Second Amendment Boogey Man

Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger

 

When it comes to the Second Amendment and guns, it seems that President Obama can’t make anyone happy.  Ever since Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency, the NRA has screamed that Obama will be taking away the guns. This scare tactic continued when Obama defeated John McCain for the Presidency.  Just what has Barack Obama done to make the NRA and gun owners frightened for their guns?  The simple answer to this question is nothing. The head of the National Rifle Association, Mr. Wayne LaPierre actually admitted recently that Obama has done nothing to attack gun owner’s rights to bear arms, but claims Obama’s inaction against guns is actually a conspiracy to take away guns!!  ‘ “[The Obama campaign] will say gun owners — they’ll say they left them alone,” LaPierre told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Friday.  “In public, he’ll remind us that he’s put off calls from his party to renew the Clinton [assault weapons] ban, he hasn’t pushed for new gun control laws… The president will offer the Second Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he’s actually been good for the Second Amendment.”  “But it’s a big fat stinking lie!” the NRA leader exclaimed. “It’s all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and destroy the Second Amendment in our country.” ‘  Raw Story

Now, before anyone thinks I am making this stuff up, the linked site includes a video clip wherein Mr. LaPierre verbalizes this alleged reverse conspiracy.  Mr. LaPierre makes a point of throwing in the necessary names of alleged liberal co-conspirators to rev up his base.  ‘ “Sotomayor, Kagan, Fast & Furious, the United Nations, executive orders. Those are the facts we face today… President Obama and his cohorts, yeah, they’re going to deny their conspiracy to fool gun owners.  Some in the liberal media, they are already probably blogging about it. But we don’t care because the lying, conniving Obama crowd can kiss our Constitution!” ‘

The lying, conniving Obama crowd as Mr. LaPierre labels them has not done anything to harm the Second Amendment rights that the NRA claims to be at risk.  I was interested in the last few words of LaPierre’s quotation above.  The phrase “kiss our Constitution” appears to lay claim that the NRA and its followers own the Constitution and its protections.  I could have sworn that my law school Constitutional professors taught me that the Constitution protects all citizens, but maybe I heard them wrong.  But, I digress.

As the Raw Story article suggests, President Obama has actually taken heat from his own supporters over his alleged conspiracy to not take away the guns.  NPR  Does Mr. LaPierre provide any evidence of this bizarre claim?  None that I could find.  Maybe you will have better luck than me in finding evidence of presidential actions to hide President Obama’s intentions and/or actions of stealing legal guns from their owners.

I have to admit that if you read the comments section of the NPR article that details how the Left is disappointed with Obama’s inaction on gun control, you will read almost nothing except gun owners claiming that Obama’s words of inaction are actually code words that the End is Near and the Sky is Falling for gun owners!  Just what will it take gun owners to ask Mr. LaPierre for evidence of his wild claims?  I, for one would love to hear his answer to that question. I understand that candidate and President Obama may have stayed away from the 2nd Amendment issues for political reasons, but where is the evidence of this alleged conspiracy?  I would think Fox News would be sending Bill O’Reilly’s reporters all over the country to uncover such a heinous conspiracy.

If Mr. Obama has not written any executive orders or supported additional legislative steps to control or take away guns since he has become President, just what is the basis for these wild claims?  I realize that the NRA has a financial interest in getting gun owners scared into buying more guns, but are there other, underlying reasons why the gun owners are frightened so easily, when the facts do not support the NRA’s claims?

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)- Guest Blogger

Additional sources:  Gun Owners of America; NRA-ILA; Pajamas Media;

 

 

798 Responses

  1. It was a good thing I was sitting down when I heard about the NRA complaint. My jaw did not have as far to fall before it hit the floor.


  2. I do not really think the underlying goal of the NRA is to get folks to buy more firearms. IMHO, their underlying goal is to advance the Republican and ultra conservative agenda. This is more about politics and power rather than gun sales.


  3. Fear of loss of gun rights equals more sales of guns, and more profits for gun manufacturers. Evidence to support this fear? Irrelevant.


  4. LaPierre is a poster child for the lunatic conservatives (oh wait, that’s redundant) who have shown their shallowness and pettiness in politics by eitheropposing the President and then lining up to taake credit for his work (e.g. The Stimulus bill) or being in favor of any number of ideas until Obama accepts their ideas or, in LaPierre’s, argue that the fact that this administration hasn’t done anything to jeopardize gun ownership (or real financial market reforms or restoring civil liberties) jeopardizes gun ownership. How can any sane person take these conservative idiots (there I go again with the redundacies) seriously on any subject at any time?


  5. The NRA’s fundraising machine cannot live without some apocolyptic target. When a suburb of Chicago banned guns, they ginned up to be a threat to every gun owner, everywhere. Absent any attention to gun issues, they have to make up something. Given that “making shit up” is the current MO of much of the organized Right, there’s nothing remarkable about. The more effective retort would be to point out the MO and not get into the details of the lie.


  6. on 1, September 25, 2011 at 2:00 pm Anonymously Yours

    Raff,

    If you ain’t on thar side…Youse against them….I have seen it over and over…they want this….In for a penny in for a pound…This is a divisive of an issue as abortion….So tread carefully…

    Great article….


  7. The same people raising the alarm are making a king’s ransom off the corresponding hike in ammo prices. One hand washes the other.


  8. I THINK SEX THATS NOT MIND BLOWING SHOULD BE SKIPPED!


  9. Maybe allowing people that paranoid to have guns or any other weapon is in fact, not a good idea.

    I agree with OS on this one, this is an appeal to the far right Republican base, you just don’t hear left-wingers talking like that and making appeals to people based on weapon ownership. It was the Arizona Pima County Republican Party that was offering a chance to win a Glock for 10$ donations in a raffle, and when it was called to their attention that it was a bad idea- what with the Gabby Giffords thing, 6 dead and all, they doubled down and added another gun to the offer, a deer rifle.

