Jul 10, 2008

Another Philip R. Klein Flashback

Readers may remember this explanation from Philip R. Klein, after he removed the link to Operation Kleinwatch from the front page of the Southeast Texas Political Review

We also took down the DOKS? Why?

Why not? They averaged around 21 hits a day coming out. Inbound we noted around 3 per day. People get tired of the same old thing. And I will not bore you with it now.

Yet, roughly 50 percent of the messages on Philip's so-called "Reader Mail" page deal directly with my little blog or questions I've raised.

Here's Philip's conundrum: if he's truly writing most of those messages himself, he's reading my site on a very regular basis despite his claims. However, if those messages are real (snicker), then his readers are regularly visiting both the Southeast Texas Political Review and Operation Kleinwatch

How funny!

For example consider this spate of recent messages:

From Beaumont :

"My husband and I read the Gus Pillsbury letter to your daughter and were just sick over a person that cannot sign their true name and calling you the things he called you. By not signing your name are you not a liar too.....?"

Answer : An interesting take? Who knows? I think that since Gus attacks me - and his site is about me - it is not real smart to focus on his words. I see some personal attacks in there. Talking about her Grandfather is a new low - even for Gus - but it is what it is. That was Gus's way to try to show compassion from a very personal and angry attack to myself.

Oh, look!  I see one of Philip's grammatical tells in this purported message  from his reader: "My husband and I...were just sick over...."  I've documented this particular tell in an article on January 31, 2008:

"I am sick to my stomach."

I am sick over this...

Frankly, it makes us sick to our stomachs here at the Review...

It just makes me sick...

We are sick to our stomach [sic]...

I particularly like that last comment from Philip - I've discussed his use of the plural "we," and his poor self-esteem.  In that last example, "we" should be sick to our "stomachs."  Philip's Freudian Slip is showing again.

Regarding Bruce Allred, here's what I wrote:

Your grandfather (on your mother's side) was a prince among men and a close friend of mine. I still miss him greatly.

Readers can decide for themselves whether this was an "angry and personal attack" as Philip claims.

Readers should also note that reference to "personal," we'll see it several of these messages. When Philip irresponsibly publishes malicious rumors about a fictitious and adulterous affair, it's just "politics;"  when anyone mentions Philip's string of broken marriages and adulterous affairs in the same context, he considers this something "personal."  Pot - meet kettle.

Here's the next message on Philip's "Reader Mail" page:

From Port Arthur :

"......it is personal between you both. It came out big time in that letter to C. Are your going to respond?"

Answer : That is up to her. I think if Gus were to go back and look at the words they might have some regret. Angry - sad - arrogant - condescending - two words spelled wrong - I better stop now.

Another of Philip's grammatical tells is in this message, but reiterating, readers can decide for themselves whether my Open Letter was "angry - sad - arrogant - condescending," and had "two words spelled wrong." 

Readers will also notice that common theme again concerning the "personal" nature of my Open Letter to Caroline Klein that runs through these messages.  In this instance, it's echoed by Philip's purported reader.

On another issue, here's a challenge to Philip R. Klein: exactly which two words did I misspell?  This is your chance to show what a sad, arrogant, angry individual I really am, Philip.

Still another message from a reader about my Open Letter to Caroline Klein:

From Beaumont Texas :

"I thought your daughters editorial was wonderful. I read Kleinwatch and you were right all along......."

Answer : Thank you for the comment - and sometimes it is best to say nothing and let words stand for themselves.

Oh, look! I see another of Philip's tells in this message - it's one of his "Trifectas!" 

I'm confused: if Philip says nothing, there wouldn't be any words to "stand for themselves."  This could only make sense to Philip R. Klein.

Meanwhile, those "letters" keep pouring in:

From Houston Texas :

"Did you see the post to your daughter by Gus?"

Answer : Yes. I did. My daughter sent me a copy of it last night. And I was wrong - and I told my staff so this morning. Gus was never political like I said it was - it is solid personal. Gus is what Gus is - a scared individual with a personal agenda. Caroline will answer if she wants - and I will post it. But as she said last night : "There is something very wrong with that person."

Both Caroline and Philip claim they rarely read my site, but they're sharing my "post" within 48 hours of publication.   Their actions belie their claims.

And there's yet another reference to "personal" again, this time from Philip himself!  Really, buddy, you've got to try harder than this if you expect anyone to take you seriously - as I clearly pointed out, underwear sniffing does not constitute legitimate political commentary. Publishing pictures of a single mother's home after Hurricane Rita is mean-spirited, making fun of her speech and weight, and publishing altered and obscene photos of her on your mailing list has absolutely nothing to do with the issues that she raised during meetings of the Jefferson County Commissioners Court. In your opinion, that's just politics, huh?

On a personal note, I found this posting quite funny:

Who is Kelly, Jason and Beverly that I read about on these other sites."

Answer : They are referring to Kelly Pickard (sp), Jason Lovelady and Beverly Parker. That is my best guess. All three have issues with me and this site.

Answer to Philip: None of the above - guess again. 

I'm not sure what other sites he's referencing, since those names only appear on the Southeast Texas Political Review and its associated mailing list. It doesn't take an FBI agent to figure out why these particular people would have "issues" with Klein and the Southeast Texas Political Review.

For example:

...that has about as much chance of coming to life in the next five...ten...fifteen years as Beverly giving to a GOPER.

And if you want to go have a romp with the DOKS, grab Beverly and close your nose when the smoke comes over from LA.

Special note to Philip on Jason Lovelady: I can also understand why Jason Lovelady has "issues" with you.

You never addressed the questions I posed to your response concerning your involvement with the termination of Mike Lovelady.

For example, you stated:

I have never run for or have been elected president of the corporation known as NVFD, Inc.

I pointed out that there was no such entity as the "NVFD, Inc." There is, however, an exempt corporation called the "Nederland Volunteer Fire Department, Inc," and guess who the registered agent is, according to the Texas Comptroller Of Public Accounts:

Company Information: NEDERLAND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT INC
PO BOX 686
NEDERLAND, TX 77627-0686
Registered Agent: PHILIP KLEIN
1404 BOSTON AVE
NEDERLAND, TX 77627

The Comptroller's site not only verifies that Klein is the "secretary treasure," but also a director of the corporation:

DIRECTOR PHILIP R KLEIN
1404 BOSTON AVE
NEDERLAND , TX 77627

SECRETARY PHILIP R KLEIN
1404 BOSTON AVE
NEDERLAND , TX 77627

TREASURER PHILIP R KLEIN
1404 BOSTON AVE
NEDERLAND , TX 77627

You also ignored the questions I raised on your response here, as well.  If you truly had nothing to do with Mike Lovelady's termination, then why on earth did your divorce lawyer read from a "prepared statement" at the Nederland City Council meeting where Lovelady was reprimanded.   And, who prepared that statement? 

I thought it was especially interesting that neither Lance Howell nor anyone else from the Nederland Volunteer Fire Department corroborated any of your multiple versions of the events.

Any comments, buddy?

No comments :