Monday, November 19, 2012

David Webb's Posts From Last Night

Here they are, just so no one can say I made this up:

David WebbNov 18, 7:51 pm
At the risk of yet more public vilification from members of this site, how is it that Fred Phelps of Westboro Babtist Church and his family can demonstrate at funerals of military personnel killed in battle and carry signs that read, “death to homosexuals” and be protected under the First Amendment? What Joey wrote was flat wrong, but he retracted it and issued a public apology. White Supremacists of all varieties incite violence, and are subject to only civil lawsuits. But Joey got criminal prosecution, and the same may be coming to others who spout off on blogs. I’m interested in the bigger picture here. This is not about Joey.
-Notice how he is trying to lump in what they do with what Joey did, I guess he doesn't know the difference in how the first amendment is interpreted-

Then I point out a hypothetical, and I clearly make it that and I even use Joey's name as to make the accusation by saying what if Joey said you were a pedophile and you needed to die.  Of course, as we know this is exactly what this case is about.  Then David fires back with:
David WebbNov 18, 8:14 pm
Would you please clarify right now that I have never been accused of pedophilia?
-I then do just that but then point out at the end just how powerful the very hint of something like that can have.  He says:

David WebbNov 18, 9:01 pm
Yes, I do, and you should have thought of that before you wrote it.
-of course I thought about it which was the whole point of my comment in the first place, a this point I start to realize he isn't playing with a full deck-

 David Webb
I am not super sensitive as regards myself. That’s why I have never complained about all of the remarks I’ve seen over the last few months about my reporting that insinuated Joey must be gay because I took an interest in the case. I frankly don’t know who you are because you have represented yourself to me as both a woman and a man on different occasions. There is nothing forthright about this website. Before people can be legitimately prosecuted criminally for their words, there is going to have to be a lot of changes to the criminal code.
-of course we then jump on him for a "what the hell are you talking about"-
David WebbNov 18, 11:05 pm
Well, I have a degree in journalism from the University of Texas at Austin. I’ve written for The Dallas Morning News, The Dallas Times Herald, D Magazine, The Dallas,s Observer and The Dallas Voice. Not to mention national publications, including the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report. In fact, I spent an hour on the phone tonight with the president of SPLC, Richard Cohen, who advised me to tell Joey’s lawyer to call the ACLU. I have already relayed that advice to the appropriate person.

David WebbNov 18, 11:15 pm
There’s nothing more ridiculous than a man calling himself GingerSnap rather than identifying his real identity or a man posting comments under two different names. All of you are really weird. I haven’t read half of the crap you’ve written, dumb asses.

David WebbNov 18, 11:26 pm
No, GingerSnap, Justin or whomever you are, I was getting information because I really was puzzled by all of it. My call to the Dauben side was to ask if they were considering such action. I explained that my reason for asking had to do with my interview of someone. That’s a matter of courtesy. I have no idea whether they will follow through on that or not.

David WebbNov 18, 11:34 pm
There is another person posting under more than one name on this website, according to a source who would know. I’ve had people telling me for months that remarks were being made about a link between Joey and me. I rarely bothered to look. I’m not sure why I logged on last night, but I regret it.

David WebbNov 18, 11:43 pm
I don’t read Yappy. It’s too much bullshit. But Gingerale, it’s common practice to ask someone if they would consider contacting a legal organization based on another legal organization’s assessment. It’s for the story that I may eventually write. That doesn’t make me an active part of Joey’s defense team.

David WebbNov 18, 11:50 pm
The ranges of your prejudice are incredible. Yappy’s last post was short so I read it. “Whiny little old man”? How do people younger than you refer to you, especially your children?

David WebbNov 19, 12:15 am
@nothing: I assure you I am not delusional, but I sure am tired of all this.


  1. nothingbettertodotodayNovember 19, 2012 at 2:51 PM

    I was going to respond to the "whiny little old man" remark but decided to go to bed insead. How was that comment prejudical? That statement was factual, accurate, descriptive. David is an old man and he was whining.