    “”I knew exactly what [the raffle] would do,” claimed PCRP executive committee member Mike Ebert. Speaking to the Arizona Daily Star, he said, “Anytime you want to challenge 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, it’s going to get conservatives off their butts.””

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/arizona-gop-gun-raffle-reactions_n_958845.html

    ***

    From blawg posting: “I would think Fox News would be sending Bill O’Reilly’s reporters all over the country to uncover such a heinous conspiracy.”

    I think O’Reilly and his minions would be too scared of the people they would have to deal with to investigate that argument- that’s Breitbart territory and it’s a scary place:

    Breitbart: Conservatives Outnumber Liberals And We Have The Guns”

    “They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war. They cannot win. We outnumber them in this country and we have the guns… I’m not kidding. They talk a mean game, but they will not cross that line because they know what they’re dealing with. ”

    http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/breitbart-conservatives-outnumber-liberals-and-we-have-the-guns/


  10. The sheep dog keeps the wolves at bay. This lets the sheep (progressive libtards) think there are no such things as wolves to worry about.

    As long as you continue to be ignorant (as the author of this post want you to remain), you will not see any reason for the NRA to warn people about Obama.

    Prior to the SCOTUS opinion in D.C. v Heller, Obama cited Washington’s law as an example of constitutionally permissible gun control. “The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws to deal with gangbangers and random shootings on the street isn’t borne out by our Constitution,” he said.

    The D.C. gun law, passed in 1975, prior to the surfacing of “gangbangers”, which it has not exactly disarmed, or random shootings on the street, which it has not noticeably curbed. In effect if not intent, it is about disarming law-abiding residents who might want to protect themselves from gangbangers and other violent criminals.

    It’s not surprising that Obama saw nothing unconstitutional about this situation, since he does not acknowledge that the Second Amendment has anything to do with self-defense. Now removed from his website, it used to say; “As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms, He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting”

    It’s true that hunting—at the time an important source of sustenance, as opposed to the hobby it has become for most Americans—was one of the gun uses the Framers had in mind when they guaranteed the right to arms. But as the D.C. Circuit emphasized when it found Washington’s gun law unconstitutional, “the people’s right to arms was auxiliary to the natural right of self-preservation,” which was “understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government.”

    Because Obama ignores these aspects of the Second Amendment, he sees no constitutional barrier to a complete ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns, which he supported when he ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996. Two years later he said he favored a ban on the sale or transfer of all semiautomatic firearms, which would cover not only most handguns but many hunting rifles and shotguns as well.

    The author of this post wants all of you sheep to believe that the NRA is tilting at windmills. The truth is that the sheep dogs have succesfully managed to keep the wolves at bay.


  11. The sheep-dog is acting like it’s rabid.


  12. “IMHO, their underlying goal is to advance the Republican and ultra conservative agenda. This is more about politics and power rather than gun sales.”

    OS,

    You’ve got it exactly right.

    Raff,

    Great article to bring in at this point where we are seeing so much craziness from the lunatic fringe.

    I was in a Doctor’s office 3 or 4 years ago and their was a copy of the NRA Magazine, with the doctor’s name of the subscription tab. Curious, I read through it and was absolutely blown away by the sheer lunacy within it. This organization has less to do with gun control at this point, except to control a hot button electoral issue, and everything to do with pushing a very far Right Wing Agenda. I believe in the right to bear arms and have stated it here numerous times. However, the NRA is really not about Constitutional Rights, it is all about radically, extreme politics.


  13. Nada Libtard,

    Each of your comments should come with this disclaimer at the bottom:

    “Any relationship between this writer and rational political thought is purely of a coincidental nature and should be disregarded as such. Please ingest as many grains of salt as possible when reading him. If symptoms of credibility exist for more than four hours please call 911 for EMS assistance”.


  14. Mike S , “If symptoms of credibility exist for more than four hours please call 911 for EMS assistance”.

    I had just recovered from my PTSD brought on at a different thread (Ok Hubby and I were in Myrtle Beach but its oh so much more dramatic this way) So I come home and look to see whats happening here and now I have snorted Dr Pepper up my nose.


  15. OS, just to add to your thoughts on this, its to also energize the reality deficient lunitic right. They need a boogy man. Soviet Russia ceased to exist 20 years ago, Iran is not a threat to anything but conservative underwear, North Korea can barely feed itself so the only thing that’s left is to claim that Obama wants to give everyone cheaper health care and take their guns. I am pro gun but there are some people out there who shouldn’t have access to plastic sporks ether.


  16. Libtard Mikey,

    Your response is as predictable as your propensity to thrive off of others.

    Didn’t you recently take the beating heart from another human being? I don’t doubt that you are aware of people who are doing just fine, leading productive lives, after being declared brain dead. Just as you have chosen to deny Obama’s stated position regarding gun ownership, you chose to ignore the fact that the criteria used to determine brain death is demonstrably flawed. Yet, you had no problem taking the life of another for your own benefit. I want you to think about the flawed criteria every night as you lay in your bed. Think about the poor living person whose heart you stole. For what? So that you could continue to speak ill of those with whom you disagree? An honorable man you are not.

    You’re a hypocrite who thinks his constant relyiance on a thesaurus is going to impress someone. It doesn’t. It has about as much effect as adjusting the contrast and brightness on a gravitar image to make you look younger and more virile than you currently are. It doesn’t. It only demonstrates the lengths you will go to as you strive for acceptance among your peers. You’re a legend in your own mind, Mikey. You should hear what those in the neighboring condos have to say about you.


