You're getting all worked up over a sockpuppet?

Must be slow around the ol' office...

I'm not quite sure why 11:52 seems to think this blog is the work of a "sock puppet". Why in the world would anyone make up a story about bedding Olbermann? It's not like he's a Hollywood Hunk. In fact, it'd be the last thing I'd ever admit to. And it's not even as if he's popular (check the ratings, he's at the bottom of the barrel). Oh, I'm sure his lunatic fans would love to believe that this was all a hoax but it seems to me this person (and others) are going into specifics, posting emails and keeping a very close eye on who's reading that blog.

Glass houses, Keith, glass houses. If this turns out to be true, Mr. Olbermann should insert a loofah into his mouth on air.

That blog goes to show you that you can get away with being a jerk to some of the people some of the time, but you can't be a jerk to ALL of the people ALL of the time. Fifty-year-old men who search for weak-minded groupies for sex then dump them via email gross out even the most horny of men. No wonder Keith hides under his desk.

If Keith were not so horrific a person, I might feel sorry for him. After all, this seems like a site constructed by a "fatal instinct" type of crazy lady. However, Keith revels in the misfortune of others, and therefore deserves whatever he gets. To him I say, "karma is a bitch (pun intended)."

Oh, I'm sure his lunatic fans would love to believe that this was all a hoax but it seems to me this person (and others) are going into specifics, posting emails and keeping a very close eye on who's reading that blog.

And it's all hocus pocus that adds up to a barrel of bupkus. She provides e-mail headers that cannot be authenticated, website "logs" that include no track-back information and "details" which cannot be confirmed or denied except by her own story.

As for the why...well, you're talking about it aren't you? This is classic Internet troll/sockpuppet behavior. Create some outrage and then wait for the "marks" to come along and agitate for you. Then the sockpuppet skips off, merrily laughing at the gullibility of their targets.

Well, it appears that the matter was consentual.

It does not appear that a crime was committed.

It does not appear that she an (ex-)employee, so she does not have a harrassment claim.

I don't believe that Congress can impeach him from MSNBC.

Seems like a big mountain of "So What?" to me.

Well, it appears that the matter was consentual.

It does not appear that a crime was committed.

It does not appear that she an (ex-)employee, so she does not have a harrassment claim.

I don't believe that Congress can impeach him from MSNBC.

Seems like a big mountain of "So What?" to me.

If she's the same person that leaked the first set of emails to the NY Daily News, then her contact with Olbermann has already been authenticated and confirmed by MSNBC as being authentic.

Despite what some of you less intelligent, lunatic fans would like to believe, the NYDN couldn't have printed what they did without a) authenticating the veracity of those emails and b) inviting comment from both Olbermann and MSNBC beforehand.

She's also promising to post a print screen of the actual email to "authenticate" it as you demand. But that still won't be enough for some of you will it? You'll just keep raising the bar higher and higher and higher no matter what she posts, demanding more evidence. And your scenarios of how it was all "faked" will grow more elaborate in the process, just as they did with the emails from a couple of weeks ago.

What must it be like having to continually defend the undefensable? To create elaborate scenarios of why this all couldn't be true? What's in it for you? Do you think he gives a goddamn about you outside of his ratings and his precious careers and the potential for future fuck budies amongst his more attractive fans? If you don't see the problem with any of this, than it's quite apparent why you worship Olbermann as you do: you're as clueless as he is.

Face it, if she posted video of him, limp dick and all, you'd still claim it was fake. Beware of heroes with feet of clay and of women scorned. . . and of limp dicks.

But he used his official MSNBC webaddress to engage women for sex, than that would be a clear violation of acceptable use of the internet, a firing offense for lesser employees but for Olbermann? Special exceptions will no doubt be created. But good to see some of you less-delusional fan types are finally admitting that this woman is telling the truth about what happened. Guess you're just jealous he didn't want to screw you. . . funny, I always pegged him as a closeted homosexual.

But so much bad press ( ESPN, this, his constant rantings against competitors, just his overall unprofessional behavior ) has got to mount up to MSNBC just saying "Enough already" -

Then let's hope the bad news just keeps on coming. I can't think any potential employers would be lining up either to deal with the bad piece of business that is Keith Olbermann. How many second chances is he up to now anyways?

To create elaborate scenarios of why this all couldn't be true?

It's not elaborate, it's simple: month-old flounder smells less fishy than this.

The site has existed for four days - I read every thread. There is no substance. She alleges this, she alleges that...with nothing to back it up. She claims to have proof, but when pressed she says "He knows the truth and that's all that matters." In other words, we have an unsubstantiated charge.

As for someone at NBC being worried - you're talking about a general server for a major television network in New York City. How many people have access through that server? Hundreds? Thousands? Come on, common sense people (not to mention since MSNBC is in Secaucus they probably have their own independent server from the ones at 30 Rock).

Not necessarily. My firm has two offices, 80 miles apart in the same state. My IP address appears as being posted from that city 80 miles away because that's who our server/primary business address is at.

Can I ask what would be considered proof to you? And why exactly you think she has to produce proof to satisfy YOU? I don't think she created this website for you--I think she created it to get his attention and make him squirm. And if so, I'd say "Mission Accomplished".

Brandon,

Bill O'Reilly was not fired after the Andrea Mackris thing and Keith Olbermann will not be fired for picking up chicks using an MSNBC email address. Unless he's caught doing something of Marv Albert/Rick James proportions OR pisses off one of his bosses (which he claims not to have), he will remain on the air.

And why exactly you think she has to produce proof to satisfy YOU?

Because SHE made the accusation in public. This isn't Salem in the 17th Century - we don't put people in the stocks on someone's say-so alone.

Anonymous,
Have you missed the fact that KO has been doing the show from NY this week? Last night in particular? Not saying it's him, but don't assume everything goes through Secaucus either.

And, there are threads from that blog, more detailed, that have been deleted. You haven't seen everything if your just catching since Monday.

BTW, why is KO in NY? Its not even 10 miles from Secaucus? Too hard to get a cab?

No, he will not be fired. But all this is cumulative, and eventually it WILL catch up to him. Then he will quit to spend more time with his family. Oops, forgot he has no family!

So Anonymous can I ask why, if you believe this all to be so much bullshit and oh so bogus that you have read the website each and every day? Surely even you must recognize that you believe some of it to be true or otherwise you wouldn't be such an avid reader of said website now would you? Really, truly, you Olby fans are just too much. Do you ever actually read what you're posting before you post? Do you really live your lives devoid of a single bit of logic and reasoning--is that why Olby is your leader?

You haven't seen everything if your just catching since Monday.

So now you're saying that if there was proof, it doesn't exist anymore because she deleted it? Fabulous. You're not helping your side, you know.

But it doesn't matter anyway. If someone said that KO tortures puppies in his spare time, you'd believe it. You're all so gullible you'd believe anything as long as: 1) it makes KO look bad or deranged and 2) you don't have to prove it.

So Anonymous can I ask why, if you believe this all to be so much bullshit and oh so bogus that you have read the website each and every day?

I didn't. It took me all of 20 minutes to read every post on that blog. It isn't exactly "War and Peace".

