Hello, my name is Dave Knechel. Good luck pronouncing my last name. I grew up in Flemington, NJ, but moved to the Orlando, FL area in 1981.
When I moved to Orlando I got a job as a hard line artist and designing ad layouts for a department store chain. Previous to that, I spent my early years in the restaurant business. When I was 4 years old, my grandparents bought me a “paint by number” oil painting set. I did not like it at all. It was not creative and the paints were inferior. I told my parents and they bought me a real set. My first painting was the Rock of Gibraltar because my father sold insurance for Prudential back then. One day I will retire and go back to oils. In the meantime, I will try to put a little money in my pockets by writing.
19 responses so far ↓
teenfg // February 26, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I would like to thank you for taking a stand for your beliefs! The Urban Semiotic has typed false words on their post “Jesus’s body found”. Please continue to fight their way of thought.
Marinade Dave // February 27, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Thank you, teenfg, for taking time to comment here.
I absolutely believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion and there’s not much more fiery than how people feel about religion. It’s a very personal thing. One thing about that blog, the author is and was a teacher at the college level. I think, for most educators, it’s inherent in their nature to attempt to stimulate and open the minds of students. Sometimes, this means stirring up the pot a bit. Sometimes, the pot boils over. That post, though, was not meant to educate. It was a personal opinion laced with facts, some of which are merely presumed. That is the purpose of most blogs, and rightfully so. Remember, the show has not aired yet.
In the case of yesterday’s topic, my issue was with the idea that America’s far right, the religious right and George W. Bush are responsible for most of the ills in the world and somehow, there seems to be a snide snicker when the notion that Jesus was a hoax fits into this conspiracy. Here’s what the post said: 1) A tomb was found in Israel. 2) The far right is trying to press their religion on the Muslim populations of Iraq and Iran. The second point is not true. I’m not witnessing mass conversions to Christianity in the Iraqi army and I don’t think the American soldier is attempting to do that in any manner. On the NY Times article about the Republican Party not having a suitable candidate, that is an opinion coming from a Democrat writer. Most importantly, though is just how does that fit into the upcoming documentary? The only thing I can assume anywhere there might be a tie in is that if this (The Talpiot Tomb) issue somehow sinks Christianity, the far right in America will lose their reason for being righteous and disappear forever. Well, it won’t and that is that, and that view is certainly a stretch as far as I’m concerned. What I read in that post sounds to me as if all Christians throughout the world are Bush-worshiping, archconservative, Bible thumping Republicans and that is just absurd.
The world is full of archconservatives and ultra-liberals that absolutely hate each other with a vengeance. One is just as bad as the other. Both sides can have believers and nonbelievers and are not exclusive of each other. Sometimes, one perches too high on the fence, crows too loudly, and doesn’t listen to the cackling of others or just doesn’t care. In spite of it all, stimulation of the mind will always be an important issue to me, regardless of which side of the fence one straddles.
anonymous // March 6, 2007 at 6:25 pm
for fear of backlash i wish to remain anonymous. i do not find this insulting to mr. boles. in fact, i agree with you.
Marinade Dave // March 6, 2007 at 6:57 pm
I am purposely going to answer to a derogatory post written about me today here instead of creating a new post. I do not write posts detrimental to fellow bloggers. I will comment back, though. [That post has since been edited and my name was removed. I have been removed from every post I commented on.]
David Boles’ Urban Semiotic
I have been a faithful reader at his site for almost two years, proffering my opinions in a civilized and friendly manner. Please go there, read the post titled, “Why Do You Hide Your Identity?” and carefully digest the comments. There is no doubt who the entire post was about. Someone he deems duplicitous.
For my final comment of the day on that post, my response was published and it was deleted soon after that. This coming from the person who wrote the rule that once something is written and posted, it may never be removed. It must remain in the public realm forever, as if written in stone. I am compelled to write it here because he removed my response, therefore, breaking his own rule. This is what I wrote:
There is no doubt who you wrote this post about today. You were chewin’ at the bit waiting for me to come here and your comment back to one commenter, proves it (”…but the fact that [Marinade Dave] fosters the disconnect between his Real Name and his Fake Online Persona only proves my point today in spades.”). You called me a fraud, deceptive and harmful. My dictionary still defines duplicitous as, “Given to or marked by deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech” and that’s the way I interpret the word. A slanderous one at that.
