Wednesday, November 30, 2016

From the Blue Gutter

I found this anonymous response in the blue gutter that once served as an open forum, and thought it worth repeating here. It is addressed to "No One You Know", a poster who seems to feel as I do about Reimers, but thought I had violated his privacy and, I guess, my own integrity by linking to public court papers containing his home phone number. Actually, I hadn't even paid attention to that, because these were published public documents.

This was a very busy season for me this year. I was working on a new formula for the Ptomaine Fairy; this particular strain features a rapid onset and impels the host to both hiccup and sneeze while vomiting, causing bystanders to wonder if they should say “gesundheit” or attempt to scare the subject, all while trying to get out of the way at the same time. Next year, I hope to perfect an airborne variety.

I must say, I find your contempt for and pronounced indifference to reason and factuality to be blithely refreshing, and even somewhat intriguing (to a limited extent). I am reminded of a friend’s reaction upon witnessing the workshop of a family member who had removed all the safety guards from the machinery, remarking that he found such a “devil may care” attitude concerning power tools to be “exhilarating.” Incidentally, that same friend had lost four fingers on his left hand in an accident involving a motorized winch.

Be that as it may, I cannot say that I envy those that must deal with you on a regular basis, if you exercise the same obtuse disdain for reality and rationality in your daily life. There are certain aspects of the real world that are decidedly not optional, and failure to exercise even a nominal acknowledgment of such actualities tends to cause irreversible events that are characterized by a certain finality that does not allow for the repetition of such oversights, as memorable (or even entertaining) as they might be to casual onlookers, since the consequent (and undeniable) mortality being made plainly evident invariably precludes the ability of the player to personally learn from his or her mistakes.

I see no point or profit in continuing to argue the correctness of drawing attention to publicly available information concerning the WBAI general manager. The criticisms occasioned by the posting of such material seem highly ironic, however, since his defenders not only have no grounds for complaint (as trivial as it is), but also seem to be willingly ignoring the blatant dishonesty and incompetence of Reimers (especially in fiscal matters, some of which have even involved his own family). And like it or not, there is nothing that those so offended can do about such revelations concerning Reimers, save to post their remonstrances here (or on Chris’ blog) and make their pointless, irrelevant displeasure known.

Believe it or not, incidentally, I do respect the privacy of others. For example, if you do a search using the name pf a certain programmer (who shall remain unnameable [sic]) and his wife’s maiden name, you will find another publicly available court document that describes domestic arrangements that significantly differ from those suggested in print and film. I have not posted about this, however, because it has no direct bearing on that individual’s contribution to the station. I also found Monroe Litman’s home phone number, which he made public on a few occasions on websites where he thought no one connected to WBAI would notice (incautiously, as it turned out). As tempting as it was, I did not post his number, if only because I did not think that invading his privacy in that fashion and subjecting him to a barrage of crank calls (no matter how well deserved it might have seemed) would have changed his behavior or attitude in any useful fashion.

But your discomfiture did make me wonder why anyone would want to defend Berthold Reimers, or react so strongly to criticism of him (especially involving objective evidence). So, I did an ip trace of your web address, ‘noyk’ (those numbers accompanying your post, which are also public knowledge). Interestingly enough, that address traces back to San Francisco. Lovely town - I’ve heard it described as everybody’s favorite city. Not to mention the hills, the fog, the Rice-A-Roni… oh, and there even seems to be a Pacifica station nearby! I understand that there are also some folks involved with Pacifica on the west coast who are threatening to sue Pacifica unless WBAI has its signal swapped, or various Pacifica properties and holdings are turned over to them (and who seem to have set up their own foundation for just that purpose, in spite of their previous prevarications and denials regarding that same foundation).

So perhaps a certain individual involved in Pacifica management here in NYC is not quite as dumb as he seems (although he does tend to frequently remain mute). And maybe there is a different, somewhat deeper explanation that is decidedly not a matter of public knowledge?

In any case, you are certainly right about my tendency to verbosity, ‘noyk.’ I indulge in it deliberately in remembrance of a radio station and foundation that once sought out and broadcast programming not found elsewhere, intended for people willing to think and be challenged by new ideas and perspectives, and that tried to encourage critical thought and inquiry (as opposed to the sophistry, propaganda and disinformation that now dominates the WBAI airwaves). Plus I wish to be annoying. But for the sake of those such as yourself that wish to conserve and hoard their limited cognitive resources, I offer a simple, easy to understand graphic diagram to facilitate the disposition of any further objections you may have…


  1. Chris, regardless of how you justify it, posting records pertaining to Berthold's non-WBAI activities, including his contact info, was wrong. Doesn't matter if they're public records, doesn't matter if it's technically legal, wrong is wrong, and you were wrong.

    1. An extremely powerful argument:

      ‘You’re wrong. Also, you’re wrong. Furthermore, you’re wrong.’

      Are we capable of an actual argument, or simply ‘expressing’ ourselves in contemporary wont?

      A nettlesome question, surely.

      ~ ‘indigopirate’

    2. I agree. Saying "You're wrong" is not an argument. If Mr. Albertson had gone out of his way to personally display Reimers' home contact information, then maybe, one might argue that Mr. Albertson was indiscreet. But all Mr. Albertson was link to a public document. Was he supposed to go through the public document line by line? That does not seem necessary since the document was public to begin with.