  17. Personally, I side with MAGGIE on this subject.

    That said, the NRA-ILA seems to have taken more of the reins at NRA HQ, and as OS said – it’s all about energizing the base.

    The current administration has used denial and obfuscation on the “Gunrunner/Fast and Furious” a/k/a “Gunwalker” scandal.
    I wrote elsewhere, if I’d been doing LSD in the ’70s, I’d swear I’m listening to John Mitchell re: Watergate and not Eric Holder re: Fast and Furious.

    To de-wind the NRA, be pro-active. Don’t persecute the whistleblowers, don’t point to President Calderone and say:
    “You’re on… get out there and wow them.”

    Quit with the pseudo-facts. We (USA) provided tens of thousands of guns via DEA/DOJ “aid” to Mexico. That some astounding percent of guns “can be traced to US origins” is disingenuous. That the phrase “of those submitted for tracing” begs the question – and what’s the number of guns that weren’t submitted? Is 90% of 15% the issue? How many can be traced to “aid” that’s gone AWOL?

    True and transparent facts would have slammed the door on the NRA nose.


  18. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/why-the-gun-industry-secretly-loves-obama-09012011.html Stocks of some gun makers have risen 400%. Maybe things are slowing down for them now that Obama’s prospects don’t look so good.


  19. Thanks for the link Swarthmore Mom.


  20. I have been reflecting on the illlogic of Crazy Wayne’s boogeyman hunt. I knew it reminded me of something, but could not quite put my finger on it. Just now after reading the comment above by NL, it hit me. Jackie’s take on the death of Osama bin Laden:


  21. And this is the sort of thing that keeps me from considering NRA membership. They spend at least as much time acting as a right-wing proxy and drumming up fear as they do advancing gun rights. LaPierre has also bellowed about the dreaded United Nations treaty, which has as much likelihood of passing as I do of being in a threesome with Scarlett Johansson and Katy Perry.

    For a group with 99% less crazy and fear-mongering and 99% more real action, take a look at the Second Amendment Foundation.


  22. The NRA and Whole Foods have a lot in common; they’re both in the business of selling an image.


  23. The following is a medical definition of viruses but, without changing a word, the following could also be a definition of an ever present infectious disease caused by the Conservative, Right-wing Virus — it is the only possible explanation for the craziness raff highlighted in his article.

    “Since viruses have such high mutation and reproductive rates, they can adapt to changing environments quite well. Indeed, since the only way they can reproduce is by infecting a cell they must be able to evolve faster the their hosts cells. If not, then the host cells would adapt/evolve to where a virus would no longer be able to infect. Cells change their surface receptors so viruses cannot attach; the viruses change their surface proteins so they can attach to the changed cell surface receptors. The viruses must always stay ahead of the evolution game. They are very, very good at this.

    Viruses must always have their host around in order to reproduce. If the host becomes extinct then the hosts’ viruses become extinct as well. So, it is advantageous for a virus to “cross-over” into a new host every now and then. We will cover this in a few more lectures. Another problem some viruses have is that they must have “fresh” hosts to infect. Since animals have fairly well developed immune systems that can remember and prevent subsequent infections, viruses need to get around this problem. If every animal has immunity then the virus is stranded and will not be able to reproduce. These viruses must have a steady supply of new victims. This means there must be critical minimum population density to maintain some viral infections. These types of infections are sometimes called “crowd or herd diseases”. We will go over the history of these viruses in a few more lectures but for now lets take a look at how a couple of these have been eleminated (or close) in the human population.”


  24. Jason… you dawg you. As this is teh internets, you’re required to post pics or it never happened.

    (got your point – and the same can be said of the NRA)


  25. on 1, September 25, 2011 at 8:42 pm conservotive intelekshual

    OBOMA IS BLOCKING SECOND AMEMENDMENTS GUN RIGHTS FOR THE UNBORN. I BET THAT ABORTION DOKTOR WOULD THINK TWICE ABOUT ABORTING A BABY IF THE BABY WAS PACKIN A COLT.


  26. OK, here’s what we’ve got…

    The Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people, and under the supervision of the reverse vampires, are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner.

    We’re through the looking glass, here, people…


  27. Wayne La Pierre is a liar, (like all the leaders of the Republican Party and the Conservative movement), and his followers/base are all too willing (too stupid) and want to believe his lies.

    http:// http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FHHV-N2N3k


  28. As much as I love owning my rifles and handguns, and as much as I admire some of the things that the NRA does as far as training and services to gun owners….

    The NRA mindset scares the crap out of me. The bizarre mindset that they have with regards to both the second amendment and politics in general just strikes me as a little off-center. I’ve considered becoming a member for years, but just can’t bring myself to be counted among some of the seeming wack-jobs that comprise their membership.

    I stumbled upon this blog when researching gun laws and FFL Class 3 licenses a while back and enjoyed the text repartee of you folks. I know there are extreme views on both sides of this particular hot-button issue.

    In my mind, the second amendment doesn’t mean that folks can have machine guns to protect themselves or anything crazy, or even that we have a particular right to stockpile weapons. I’d rather that the amendment be re-written to be clear and concise for today’s realities. I like my weapons, target shooting, sporting clays and plinking. If folks want weapons to protect themselves, it should reflect a provision for that as well.

    I imagine that if the amendment were re-written with these things in mind, the NRA would simply find some OTHER reason to go insane and make wild claims to support the current republican (read:”the crazy republican”
    ) right. Not all republicans are nuts, far from it. But the heads of the NRA seem to be one bullet short of a full magazine.

