This joker from the anti-SVR blog spews some nonsense

[Thomas Rowley]

So you agree with me it was not DiLorenzo who posted on the VNN site itself but copies of his posts at the Mises and LewRockwell blog to make it look like he posted there?

No, Bill.  I'm not here to agree with you or disagree with you on that.  I'm pointing out that once again you've made a false and malicious charge and you're ducking responsibility for that by, once again, bringing up something else.  You seem to have a very small bag of tricks and that "duck and divert" seems to be what you rely on most.  I asked if you could dispute any fact or statement that I've attributed to DiLorenzo on my website and you can't.  I also pointed out that I've never posted on Jason Sorens, yet you'd charged here that I'd done a "hit job" on him.

That you would continue to bring up the neo-Nazi Alex Linder's posting so that it had appeared that DiLorenzo had done it and assign responsibility to others is evidence of the twisted path that your reasoning takes.  Linder admitted to me that he had done so and, in thinking much like your own, claimed that others should have understood that, despite the fact that there was not indication that he'd done that.

Are you suggesting RR was on the advisory board?

No.  The Naylor/Williams purge extended beyond the advisory board.  Another nice try though at deflecting away from my original point that you've falsely charged me with doing a hit piece on DiLorenzo or Sorens.  Will you ever get around to admitting your smear?

Marco Bassani from Mises also left the board around the same time.

And that's straight out of left field.  I don't know why you'd want to bring up the segregationist Northern League's Bassani though; he just makes those you like to pal around with look even more sordid.

Bill, You and I both know that you'll never fess up to your error.  You haven't got the stuff it takes to do it.  Frank, begreener, Ethan or any of the many, many names you use usually don't serve to cover your repetitive rants for long.  How long did it take to smoke you out this time? Two, three posts?  But that isn't why I came and you're not going to change.  I'll take the fact that you're too gutless to admit you've made a false charge that you expected would go unchallenged and leave with that.

For years now you've been a spectacularly unsuccessful political activist.  You've intimated that you're close to the power center of Vermont's secession movement and "a member of SVR" but, other than for useless arguments on forums, I can't find any evidence of that, thus there are no posts about you at my website. Is that what gets you so wound up about the website? Many others have pegged you for the e-pest that you are a whole lot better than I ever could, like this from JDRyan at fivebeforechaos:

Our buddy Bill Grennon... 
Now, you're probably wondering why, a few days after odum has returned to GMD, and SVR has pretty much self-destructed, why our friend 'BeGreener' insists on being known as 'Thomas Naylor's Last Friend', still clinging to the hopes of SVR like a Klansman with a noose in one hand and a hard-on in the other.
See, it seem it's a bit of a compulsion with our friend BeGreener.... uh, I mean Bill Grennon. Let me tell you a little bit about or buddy Bill, so you can understand his compulsion a little better. Let me just say, I don't have a problem with Bill's politics. I just have a problem with his delusions.
See, Bill's the chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Freedom Caucus. Now, there's nothing wrong with that. The DFC is a pretty radical lefty organization (which, honestly, I pretty much support their goals). But first off, he's not even a Vermonter. Yep, you heard right. SVR's biggest apologist doesn't even live in Vermont.He was a also  big Nader supporter.  But hey, so was I in '00. I just figured by '04, Nader had turned into a big joke. Anyways, Bill seems to like to spend a lot of time trolling around political message boards, bloviating about all of the political theories he's obviously much more  knowledgeable about than any of us could hope to be, while bugging the shit out of everybody, and never seeming to answer important questions, such as how people of color or gay people might feel about the Neo-Confederate ties in SVR. 
He's already tried to push his geo-mutualism  onto New Hampshire's own lost cause, the libertarian 'Free State Project', They weren't too fond of him, so now he's desperately clinging to Vermont's own lost cause, the recently departed Second Vermont Republic. And in that process, he's wasted a lot of electrons at Five Before Chaos and GMD with his nonstop apologies for SVR and his obsession with one questionable post on a hate site somewhere, as if all of the other obvious links and batshit crazy behavior by Thomas Naylor would somehow be invalidated if this one site weren't genuine.
Bill hasn't quite figured out that SVR is not only irrelevant to the masses of Vermonters, as it always was, but by and large it is irrelevant to those on the left who used to support it, as well. Yet, he keep coming back with the same tired shit, which is really a shame, considering if he would just pull his head out of Thomas Naylor's ass longe enough to see the sunshine, he might actually contribute some meaningful discussion to some of the things we talk about here on GMD.
So I'm holding out an olive branch to you, Bill Grennon. Give the SVR hard-on a much needed rest. It's over. You backed the wrong guys, and they lost. Let Papa Naylor sit on his porch rambling 'Free Vermont' to the squirrels in his yard (the only ones that will listen anymore) into his twilight years as he ponders how he could have let such a noteworthy career end in such a pathetic blaze of crazed rhetorical flatulence. We're still here. Odum still has his job, and is still at GMD.  Embrace it, bro'. Or go somewhere else and hope they don't ignore you.