    I kind of figure David was near the breaking point when started cussing and name calling. I don't why that is but when people who pick a fight without haveing facts to support their argument always start with the cussing and name calling.

    But, I figured he'd just log off and never talk to us again. His behavior is extreme. I'm worried about him. I wonder if he needs medication.

    Then there is this: "There is another person posting under more than one name on this website, according to a source who would know." Another one I wish I had responded to. Oh yeah? what source? who would know? Unless 'Gingerale' is sharing IT data with somebody on Team Joey, who would know anything about anybody posting comments????!!!!

    I thought the pedo analogy was priceless. Drove the point home. Then David acted like a "whiny little old man".

    I'm pissed off that he didn't just shut down his computer and go away like all the other wacko's that buy into Joey's crap.

    1. My new theory is that hew as a covert operative for Joey from day one of his arrest. They planned the "joey didn't get a public defender in time" game so that they could make the court look incompetent and give the conspiracy theorist the fuel they needed to explode.

    2. nothingbettertodotodayNovember 19, 2012 at 4:10 PM

      Yeah, they all (C/theorist) started with the ACLU thing pretty early after the arrest. I remember Wick Allison picked up on it too, he wrote an article that suggested Joey was being railroaded. All I could think at the time was, yeah I know something about Wick's personal history that gives him credibility problems.

      Now I know D. Webb has emotional issues, the whiny little old man, I'll never enjoy another of his articles.

    3. yeah its really interesting to go back and read all those dallas voice and frontburner articles now in light of who's team they were on. I think Joey knew he had no chance in hell of making bail so why not ride it out a little and not sign his indigent form? He twiddles his thumbs for two months and then decides to send a hand written not (damsel in distress) to David and then Webb runs with the story and here comes front-burner to echo the claims. They were really doing a pretty good job of rallying the troops until the Daily Light did a story that pointed out that Joey was the one that didn't sign the form.

    4. NothingbettertodotodayNovember 19, 2012 at 5:22 PM

      Sorry, it is D Mag & Frontburner. I did correctly recall that's where the ACLU stuff started. I went back to re-read comments on the Dallas Voice articles too. They are all gone. Except for one comment posted on 8/24, it's Joey's part 1 interview with the Franklin nut, posted by the Red Dirt guy. Shows a copyright for ECO.

      I checked out Webb's FB page too. Vicki Lynn Keller posted a comment. There's your sign........

  2. nothingbettertodotodayNovember 19, 2012 at 4:24 PM

    This is for David, if he finds you again. Written 10 months ago by a "journalist" that worked with Joey, posted on the Dallas O:

    As someone who wrote for Joey, I look back now and almost regret all of that, he can be a little far out, but he means well. That's entirely a defense of his character. He'll believe anything, alot like a small child. Joey always had the best intentions though.As for the sexual assault charges, it's no longer matters what we all believe, it only matters what the courts see. Do I think he did it? No. Do I have any proof to back myself up? Other than personal experiences with him, no.Close to Thanksgiving time, I stopped associating and writing for Dauben because of how off the deep-end he went and how biased a lot of his accusations were. He made a mockery of the journalism site I was whole-heartedly trying to turn into a newspaper. My name has become a joke because of his actions and over-zealousness. One thing that I noticed was how...violent he was with his words towards pedophiles and sex offenders. (I'm in no way defending their actions though!) As someone of the Messianic faith, I believe he should be ashamed of the uncalled for things he said. Public execution, bullets to their heads, etc etc are among what he said should happen to them. Karma can be a hoe.If nothing else, maybe this will be an eye-opener and a step into the real world for him. Every vigilante has to take responsibilty for their actions at some point.-Sincerely, Amanda Callendar