    I’ll still continue to enjoy shooting, and buying guns and ammo to have fun with, but likely without my name on any list of supporters of the NRA.

    -CPT J


  29. Thanks for the video link, Elaine! O’Donnell is right on target.


  30. rafflaw,

    Here’s another video for you:


  31. CPT J:

    Sensible proposals all there, Captain. The NRA is nothing more than an industry-funded group hell bent on protecting and extending their market share using scare tactics and demagoguery. Nothing new with that — sadly. I’d join them at about the same time I’d join one of those TV mega-churches. They’re both in the same “business” using the Constitution, victimhood, and fear as marketing tools.


  32. rafflaw:

    you might like these women better than granny. :)


  33. Capt J:

    “In my mind, the second amendment doesn’t mean that folks can have machine guns to protect themselves…”

    Why not? They were arming themselves with the latest in military small arms weapon’s technology at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment.

    By your logic 18th century citizens should have had 17th century small arms for their personal use.

    So a person is responsible enough to own, say, a M1 Garand but not responsible enough to own a M-16 or a M-14? What is the difference?

    Or by “machine gun” do you mean a .50 cal or a M60 type weapon?


  34. Mespo,

    Roger that. I also avoid televangelism like the plague! :)

    Roco,

    I chuckled at the machine gun confusion :) I remember that from that discussion thread I read from January.

    I do, in fact, refer to actual machine guns in this case. A machine gun is typically a belt fed weapon, but other types do exist. So, your M2 (.50 cal machine gun), M240, M249, etc. belt fed weapons meant for military applications would apply in my statement.

    An M-16 or M-4 is fine for personal use. They’re no more destructive than any of your other run-of-the-mill rifles with magazines that are semi-auto.

    To clarify, M-16’s (the current models, not vietnam era M-16 A1’s) are semi or burst fire. The civilianized versions of that weapon are semi-auto fire only (one shot per trigger pull).

    M-4’s, while capable of fully automatic firing, are reduced to semi-automatic firing in civilian models as well.

    While I love shooting machine guns as part of my job, I really don’t see a reason to tote a 7.62 belt-fed machine gun around amongst my personal weapons. While fun to shoot, it’s just a little unnecessary.

    To that end, the most basic firearms these days are leaps and bounds beyond what was available at the Constitution’s drafting time. You can purchase (brand new) a Hi-Point 9mm pistol for less than 125$ these days in point of fact. While this particular weapon is the Yugo of the gun world, it still trumps weapons from 100 years ago.

    If we’re going to look at it the way you’re saying that I’m looking at it in terms of technology changes and upgrades, then I’d have to re-iterate that the Constitution needs to be updated to either limit us to rudimentary firearms, or new ones as technology changes, or abolish them altogether. All I ask is that it is made to be CLEAR. These 2nd amendment debates go nowhere because of the murkiness of the writing.

    Both sides of the argument bug me when discussed, because I like my guns, but disagree that the amendment says that I can have them.


  35. “Didn’t you recently take the beating heart from another human being? I don’t doubt that you are aware of people who are doing just fine, leading productive lives, after being declared brain dead.”

    NL,

    FYI, the only way one gets a heart transplant is if the next of kin of the deceased are in complete agreement with the donation. You can look it up, but you won’t, because that is not your way.

    “you chose to ignore the fact that the criteria used to determine brain death is demonstrably flawed.”

    What school of medicine have you graduated from? Could you provide citations of this claim seeing as you used the word demonstrably?

    “Yet, you had no problem taking the life of another for your own benefit.”

    I didn’t take anyone’s life so there is no guilt involved. You, however, have participated through your support in assisting taking the life of at least a million Iraqi’s, more than 3,000 of our troops and the maiming of many thousands of others. You have assisted by your support in bankrupting this country to give tax breaks to people who don’t need them. However, no doubt you sleep fine at night because you have been shown to have little conscience.

    “You’re a hypocrite who thinks his constant relyiance on a thesaurus is going to impress someone. It doesn’t. It has about as much effect as adjusting the contrast and brightness on a gravitar image to make you look younger and more virile than you currently are.”

    Actually I look younger and more virile than my gravatar. It was a bad picture taken when I was much sicker. Now for your thesaurus claim all I have to point out is your own words as linked by CEK, which shows that you just blindly repeat NRA talking points.

    “It’s true that hunting—at the time an important source of sustenance, as opposed to the hobby it has become for most Americans—was one of the gun uses the Framers had in mind when they guaranteed the right to arms.”

    Now this is interesting as an insight into your bullying nature:

    “It only demonstrates the lengths you will go to as you strive for acceptance among your peers. You’re a legend in your own mind, Mikey. You should hear what those in the neighboring condos have to say about you.”

    How do you know I live in a condo, or have surrounding neighbors? Been trying to google me anonymous man, gutlessness hiding behind your pseudonym. That’s the difference between you and me NL, you are too afraid to give your real name, or even show a picture of yourself. I suppose that is why you need weapons, because you’re just a frightened person, unable to comprehend the world around you, so you lash out with bitterness to mask your fear. Those you would follow are also people frightened of change and remembering old times that never were. As I said before, all your comments should come with this disclaimer attached:

    Nada Libtard
    “Any relationship between this writer and rational political thought is purely of a coincidental nature and should be disregarded as such. Please ingest as many grains of salt as possible when reading him. If symptoms of credibility exist for more than four hours please call 911 for EMS assistance”.


  36. on 1, September 26, 2011 at 10:17 am The Moar You Know

    Nada Libtard: Please explain why the NRA keeps “playing to lose” – every single court action they’ve ever been involved in, they settle for a ruling that restricts the rights of gun owners. They never fight to a successful verdict. Why is that?

