Ten reasons why Mark Bourrie is the world’s biggest [you fill in the blank]
Mark Bourrie lives in Ottawa and he writes books. He claims to teach at Carleton University. Those are about the only nice things I can say about him (not that I’ve ever read any of his books, and not that I’m particularly in love with Ottawa, mind you). Otherwise, Mark Bourrie is…well, you decide. Share your thoughts in comments, below. Be creative.
It is my hope that he sues me for expressing opinions about him, because it is defensible for being (a) fair comment about an infamous [fill in the blank] and (b) the truth. Here’s ten reasons why, after many years of reflection, I have assigned Mark the title of World’s Biggest [you fill in the blank].
1. He’s prepared to drag innocent people (ie. in my case, my family) into his obsessions. The only other people who have ever done that are two white supremacists, Kathy Shaidle and Arnie Lemaire, and that isn’t good company to be keeping. Here’s a sampling of Bourrie’s most-recent work, which he posted (and then later removed) on his web site, Ottawa Watch:
2. He posts crazy stuff on the Internet using fake names. Take, for example (please) the Wikipedia page that’s up about me. Personally, I don’t think I even deserve a Wikipedia page. (I have told its “editors” that, too.) But they have kept the entry up, and Mark Bourrie has therefore kept using it as a sandbox for years, periodically dropping into it various turds (the latest fake name linked to him: ”Spoonkymonkey,” with which there are glowing edits of his Wikipedia page, and which makes him out to be the greatest journalist in the world). A few years back, things got so bad, Wikipedia locked the thing down. If you want to lose a few precious minutes in your life, you can see the sad tale here.
3. He makes defamatory statements. I’m about to sue him for a few. But it’s nothing new: a few years back, Mark Bourrie stated that I engaged in criminal conduct. When you make an allegation like that about a lawyer (which I am), you’d better be prepared to back it up. Mark Bourrie couldn’t; it was unadulterated bullshit. He was therefore obliged to retract and apologize, and pay a substantial sum in a settlement. Here’s what he was forced to publish at the time:
4. I’m not the only one who feels Mark is a [fill in the blank], apparently. Others seemingly do, too. In 2009, an editor at the National Post got fed up with Mark’s behaviour, and wrote that he was – and these are quotes - “shrill,” “malicious,” “misguided,” and that he has “ravings.” Ouch! You can read all about it in the Post of March 20, 2009. Ditto the Ottawa Citizen in August 25, 2012, which had this to say about him: “That Bourrie is now suggesting – after working with Xinhua for two years – that the Chinese news agency is populated by a nest of spies strikes me as somewhat naive given his former employer’s hardly obscure reputation as a possible front for Beijing.”
5. He does odd things. Take a look at this fairly-recent example: when my candidate, Sandra Pupatello, lost her bid for the Ontario Liberal leadership, Mark Bourrie was overcome with joy. He sent me countless emails and comments, trying to ensure that I felt lousy. He even – and this is really, really odd – went to the trouble of sending me a funeral arrangement of flowers, complete with a card bearing these words: “Sorry to see your career die at such a young age. Hopefully interesting new challenges await in the used car sales profession.” Isn’t that, well, a bit nutty? I mean, doesn’t the guy have another doorstopper to write or something?
6. He cannot help himself. Even when he’s clearly hurting his own cause – even when he’s been revealed to be the author of serial nastiness, making use of fake names – Mark Bourrie keeps at it. As “Woodburning Tool,” on January 28, 2013: he declares that I am a “cowardly cocksucker,” and “gutless.” As ”Vrnish,” on the next day: “you are such a psychopath.” At the start of February, as “Justin Time.” As below, “Arthur Ellis,” ”Marie Tessier,” “Isoletus,” and so on and so on. Why does he do it? Beats me. But a picture starts to emerge, eventually. It isn’t flattering.
7. He writes some of the craziest emails you’ve ever seen. Here’s one gem, from October 1, 2007: “Kinsella, By the way, I’m shopping myself around to Earnscliffe, Reid, Navigator, et al as a free witness in their libel actions against you. I will get up in front of a jury and tell them about all the evil shit you’ve done to me, going back ten years now, how you’ve tried to “ratfuck” me, tried to ruin my life, etc. It will show what an evil, obsessive psychopath you are. I’ll stand there, with my cute little kids watching, and tell about how you tried to paint their dad as an anti-semite, and they’ll cry, I’m sure, when I remind the court that their great-grandfather was murdered in a Nazi camp. And I’ll do all that to you before my case gets to court. You’ve been warned. Mark.” I like that it ended with ”Mark.” It made it all feel seem more friendly, somehow.
8. He’s a bit obsessive. Sure, I’ve finally put up a “Top Ten” list about Mark Bourrie – but only after putting up with Mark Bourrie’s online stalking for ten years. Besides, my modest attempt barely compares to Mark’s own relentless efforts. To wit, where does this fellow who professes to be a busy Carleton University/University of Ottawa/who knows historian, writer and journalist find the time to put together entire web sites devoted to the subject of one of his (many) enemies? But Mark does, and did. You can read his handiwork at “Kinsellasux” or “WarrenKinsellaSux,” the web sites he put together about one solitary subject - namely, me. Like I say: a bit obsessive.
9. Is he really, truly doing this sort stuff, and actually using false names and whatnot? Wikipedia says he is. From just one investigation they did in 2006: 1) The locus of the dispute is editing of the articles concerning Warren Kinsella and other figures prominent in the Canadian political blogosphere. There is some evidence that the principals in this matter are themselves participants in the Canadian political blogosphere, especially Mark Bourrie. The dispute between these two gentlemen involved legal actions concerning alleged libel… 2) There is substantial evidence that Arthur_Ellis, who previously edited as Mark_Bourrie and Ceraurus, has also edited as Marie_Tessier, Isotelus and numerous sockpuppets…And therefore: 1) Arthur_Ellis is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie. Passed 7-0 at 02:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC) And, thusly: 1) Should Arthur Ellis editing under any name or ip violate the article ban imposed by this decision, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time…2) Should Arthur Ellis edit under any other username or use anonymous ips on a regular basis he may be banned from Wikipedia for an appropriate period…It’s a lot of wiki-gobbledegook to me, too. But the gist of it is that Mark Bourrie sure doesn’t act his age. (Oh, and he’s back at it, too: the Kinsella Wikipedia page has, yet again, been locked down.)
10. He’s [you fill in the blank]. He really, truly is. Mark, get a life. Or, better yet, get help. You need it.