Grushkin and his vlogs, cyberbullying and the outing of Candy

There seems to be a perception issue that I was constantly bringing up my Monopoly money gag that Grushkin (or "Don G.") apparently missed. In Grushkin's infinite wisdom he had the audacity to wade into all this with his constant complaints.  And so allow me to establish a time line and links to where and the number of times I brought up the Monopoly gag versus Grushkin's claim of "many, many times." 

On June 5th, 2010, I made a gag blog about (fake) money that was donated to FB's "Deafhood? No Thanks!" which is an ad hoc "organization" by which Grushkin replied in my comment section that started it all:

I think it's sad someone is donating such a large sum of money to a group that is about doing nothing instead of to a group that is about doing SOMETHING.

Four days later seemingly upset or mad he made a vlog on June 9th "Where is our money going?" raising a ruckus about why $656 (of fake Monopoly money) was going to an "unworthy" organization and how dare they use "our" money for that (Whose money again?? "Our"? Quite presumptuous, ain't it?) so-called organization.  Note the emphasis on "our money."  A rather arrogant thing to do by going around telling people how the donated money belong to their organization and to no one else. Because it's "our money!"  What an arrogant piece.

This prompted me to make a vlog/blog "A Critical Analysis" on that same day to clarify that the donation was fake in the first place, obviously so if one had paid careful attention to it. I also posted a link to my blog in "Deafhood? No Thanks!" Facebook site where people laughed and made their comments known there for next few days.

The next time I brought up the Monopoly money gag in Facebook was on June 29, 2010 and again here that same day. And that was basically the end of it. We all had our fun.

And then a long lull began after that. 

On August 29 I made a blog "Incredible Hulk Character equals Oppression to Deaf?" about Grushkin's Hulk vlog who claimed the Hulk's example was avdism. I basically laughed at that idea and in my comment section is where he made his first "intellectual" jab at me.

I'm sorry your intelligence and vision are too limited to see the big picture and contemplate alternate possibilities.

And in that same thread I responded as a reminder to him seen at the end of my comment:

Hey, we can play this "  intelligence"   game any time you want. The only problem is you actually brought it up.

Just a little reminder for the guy.

The lull continued.

And then on Sept 13th I did a blog ("My plan is working flawlessly! *rubs hands*") and in the comment section I responded to White Ghost's comment about a satire which reminded me of my Monopoly money satire saying it was the best one I did.

WG,

Well, yeah, still I think my Monopoly money blog satire was the best one yet. Too bad it took a video for me to do and explain to those who actually believed that money took place in the fake donation effort to the "Deafhood? No Thanks" group.

And sure enough, Grushkin was watching like a hawk and he complained again about my repeating his Monopoly money mistake in that same thread just below WG's comment:

Instead, you have shown a mean streak a half-mile wide (I won't give you a full mile, because that's reserved for another of your cronies, who truly deserves not to be named, who has actively sought the destruction of our community and unity). Why do I say "mean streak"? Just look at your obsession over my lack of care in reading your "monopoly"  blog. Instead of realizing that maybe I am human and did not read carefully all the way through, (and I DID leave you a comment to that regard, but you chose to delete it) you have instead chosen to continue to mock me at every turn with that. I, on the other hand, chose to ignore you, because ultimately, it is really a minor mistake on my part, but that mean streak of yours attempted to blow it up into an indictment of my intelligence and whatever else you decided to do with it. If you did not have a mean streak, you would have had your fun and left it alone. You did not.

My obsession? I only brought it up once in a response to White Ghost's comment almost 3 months later after the last time I brought it up. Yet, Grushkin was so insecure about his own embarrassing Monopoly money gaffe all of sudden he sees my bringing up the Monopoly money fiasco one more time almost 3 months later as the equivalent of being "obsessed." Also, as a side note as seen in the Grushkin's comment above, I've not deleted any of Grushkin's comment in my blogs though I'm not sure which blog of mine he's referring to. Sometimes comments do go into my spam folder for some odd reason. I have explained this before. I do not always notice the spam flag right away and I do "unspam" them recognizing those as legitimate comments whenever I notice the spam flag. On occasion I do get spams. I believe I did ask Grushkin to resend his comment again. Not sure at this point I'm pretty darn sure I did somewhere. Maybe he thought I deleted his comment when in fact it wasn't approved yet until I returned home or had not gotten around to approving his comment until much later? I don't delete comments unless they violate one of my rules.