JD Ryan at fivebeforechaos

So, to close Bill: Thomas Rowley knew Ethan Allen; Ethan Allen was a friend of Thomas Rowley's.  Bill, you're no Ethan Allen.   

Eh? To be clear, I think the people currently "calling the tune" in the LotS trade on slavery apologetics & other racist rhetorical tactics, but there are plenty of people who have been associated with the LotS who have never had truck with such things. Including, most prominently, Don Livingston.

Really?  Looks like you're the one being "tone deaf" here, Jason.  If you wish to ignore the white separatist enabling that comes from the Naylors and the Livingstons of the secession movement, that's your business but Vermonters can look at the facts for themselves and make their own decisions on that whether they wish to associate themselves with a "movement" that intends to undermine the civil rights progress that so many of us have struggled to advance and protect throughout our lives.  Naylor and Williams, two pied pipers that recently came to Vermont, reveal their contempt for us Vermonters by not bothering to have taken the time to learn enough about all of us to have figured out that we're not just a bunch of gullible bumpkins.

Just as new Hampshire residents can make up their own minds about you and your movement.  You can make all the arguments you'd like about why you're "phoning it in" while you ask others to sacrifice – that's your business.  But the reaction you get from the public is likely to be different than that you get here.  Naylor chose to ignore the potential public reaction and hunkered down, even expanding his contacts with racist, white supremacists and neo-Nazis (there's been an update since you last read it, Jason).  He wears his contempt for the public intellect on his sleeve by such an act.  Making nice with bigots who like to joke about napalming political opponents and other sick crap, after having purged decent Vermonters from his organization, speaks volumes about Naylor and Sale.

Sorry for not following every abstruse twist and turn of this teapot-tempest drama.   Last I had heard, the blogger had posted while at work. Maybe Tom Naylor also thought he was posting from work, which is presumably why he made his complaint.

"Thought?"  It's clear from the record that he had no evidence.

For someone who values his own family's health care so much that he's willing to appear less than committed to his own plan by "phoning it in," you seem to be awfully cavalier when it comes to another man's family's income and health care.  I hope that you're just as careful about what you do from work, although my stats would seem to indicate otherwise.

As I said, I don't really have a stake in your conversation here but from what I've read that you've written, particularly about the work of Parti Québécois/Bloc Québécois partisans (IMO you got it wrong), you and your plan are just as likely to fizzle out as Naylor's has here.

à plus...  Thomas Rowley

[EthanAllen]

I asked if you could dispute any fact or statement that I've attributed to DiLorenzo on my website and you can't.  I also pointed out that I've never posted on Jason Sorens, yet you'd charged here that I'd done a "hit job" on him.

You are making an assumption that just because your website was linked to somehow an inference was drawn that you were the one who posted on Jason Sorens. Your website is purely a reference as it has all of the links to the other website and anyone doing the research can find out who posted what sequentially.

Linder admitted to me that he had done so and, in thinking much like your own, claimed that others should have understood that, despite the fact that there was not indication that he'd done that.

OK, so you do acknowledge that I was correct. Have the other bloggers stated retractions like I had asked in the spirit of fair play, over and over?

His was obviously deliberate. Mine was not.

[jsorens]

<snip>

à plus...  Thomas Rowley

Well, more baseless personal attacks from an anonymous coward. I'm not sure why I would have expected anything else. I would like to recommend a little book for you: A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston. It's a nice little introduction to the rules of logic. Read it, and perhaps some day you will be ready for a rational discussion, rather than this harebrained smear campaign you've concocted.

[Caleb]

Thomas, I have no idea who you are, but you have instantly established yourself as having absolutely no credibility when you refer to Tom DiLorenzo as a "white separatist".

Really?  Do a little research of yourself and you'll find that not only is DiLorenzo a member and avid supporter of the avowed white separatist organization, The League of the South, but that he also teaches at the League of the South Institute for the Study of Southern Culture and History!  His writings on the civil rights provided for under the 14th Amendment and his disdain for the its equal protection and due process clauses are available for you to read for yourself.

White supremacists like James Edwards at The Political Cesspool are enamoured with the genteel cover that academics like DiLorenzo and Naylor give their repugnant views.  Here's a recent promotion of a broadcast of an interview of DiLorenzo at the notorious Stormfront.org website.

I really have no stake in your conversation here and merely stopped by to correct the record, as well as respond to the "hit" performed by "Ethan Allen."  Your uninformed comment undermine your own credibility as a thoughtful person, MengerFan, whoever you are.

Thomas Rowley

You need to learn the difference between your ass, and a hole in the ground. The league of the south is NOT a white separatist organization, it is a southern secession organization. You may not see the difference because you are stupid enough to believe that southern independence and slavery are the same thing. I've fixed your karma for you, moron.

[Pat K]

Nice to see ya posting Caleb.

[Caleb]

Thanks, Pat. Although I hope you aren't going to hijack this thread with pleasantness. That would only distract us from this incredibly useful and important thread. 

[Pat K]

No No far be it for me to spread pleasantness.

[David]

Caleb, I see you got creative with the title(s) of this split thread.  You're kinda funny when you get angry.