Surely even you must recognize that you believe some of it to be true or otherwise you wouldn't be such an avid reader of said website now would you?

No, but if I said I didn't read it you'd claim I had no right to dispute it because I was "ill-informed" or "ignorant".

I don't believe a word of it, period. But because I took 20 minutes to catch up, I can at least argue on the merits instead of in broad generalizations.

Who knows if she is telling the truth? Only time will tell.

What I find satisfying is that Keith is a victim of exactly what he loves most -- the personal attack. It couldn't happen to a bigger jerk.

Even better should he be the victim of personal false attacks. He is even better at those.

True Jim, true! The icing on the cake would be if a Krazy person attacked Olby and slandered him as he is wont to do to others. However, my spidey sense tells me that this is a wacky jilted woman angry at the object of her obsession who took advantage of her and dumped her via e-mail.

So it's our fault now for being "gulliable"? No, we're being sensible and logical, something you simply are incapable of doing. You read because you want to refute what they say huh? Nah, you read because you can't stop watching and you feel so strongly motivated that you come here to defend him, hoping someone will believe YOUR BS. If you truly were concerned about damage control here, you'd shut the fuck up and keep your big mouth shut and hope that it all went away. Instead, you're adding fuel to the fire and just making the rest of us dig in our heels deeper. Face it, he's a hypocrite, plain, pure, and simple. He's soliciting fans for sex via his MSNBC email account, and he engages in one-night stands with them and dumps him. I hope an entire army of these women come forward, although I can't say I blame them if they don't. Who would admit to sleeping with THAT?

Why is it so important that the site referenced here be accurate? They note that they were warned to take the site down "for legal reasons". Olby slanders/lies about people all day long with no consequences whatsoever!

And turnabout is fair play. And it's about time Olbermann get a taste of his own tactics.

Anonymous said: "Because SHE made the accusation in public. This isn't Salem in the 17th Century - we don't put people in the stocks on someone's say-so alone."

But you're doing exactly that to this woman aren't you? Accusing her of being a sock puppet, a liar, a fraud, fabricating evidence, etc. and whht basis exactly do YOU have to back up YOUR allegations against her? Why don't YOU put up or shut up? What--too busy looking for some wood to burn her at the stake?

whht basis exactly do YOU have to back up YOUR allegations against her?

I already did. Read upthread. When you claim to have proof, then refuse to produce it when challenged that damages your credibility.

When you make vague "allegations" that have no specifics, it damages your credibility.

When you offer "e-mail headers" that cannot be verified as true or false, it damages your credibility.

And on and on...

Your "logic" isn't making any sense to anyone but YOU. The point is that no matter what she posts, you're going to reject it because your mind was made up the second she came forward. You accuse her of not having enough proof to suit you but you have no proof to prove she's not telling the truth. In your mind, because she's speaking out against Olbermann, then she's automatically wrong, no matter what. And your feeble little attempts here at defending him only make you look like an even bigger fool than you already are for so passionately defending him based on. . . nothing. You people never cease to amuse me. You're almost as funny as the clown you've apparently taken a blood oath to defend. Does he pay you people for this? Because you really do need to ask for a raise, but I'd say Olbermann really needs to hire more intelligent types to defend him, you're defenses are without logic, reason, basis, or intelligence. But they are very amusing, nonetheless.

You accuse her of not having enough proof to suit you but you have no proof to prove she's not telling the truth.

SHE made the accusation, so the burden to prove it is on HER.

YOU assume she's telling the truth because you are so eager to hear ANYTHING negative about Keith Olbermann you REJECT anything that doesn't fit your narrow world-view that Keith is responsible for all the evils of the world.

"If she's the same person that leaked the first set of emails to the NY Daily News, then her contact with Olbermann has already been authenticated and confirmed by MSNBC as being authentic."

Trust me, she didn't send those emails to the Daily News.

No, but she did send the Rita email.

Joe,

Did you sent the email to the dailynews about Rita? Where do you suppose Lloyd Grove got that email?

She's not in a court of law. She doesn't have to prove a damn thing, especially not to the likes of you who have decided to reject anything wholesale that does not fit in with your idea of whom you think Keith Olbermann is.

She doesn't have to prove a damn thing

Only if she wants to appear credible.

Anonymous are you KO's mom? Olberman isn't significant in world affairs. He's the USA's on air Benedict Arnold.

I don't think she's aiming her blog at you Anon. And how less credible could she possibly be than Olbermann is on a nightly basis? Face it, as I said earlier: no matter what she posted, it wouldn't be good enough for you and your ilk. You believe anything he says and refute anything that reflects him in less than the perfect light you've chosen to cast him in. No matter what happens or what he does of his own making, you find a way to excuse it, just as your kind did with those emails a few weeks ago. How many more of these kinds of incidnets before you admit he's not dealing with a full deck?

This person is crazy. She's demanding phone numbers from people who want to see her proof.

Olbermann may be a lot of things, but I doubt he is the kind of person she wants people to think he is.

This person is crazy. She's demanding phone numbers from people who want to see her proof.

Olbermann may be a lot of things, but I doubt he is the kind of person she wants people to think he is.

This person is crazy. She's demanding phone numbers from people who want to see her proof.

Olbermann may be a lot of things, but I doubt he is the kind of person she wants people to think he is.

The worst case scenario that I can come up from what I know about this woman's complaint is that Keith dumped her after they had sex.

Well, sorry, sweetheart... but you wouldn't be the first female in the world to have that happen to you. Unless he put an engagement ring on your finger, I would assume anyone would have a right to bail out and bail out fast if they felt like it.

Maybe she scared him. Anyone capable of basing a blog upon being badly jilted might be capable of scaring someone.

I don't know any details, but based on what's been said here, I don't think there's much of a story or a complaint here...

Olbermann is a jerk, no doubt, but we don't have enough facts to know if he's treated this woman in a terrible fashion.

She ripped someone's comment off the blog when they questioned the validity of the e-mail picture she posted. The poster said that there was something wrong with the picture. KarmaBites said that you couldn't go by the timestamps so I took a closer look:

Take a look at the way Olbermann's e-mail address is placed. It doesn't match the rest of the header at all.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/kbites/email-1.jpg

It's lower that the 'from' part and it's tabbed over too far. If you are going to fake an e-mail at least get it right. You can see why she bans anyone who calls her on her fraud. Like Cecelia said, "Olbermann is a jerk, no doubt, but we don't have enough facts to know if he's treated this woman in a terrible fashion."

I would have taken her up on the phone call offer. I'd like to hear what she had to say. I'd like to hear more details about this. Sounds like she offered you the chance to get some and you were afraid she'd tell you something you really didn't want to hear. But that's the difference between you Olby Loons and us Clear Thinkers.

Go look again--she's posted a larger pic of the email, minus the editing you complained about. And you can now see very clearly why that address appeared skewed.

Go look again--she's posted a larger pic of the email, minus the editing you complained about. And you can now see very clearly why that address appeared skewed.

Go look now. She's posted a better image of that email. And you can now see very clearly why that address initially appeared to be skewed in her first pic. LOL. And your next argument will be . . . .???????