    “are there other, underlying reasons why the gun owners are frightened so easily, when the facts do not support the NRA’s claims?”

    The short answer is “yes”. A long answer would take time I don’t have today. You can probably figure it out on your own.


  37. anarmyofficer,

    Capt. J. I agree with your comments and even though I don’t own firearms, having used them for target shooting, I understand the attraction one would have for them. As far as hunting goes I do not hunt, but also am sympathetic to those who do it as a sport, especially if they use their game for food.

    I think where the whole 2nd Amendment issue goes off the rails is when self-defense comes in. As a trained weapons user, who may have seen combat, you most definitely fully understand their range of capability and their drawbacks. I think far too many of us Americans have been influenced by the myth of the Western Gunfighter. Most of the occurence of note, such as the OK Corral had nothing to do with quick draws, but with a weapons advantage (shotguns vs. six guns) and manpower advantage. Also who got to initiate the attack was a deciding factor.

    If one is comfortable sleeping with a gun at hand, then yes it is possible to thwart a home invasion. However, being awakened suddenly from a
    harrowing dream by someone moving about in the dark might just as well lead to the death of one’s spouse or child. If children are present then weapons must be inaccessible to them and so more difficult to access if needed. As a professional soldier I have no doubt as to your capabilities to be able to use weapons effectively for self-protection.

    I do worry about those who get some kind of macho kick from owning a weapon, but then I think there are many drivers on the road that shouldn’t be given a license. While in the end I support the right to bear arms, I think a big part of the issue has been captured by people who romanticize their gun ownership and somehow confuse it with their power as human beings. This type, typified by the NRA leadership,is more interested in their personal psychological fears, than in giving support to the Rights that give us our freedom.


  38. Mike S.
    I for one think your picture looks good!


  39. roco,
    That was an interesting video from Maxim!


  40. Elaine,
    Granny has me worried about my “toodles” now!


  41. “Mike S.
    I for one think your picture looks good!”

    Raff,

    I don’t know about that, since NL’s opinion rates so highly with me. I won’t be commenting any more today since I’m going out to poll my neighbors on whether or not they like me, my self-esteem may hang in the balance of their opinions.


  42. The right wing these days is all about “Faith Based” reasoning.

    Oh sure, it’s easy to argue a “rational” case, but it’s some much more powerful when your supporters learn to stand by you when you’re arguing a completely irrational case.

    All through the Bush presidency I kept encountering this realization; that GWB would rather get his way on illegal grounds, based upon fawlty logic, rather than reaching the exact same outcome using legal means and sound reasoning.


  43. “All through the Bush presidency I kept encountering this realization; that GWB would rather get his way on illegal grounds, based upon fawlty logic, rather than reaching the exact same outcome using legal means and sound reasoning.”

    DDave,

    A very prescient point, that I never though about before your comment.


  44. Nada Libtard,

    While you may have some valid points buried within your craziness somewhere; quoting what seems to be the NRA’s own rhetoric and following it up with ridiculous supposition and personal attacks only undermines your position.

    Also, Mike might keep a thesaurus handy, but you yourself should look into getting a dictionary.

    Mike,

    In my book, guns are fantastic. I’m in the middle of my third combat tour, and just took command of my first company. It’s a pretty prominent requirement that I know what the heck I’m doing to be in charge of Soldiers :D.

    I just returned from from R&R from Afghanistan a few weeks ago. While home, I purchased three new firearms, one of which was a new M-14(M1A civilian version). After it sat for three years in my room at the academy (with no firing pin), I wanted to shoot one. So I bought one, and took the thing to the range. I doubt I’ll ever hunt with it, since I don’t eat venison or other wild animal type meats, but I love the kick of the gun, and I love putting tight little groups in paper at 200 yards.
    I tend to write way too much when I get on a roll, but your comment about the quick draw vs. weapons advantage brings an instance to mind that illustrates something for me.

    While out here, we lost a soldier to a single pistol shot. The patrol carried machine guns, rifles, grenades, pistols, anything you can imagine. The assassin escaped the U.S. Soldier’s return fire by running into a crowd of innocents.

    While overwhelming firepower can threaten any populous, some of the more terrifying incidents involving weapons come in smaller packages. This is one of the more major reasons that terrorism is so effective. They don’t field massive groups of Soldiers to fight us. The enemy comes at us in twos, ones, or in the form of roadside bombs. To that end, a dedicated nutjob with a cheap pistol could wreak havoc anywhere in the U.S.

    I myself am intimately familiar with a myriad of weapons, but I still have a healthy fear of them. I liken it to what a motorcycle rider said to me once. “If you get too comfortable riding a motorcycle, you should probably get something bigger or different that you have to practice constantly. If you feel too safe, you’re going to get hurt making a stupid mistake.” I’m not saying that I’m going to go get a bigger gun or anything, but remembering that what you have can kill someone if you’re careless is key.
    Someone that cannot keep something like that in their head should probably not try to sleep with a gun under their pillow!

    I agree with you wholeheartedly that folks who feel macho with a gun are worrisome. I think that some do, as you say, “romanticize their gun ownership” and rally behind some of the mis-represented issues that the NRA likes to throw around. Just about anything that a normal person that likes guns might fear is magnified ten fold in the wild minds (and rhetoric) of the NRA leadership.

    -CPT J


  45. anarmy officer:

    “These 2nd amendment debates go nowhere because of the murkiness of the writing.”

    I dont think so, if you go and read the debates and understand the history of the times and the founders feelings about Europe, the only conclusion you can come to is that citizens have that right.