When I stated that conservative/liberal point in my meme that you so kindly invited me to be a part of, you neglected to fully understand the meaning and you interpreted it to suit your liking. Some of my conservative friends are more so than me. Some of my liberal friends are more so than me. So what if I hang my pants somewhere down the middle? I am diverse. Depending on the issue, I might lean one way or the other. That does not make me duplicitous. I clearly take solid stands on most issues in the presence of both parties. I have done so on my posts, as well. So what if I sometimes play the Devil’s Advocate? It opens new doors and stimulates the conversation. If I am that duplicitous, why do I have so many friends and why do people even bother to talk to me if I cannot be trusted? Many welcome me for my sharp debating skills and can’t wait to get me involved. That, sir, does not make me a liar or deceitful. How conveniently meme #2 was ignored: “As far as friends go, you won’t find anyone as faithful and trusting as me. I believe in humanity. You must prove me wrong before I’ll accept anything else.” Marinade Dave wrote that.
As far as writing unkindly of you, I don’t feel I did. I began by talking up your background. I stated that as a blogger, you are entitled to your opinion, and rightfully so. That does not mean I have to agree with it. I wrote my opinion in return, in an area that gets few readers, in a response to someone who sought me out from your site and that post on Jesus being found dead in his grave. You bet, that’s a heated issue and I would have rather stated the same thing here [on his blog], but I’m sure that would not have been allowed. And you did turn comments off. And you have shut me off before. And I was angry with you for doing that to me so many times, including that day. If you don’t like what someone writes, they’re trash. And I did not write a post about you. It was a comment.
There are plenty of examples right here on your blog where you indignantly ripped me a new opening. Here’s a good example - your comment back to me on your Gerald Ford post:
http://urbansemiotic.com/2006/12/27/private-life-public-death-the-perils-of-inappropriate-veneration/
You ignored everything I wrote and went right in for the kill by saying, “it’s best not to comment instead of commenting indignantly.” To anyone who read my comments, there was nothing that could be construed as being indignant to you or anyone else. You just didn’t like my opinion and I felt your wrath. I have felt it before when you have so graciously said, “Thanks for the comment, Dave” and then shut me off by ignoring anything further. Yet, I kept coming back, day after day, sometimes commenting, sometimes not. Then I saw today and your clown face depiction of me. I wrote in a calm and gracious manner and then you began the stabs and the final thrust after the initial humiliation. You lured me in and I am reeling.
BAM! 5 minutes later, it up and vanished. That was his response.
Addendum added Aug. 9, 2007:
This perplexed mind, David W. Boles, has alienated his most ardent readers since my issue with him. He had a very good reader base for a long time. What happened? For one thing, he uses, abuses and abases people. He takes advantage of them through his twisted method of manipulation. He sets people up and keeps them around until new victims pop up and then he spits them out before they have a chance to do it to him. He talks like he’s still teaching but he hasn’t been in a legitimate school system for years. Oh yeah, there’s the “Boles University” joke, so he can tell everyone he founded his own… not a college, but a UNIVERSITY, teaching junk that isn’t accredited by anyone. BIG 2 my foot. You lost one of them. BIG 1? I don’t think so. You are a number 2.
(Name withheld) // March 7, 2007 at 7:53 am
If you don’t moderate comments, you can delete this once you see it, but I couldn’t find an e-mail address to send this privately.
Not that you wanted to turn this into a bash D@vid session, but I find it interesting that several regular commenters/readers - myself included - have been sort of banished from his blog community.
I’m sure he probably blames it on his INFPJT or whatever the hell his personality is.
Keith Wall // March 7, 2007 at 8:28 am
“Duplicitous” “Fake Online Persona” WTF?
(Name withheld) // March 7, 2007 at 9:51 am
I am a regular reader of DWB. I have never left a comment. I have seen his anger against you and others. Thats why I have never left a comment.
Marinade Dave // March 7, 2007 at 10:44 am
I have no animosity towards David whatsoever. His blog was instrumental in getting mine off the ground. Many readers came here from his site. Of course, my comments and the stands I took had a lot to do with that and, up until yesterday, he didn’t seem to mind linking my “Fake Online Persona” to his blog.
I say, let bygones be bygones.
Nick Davis // March 10, 2007 at 7:27 am
The Internet is sometimes referred to as the information highway. Yes, in order to drive a car, I must register it and have a license to drive. In order to do that, I must provide my name, address and other personal data to the state, but, that doesn’t mean I need to know the names of everyone that drives, everyone that passes me by or blows their horn.