No, you can't see why the address would be skewed. There's no reason for it.

Yes, actually there is. The AOL buddy icon that was there, the "running man" figure. That's what she had blocked out in the first email and why it appeared the address was skewed.

Look, you know what? Never mind. No matter what she posts you're still going to insist it doesn't show anything other than what you see and you'd say your eyes were lying to you.

Go ahead and believe he's done nothing wrong. And the next time something like this happens and the next and the next and the next maybe you'll finally see he's every bit as much as a douchebag as he's accused others of being.

Go ahead and believe he's done nothing wrong.

Even if the allegations she makes are true what wrongdoing was committed?

That KEITH...OLBERMANN...IS...TRULY...THE...WORST...PERSON...IN...THE...WOOOOOOOOORLD!!!!
(flourish of Bach's "Toccata in D Minor" stinger)

I think Keith apologized to the scorned woman. Go look at her blog now. HAA!

Assumptions running wild.

Wild assumptions, KO's home territory!

Probably paid her off.

Looks like the dope wrote e-mails to the angry women he used! What a loser! Now if only one of those women made the e-mail public . . .

Without addressing the issue of veracity, you all seem to be missing the point. General Electric/NBC Universal has policies about corporate email usage. It may seem like small potatoes to sum but corporate is going to have an increasingly hard time reconciling reconciling that policy with KO's use of company email.

There may be another issue but I have not seen KO's contract. If his contract contains a "morals" clause (maybe J$ can explain more about those types of clauses) KO may turn out to have provided NBC the legal opening to terminate KO without paying him the remainder of his contract (as happened at Fox Sports). Since we don't know what KO's contract says there is little point speculating about beyond this.

My only point is that there are non-trivial legal issues at play here. I'd have to image at least a few folks at NBC Universal are becoming increasingly concerned about KO's decidedly reckless email habits.

From: "Olbermann, Keith (NBC Universal, MSNBC)" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: "'Jackie M'"
Subject: RE: More e-mails?????
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:43:05 -0400

Many thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jackie M
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:26 PM
To: Olbermann, Keith (NBC Universal, MSNBC)
Subject: RE: More e-mails?????

http://relevantortrue.blogspot.com/2006/06/we-report-you-decide.html

"Olbermann, Keith (NBC Universal, MSNBC)" wrote:

Thanks. I'd still like to know what the site is.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jackie M
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:20 PM
To: Olbermann, Keith (NBC Universal, MSNBC)
Subject: RE: More e-mails?????

Look--I wouldn't worry about it. I jumped the gun when I sent you an e-mail. The poster is someone who "knows" somebody who allegedly received e-mails from you--dirty e-mails. It's bullcrap!


"Olbermann, Keith (NBC Universal, MSNBC)" wrote:

Have you links to these sites?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jackie M
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:48 PM
To: Olbermann, Keith (NBC Universal, MSNBC)
Subject: RE: More e-mails?????

I read on some fan web sites someone warning that there were more emails and that they were worse then what's gotten out so far.

Please be careful--we need your voice of sanity and reason on television.

"Olbermann, Keith (NBC Universal, MSNBC)" wrote:

To what do you refer?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jackie M
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:29 PM
To: Olbermann, Keith (NBC Universal, MSNBC)
Subject: More e-mails?????

I hope it's not true.

We (your fans) have your back!

Jackie

From: "Olbermann, Keith (NBC Universal, MSNBC)" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert

To: "'Jackie M'"

Subject: RE: More e-mails?????
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:43:05 -0400

Many thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jackie M
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:26 PM
To: Olbermann, Keith (NBC Universal, MSNBC)
Subject: RE: More e-mails?????

http://relevantortrue.blogspot.com/2006/06/we-report-you-decide.html

"Olbermann, Keith (NBC Universal, MSNBC)" wrote:

Thanks. I'd still like to know what the site is.

-----Original Message-----

From: Jackie M
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:20 PM
To: Olbermann, Keith (NBC Universal, MSNBC)
Subject: RE: More e-mails?????

Look--I wouldn't worry about it. I jumped the gun when I sent you an e-mail. The poster is someone who "knows" somebody who allegedly received e-mails from you--dirty e-mails. It's bullcrap!


"Olbermann, Keith (NBC Universal, MSNBC)" wrote:

Have you links to these sites?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jackie M
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:48 PM
To: Olbermann, Keith (NBC Universal, MSNBC)
Subject: RE: More e-mails?????

I read on some fan web sites someone warning that there were more emails and that they were worse then what's gotten out so far.

Please be careful--we need your voice of sanity and reason on television.

"Olbermann, Keith (NBC Universal, MSNBC)" wrote:

To what do you refer?

-----Original Message-----

From: Jackie M
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:29 PM
To: Olbermann, Keith (NBC Universal, MSNBC)
Subject: More e-mails?????

I hope it's not true.

We (your fans) have your back!

Jackie

Of course at Fox he committed the truly unpardonable sin of royally pissing off Rupert Murdoch, fer cryin' out loud, by scooping a corporate announcement concerning the sale of the Dodgers!

Brilliant Keith! Way to go fella!

Why didn't he just get caught in bed with Murdoch's wife or something?

No wonder he has this sniveling, twisted vendetta against Fox (the whole organization). Except for his beloved "Stewie" from the genuinely deplorable "Family Guy."

Sorry, I posted the email twice.

I've sent KO hundreds of e-mails in the past year, he never replied. Last week he replied 4 TIMES!

I was warning him about some new "dirty" emails I read about on a fan blog. He seemed very eager to know exactly where I had read the comment.

He's an ass to woman. I'm completely turned off by him now.

Jackie,

Thanks for the e-mail!

I love Keith's sentence structure! You sure you weren't corresponding with a sitcom butler? I mean, he actually said, "To what do you refer?" and "Have you links to these sites?" What's next? "Have you any grey poupon?"

What an ass!

LOL, Kfk. You can't see the time stamps for the bottom 3 replies but he answered back in less than 2 minutes. By the quickness of the replies, he seemd to be in a panic.

Yeah Jackie.

I posted this on another thread, but it is worth re-posting here. I bet he looked like this during your e-mail exchange:

I used to hate Imus for calling Keith a "mental patient" but now I think he was right all along.

Bob writes: " KO may turn out to have provided NBC the legal opening to terminate KO without paying him the remainder of his contract (as happened at Fox Sports)."

First I've heard that Olbermann was terminated from Fox Sports, let alone terminated without buying out his contract.

NO WONDER he hates Fox! Ha!

Keith talked about this in the Brian Lamb interview on C-SPAN.

To be clear, he was not "terminated" at Fox he was "not renewed". According to KO, he has 8 months to go at Fox Sports when they decided to take him off the air. Under the terms of his contract, Fox Sports was required to pay him his full salary for those 8 months.

To the tops o' the ratings he aspires
And hopes and prays that Bill-O retires
Until then he e-mails
Many willing females
Then defames them all as ****ing liars

You know you are doing a great job when your employer choses to pay you to sit at home instead of work. MSLSD hired him anyway -- go figure!