  3. I have the but it's good to see Ginger is back up and running. Thanks

  4. I had absolutely nothing to do with the blog being taken down. I am not "in bed" with Joey. My interest in this case is related to First Amendment issues. I am not a former journalist. I am a semi-retired journalist, and I made a handsome living from it for more than three decades. I stand behind what I believe, which is certainly nothing that any of you with your pseudonyms can say. I think you are all fucking nuts. Yes, I cuss sometimes. I do not have a strong bond with Joey. I've only seen him in person maybe four times total in one year. I have a strong professional interest in his case. I don't know at what point on the blog postings you thought you were getting the best of me, although I clearly was being piled on. Still, I figure I gave as good as I got so I had no reason to retaliate and get the blog shut down. You are making an outrageous, inaccurate claim that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Maybe you will have better luck on in keeping your site up. But it's not me you have to worry about. It's someone else, and no, I do not know who they are.

    1. It's OK David, I might not have been at my computer over the weekend to argue with you, but I was able to take a moment today to retrieve cached postings before they are gone forever. So we'll always have a memento of your fondness for the blog.

      Funny how ginger's blog is up for nearly a year until you came along. Joey would call that rock solid proof. Either way, you don't know how to participate in a rational debate. You could have had a completely civil discussion in the comments, and yet you chose to act like a child. You came with your mind made up, & made no attempt to see real damage Joey's "journalistic efforts" created.

    2. NothingbettertodotodayNovember 20, 2012 at 12:21 AM

      Whether you know our real names or not I think we've all proven we stand behind what we believe, which is Joey is f'n nuts, he didn't have a right to post lies about people and we aren't as f'n nuts as Joey's supporters.

      I thought we were discussing 1st amendment issues last night, then it seemed you had come to us with a hidden agenda and the discussion took a sharp right turn. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you as a journalist. But I respectfully disagree with you on this issue. Joey incited violence against several people, "fighting words" are not protected under the law. I'm glad the DA did what he could to deter Joey's behavior. The older Joey gets, the more liberty he seems to take with the truth and with other people's lives.

      I'm disappointed that you appear to buy into Joey's assertion that all of the charges brought against him are in retaliation by the government for what Joey posted about the government. I don't think Joey is important enough to invest the time and energy it would take to conspire against him. He clearly broke the law via his blog, as he was found guilty by a jury that had no idea of his blogging history, I don't see how any rational, intelligent person can maintain belief in a conspiracy.

      With regard to the Navarro charges, there might have been one or two people on the old site that hope Joey is found guilty. The rest of us were consistent in stating that we have no opinion, we are just watching out of morbid curiosity. Joey caused the curiosity, in posting all of the far fetched child porno group and government conspiracies. We have been consistent in stating that we hope the truth is heard and Joey gets a fair trial.

      Another disappointment is your parroting of Team Joey's assertion that all of the comments on the old site were posted by one person. That's just so stupid that it's funny. We've all given up something of personal lives at various times, a regular, objective reader would instantly realize the insanity of that idea.

      I've been furious with you all day, I mean extremely pissed off because it seemed likely you were the cause for the demise of the old site. I'm angry that whoever did it is OK with all the crap Joey wrote but took exception to a blog that was benign in comparison to the ECO. If you are not responsible, I apologize.

      I think you are very brave to come back, good for you. I am relieved that you can give as good as you get and I hope you stick around and continue to give us food for thought.

    3. You are welcome to criticize my opinions, my stories and my politics, I just don't want to be unjustly accused of causing a website to be taken down. I would never do something like that because I consider all information about what people think valuable, regardless of whether I a agree with them. I obviously also enjoy debates.

    4. NothingbettertodotodayNovember 20, 2012 at 9:33 AM

      Heck, for all we know, the site went down because Connie finally got a hit when she asked for a lightening strike.