    A well regulated militia is one that has operable weapons and ammunition and knows how to shoot. They didnt say well regulated by congress and they would have had they meant to have arms regulated by the federal government.

    From Federlist 46 by Publius (in this case it appears to be Madison):

    “Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.”

    If you take an oath to protect it, you ought to know something about what you are protecting.


  46. Roco:

    “If you take an oath to protect it, you ought to know something about what you are protecting.”

    **************************

    Class move there Roco. Always insult a guy who has taken hostile fire for you. My guess he knows more in one neuron than his rather unlettered critic does about freedom, life, and what he’s defending. Was that you at the GOP debate booing that other soldier?


  47. “If you take an oath to protect it, you ought to know something about what you are protecting.”

    Roco,

    It’s not a cheap shot to say that unless you been in the Armed Forces and have faced combat, your statement above is vile. I would imagine putting one’s life on the line and commanding others doing so, would be a quite sobering experience. One that should make a person very involved with the most pertinent questions of life. I don’t have that experience, being 4F
    during Viet Nam for high blood pressure, but it doesn’t take too much empathy to realize the pressures faced by those in combat.

    One of the great mistakes by certain prominent people in the Viet Nam anti-war movement, of which I was a part, was in denigrating and vilifying the troops who fought there. They were merely following orders and no I think the Nuremberg Trials were a farce, when they got down to lower level people following orders, so don’t even go there. It amazes me the pious public pronouncement of “honoring” our troops, ends when one of the Right disagrees with them telling the truth.

    From his writing Capt. J. seems more than well aware of the implications and permutations of his oath.


  48. “All through the Bush presidency I kept encountering this realization; that GWB would rather get his way on illegal grounds, based upon fawlty logic, rather than reaching the exact same outcome using legal means and sound reasoning.” (DigitalDave)

    This blog never ceases to amaze … same old argument and then voilà … a fresh, new, thought provoking comment. I want to hear more from DigitalDave.


  49. Captain J.
    No matter what your politics, thank you for your service.


  50. “If you take an oath to protect it, you ought to know something about what you are protecting.” (Roco)

    A definition of critic that fits Roco like a glove:

    Someone who stands behind the lines and shoots the wounded as they return from battle.


  51. “In my book, guns are fantastic. I’m in the middle of my third combat tour, and just took command of my first company. It’s a pretty prominent requirement that I know what the heck I’m doing to be in charge of Soldiers.”

    Capt. J.,

    I don’t doubt your skills and dedication to your profession. I won’t use the now formulaic “I honor your service” because too often those words are mealy mouthed formulas, used by politicians who then vote to cut benefits of those who served valiantly. I will say though that I have great respect/admiration for your chosen profession, especially the courage and dedication needed to do it well. While I think myself certainly very capable and somewhat courageous, I admire those who are able to do work that I myself lack the capability to do and it angers me when our
    Armed Forces are sometimes used carelessly, without regard for the lives of the highly professional individuals who perform these difficult duties.

    As to your pleasure in guns and the tactile feel of handling/firing them I can understand I think since I have in the past and there was a certain excitement I felt.

    Your recall of that incident where one cheap handgun did damage is an illustration of what those who romanticize weapons as extensions of their manhood don’t get. So much in life has been proven to me to “be the luck of the draw” and skill can only get you so far. As in your motorcyclist’s estimation, even when you are wary fate sometimes steps in. Many years ago I learned to ride a motorcycle and for 7 days enjoyed the hell out of it. On the 8th day I hit an unseen patch of sand and landed with the bike on me. In truth I had let down my guard and gotten over confident.

    There is, however, a distinction between romanticizing weapons and enjoying their use. In the former the weapon is a stand-in for the person’s self esteem, in the latter it is the emotional and tactile pleasure of developing a skill.

    One of the more sobering moments in the shooting of the Arizona Congresswoman, was the interview of an armed citizen, with a Glock, who came upon the scene after the shooter was disarmed and was thanking God that his initial impulse to fire at one of those who ended the attack, was checked by his need to evaluate further. That is the type of man who is able to carry a weapon, as are any who like yourself do it with professionalism and respect for the dangers.


  52. I am not denigrating the troops. So dont put that one on me. I am saying the issue isnt murky and I am saying Capt J should do a little more reading on the subject.

    I think he has an agenda. And I think it fair to call him out on it. And to say he ought to know better.

    So please keep those leftist projections concerning the military to yourself.

    I am sure there are many people who have taken “hostile” fire for me, who agree with me.

    I also bet Capt J, had he been for the 2nd amendment, would be in your cross-hairs. So spare me the concern for our troops that you and other libs are so quick to use as clubs. When in reality the troops are nothing but political pawns for you.


  53. ”FYI, the only way one gets a heart transplant is if the next of kin of the deceased are in complete agreement with the donation. You can look it up, but you won’t, because that is not your way.”

    The next of kin are woefully un/mis-informed when it comes to the true medical status of the patient. Not that it matters to one as selfish as you. Even you use the term “deceased” when you know the donor was not “deceased”, having only been determined to be “brain dead”.

    “Brain death” is defined as the “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem,” according to the Uniform Determination of Death Act.

    Demonstrably flawed? “Brain death” did not originate or develop by way of application of the scientific method. A heart transplant took place in South Africa in 1967. Three days later, after the transplant, a beating heart was cut out of a newborn baby in Brooklyn, N.Y. It was a desire to make heart transplantation “morally” acceptable and legal that led to the invention of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death. The change in definitions was based on a lie. Only someone alive can be in a coma, even when the condition is said to be “irreversible.” The term “coma” cannot be applied to someone who is actually dead.

