In advance, I go off topic and thank Radio Free for a place to respond.
Keep in mind, comments at Erie Blog watch are forbidden. Ask Ralph’s Place.
He tried to respond on a Corry Publishing Post and EBW refuses the comment of defense.

The mission of Erie Blog Watch was to, well, watch Erie Blogs.
That failed due to editorial mishap and failure to moderate as professional sites always do.
Plus, the owner is in over their head.

The mission has shifted ever so slightly this day. Erie Blog Watch now seeks to become a failure, at watching individual Erie Blog Commenters.
It has morphed to an “Erie Blog Commenter Watch” to resusitate the death of a blog.
I have the honor of going first, I guess.

The Anonymous, yet, defunct blogger apparently feels Radio Free Jo Jo has no clue how to moderate comments (the very element that led to the death of Erie Blog Watch; comments are forbidden there. You must communicate YOUR genuine email to a fictitious entity called Erie Blog Watch to post a GUEST BLOG — if they feel like it). No wonder everybody passes.
They can know you; you are forbidden to know them.

There are 2 ironies with this little anonymous called Erie Blog Watch:
1) while steadfastly quitting as a blog, they continue to define what is acceptable and unacceptable on Erie Blogs.
2) a quick review of the greatest praise from Erie Blog Watch on comments received (when they were a real site) finds heaps of praise on one Anonymous in particular, going so far as to say “I could not make this up if I tried….this is the best writing I have encountered in months”…and the like.

It is written anonymous as this place was an anonymous site.
Wouldn’t it be funny if Danny Lucas wrote those comments that drew such eloquent praise from Erie Blog Watch?
After all, those comments are what EBW calls
“my way or the highway”.
EBW then lavishes praise accordingly.
We’ll never know who authored the comments that made EBW gush forth. (but they seem so my way or the highway, and EBW is now,….all but begging for an audience since everyone left).

Do not bother scrolling back to read Erie Blog Watch comments or posts. They were hell bent on destruction from day one, setting the standard of what can be, and what can not be,on Erie Blogs.

For the record, I have had a harasser for many months following from blog to blog disparaging any comment I make anywhere. (Can you say, stalker?)
Only one reputable site worked behind the scenes with me in private emails regarding the person submitting comment. THAT can be verified.
We worked out a way to identify genuine from imitation.

For the record, I have not authored Erie Blog Watch or any other blog. I have commented only.

In the event I created a blog, the LAST source of reference I would pursue to endorse, proclaim, applaud my work…would be Erie Blog Watch. This would be like a book review endorsement by Osama, a sure kiss of death as Erie Blog Watch is known to perform, without request.

Think! This blog takes the time to disparage a commenter. Then, this blog (EBW) makes this statement:”Meanwhile, no sign of Danny’s own blog but we will be pleased to spread the word once it goes online”. Why would you spread the word of a blog written by a person you disparage before? Schizo time at EBW once again.
Many inferred in comments (when they were allowed at EBW) that my name was behind this sordid blog.

I had no affiliation with the creator of Erie Blog Watch.
I have no affiliation with Erie Blog Watch.
I will have no affiliation with Erie Blog Watch.

The entity that calls itself Erie Blog Watch has made a fool of all of Erie, and in the process, made a fool of themselves.

That is the header for this blog. It appears this is a faith blog. You kept on referencing my posts on another blog, now you have a problem when I do the same.

The lines posted are YOUR lines, from THIS blog and post (not an out of context as you have done in your quote from a faith blog).

These two lines quoted from above simply reflect your confusion.

I asked if you could go lower; you answered.

You distorted the above comment before…, beyond reconition at the point of origin. I did not take the time to bring you up to spin, for I see your style at that blog to argue over minutia. Magna Carta, queen, Brown, who cares.
The blogger (and others) seem to take delight in explaining the fundamentals of English, words, syntax, and the like in miute detail….just for you.

I choose not to point out the obvious to you. Indeed the above quote went in an entirely new thread direction (missed by you alone) and you searched high and low for any crevice to grab and argue.

Your first claim here at Radio Free was
“I was here first; you follow me”
Archives show my last comment here on tourism, prior to you.

Your next claim descended into the hell of Ted Haggard.
Egg on your face there still—self inflicted.

I think you should continue to be a bull in the china closet; don’t even clean your own mess.
Nor will I.

“Let us avoid a line-by-line rip apart and repost and
“oops, what about this or that”?

Oh right, that was you. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

It was the independent and first time caucus goers who turn out for the Dems. Voters the Republicans could have had if Bush didn’t ruin the GOP’s chances.

Spin away, maestro.
Since it is already covered above, I can rewrite it all again, or you can reread.
We all vote for YOU reread.

You have posted your opening question on other blogs almost to the word.
In those venues, it was appropriate. In the Wall Street -Washington Axis of insiders, uh…
Hillary is ONE of THEM too.
This “bad time” referenced here is because an outsider is getting votes unexpectedly. What Radio has failed to point out is that the last time the game went that way, we ended up with our worst Prez, Jimmy Carter.

By the way, this state ment of yours:
“Hillary’s third place win was much larger than Huckabee’s first place win.”

is not the same as this statement of yours:
“Bu the reality is her third place loss was substantially greater then Huckabee’s first place win.”

You are at least going in the right direction; she lost.
This article (unlike the others you have posted the same precise message) is in reference to the Huck a dilemma Republicans get out of Iowa.

Last, Al Gore took Iowa in 2000; without cheating.
He was blue as can be about it. Don’t let the facts get in your way. (Source: Wiki Red States and Blue States)

Tip: where ever you go, there you are.
If you post on the internet, others just may be there too, including me.
Flatter yourself, but keep me out of it.

As for Ted, you show yourself here, to be the master of the self inflicted wound. I do not expect an apology.
That would require character.

You have taken a discussion on faith, and Republicans in Iowa to Hillary, to falsehood, to gay bashing.
Can you go lower?

I’m beginning to think you have a crush on me. You seem to be following me around for blog to blog. I’m flattered but maybe you should give Ted haggard a call.