Skip to content


January 22, 2013

I was able to determine that “Employed,” whose writing sure sounds like my brother, was sending his messages from Keystone at the Crossing in Indianapolis, where my brother works.    Although I have worked in that complex as well, I seriously doubt anyone from one of those jobs would be looking for me now, and harassing me, if they were.  Needless to say, trolling my blog and posting harassing comments while at work and turning around to call me lazy and not working enough to find a job is pure hypocrisy.

After 38 trolling posts, I sent the following to my brother, and there hasn’t been one from “Employed” in over a week:


From → Uncategorized

  1. dot permalink

    The flaw with your argument regarding public education is that we’ll never know how many would-be Isaac Newtons were destroyed by public schools.

    • That is utterly absurd. You’re essentially saying that farm peasants with no access to any sort of education somehow would have the resources to achieve greatness at something other than farming. That argument makes absolutely no sense, and makes right-libertarians as dismissable as crazy right-wing nutjobs.

      • dot permalink

        Are you functionally illiterate? I said nothing about farm peasants.

  2. Employed permalink

    You can imagine me to be whoever you choose. You can infer whatever you like from my posts or my silence. You can assume whatever you like about how many kids I may or may not have. Your countless attacks on people, whether personally known to you or not, validate the reason for a pseudonym. Keep guessing. You just may get it right eventually.

    Your conclusions are simply foolish. I never said anything about not aiding the poor in general. I commented about the aid that you, specifically, are receiving. I never said that food programs are bad, I said that you complain about food quite a bit for a guy with his hand out. I most certainly never advocated for anyone’s extermination, not even yours. And I like public education. I think it is one of the triumphs of our society.

    Also nonsensical is the notion that I must protest everything wrong in the world before I criticize you. That’s preposterous for too many reasons to name. I don’t have to protest Lance Armstrong or wars or anything else to find what you write repugnant. If that we’re the case, then you would be obligated to dedicate your blog to all parts of the world where conditions are worse than in your current shelter, and there are so very many.

    My posts diminished because your responses deteriorated to childish insults where you called me a “sack of s–t” and a “motherf—-r”. If that’s the best you can do with all that education, it is clear why you have no job. I’ll probably read your blog from time to time to see what nonsense you’re up to, and I might even reply again, but rest assured that my lack of response isn’t indicative of you suddenly becoming relevant of correct. It just means that you’re not worth the effort.

    • My next guess would be my brother’s best friend, Scott Troiano.

      Your choice to kick a powerless person when he is down makes you nothing more than a bully. You clearly don’t know the difference between attack and defense. Saying that people who provide me with poison food should be punished is not an attack, it is a defense. You did say that extermination would be a good idea for me, so now you are simply lying.

      I never said that you need to protest everything in the world. I’m just saying that you directing hate toward me because I draw attenyion to the raw deal that I am experiencing is repulsive.

      When someone delivers the venom of “exterminating you wouldn’t be a bad idea,” one deserves no more effort than “motherfucker” and “lying sack of shit.” Only a degenerate would agree to such a proposition.

      I have presented no nonsense on my blog, and I defy you to find any. You really think it’s nonsense asking a city that pays an organization $3,500 a month to give me a cot, a locker, cold water, and unsafe food to pay for me to have a one-bedroom apartment and a savings of close to $2,500?

      Do me a favor and read this pamphlet: I don’t see how an ethical person could side with the speculators, or find my conclusions based upon it to be invalid.

      • grickster permalink

        Whoever it is, I hope Employed sticks around. He or she is a real breath of fresh air!

      • I guess it would be to someone who thinks a homeless shelter deserves $20,000 a day from the local government more than I deserve a $20,000 job. Calling a status quo ideologue a “breath of fresh air” simply reveals how stilted you are yourself.

  3. Employed permalink

    Guess all you like about my identity, Scott Andrew Hutchins, but whoever I am, it looks like you owe me quite an apology. For, you see, I never wrote “exterminating you wouldn’t be a bad idea”. Someone using the pseudonym “Your’e an Ingrate” wrote that in response to your “Project Renewal=Project Poison” post. In fact, I never wrote anything of the sort. So, it would seem that you called me a “sack of s–t” and a “motherf—-r” for absolutely no reason. You also falsely accused me of lying when, in fact, it was you that was making false accusations. I’m waiting for that apology.

    With such a lack of attention to detail and such a lack of journalistic integrity, it is clear why you’re unemployed and unable to find anyone to pay you for your careless and inaccurate writing.

