Earl de Blonville: The explorer who cried “cyberstalker”!

“The Boy Who Cried Wolf” is an essential parable about truth and lies. Earl de Blonville‘s canard about being cyberstalked fits the parable perfectly. The shepherd boy, assigned to watch the sheep but bored and seeking attention, cries wolf and gets the attention that he craves but can’t produce any actual evidence of a wolf. Eventually, he pulls this ploy too often and is completely ignored when a real wolf appears. Earl de Blonville is a modern example of “crying wolf”. For nearly a decade he has repeatedly cried “cyberstalker”, loud and plaintively enough to briefly catch the interest of anyone who will listen, like Constable Louise Colban of the Victoria Police. But like the shepherd boy, Earl has never been able to produce any actual evidence of cyberstalking (or wolves).

Earl has several avenues through which he could respond to the evidence of fraud collected here at earldeblonville.net. He could sue me in civil court for defamation. Or he could address the questions raised, debunk or explain the documented evidence found on these pages. A civil suit or a discussion of the documented evidence would require Earl to provide explanations supported by facts and ultimately swearing, on penalty of perjury, that he is telling the truth. Lacking either facts or courage, he has instead chosen to wrap himself in victimhood. When you are a narcissist any and all attention is what you crave.

Here’s Earl, the intrepid explorer who has been “close to death many times” resting after his much acclaimed 2010 “First Ascent by Australia’s Preeminent Arctic Explorer in Tighty-Whiteys Who Remembered his Bear Tooth Necklace but Failed to Bring Enough Water of popular hike up Mt. Feathertop”. His climbing partner, a mere mortal female who completed the exact same climb and did bring enough water, found the energy to make dinner and snap some pictures while the Titan recovered. For the story behind this picture: https://earldeblonville.net/earl-and-susie-a-vile-shameless-new-low/

This image begs the question of whether it qualifies as an “intimate image” of Earl de Blonville under the definition offered by the Australian ESafetyCoimmissioner. For instance, if this picture had been published without explicitly saying it was Earl de Blonville, would that meet the exclusion criteria? If the description had been “famous Toad-headed Australian Arctic explorer” would that have escaped the exclusion criteria?