thought you knew that already. (My Mama raised a bulldog.)

      Had you asked me politely to remove this post -- due to my Christian beliefs and a sense of empathy regarding your current situation -- I might well have done it. But since you have chosen instead to try intimidating me into removing it, the post will remain.

      It's quite possible that someday I will delete this 2-part blog installment of my own volition, because it's a reminder of bad experiences for a number of people. But removing it at this time, due to the threat of a lawsuit, is out of the question.

      Susan, in The Holy Bible, God has said:
      "Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit."

      In my opinion, it is time for you to place everything in God's Hands and start anew. Let the Spirit of God instruct and guide you, rather than you trying to personally take on the (temporary) ruler of "this world". You know who I mean.

      God says:
      "Vengeance is Mine, and recompense;
      Their foot shall slip in due time"


      In other words, it's time for you to leave things up to Jesus Christ and the Spirit of God and stop battling "this world" over every inch of ground with your mortal, earthly being.

      In the Part 2 of this blog installment found [Link:) HERE, my friend Marc wrote the following regarding you:

      "...she is in a bad place right now. We should pray for her."

      And I replied to him:

      "You are right about praying for her, and that is something I HAVE done."

      Susan, I really have prayed for you and I will continue to do so. But for the time being, anyway, that is all I will do for you. This post stays. Carry on. Talk to our Father and His Holy Son and then, above all, listen to Them. That is all.

      ~ Stephen T. McCarthy

      Delete
  9. Pizza Driver- we have documented everything. Thank you for looking out for us. Numerous people that we don't know, world-wide, are keeping a watchful eye on her and documenting her online activities related to our case. We truly appreciate the support!
    Blessings to you all,
    Nancy

    ReplyDelete
  10. Susan,
    Please Stop! You're only hurting yourself, and those you love the most. I honestly do care about you, and I don't believe this turn out the way you want it. God will correct every wrong in the end. Allow God to be God. Put all your cares on him. Don't let the sun go down upon your wrath, nor give any place to the devil. God can and will get you through this, but you have to let him.

    In Christ,
    Marc

    ReplyDelete
  11. Incredible.

    SLS said: "I just lost an $8 million dollar lawsuit where my online reputation was paramount."

    Cue: raucous laughter.

    If her reputation was of paramount importance, she'd not have engaged in all the nonsense she has over the last several years. She has damaged her OWN reputation by making false statements on the internet, and the court saw it that way.

    She acts concerned about her own reputation, but practices ZERO... literally ZERO concern about that of everyone she interacts with.

    I don't know her except from what I have read on the internet on her blog, yours, and of course news stories about her losing the legal case. In which it was decided by a court of law that she severely damaged the reputation of a perfectly innocent man.

    Will she never learn? No, I don’t think so.
    Proverbs 26:24-26
    24 He that hateth dissembleth with his lips, and layeth up deceit within him;
    25 When he speaketh fair, believe him not: for [there are] seven abominations in his heart.
    26 [Whose] hatred is covered by deceit, his wickedness shall be shewed before the [whole] congregation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SIX ~
      In a twisted way, I almost feel honored to be worthy enough of being sued right alongside Mark Phuqerberg's 'Fakebook'.

      I guess I've finally made the "big time".

      ~ D-FensDogG
      'Loyal American Underground'

      Delete
  12. Thanks for cluing me in, this is just hilarious!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CW, sometimes I wonder if life might make more sense if I began taking LSD every morning for breakfast.

      ~ D-FensDogG
      Stephen T. McCarthy Reviews...

      Delete

--> NOTE: COMMENT MODERATION IS ACTIVATED. <--
All submitted comments that do not transgress "Ye Olde Comment Policy" will be posted and responded to as soon as possible. Thanks for taking the time to comment.