Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive

Careful with that linking . . .
Page 1 of 1

Author:  joelr [ Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:56 am ]
Post subject:  Careful with that linking . . .

As Mango Joe Penaz discovered this morning, it's a bad idea to link to the website of somebody you've ticked off -- say, for example, by letting one of your students point a gun at his back. (Yes, the time that Mango Joe did that, and then tried to brush it off, it ticked me off. It did not, however, make me lose any respect for him.)

There's a few tricks that can be played on the intertubes, and, as Mango Joe discovered this morning*, when he linked to one of my websites it led to this. Other folks can go to, but links from any penazian website go there.

I wish I'd had a camera when he'd clicked on a link and seen the screen come up, all black, with the words:


Dollars to doughnuts: he ran out of the room to avoid being "probed."

*He discovered it shortly after I told him, via email. He didn't even thank me.

Author:  340PD [ Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Careful with that linking . . .

LOL. Nice. :lol:

Author:  joelr [ Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Careful with that linking . . .

340PD wrote:
LOL. Nice. :lol:

And it gets funnier. Honest. Go here, and page down . . .

Mango Joe wrote:
As of 9/14 he has changed the links I directed you to previously, to have some kind of malware on them. I clicked on one after he sent me an email bragging about it, and it started some kind of time bomb malware I was able to block.

Yup. Poor Mango Joe thought that the depenazing page was actually scanning him, and was going to cut off his penaz. He's the sort of person who would, I guess, watch an old Johnny Carson episode, then drive to the Schlossen Cutoff, get out of the car, and cut off his schlossen.

Not the sharpest bulb in the drawer, that Mango Joe. A couple of years ago he was fuming about a negative review from somebody claiming, possibly truthfully, to have been one of his students, and who was less than happy with his instruction.
He did try to sell us a bunch of stuff, though. Bowling balls, floor polishes, holsters, and some sort of nutritional supplements and tried to talk my other buddy into buying some sort of "dealership" from him for that.

I don't think he's a ripoff artist. Just a moron who doesn't know anything but will try to sell everything.

When Penaz asked me what he should do, I told him -- my deal with myself is that if I give advice, I give the best I've got -- that he should either forget about the silly site, or sue. Link to it? "You've got to be kidding," I said, "that's the stupidest thing you could do, other than posting some sort of reply."

So, of course, he posted several replies -- at least one of them in his wife's distinctive writing style -- and linked to it, repeatedly, on many of his eyebleeding websites, which brought this obscure post on an obscure website to the top hit, most of the time, for a google search for "Joe Penaz", and leading folks to gems of wisdom like these, my personal favorites:

The government is hiring Penaz to provide antiterrorist training [Penaz was, at the time, claiming he was doing "CTU" training. JR] start buying burkas!
Mr. Penaz's presentation was punctuated with self-aggrandizing stories about his many claimed accomplishments. This was markedly similar to the verbal diarrhea splattered across his website.[Emphasis added. JR]
and one positive review that I'm confident he didn't write himself:
It wasn't that bad
I took Joe's class a few weeks ago. It wasn't that bad. You get what you pay for, and I didn't pay much, and didn't get much, but I didn't need much, and I just wanted to get my renewal over with, and I already know everything there is to know about guns anyway.

Just to be clear: when I post something, I claim authorship; I didn't author any of these Penaz ripoffreport posts. Hell, this is the first time I've ever linked to Penaz's less-than-flattering review in a publicly accessible area, although I will admit having giggled over it with friends privately before.

ETA: if I had to guess -- I don't, but I will -- the doctor is a clinical psychologist, not an MD; some of the "unsolicitated" endorsements of Penaz were, in fact, solicited by Penaz or authored by him; at least one of the posters is John M. Erickson, the same Sullyite "Ardent Observer" who's been kicked out of here, repeatedly; and the initial source of the complaint was some guy who felt ripped off. But there's no way to be sure.

About the only thing I'm sure of is that Penaz turned what should and could have been a mild annoyance to him -- so somebody else thinks he does a lousy job; why should he care? -- into a major embarrassment.


Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group