Thanks Jackie for posting those emails. Pretty telling he never responded to you as a fan but when he thought more evidence of his wrongdoings were going to come out he was all about responding to you. I'm just surprised he didn't ask you out for a one-night stand too.

Side note: the kid at TVNewser finally linked to this story at about 11 a.m. this morning, and completely removed it from his site within two hours.

Aha! Another Keith Olbermann CoverUp!

Aha! Another Keith Olbermann CoverUp!

Cover-Up of what? You've been agitating this for...what, four days now?...and so far no one else has taken up the issue except a gossip site.

Maybe you need a new drum to beat.

> so far no one else has taken up the issue

WHAT does that have to do with this being another Keith Olbermann CoverUp?

WHAT does that have to do with this being another Keith Olbermann CoverUp?

In order for it to BE a coverup, Johnny boy, it actually has to generate some interest. So far I couldn't power a 15-watt bulb off the energy of this.

Olbermann can't stand three sentences of criticism even if they're in a private email. What the hell do you think got him into this mess in the first place?

This doesn't need to make the evening news for KO to be upset about this. Trust me, an slightly critical email is enough to garner a response from him. That heandline on Jossip?....must be driving him bat-shit crazy right about now.

It generated enough interest, oh courageous one whose name is anonymous, for Olby or someone on his behalf to get the link removed from TVN...something he has proved willing to do several times in the past.

You see, that's how you prevent interest from generating. Which is what MAKES it a "cover-up".

Good lord the olberlord even lies to BRIAN LAMB fer cryin' out loud!
__________________________________________________
July 9, 2004

Countdown with Keith Olbermann

from interview with Robert Greenwald, director of "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism":

KO: "My own experience working for Fox always left me wondering -- he still owned the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team, Murdoch did. And I got a tip from outside the company that he was looking to sell them. I confirmed that tip. I went back to the people I worked for at Fox. I said, look, this is your team. It's also your network. If you don't want me to report this, I'm not going to. It is your candy store and your rules. I think that's fair.

"And Murdoch's personal publicity man said, we are not going to comment on the story, but it is legitimate news. If you think the sources are solid, go ahead and report it. And I did. And two weeks later, I got fired. And another reporter called me up and said he had heard, but he had never been able to confirm that when Murdoch heard about my story about the Dodgers, Murdoch had personally ordered that I be fired, even though his own people had OKed the story."
__________________________________________________

Come clean KO, we wanna know!

Amazingly, the kid from TVNewser ignored the Olby "sex-with-gullible-viewers" story, then posted it about ten seconds before the disgruntled woman deleted her website. What a coincidence! Or was it?

Olby grovelled hard on this one. Some poor person is going to have to pay the price for his humiliation! Expect a particularly vicious string of WPITW's coming up. After all, Hell hath no fury like a misogynistic psycho fake newsman exposed.

Olbermann may be the closest thing to Norman Bates on television.

Do a Google Blog search: The story has in fact appeared on Inside Cable News and The Cable Game (industry websites), and Can't Stop the Bleeding, a sports site in addition to TVNewser and Jossip. And then there's a site created to "debunk" Karma's claims which has posters who make the same pathetic claims (often word for word) here trying to excuse him and make this all go away, which is why they are willing to discuss it in great detail like it was the Zapruder film. Really, you can't make up "fans" like this. Olby must thank God for their stupidity every single day of his life.

Brandon,

What is the link for the "debunk" site?

I love right wing extremists! You can point to mounds of scientific evidence showing that global warming is human caused, but they leap to believe some unverifiable story whcih is relevant only to them and their rabid hatred of someone on a TV show.

Pretty sad, folks.

http://ratonanonimo.blogspot.com/

Enjoy Robert. The person running that blog originally had emails up "proving" they were fake but then pulled them--probably when she realized they were legit. It seems to be run by a band of ko.org asses who don't dare say anything "bad" about him on their board so they've decided to open up an auxillary blog to discuss "bad" things about him. Really you can't make these people up--and if you did, they'd have to be cartoons.

My God, the gentle ribbing that goes on here has suddenly morphed into rabid hatred.

Considering the response from the warped funhouse mirror/through a glass very very darkly left, no wonder this site is such a blast!

Did anyone catch KO on ESPN today at 2 p.m.? Did you hear the "You misled me; you're a liar," comment he made to the guest co-host during the last 10 minutes or so of his hour? Sounded bitter to me. Maybe this mess is starting to get to him. Just an observation.

Okay, wiseguys. Try this for your theory:

Ms. Karma claims that Keith Olbermann came down over Memorial Day weekend for their...whatever.

Okay, she claims to live in Miami and yet Keith wanted to meet in Tampa. Why? The Yankees were in New York (they had a homestand against the Royals and then a series at Detroit), so it isn't that. And why send her all the way across the state to Tampa? Why not meet her in Miami?

Next item - the weekend in question was the weekend that Barry Bonds broke Babe Ruth's home run record. This occured on Sunday, May 28th. Keith, ever the baseball fan (even though he currently has open dislike for Bonds), states on his May 31st radio show with Dan Patrick that he was watching the Giants telecast (he mentions Mike Krukow and Duane Kuiper by name and references the "dropped audio" home run call).

So...Keith flew to Tampa, got a girl to come from Miami to Tampa...then watched two baseball games and split?

Okay, let's skip that and move to part two - the "departure". Ms. Karma again alleges that Keith left because "a relative died" on May 28th. Keith had Monday (Memorial Day) and Tuesday off as scheduled. But he did the Dan Patrick radio show and Countdown as scheduled on Wednesday, which was the day he told Karma that he was attending a funeral in another state.

Now, if Keith is lying he's doing a piss-poor job of it. If you're going to lie, make the lie as simple as possible. The more elaborate the tale, the easier it is to blow holes in it. I mean, how was he going to explain going to the funeral and then managing to get back to do a radio show by 1pm EST that day? Not to mention doing Countdown that night? Did he assume Karma wouldn't watch?

If Keith's telling Karma the truth, the problem is one of impossibility. There's no way to physically do it, even if the funeral was close to Bristol. Plus, if Keith was willing to drop everything and go, why did he do both programs that day? Brian Unger was there, he'd been subbing for three days, he could have done the rest of the week.

The more "facts" Karma provides, the deeper the hole gets.

KFK,
The Big East Conference (baseball) tournament was played in Clearwater ending Sat. May 27. Not sure its related, but since St. Johns and Rutgers both made the semis, it could be.

What are you talking about? She went to see him in NYC not Tampa!

Anon 4:37: I agree with your theory. You make sense. I never knew that he went to Florida, I thought that she went to NY, though.

What are you talking about? She went to see him in NYC not Tampa!

Nope. I have it on good (and credible) authority that she, when pressed for additional information by e-mail, claimed that he came to Tampa.

This saga gets weirder by the day.

He was in Tampa during Spring Training and his show broadcast from there that week.

He was in Tampa during Spring Training and his show broadcast from there that week.

And that brings up another question - if Karma had this long and involved relationship with Keith, why didn't she go to Tampa when he was there for two weeks?