    Finally, I have directed no hate towards you. I’ve delivered no venom. I’ve simply called you a jerk and a jackass when your writing included comments that warranted it. I’ve called you a whiner when you whined. That’s not kicking you. That’s calling it like I see it in terms that aren’t vulgar.

    As long as you lash out so viciously and groundlessly at so many people, you can expect to be criticized.

    • You lied when you said that I whined about not liking the food when in reality I mentioned it only as an aside when reporting that the food was making me sick.

      You also claimed “the very concept that you should be provided with a free apartment is nonsensical,” which is itself a lie, and proof that you didn’t read the evidence and the research showing that this is a more economical solution and better for everyone in New York City except the shelter administration that stand to lose money from it. This is called being a willful ignoramus.

      You delivered that same sort of willful ignorance when I explained the details of my previously lost jobs, and you chalked them all up to incompetence, which is evidence of either dishonesty, functional illiteracy, or an intellectual inability to grasp concepts such as “temporary,” “freelance,” or being hired to complete a specific project for which the regular staff is too busy.

  4. Employed permalink

    You seem to have forgotten to issue an apology both for misquoting me and for calling me such vulgar names without cause. You claim to be writing this blog for some journalistic purpose, but you fail to uphold even the most minimal journalistic standards. I’ve never seen a writer for the New York Times call anyone a “sack of s–t” or a “motherf—-r” and they are prompt about issuing apologies for errors. Good luck getting a job with such low class unprofessional writing.

    Furthermore, you seem to misunderstand he difference between my having a differing opinion and being a liar. Expressing the opinion that the words that you wrote sound whiny cannot be a lie. You can disagree with my interpretation, but that doesn’t make me a liar. The same is true of my opinion on your proposal for housing. My opinion is that your proposal is nonsensical. I believe your reasoning to be seriously flawed. You don’t have to agree with me, but that still doesn’t make me a liar.

    • Even if I make a mistake in attribution, I owe no apologies to a liar. Calling my statements whines when they fail to meet the definition is a lie. Attacking my reasoning as flawed without providing any evidence that it is flawed is nothing more than an ad hominem attack and a lie. Thus far, the only person that had actual criticism of my proposal on logical grounds was “amy,” and her essential premise was, “We can’t correct an inefficiency in government because government is inefficient.” She certainly didn’t say it in those terms, so her attempt was decent, but it is easy to pull apart as a circular argument, and thus not a successful rebuttal to my proposal. You did call my proposal “absurd,” but that has nothing to do with illogic (this recalls the class discussion in third year French (10th grade) around Eugen Ionesco’s La Leçon, in which there are clear distinctions between what is illogical and what is absurd), nor was it defended on anything more than ideological grounds. (“Why should taxpayers pay for you to have an apartment?” to which I respond, “Why shouldn’t they pay a third of what they’re already paying for me to live in an unpleasant place that literally makes me sick?”) I am done with you.

      • grickster permalink

        I agree that most of what you write sounds whiny. Does that make me a liar too?

      • Yes it does, since I already demonstrated how providing concrete evidence contradicts the definition of whiny.

    • grickster permalink

      The definition of whiny has nothing to do with whether any evidence was provided. You are constantly complaining and griping, and you do so in a negative way, as opposed to a constructive criticism. Even if everything you say is true and completely supported by hard evidence, it still sounds whiny to me. And whiny is somewhat subjective, so you don’t really get to choose whether I think you sound whiny.

      • The definition of “whiny” you are using is, according to, “to complain in a feeble or peevish manner.” An argument supported by hard evidence is not feeble or peevish, by definition of those words, and your failure to see constructive criticism in my blog again suggests selective reading/cherry picking (a logical fallacy), functional illiteracy, or downright lying. Indeed, most of your and Employed’s posts fit the definition of whining far closer than anything that I have posted, considering that you both refuse to provide support for your arguments.

      • Francois permalink

        Ah, monsieur, would you like some cheese to go with your whine?

      • I suggest that you, too, look up “whine” in the dictionary, followed by “feeble,” and “peevish.” Then I’d ask you to explain why Muzzy Rosenblatt should receive $71 of every $117 that the city pays daily on each homeless person. For me alone, that’s more than double what my former landlord got for a private 1-bedroom apartment for which my biggest complaints were the mice and an oven that couldn’t be used without generating a lot of smoke.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: