There are some people who are so ridiculous that it would be impossible to invent them if they didn’t actually exist. Larry Fafarman is one of them. A psychologist would have a field day with someone so utterly convinced of his own importance that he prefers to make a fool of himself for attention rather than risk non-existence. And just to give you all a taste of the man’s madness, let me paste a bit of our exchange today. He emailed me this morning to say that his comments have not been getting through. This after knowing that I had banned him from commenting, so trying to comment would be useless.
He then did what all internet trolls do when they’ve been banned, they engage in the entirely empty threat that they’re going to “expose” you as the truly horrible human being that they know you are:
If you don’t change your mind, I will note on my new blog that you are blocking my comments. That will not do much for your reputation.
I’m sure you can imagine the fear that this threat inspired in me. I was paralyzed with anxiety. Egads, what if he goes through with it? Eh, not really. Instead, I told him to feel free to say whatever he likes and I’ll even link to it:
Larry, if you think anything you say can harm my reputation, or that I would possibly care, you’re more delusional than I thought. You go right ahead and note on your new blog that I banned you from commenting on mine. Hell, I’ll even link to it so others can see it.
That was at around 2 this afternoon. Around 4, he posted this item to his blog. In it, he attemps – lamely – to answer my arguments concerning the most recent case of mootness and why it does not apply to the Dover situation (the man is so dense that he doesn’t see the difference between a judge not allowing an amended complaint to ask for damages after the grievance has been redressed and a judge not mooting a case in which nominal damages had been part of the original complaint). And, amusingly, he follows through with his threat to expose me to the world and even takes me to task for not linking to a post that did not exist:
I would like to post these rebuttals on “Dispatches from the Culture Wars,” but I cannot. I have been banned there. Ed Brayton has just posted an article there — “Good Ol’ Larry Fafarman” — that brazenly brags about banning me and that ridicules me for thinking that he might have the decency to change his mind by considering at least some of my comments for posting. However, he didn’t carry out his threat to post a link to this blog — apparently he is afraid to do that.
Now Larry, I know that reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, nor is thinking for that matter. But even you must be able to recognize that I can’t link to a post until after it’s been posted. I think you really do have a deep psychological problem here, Larry. You really do think that your threats mean something, that others cower in fear of you. You really do think that your ignorant and irrational rantings are going to hurt someone else’s reputation. I’ve got news for you pal, the only one looking foolish here is you.
For the record, I’m not going to consider some, or any, of your comments for posting. You’re banned from commenting, which means nothing that you post on my blog is ever seen, not by my readers and not by me. You are coming very close to the definition of what old time usenet folks called a “tar baby”. There is only way to handle trolls and tar babies and that is to ban them and make fun of them. It would be folly to try and engage you in any sort of rational conversation, as we already found out. At this point, after being banned from so many different places for the same behavior, you’re a lot like someone who has been married 8 or 9 times but has never bothered to consider that maybe, after all, it’s them.