"Karma" lies through her teeth. She's never met him.

You guys do realize its about 4 to 4-1/2 hours driving from Miami to Tampa, right. Not around the corner, or even across the state.

KB1 has said very little about the alleged relationship other than mentioning how she claims it ended. She discussed what she alleges happened around Memorial Day 2006 from what I read on her blog. She has yet to reveal specific details of what happened during the prior 18 months or so when she alleges that they had some type of relationship. Maybe it is possible that they could have seen each other (or not) during the Spring Break trip earlier this year (allegedly, allegedly, allegedly). It is a long drive to Tampa from Miami.

I meant Spring Training, not Spring Break.

KB1 addresses the Tampa question on her blog.

"Nope. I have it on good (and credible) authority that she, when pressed for additional information by e-mail, claimed that he came to Tampa."

LOL. Guess your source wasn't so "credible" after all there "Anonymous".

Look, I relied on what were credible sources. Credible sources can be wrong.

The timeline still doesn't track - where would he find seven hours on that particular Saturday? And it still doesn't answer the questions about his supposed "departure"...

what do you mean where would he found seven hours at on that particular Saturday. There are 24 hours in the day last time I checked. and re 'departure": reading comprehension seems to have failed you. It means he left her hotel room, not returned to the home planet via spaceship.

Brandon, Brandon, Brandon!

How can you persist in believing your eyes, ears, and mind when this is clearly a matter of blind faith? Have you learned nothing from Olbermann? This story can't be true. No further thought is required, and it should not be mentioned.

When you hear something, the fist thing you are supposed to do is decide if you believe it. Then you can look at the relevant facts if forced. This is why Countdown is the "news show of the future" and MSLSD's pride and joy.

Here is how to think about this:

Step ONE -- Hear the accusation: Woman accuses Olby of using her, has e-mails, one of which has been published by the NY Daily News with an appology from Olby. Has a blog with an open forum, can tell you details and provide screencaps of email with Olbermann. Keith is profoundly silent, has not been asked nor has responded to the blog accusing him of being a sexual predator.

Step TWO -- Decide what you believe: Of course, you have blind faith in Olby, so you choose to believe in the denial that he never issued. Mind you, this is not the equivalent of blind faith in a Religion, which is both disgusting and counterproductive unless you are Islamic (then you get a free pass).

Step THREE -- Attack: The e-mails are fake. She is a fake. There were only 6 hours on the day the lady claims she spent seven hours with Olby if you factor in the unusual solar activity that day. The time line "doesn't add up." Olbermann was in another State.

Step FOUR -- what to avoid: Whatever you do, do NOT ask dangerous questions. For instance, asking, "well, why don't we ask Olbermann?" is a foolish thing to do. Asking, "why did Olbermann apologize for e-mails he never wrote" is a crazy thing to do. Asking, "why is Olbermann so quiet and why aren't his lawyers all over this lady?" is pure insanity!

The Olbermann menthod works wonderfully whether you are an Olbyite defending your master, or an Islamofascist declaring 9/11 was a hoax.

For more examples of the Olbermann method, see the response to the Swift Boat Veterans by the New York Times.

Maybe Keith should call Bill O'Reilly for advice on how to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit. Oh, wait, there's no harassment here, nevermind. Oh, wait, it's a story made up by someone who hates Olbermann. Oh, wait, this whole site is full of douchebags.

Abe,

Fine use of the Olbermannian method! I applaud you.

Olbyites, take note. Abe has followed the script extremely well!

Abe,

Fine use of the Olbermannian method! I applaud you.

Olbyites, take note. Abe has followed the script extremely well!

and this method differs from yours how?

Good job JT! Keep it up Olbyloons!

>Good job JT! Keep it up Olbyloons!

Wow, KFk you haven't gotten any smarter since the last time we talked.

Unfortunately JT, nor have you

>Unfortunately JT, nor have you

That's ok, I'm still much smarter than you.

JT,

You are not even smart enough to type your name when you post for God's sake!

As I said, keep providing real-world examples of the Olbermannian method. I need a few useful idiots like you for entertainment.

"You are not even smart enough to type your name when you post for God's sake!"

And you are stupid enough to use this as an indicator of intelligence.

As I said, keep providing real-world examples of the Olbermannian method.

and I see you use that method yourself which brings me back to my question? Of how it is you are different?

I think it is time for you to follow the advice of captain OG readmore.

There are 24 hours in the day last time I checked.

Well, let's see. Keith already said he watched the Giants games that weekend because Bonds was close to breaking Ruth's record. The game on Saturday (the day this allegedly happened) started at 9:05PM EST. The Yankee game that day (Yanks were home against Kansas City) started at 1:05 and ended at around 4:00. That leaves 5 hours (not including travel time to and fro). It's just not possible to make it fit given the conditions.

"why is Olbermann so quiet and why aren't his lawyers all over this lady?"

Because it's crap, they (Keith and/or his legal counsel) know it's crap, therefore why give even the barest hint of legtimacy to it by responding?

It's "crap" that wound up in the Daily News with 1 million readers / day and resulted in an Olbermann apology. I has also landed on big websites like Jossip. Keep hoping that it isn't true.

"Well, let's see. Keith already said he watched the Giants games that weekend because Bonds was close to breaking Ruth's record. The game on Saturday (the day this allegedly happened) started at 9:05PM EST. The Yankee game that day (Yanks were home against Kansas City) started at 1:05 and ended at around 4:00. That leaves 5 hours (not including travel time to and fro). It's just not possible to make it fit given the conditions."

Well, actually, that depends. As far as I can tell he watched the Giants game on TV. The last time I checked most Hotels have a television. It's totally plausable that he both spent time with her AND watched the Giants game.

The last time I checked most Hotels have a television.

The game wasn't nationally televised. It was televised on KTVU (San Francisco's FOX Affiliate) and Fox Sports Net Bay Area. The only way to watch the game in New York would be to watch it on a premium digital cable package or DirecTV, neither of which would be offered at a hotel.

guess he's too cheap to afford Tivo huh? No, no one's ever recorded a game before and watched it later. Not even Olbermann the archivist. LOL. Keep trying people. Keep trying.

Two words for you: Olbermann lies. Okay make it three words. Olbermann lies alot.

You Olbermanniacs have ignored your best defense of your hero. I would believe he is gay before I'd believe any of the crap you are spewing. Why not try that one?

God knows it couldn't hurt: they've tried every other defense they could think of.

Olbermann was with me on the night in question. We were playing chess while listening to Keith's spoken-word recording of "1984."

The answer is obvious my friends. It was Professor Orange Makeup in the bedroom with only half a woody.

guess he's too cheap to afford Tivo huh?

Now who's the one trying to come up with excuses? I bring you statements and evidence that refutes the claim, so you generate another half-baked theory.

Then explain to me why he couldn't have taped the game and I'll believe you. Until then, you look like exactly what you are: someone utterly desperate to "prove" your hero couldn't possibly have done something like this.