    Truly “irreversible”? Not quite. Zack Dunlap, and Rae Kupferschmidt are just a couple of examples that provide evidence to the contrary.

    If brain death is irreversible, yet we have people currently leading productive lives, the only conclusion available is that the criteria used to determine that brain death must be flawed.

    You just keep trying to fool yourself, Libtard Mikey. You don’t really care if your donor was really dead. Maybe your heart came from a poor black woman who had been incorrectly declared to be brain dead. It’s not like you would care. Your compassion is all show.


  54. “I didn’t take anyone’s life so there is no guilt involved.”

    Did you learn that from the mob? As long as you get a proxy to do it you have no guilt? I see how that works.

    “You, however, have participated through your support in assisting taking the life of at least a million Iraqi’s, more than 3,000 of our troops and the maiming of many thousands of others. You have assisted by your support in bankrupting this country to give tax breaks to people who don’t need them.”

    How long had you been deprived of oxygen? Is your dementia the result of long-term reduced oxygen supply? What other fantasies are taking place in your mind, Libtard Mikey?

    “Actually I look younger and more virile than my gravatar. It was a bad picture taken when I was much sicker.”

    You’re a liar, Libtard Mikey. Your gravatar image was cropped from a picture taken at an affair that you attended with Maxine. She was wearing a nice black dress. Look around in your “My Pictures” folder. You should use the picture of you and your grandson down by the canal. That’s a good picture. It shows the real you.

    “bullying nature”

    No bullying nature to be found here, Libtard Mikey. What you are experiencing is the same thing that caused you to get your ass kicked while growing up. Instead of responding to the content of my comment, you decided that it was best to attack me personally. Now you are finding out that personal attacks have consequences. You made it personal.

    “How do you know I live in a condo, or have surrounding neighbors?”

    I know everything about you, Libtard Mikey. Isn’t that what you wanted? I even talked to your old buddy Norman F. You boast about how you put your real name out there, so stop crying when the real you is exposed.

    “you lash out with bitterness to mask your fear”

    I only see one person here who consistently lashes out with bitterness. That is you Libtard Mikey. You’re always angry about this or you loathe that.


  55. Blousie:

    I dont think Capt J is wounded. And I am sure he can handle himself.

    He made a statement, I dont agree with it. I gave him the reason why and said he should read more. If that is attacking the troops, well I guess I am guilty.

    By the way, I bet he wouldnt be so great if he defended the 2nd amendment would he.

    You all are full of stuff and nonsense.

    You probably dont even have any real response to that quote from Fed. 46 either. Spindell didnt and neither did Mespo. Maybe the good Capt J has one.


  56. “Now you are finding out that personal attacks have consequences. You made it personal.”

    Personal is one known individual responding to another known individual. You’re just a gutless pseudonym spreading hatred and whining that I started calling the little tea bagger names first. What a little whiner you are LN. Your first comment ever made on this blog was an attack and you are surprised people attack you. Who is the real coward here? You are the angry one and you are the bitter one and you are also as exposed as me, yet you don’t know it, hiding away in your hole, scared to show your picture, or your name. What things then would people know about you, probably quite shameful since you attack from hiding. By the way your last two comments proved me right again:

    “Nada Libtard”
    “Any relationship between this writer and rational political thought is purely of a coincidental nature and should be disregarded as such. Please ingest as many grains of salt as possible when reading him. If symptoms of credibility exist for more than four hours please call 911 for EMS assistance.”

    And he’s a gutless attempt at a bully as well.


  57. “You should tell your buddy Lawrence Rafferty that he has put Professor Turley in a bad position. The logs will demonstrate which one of the guest bloggers logged on recently. Their disclosure to you of my email address violates the expected anonymity of this blog. In fact, it probably created the ability to subpoena the records should I decide to pursue a cause of action. If nothing else, it should demonstrate Professor Turley’s poor judgment in permitting a partisan hack like rafflaw to have access to such things.*

    NL,

    I think I’m going to pursue a cause of action against you for hacking my computer, which you have admitted to. This won’t be for defamation though, because I think by your own words I can prove that by hacking my PC you are attempting fraud and identity theft. It’s different isn’t it when you are on the other side? There you were incorrectly talking about the disclosure of your E Mail address, here you are illegally attacking my computer for the purpose of obtaining personal information. By the way you talk of retaliating because of being insulted, yet your first comment on that long thread was a directly personal attack against Kevin. That is the trouble with you tea baggers, someone attacks you and you whine like pigs, forgetting that you brought on the attack.


  58. nada libtard,
    I have tried to refrain from responding to attacks on the articles I write on Prof. Turley’s blog. I don’t mind if you call me names, but when you try to claim that I had anything to do with releasing or making your email public is not only false, it is intentionally false. Go ahead and do your investigation and see what you find. You will find that I did not make public your email. I don’t even know your email address nor do I care to know it. Your “investigation” will find that I logged on to write the article and then I logged off. Period. I would think it might be smarter if you actually think before you start threatening innocent people with legal action. Even a partisan hack like myself has a breaking point.


  59. rafflaw,

    Paranoid NRA Chief: Obama Leaving Gun Owners Alone Is ‘Conspiracy’ To Take Away Guns
    By Marie Diamond on Sep 26, 2011

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/26/328300/paranoid-nra-chief-obama-leaving-gun-owners-alone-is-conspiracy-to-take-away-guns/

    Excerpt:
    Paranoid and baseless accusations that Democrats are trying to destroy the Second Amendment is nothing new for Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. This is the man who, after the January Tuscon shooting claimed six lives, rejected President Obama’s offer to come to the White House for a closed door meeting to discuss solutions to gun violence in America.