On September 27 I did a blog "Fried brains and yummy desserts"  about trying to appear "academic" while touching briefly about the Monopoly gag to make a point. I hadn't brought this up gag again for almost a month later on October 23 after Grushkin made his zombie video about me on October 22.

Meanwhile from September to November on Grushkin's YouTube vlog site he seem to have lost it by making a spate of videos about me indirectly or directly on September 3 ("We're just expressing our opinion!"), September 13 ("Mike McConnell's Kangaroo Court"), September 17 ("'Go to Hell, Nattering Nabobs!'?"), September 19 ("You may be addicted to v/blogging if...."), and October 8 ("A new word and sign for blogging behavior!"). Funnily enough, he did say that he chose to ignore me starting on September 13.

And then on October 22 Grushkin tried to do his coupe de grace stab at me in his Halloween satire piece about me as "Kokonut" as having "no brains" with a video titled "A Deaf zombie wanders in cyberspace" with him playing the hapless and wondering "Deaf zombie." I can only surmise that he got his zombie inspiration from an earlier blog I did on October 19 ("Zombieland!"). Coincidence? I think not. Besides, who were those so-called "brainy" people in his video satire?

Remember what I said earlier that if he continues with the intelligence jab then he should expect a response from me in kind?  I did exactly that on October 23, 2010 I did a video piece called "Zombie Monopoly" in honor of his October 22, 2010 zombie video.

Satire is met with another satire. Not bullying but....satire. Get with the program, folks.

Though not surprising, two weeks later, on November 6 in Candy's own blog Grushkin continued to complain by commenting on what I did in making my Zombie Monopoly video "bordered on cyberbullying."  And quickly on that same day, November 6th ("For xxxx xxxxxx, AKA "Candy", on Cyberbullying") he did a YouTube vlog to complain once again this whole Monopoly affair by calling it a "borderline" cyberbullying example. He said so with a straight face while using Candy's real name and not her pseudo or anonymous name  "Candy." He attacked Candy about my Monopoly money satire only because she thought it was funny and a hoot. But here's a quick little history for the readers. This blogger "Candy" was outed by a surreptitious group of Deaf people who identified her by publicly announcing her real name even though she used a pseudo name as a security precaution whenever she blogged.  Once her real name was outed several Deaf people contacted her employer in the effort to get her into trouble.

Now, back on track.

What I'm demonstrating here is that Don Grushkin was the one who continued to bring up the whole Monopoly affair again and again saying that I referred to his Monopoly money faux pas "many, many, many times." He said this in his November 6 vlog and in Candy's blog on November 6. In actuality I brought up perhaps 4 or 5 times over the course of 4 months from July to October this Monopoly gag thing and not the "many, many times" he so tried to claim as happened.  

In my opinion, Grushkin's own zombie video about my intelligence wasn't a cyberbullying vlog. Even though, ironically so, he called my own "Zombie Monopoly" video as "border line" cyberbullying in his November 6 response as seen in Candy's blog.  My video was purely satirical in nature. A bit fun just as Grushkin had his fun playing the hapless Deaf zombie in his attempt to poke fun at my intelligence as a retaliation effort.  He simply found a way to vent his anger over his own misconceptions by claiming that I was bringing up his Monopoly money gaffe repeatedly and obsessively, at every turn making it sound like it was a daily occurrence. As you can see here the time line I constructed with the links to where and when I brought up his Monopoly money gaffe, you can see that I brought up the gaffe a few times and not the "many, many times" as Grushkin's tried to characterize it as.

Those are the facts.

Grushkin's own action and continual complaints are an indictment to his own intellectual insecurity.  His own PhD can't save him from it. My time line describes exactly how things went with links and dates. This will be used as a future reference for others to see and set the record straight. Everything's here as best as I could document them. I'm not bashful about it. And I certainly am not going to constantly squeal like a stuck pig over something I don't like.