This woman has had her emails authenticated by a major American newspaper. He has apologized for said emails. Yet you still persist in the "half-baked" theory that he is somehow innocent. If he's so innocent, why hasn't he sued this woman yet? Why hasn't he denied any of this yet? Why hasn't he flown into the typical Olbermann fit and attacked and lampooned his enemies as he usually does? You know the answer to that one but you just can't admit it. So intead you throw up a bunch of mud against the wall and desperately hope that some of it will stick to obliterate the picture that is clear as day for the rest of us to see. Your boy ain't what you believe him to be.

How many of these theories have you trotted out here so far, only to see massive holes blown into them? And yet, here you are, day after day, throwing up another and hoping that somehow it will stick. It's pathetic enough that you're an Olbermann fan but "anonymous" you're in an entirely different category there. I'm not sure if it's delusional or just insane but whatever the case is, you obviously need professional help for your obsession with all things Olbermann and your compulsive need to protect and defend him.

If you believe him to be so innocent, couldn't he stand on the truth alone? Or is it as I suspect, deep down inside you know that this is true which is why you're twisting yourself into a pretzel to try and poke holes in this theory and desperately hoping and praying that someone will believe your BS including you yourself?

I'm philosophical about all of this. If not today, not tomorrow, not six months from now, at some point, Olbermann will be revealed to all to what some of us already know him to be and can see him for. So anonymous, I suggest you begin looking for someone else to hero-worship there as a back-up plan. Because with Olbermann it's not a question of if, it's only a question of when.

Until then, it's oh so amusing to watch you people tear one another apart in a frenzied stew to exonerate your man who couldn't give a crap if you lived or died. Pathetic? oh yes. Amusing? Absolutely. Keep it coming. This is funny stuff. You just can't see the humor in it the way I can.

I think the worse thing is that he made-up a dead relative to dump her. How will his family feel when they find out their supposed deaths are being used as excuse to end a one-night stand.

That Olbermann is so shady.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/olbermann_beats_oreilly_for_15_minutes_in_the_demo_on_friday_39631.asp#

WOW! You mean Keith had his 15 minutes of ratings fame against a repeat on a Friday in the coveted "demo" only? Hold the presses!

That TVNewser kid sure can sniff out the big stories! Watch out FOX, MSLSD is on the move! Never mind the bizarre Olbermann antics -- just concentrate on 15 minutes!

I have to tell you, this blog by this woman "Karmabites" is very annoying. I'm sure Olbermann slept with her. I'm sure he e-mailed her. However, she is after all and Olbermann fan and a wack-job.

She writes her blog to get attention, then publishes no new e-mails. Rather, in a move that is so Olby, she implies she has damaging stuff and presents none of it.

So far, I have learned Olby is dumb enough to sleep with his crazy fans. Olby should realize his fans are as nuts as he is or worse, and stick to call-girls and porno.

I find her blog useless and annoying now. I know Keith has bad judgement. I expect Keith to have dysfunctional and bizarre relationships. I'm sure Keith is awful in bed, fixated on wierd stuff and an intimacy phobe. So what.

If you are reading this Ms. Bites, shit or get off the pot. Publish the e-mails or go away.

I'm not sure if it's delusional or just insane but whatever the case is, you obviously need professional help for your obsession with all things Olbermann and your compulsive need to protect and defend him.

Thank you ever so much, Dr. Marvin Monroe. I'm so glad you were here to diagnose me.

This woman has had her emails authenticated by a major American newspaper. He has apologized for said emails.

Hold it, Sparky. She claims to be Mr. Grove's source on those e-mails. But she again has failed to provide credible evidence to support that claim.

If he's so innocent, why hasn't he sued this woman yet? Why hasn't he denied any of this yet? Why hasn't he flown into the typical Olbermann fit and attacked and lampooned his enemies as he usually does?

Remember David Letterman and the woman in New Mexico who claimed he was stalking her. I don't remember Letterman talking about it on his program or counter-suing when she got a restraining order against him (an order that was later quashed). By your logic, that would make Letterman guilty because he was silent.

OR, Olbermann is ignoring the entire matter because no one in the media (not even the infamous and deplorable Lloyd Grove) is picking up the story. If Keith were to rail against it, it would only lend credibility to a story that has none at the moment.

>"I don't remember Letterman talking about it on his program or counter-suing when she got a restraining order against him (an order that was later quashed)."

You idiot. Letterman went to court to fight the restraining order. That is how it was "quashed."

Regardless, this woman selectively edits comments to her blog, cries foul while withholding e-mails, and is an overall wacko just like Keith. No wonder they hooked up. All I can say is they deserve each other. Perhaps she could come on his show with a gossip segment in which she tells us all about the great gossip she has no plans of releasing.

It is quite sad that someone would fall for Olby based on his insane show. That that someone would sleep with him is even sadder. That that person would dedicate a blog to an event of such massive unimportance is comical. Without the e-mails, her blog is about as interesting as an episode of the Abrams report.

I did want to see her e-mails, but she is so annoying that I no longer care.

Letterman went to court to fight the restraining order.

I know his lawyers went to court. Letterman never said one word publicly about the entire matter. There is a difference, KfK. You might want to think about it, hm?

OK -- I'll think about it . . . . OK, I'm done -- you are still an idiot. Again, Letterman RESPONDED. He went to court with his lawyer as his proxy. A law firm didn't take up the cause on its own.

Regardless, this loopy chick who had sex with Olby is no threat to you Olbermanniacs. She is just pining away for the man she loves in a public forum. I am convinced she just wants some attention from Olbermann, just like the rest of his wacked-out "fans." If she really wanted to hurt him, she would have thrown it all out there a long time ago.

I just can't believe we live in a time where a grown woman, who flies out to meet a man she's never met before, and then goes to his place and has sex, can rationally go into spasms of victimhood after being ditched the next day.

Olbermann isn't her problem. Her lack of sense and her bad taste in men are her problems.

C--

How dare you! You wrote:

>"I just can't believe we live in a time where a grown woman, who flies out to meet a man she's never met before, and then goes to his place and has sex, can rationally go into spasms of victimhood after being ditched the next day."

She went to a HOTEL with him, not his place! What kind of a girl do you think she is?

Let's see what else she comes up with. I think a healthy dose of goofy pictures and left-wing pablum is on the way, rather than anything more about our dear friend Olby. And I would add that while Olby is not her problem, the fact that she oh-so-loved a bizarro like Olby is indeed a problem and she should be working feverishly to get help for her sick and depraved fetish.

My bad, KFK.

OF COURSE Olbermann would never take a gullible fan to his crib...

There's a comedienne who jokes about the time she went home with a man and started undressing in his mirrored ceiling bedroom, until he told her, "I'd like to make love now. Would you mind leaving...."

I wonder if she at least got Keith's autograph... :D

I don't know if it counts as an autograph, but I heard she has a few permanent man-tan tattoos from their tete-a-tete.

Ewwwwwwwwww.......

:D

So let me see if I understand this. She's a whore because she had sex with Olbermann but Olbermann is still a great guy because he screwed a groupie? Uh-huh. Okay. Whatever you loonies say. . . . Sorry. Neither one of them comes out looking particularly upstanding in this scenario.