When I signed up to go on-line, I had to give that same information. It doesn’t give the public the right to know every detail about me. Only those on a need to know basis. No one out there lurking needs to know anything. Only perverts and sickos feel otherwise.
This person might be a supreme control freak, extremely self-centered and lacking in self-esteem. I’ve had many patients that display similar patterns.
Marinade Dave // March 10, 2007 at 7:41 am
Very good analysis. Thank you for the insightful comment.
Robin // April 19, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I truly believe there is something wrong with him, he is intelligent in one respect but on the other end he seems to have no understanding of any kind of human interraction. If he really wants to have a future in blogging then he is going to need to learn how to properly deal with people instead of just deleting comments, people disagree, it’s a part of life and a parrt of blogging.
Marinade Dave // April 19, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Boy, Robin, I couldn’t have said it better. That’s the way small dictators think. His low self-esteem is the determining factor. He needs power and glory and as long as he hasn’t yet achieved it, he will continue to go on his tyrannical tirades. He screams at NBC for being a ratings whore, yet that is all he does himself.
Robin // April 19, 2007 at 7:09 pm
And I was wondering if what I said came out right and made sense…glad it did.
Marinade Dave // April 19, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Sure did. He seems to only deal with people he’s manipulated into sucking up to him.
pareidoliac // July 17, 2007 at 9:27 am
http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/wpswi/
http://urbansemiotic.com/2007/07/17/urban-education-warfare/#respond
Guess which one is the plagerist?
Marinade Dave // July 17, 2007 at 11:26 am
Gee, Fred, I have no idea… Have you noticed that all of his photos and illustrations, aside from his “university” logos, are taken from somewhere else? Copyright infringements be damned. Then, he takes full credit for them and crows all over himself, espousing his brilliance to his teenie weenie legion of followers and all else who stop by.
Isn’t it his rule to be original? Oh, wait! That’s for everyone else.
Marinade Dave // October 31, 2007 at 3:48 pm
“Yes, I am a beautiful man. Yes, I am desirous in many funky ways. Yes, I am completely irresistible…”
- David W. Boles, Urban Semiotic
http://urbansemiotic.com/2007/10/31/the-belly-rubber-a-halloween-horror-story/
I never thought of myself as “beautiful” and “irresistible”, but then again, I’ve never been into making love to myself.
Reese Kuhn // June 7, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Hi Dave,
Randomly, and for whatever reason, I put “Bud Trexler” into google and your site produced results. I used to wait on he an Maggie at Rusty’s at the port in Cape Canaveral. Great people. I used to sail with them on his boat as well as walk their dogs while they were at work. Your post about him was dated 2005. I haven’t spoken to them since probably 1996 as I now live in California. How is he? How is Maggie? I’d appreciate any update you can provide.
Many thanks,
Reese
Marinade Dave // June 8, 2008 at 6:39 am
Hello, Reese -
I was sound asleep when you left your comment so I didn’t see it until this morning.
Maggie & Bud are fine. Bud underwent a bone marrow and stem cell transplant in April of 2005, made possible by an anonymous host donor. Only one person in the world was a perfect match. I went to Houston to see them right after the transplant and wrote about my trip here. He was a real hurtin’ cowboy for quite some time before and after that transplant. There was a 50/50 shot that it would work. Either way, if he didn’t do it, he would have been long dead by now. His bone marrow and, consequently, DNA, had to be destroyed in order for the host donor to take hold. For a short while, he was, quite literally, a dead man walking. His DNA had to be killed off so his antibodies wouldn’t attack the new stuff. The flip side could have been that his organs would have rejected the foreign material. Fortunately, it did not.
He has been in remission for a little over 3 years now. He was told early on that if he made it through the first 2 years, he’s in complete remission. There will always be a risk of the cancer’s return, but he seems to be in very good health and that makes everyone happy, for sure. For obvious reasons, he is checked periodically, but they don’t have to spend a lot of time at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston any longer.
They travel now, extensively, because of Bud’s fear of its return. I will call Maggie this morning and give her your e-mail address. Perhaps, the three of you can talk about old times and what’s up today. Who knows? Maybe, they’ll visit next time they go to California.
I’m glad you found Bud here. It’s always good to hear from old friends.
Leave a Comment