    5. Now, I figured you would take offense (you have at everything else) at my headline "David Webb Admits to Being "In Bed" with Accused Child Molester Joey Dauben"
      I did this because, one I was mad at the time, and two I was going to write a Joey dauben-like headline for you just so you can feel some of the impact. I say dauben-like because I still made sure not to say something completely wrong. Its an offensive and vindictive headline, I mean why throw in accused child molester and why use the term "in bed"? We can argue out the "in bed" part, I would say that you are certainly more-so for team Joey than you are for the DA, but why throw those words in? Joey did headlines like this to thousands of individuals all across this country.

    6. It was pretty easy to see you used a Daubenistic approach in the title.

      I can attest to that Ginger. His crap would even be frowned upon by the National Enquirer. I've been trying to stomp out the fires this SOB Dauben created for sometime now. The little freak had no friends that could help with any alibi so his only move was to fabricate a persona of being a fighter against corruption and defender of children that escalated as he started to feel the hammer coming down from the Texas Rangers. Dauben knew all along he was in deep shit. His parents must be proud of the mini-Frankenstein they created. I bet tomorrow is a two-wheelie day for that household.

      All Dauben is, is a prick. A mini-version of his dad, but still a prick. Speaking of mini-pricks, I wonder if Brannon still has that morph suit.

    7. NothingbettertodotodayNovember 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM

      Don't forget to throw in the girl friend and engagement that materialized immediately after the arrest. Smooth move to throw off all those that might think Joey likes men too. (I'm not saying an attraction to men is a bad thing, I'm saying he doesn't want anybody in the straight world to know about it.)

    8. yeah thats a good point. Joey is 31 now, has dated many woman in the past but never published any of them or their names but as soon as he gets pinched for the Navarro charges here comes "the love of my life" Presley in to take her cameo. In Webb's article she tries to focus everyone on the "we just want to start a family together" part. Its all part of a little Dabuen publicity campaign and I don't buy it a bit especially when you consider that she left him for several months while he was out on bond. She is just a prop and she is glad to play along because that's what her entire adult life has been so far.

  5. Um hmm...sure...we'll all eat that snit with a spoon like its good.... Whatever.
    1st Amendment my right eye.
    Had Joey 'blogged' about you as he did so many others, you'd been calling your contacts with the ACLU, NAACP, WWE or whoever would get him offa you! Him ragging your ass woulda been a Federal Offense! But seeing as how it wasn't? It's now your journalistic duty to defend Joey's 1st Amendment rights AFTER he's found guilty?
    Um hmm... That's what we'll roll this shit downhill with.
    Don't get me wrong. I'm scared snitless of Joey & 'supporters'.... I'd keep singing your tune too, seeing as how you're doing it solo.

  6. Curious Bystander here. Haven't figured this blog out yet. :)

    David Webb wrote: "how is it that Fred Phelps of Westboro Babtist Church and his family can demonstrate at funerals of military personnel killed in battle and carry signs that read, “death to homosexuals” and be protected under the First Amendment? What Joey wrote was flat wrong, but he retracted it and issued a public apology. White Supremacists of all varieties incite violence, and are subject to only civil lawsuits. But Joey got criminal prosecution, and the same may be coming to others who spout off on blogs. I’m interested in the bigger picture here. This is not about Joey."

    David, I think you, and lot of folks that post on this blog (and it's predecessor) have lost sight of the fact that Joey was not convicted of Cyber-Bulling (hard to prove in Texas.) He was not convicted of Criminal Libel (non-existent in Texas and most states.) He was not convicted of being a liar, being wrong in facts, or inciting violence. He was not convicted for anything he, personally, wrote. He was convicted for FRAUDULENT USE OR POSSESSION OF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION. Doesn't matter how it came into his possession, he published such information which could be used in identity theft. No First Issue there. There wouldn't even be a First Amendment issue if he were a real journalist (I was more of a journalist with my neighborhood paper I published...on a age eight.)

    I have read some of your articles over the years, David, and I am willing to bet real money you would never have done what Joey did, even if you believed the cause to be just.

    Having said that, I will also bet that Joey's cyber-bullying ways made the sentence more than it would be in most first offenses of this nature.