Just Asking,

If you can seriously suggest that my arguing that Karmabites is immature and silly, is tantamount to calling her a "whore" and that I've ever argued that Olbermann is a "great guy", there's a Hoochie Mama in this joint who is definitely your soul mate.

If you can seriously suggest that my arguing that Karmabites is immature and silly, is tantamount to calling her a "whore" and that I've ever argued that Olbermann is a "great guy", there's a Hoochie Mama in this joint who is definitely your soul mate.

+ + +

That makes perfect sense. Because if Just Asking disagrees with Cecelia about something and Hoochie Mama (if that is your real handle) disagrees with Cecelia about something else, then that means Just Asking and Hoochie Mama agree on everything. Well, maybe not everything, but the most important things. Like good sound logic.

You're as thick as ten day old chili.

There's a difference between two who people who might "agree" on issues and two people who manifest the same illogical thinking patterns.

There's a difference between two who people who might "agree" on issues and two people who manifest the same illogical thinking patterns.

Correct. Because if they both are AGAINST some things that WE stand for, then you can bet they're both FOR some things together (i'll bet they are, even if you don't). And that couldn't even happen if they weren't illogical thinkers. They're quasi-pseudo-meta "thinkers" that agree illogically. They're Illogicalers.

I never made the claim that you and Just Asking agreed upon ANY subject, rather I said you are both illogical thinkers.

However, if you prefer illogicaler, I won't argue. THAT certainly fits...

But dearie, you are hurling insults and accusations at KarmaBites and have not accused Olbermann of doing anything wrong when clearly, if he is sleeping with his fans and propositioning them for sex via his MSNBC email account, he has. Why can one person in that equation be so wrong according to you and Olbermann exonerated of any responsibility whatsoever. It did take two you know.

Hootchie Mama: You've been hitting the sauce haven't you? Your posts make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Cecilla as always: Excellent points.

But dearie, you are hurling insults and accusations at KarmaBites and have not accused Olbermann of doing anything wrong when clearly, if he is sleeping with his fans and propositioning them for sex via his MSNBC email account, he has.

You're missing a very important step, which is that none of what is being alleged has been proven. You've skipped over directly to "Keith did it, he's guilty" while ignoring the part where someone provides actual PROOF that it happened.

Keith Olbermann cannot be happy about a new blog that popped up over the past few days. For This Relief Much Thanks may just turn out to be KO's worst nightmare. It may well put his ongoing "falafel" jokes in an entirely new context.

The action on this blog is all in the comments section. Let me know what you think.

Posted by RCox at June 29, 2006 09:52 AM
Comments

You're getting all worked up over a sockpuppet?

Must be slow around the ol' office...

Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2006 11:52 AM

I'm not quite sure why 11:52 seems to think this blog is the work of a "sock puppet". Why in the world would anyone make up a story about bedding Olbermann? It's not like he's a Hollywood Hunk. In fact, it'd be the last thing I'd ever admit to. And it's not even as if he's popular (check the ratings, he's at the bottom of the barrel). Oh, I'm sure his lunatic fans would love to believe that this was all a hoax but it seems to me this person (and others) are going into specifics, posting emails and keeping a very close eye on who's reading that blog.

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keith Olbermann cannot be happy about a new blog that popped up over the past few days. For This Relief Much Thanks may just turn out to be KO's worst nightmare. It may well put his ongoing "falafel" jokes in an entirely new context.

The action on this blog is all in the comments section. Let me know what you think.

Posted by RCox at June 29, 2006 09:52 AM
Comments

You're getting all worked up over a sockpuppet?

Must be slow around the ol' office...

Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2006 11:52 AM

I'm not quite sure why 11:52 seems to think this blog is the work of a "sock puppet". Why in the world would anyone make up a story about bedding Olbermann? It's not like he's a Hollywood Hunk. In fact, it'd be the last thing I'd ever admit to. And it's not even as if he's popular (check the ratings, he's at the bottom of the barrel). Oh, I'm sure his lunatic fans would love to believe that this was all a hoax but it seems to me this person (and others) are going into specifics, posting emails and keeping a very close eye on who's reading that blog.

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It hasn't been proven he didn't do this either. But somehow, you're ready to villify her and make a hero out of him. Double-standard much?

Hey look at me everybody, I'm a trolling bitch!

I love the smell of Keith Olbermann in the morning, he smells, smells like, well, like my ASS!

It hasn't been proven he didn't do this either.

Anyone else find this funny? Apparently this person knows nothing about "burden of proof."

she's not in a court of law. Except in the lies of the olbermann lunachicks who believe that she should be stoned, burned at the stake or a combination of the above. It's the internet buddy: free speech. Look into it.

It's the internet buddy: free speech.

Except she's making an accusaton. An accusation without EVIDENCE is meaningless. It has no value.

I could say "Bill O'Reilly kicks puppies!", but unless I have pictures of BOR kicking puppies, it's just bald rhetoric with no substance.

So because this isn't the court of law I can say that you're a closet pedophile, not offer any proof, and demand you prove me wrong? Riiight...

Burden of proof isn't something that applies only to the courts, it is something that applies everywhere.

LOL. Actually you can say anything about me here you want to. And I can say anything about YOU that I want to. And there's not a damn thing either of us can do about it. You may not agree with what this woman has to say. You may not believe what she has to say. You may not agree with what anyone has to say about Olbermann or anything else but you can't sue them for it. Ask Bob Cox about "bloggers rights": it's a subject he's very well-versed in. Here's a clue for you "Nonfactor", you're not a lawyer. Stop trying to play one here. We have a real lawyer in residence, Mr. Dollar. And I'm sure he's laughing his ass off at you reading your inane and idiotic posts.

Oh and Blog Girl has posted evidence. You just chose not to believe it. I suspect it's why Olbermann has kept his mouth shut about this. He's terrified either others will come forward or this one will post everything she has on him and take this story much bigger than it already is.

I know there's nothing to do about it, but if you want to appear credible you don't attempt to shift the burden of proof onto somebody else.

What evidence, Just Asking?

She was the source of Lloyd Grove's emails and posted those emails in full on her blog. You can't read there too well can you Nonfactor?

That is evidence that she had conversations with him, not evidence that she flew to New York because he told her to, and not evidence that she's easy.

I'm sorry, Mr Burden of Proof, but it IS evidence. It may not be evidence you like, or evidence you choose to accept, but it is evidence.

Your behavior would be funny if you weren't totally buying into it. She's shown evidence that she's talked with Olbermann via e-mail. Where is the evidence that she had sex with him, or spent a day with him, etc.

You can believe that she has evidence for all these things, and it looks as if you've fooled yourself into thinking that, but until she shows evidence of her claims she's just tossing out accusations.

These people wouldn't believe her if she had video of herself having sex with Olbermann.

And one thing is very certain. Olbermann has improperly used his email account at MSNBC for personal purposes. Face it, he's a slime who has no hesitation in using his fans for his own pleasure. You don't trade sexual emails with your fan and you damn sure don't have sex with them unless you're a perv of the highest order. If Olbermann is your liberal anchor news savior, I'd say you people have more problems than just your inability to win elections.

