So that the other Groksters don’t get on my case (again) about dragging this out, and perhaps save you all some time in having to read the details (especially Pat Hynes – he’s such a busy dude):
Well, I got a couple more emails – from friends. One in particular REALLY bothered me – it turned out that Pat Hynes WAS being a bully – he was using Chicago tactics on MY friend, intimating that he could end up involved legally with me because of this post.
In other words, by putting out the spectre of my friend having to get a lawyer and being brought to court, Pat Hynes hoped that to use my friendship with this person against me.
For only political gain for his client.
Essentially, Pat Hynes is trying to shut me up about talking about Sean Mahoney’s false claim to be a big part of the TEA Party here in NH. Seems that me saying that Sean Mahoney is trying to ride the TEA Party coattails has bothered them both mightily.
I may also add, a whole bunch of others too – Sean Mahoney should be expecting to be asked some really tough questions now – more than a few folks are not amused.
I ended up with my last post this way:
>> It is in your best interest.
Am I to take that as a threat, Pat? You’ve now crossed a line you should not have; you are now making it personal; you REALLY want to go there?????
Apparently, he did. To recap from my earlier post:
- The Prequel – April 15, 2010 – TEA Party event in Portsmouth.
- The Reminder: (7/16) Local paper article – "presser" (maybe 2 reporters?)
- The Claim: (7/17) I’m with the TEA Party!: "…having attended and spoken at many of its events around New Hampshire…"
- The Call: (7/19) Call to the campaign office.
- The Email: (7/19) The "clarifier" email
- The "YOU’RE IN THE WRONG" Emails
And they continued – a number of them on the 19th, 20th, and 21st (and he said I was the one doing the harrassing?) all demanding that I call him (one even called me "a foll" [sic])
- Calls with short endings
Let’s put this up (posted 7/21 just before I left for Las Vegas) as a reminder – I was losing patience with Pat Hynes:
I could have repeated this image a couple of times to more accurately depict the history, but once was enough (you get the idea).
And yes, I will add this "No, I am not recording this; it is against NH law to record someone without their permission."
But hey, being a geek, I think a waveform tells a picture just SO much better than a whole boatload of words (er, boat..but that’s for another part of the tale).
Well, we had words. Some of them short – really short. And so were the calls. Pat Hynse certainly is aggressive when he wants to do the "overpower" bit – almost a bully, truth be told. I think the calls could best be described as what you might hear on a heated political show: "talk over" (or should that be scream over??). Oh yeah – that bolded part? Yeah, that was part of one of the calls.
During one of them, there was a short pause during one of the calmer calls – I remember as I had walked out from my home office to the kitchen and I banged into the cabinets. He quickly asked: "are you recording this?"
Now, he has a reason to ask – during a lot of bloggers calls, I ask the organizer of the call ahead of time if I can record the call for later posting. Thus, Pat Hynes knows that I have such technology – when he was working for the McCain campaign, I asked that of him several times. However, my truthful response was this:
"No, I am not recording this; it is against NH law to record someone without their permission."
Looks similar to what I put on that post – and I meant it and it was true – I was not recording the conversation.
- More emails – and finding out he was calling my friends behind my back.
Well, he emailed me again at 5:22am on 7/20 to call (I was still in dream land). And again on 7/21 7:54pm to call him (I was at a meeting). I emailed him on 7/22 at 2:21am (I stayed up so as not to miss my flight in 4 hours for Vegas):
At some point after I have returned from RightOnline
In other words: Pat, take a hint – I don’t want to talk to you now. Why would I want to call someone who just wanted to scream in my ear? Did he listen?
Nope:
On 7/22/2010 5:33 AM, Patrick Hynes wrote:
> We need to talk this morning. Cell phones work in Vegas.
>
> XXX-XXX-XXXX
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>And again:
On 7/22/2010 2:19 PM, Patrick Hynes wrote:
Re: Need to talk skip Call me
Getting repetitious? Yeah – I thought so too:
On 7/22/2010 11:48 PM, Skip Murphy wrote:
Am just getting online. Look Pat, I’m on vacation – I already answered your email with my answer.
Let’s be blunt: YOU think we need to talk – you have failed to make the case to me that *I* think I have to; I’m just a little bitty blogger with a small blog in small little NH. You’re a national powerhouse who the monied powerful and powerful-wannabees are looking to hire; I’m not even the dot at the end of your sentence.
Besides, I already post that T-Paw Op-Ed about priorities and said nice things about it.
– Skip
GraniteGrok.com
- Pat Hynes accuses me of a crime
Well, I got a couple more emails – from friends. One in particular REALLY bothered me – it turned out that Pat Hynes WAS being a bully – he was using Chicago tactics on MY friend, intimating that he could end up involved legally because of this post.
In other words, by putting out the spectre of my friend having to get a lawyer and being brought to court, Pat Hynes hoped that to use my friendship with this person against me.
For only political gain for his client.
Essentially, Pat Hynes is trying to shut me up about talking about Sean Mahoney’s false claim to be a big part of the TEA Party here in NH. Seems that me saying that Sean Mahoney is trying to ride the TEA Party coattails has bothered them both mightily.
I may also add, a whole bunch of others too – Sean Mahoney should be expecting to be asked some really tough questions now – more than a few folks are not amused.
I warned Pat Hynes that he was making it personal – and he went the next step anyways:
On 7/23/2010 5:07 AM, Patrick Hynes wrote:
Skip
You illegally recorded our conversation and lied about it when I asked
you if you were recording it. This is a serious problem and I sm
taking it very seriously. I would prefer to resolve this one on one
before it escalates. But it's your choice, I suppose.
Your powerhouse rhetoric is just silly.
Sent from my iPhone
So, Pat Hynes decided to accuse me of a crime? Really? Is he THAT STUPID? I guess this is what happens when one becomes high and mighty and cavorts with the powerful.
So I wrote him back:
On 7/23/2010 6:58 AM, Skip Murphy wrote:
>> You illegally recorded our conversation
You know, I could have a whole lot of fun with this inanity of your’s, so let me respond with this: And you know that the wave form in that post is your’s…..how??? Even when all three of us were doing Meet The New Press (gee, should I start reconsidering those lost 4 days of scrubbing the ‘Grok of you, FOR you, eh?), I couldn’t get you to shoulder any of the post-production chores of producing the pod-casts – because if you had, you wouldn’t be even attempting this accusation about the posted waveform I posted.
Laughingstock is coming to mind. So let’s set the record straight: it isn’t, I didn’t, and you are seemingly now jumping off the proverbial cliff by whipping up stuff out of thin air. The waveform? Well, let’s just say that the song "You’re so vain", is starting to ring in my ears, too.
> Your powerhouse rhetoric is just silly.
Really? And yeah, this has brought back memories of "…McCain seemed tired…" Otherwise, explain why you are pursuing me thusly?
I will say this, my thoughts on this are starting to mirror that of W.C Fields" "Go away, boy, ya bother me…..".
So this is my last email to you un
til I return from RightOnline. I’m signing off, as I’m going to go do a local radio show now…..I hope to get a podcast of THAT show now too! I am going to have FUN while I’m here!– Skip
GraniteGrok.com
The emails stopped and so did the calls. Betcha I hear something again.
But that will be for tomorrow.