> Where is the evidence that she had sex with him, or spent a day with him, etc.

She has stated it on a public website subject to the laws of the US of A. Her accusation IS evidence. If this were a crime she could go into a court of law and make her statement with nothing else to back it up, and a jury would be entitled to convict if they so decided. That's because what she says IS evidence, whether you like it or not.

You are confusing evidence with proof. If you want to ask where is the proof, then you would be on firmer ground. But proof in its literal sense is not something that we get in many cases. We have to settle for evidence. Just like the victim in the Duke case, she has her charge as to what happened. Her statement is evidence. A jury will decide if it is believable or not. But it IS evidence.

Olbermann has improperly used his email account at MSNBC for personal purposes.

Is that against MSNBC policy for their anchors?

Face it, he's a slime who has no hesitation in using his fans for his own pleasure.

You don't trade sexual emails with your fan

you damn sure don't have sex with them unless you're a perv of the highest order.

Your proof of this is where? And even if he did have sex with a fan, what is wrong with consenting adults having sex?

----

To dollar - just because somebody makes an accusation does not mean it is evidence against the person the accusation is being made. A testimony or allegation becomes evidence not when it's stated in a public forum, but when it is used in the court of law--under oath. I don't know how you can make the claim that any accusation = evidence against said person. You just have evidence that a claim is made, not evidence that Olbermann did the things she's alleging.

"And even if he did have sex with a fan, what is wrong with consenting adults having sex?"

Well, then why the hell are you yabbering on about proof, lies, evidence, etc?

'She's lying...but even if she's not lying...what's the big deal....'

Well, that certainly covers all the bases....go in peace, my son....instead of stupidly continuing to make your readers think that you consider it a quite a big deal indeed...

(I don't know why Johnny bothers.)

Me either Cecila. JD is a lawyer, something they apparently don't realize and I think he's far more qualified to explain to them about burden of proof, accusations, etc. That woman isn't in a court of law. Her first amendment rights alone give her the right to say anything she'd like about Olby and no, she can't be sued for defamation of character by his fans. If he's not complaining, I'm not sure what in hell there problem is other than that they're Olby fans to begin with and obviously already have some sort of mental condition which makes them think Olby is a hero of some kind. Like Olby, his fans talk out of both sides of their mouth and twist "facts" to prove their "case". They're equally pathetic in my eyes.

The Olbermaniacs won't see anything wrong in this because they don't view the big picture. Once again they fall back on the Clinton defense that "it's about the sex."

It isn't. It's about (ok, ok, for the Olby legal experts out there, allegedly) disgusting behavior of using an obsessed fan for dirty pictures, and getting her to go to NY on her own dime so you can get your rocks off. And then some lame excuse to move on after without the decency of an "Sorry, didn't work out."

Could it be that, if true, he brought his own wine and glasses so there was no evidence he ws ever there? Plausible deniability?

"(I don't know why Johnny bothers.)"

Neither do I, C. Non claims that eyewitness testimony is not evidence until it is given in a court of law. Under Non's theory, there is no evidence against anybody until the trial starts, and every charge made, every indictment filed has been filed without evidence.

I guess this means there's no evidence against Scooter Libby, because it hasn't been presented in a courtroom.

Well said as always JD.

Here's where Olby's defenders lose credibility. They keep raising the bar higher and higher demanding more "proof" even when said proof would show them nothing without independent verification (as in the headers and return paths of the emails she's posted that they're all clamoring to see). Thus, Karma's failure to post said "evidence" in their mind is automatic confirmation she's "lying", again only in their warped logic. Meanwhile, they come here and whine, moan, and groan about "evidence" and "burden of proof" and how they're going to sue, me, you, Bob Cox, Karma, Matt Drudge, Bill O'Reilly, Fox, and anyone who they feel is responsible for "setting up" Olbermann, their Lord and Master, when it's clear they don't know the law from a hole in their ground or their own holes for that matter. I can easily see why Olbermann is their hero and why they think he's perfect, they are as overwrought and hysterical as he is, and equally devoid of anything remotely resembling facts.

JD is a lawyer, something they apparently don't realize and I think he's far more qualified to explain to them about burden of proof, accusations, etc.

Hardly. Most of the incompetants in congress are lawyers, and a reason-challenged sheister like johnny dollar merely regurgitates the same tortured logic as this moron -- so one thing's for sure, if a JD post concerns the law, you can pretty much count on it being worthless: "It didn't say we couldn't have done, couldn't have made that decision, see?" Mr. Bush said at a news conference in Chicago. "They were silent on whether or not Guantanamo, whether or not we should have used Guantanamo. In other words, they accepted the use of Guantanamo, the decision I made."

Just wanted to point out one thing to the Obermann Watch people, Karma (and many of her defenders) were former "olbermaniacs" as you like to call them.

Some of them, I'm pretty sure, have made an appearance or two on Olbermann Watch.

The Olbermann "true believers" will never accept what Karma is saying....but you Olbermann Watchers know, what on earth could possibly turn some of Olbermann's most avid defenders against him?

The truth, that's what.

No, the one and only "truth" for the Olbermaniacs is that their man is entirely blameless and totally perfect and can do no wrong. Even when he does.

And Johnny Worthless? You kinda are.

" No, the one and only "truth" for the Olbermaniacs is that their man is entirely blameless and totally perfect and can do no wrong. Even when he does."

My point exactly. So, what made a group of people that were once described exactly that way do such an about face?

Doesn't anyone wonder why the QT gal pals have done such an about face on this? Cox once accused them of launching a consipiracy to take down this very site. Now they're being accused of a conspiracy to take down Olbermann? Very odd.

It was all part of Bob Cox's brilliant plan don't you see? Corrupt and recruit the QT girls and then when they all worked together to "set up" Olbermann, their ultimate goal would be achieved!

I wouldn't say the QT gals did an about-face, it's just what they are being accused of. Big difference there. That theory works just great until you examine the facts and realize that the group had a long-standing feud with Olbermannwatch, well-documented here. But the Olbyloons have never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory as we've seen demonstrated here, time and time again.

Cecilia, can you answer the statement you made: "'She's lying...but even if she's not lying...what's the big deal....'"

Sure, if what she's alleging is true it's sad that she was dumped by a person she admired, but it's definitely not the travesty people here try and make it out to be.

People act like there is only one side to the story and the accuser's side is 100% true.

If I said that there is no evidence until it is used in court I left out part of what I was typing. Yeah, I left out part of what I was saying. Something doesn't become evidence once it's used in the public forum; it becomes evidence when testimony is given to a _________ (I couldn't find the word so I left it out--the police, the government, etc.).

But if you're still trying to make the claim that this accuser has evidence against Olbermann because she typed it out on a blog you're really mistaken.

And excuse me if I don't take Mr. Dollar as the highest legal authority on this blog after his 4th amendment debacle.

Islamo Fascist Sympathizer Krazy Keith Olbermann Hates America !
Islamo Fascist Sympathizer Krazy Keith Olbermann Hates America's Women !
Islamo Fascist Sympathizer Krazy Keith Olbermann Hates America's Women's Freedoms !