    “Why should I or the N.R.A. go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?” he asked. LaPierre conveniently ignores the fact Obama is a supporter of the Second Amendment who, much to the chagrin of his liberal base, has actually expanded gun rights.


  60. /www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtnkCwPNHvA


  61. Let’s try that again.


  62. rafflaw,

    Libtard Mikey should have told you that he dug up that quote from five months ago. That may have prevented you from considering it to be something new.

    http://jonathanturley.org/2011/04/27/birth-of-a-nation-obama-releases-long-form-birth-certificate/#comment-227237

    If you would recall, Professor Turley got involved, and said that no one had access to that information. I immediately apologized to you, and you gratiously accepted it (on the corrections page).

    As we all know today, Professor Turley was either not being honest about the access he granted to the guest bloggers, or that he was unaware of the information granted to all with Administrator rights. I guess I should be thankful. Without a guest blogger having unfettered access I would have never been able to compile my records.

    Now why don’t you update your post to reflect the reasons the NRA is justified in worrying abouts Obama’s anti-Second Amendment agenda?


  63. graciously


  64. The private ownership of firearms in this country has never been at risk. Ever. The fear mongering by Mr. LaPierre is purely delusional.


  65. Libtard Mikey,

    You came into this thread and immediately insulted me. For that, you pay the price. Maybe next time you’ll try to go after the ideas.

    Your threats make me laugh. I’d enjoy seeing a court make light of the farfetched ideas of an alleged law school dropout.


  66. Nada Libtard:

    Mike dropped out of law school? Now why would you bring that up?

    Is it germane to the “conversation”. I think, no feel you are being unfair. Have some compassion for Mike. You need to respect his feelings. So please show some compassion. He does his thing and you do your thing, I doubt your thing will ever overlap his thing but at least respect his inner being and where he is coming from.

    No one has a monopoly on reality, I see it this way and you see it that way. Who is to say who is right? Mike might have some good points he felt you needed to hear, you obviously have some feelings you are trying to share with Mike.

    I would guess Mike is feeling vulnerable, maybe you should take that feeling of vulnerability and help Mike work through it. That sort of compassion would really make you feel good. It might lead to a breakthrough and a reduction in Mike’s fear of you. That fear cannot be good for you, absorbing it into your being. It will be win win if you show compassion to Mike. He will reflect your compassion and everything will be right in the world.


  67. Nada Libtard:

    By addressing Mike as Libtard Mikey you are projecting hostility, which is very negative. You do harm to the cosmos with feelings of negativity. Embrace positive vibrations from the cosmos and feel the love.

    I ask Spirit that guides us all to show you the over arching love She feels for you and Mike. To learn that you are tied together in that great spirit of love for all people. By diminishing Mike you diminish all of humanity. I feel the warping of the great cosmic thread.


  68. Nada Libtard:

    I have no idea where you’re coming from with most of your comments, but your tone is consistently strident, angry and threatening. Perhaps you should take some time and sort through your personal issues before you favor us with any more of your contributions.


  69. Roco and I have disagreed on many issues, but we are definitely on the same page here.

    Even the username “Nada Libtard” is deliberately hateful. It is selectively insulting to both persons of liberal bent as well as using a term considered derisive to the mentally handicapped. Sport, you coming across as the epitome of the person who, if they do not have something mean and hateful to say, they would prefer to say nothing.

    Thanks, Roco, well said comment above.


  70. nada,
    I do remember the situation in the past. However, your last two paragraphs indicate that you still believe it to be true. Which is it?


  71. Roco,

    I’m going to give you a very good link which helped me understand the 2nd Amendment

    http://www.constitution.org/mil/maltrad.htm#fn*

    Careful reading will also produce some insights into the subject matter of Federalist Papers 46


  72. Libtard:

    “I only see one person here who consistently lashes out with bitterness. That is you Libtard Mikey. You’re always angry about this or you loathe that.”

    ******************

    No, that would be me. Mike S is one of the true gentlemen on this blog. That he doesn’t suffer fools gladly is no vice. That you feel it appropriate to use vile insults to attack him tells me plenty about you. Personally, I would take the considered opinion of Mike S over most any other person I know whether they have that JD hanging on the wall or not. Lincoln didn’t graduate from law school either, and Nobel Prize-winning author Gabriel García Márquez dropped out, as did Teddy Roosevelt, and investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. How’d they do there, Sherlock? More important to think like a lawyer than be simply credentialed as one.


  73. Mike Appleton-
    “The private ownership of firearms in this country has never been at risk. Ever. The fear mongering by Mr. LaPierre is purely delusional.”

    Are you sure you don’t want to qualify that a little bit? Perhaps, “The private ownership of any firearms has never been at risk,” or, “The private ownership of most firearms has never…”

    Some states still have extensive bans on certain weapons, and a federal ban on a long list of scary looking guns just sunsetted a few years ago. This is not to take away your central point, LaPierre is a fear mongering a-hole (though I’m not sure how deluded, I think there’s every chance that he knows exactly what he’s doing and is just playing his constituency/fund raising base like fiddles).


  74. Nada Libtard,

    I’m seeking advice of counsel regarding your attack on Mike, but I wanted to reiterate that I’ve done nothing untoward. I have explained what went on to Professor Turley and his guest posters. I would suggest that you get an attorney’s advice as well.


  75. Roco,

    We don’t agree on much, but to your previous statements on this thread regarding the NL situation, we are in concurrence.

    ************************************

    Nada,

    It has been suggested that you seek legal counsel.

    That’s a very good suggestion.


  76. Mike Spindell:

    I feel you need to extend the same compassion to Nada Libtard. You are very good with words and sometimes they hurt people’s feelings. You should use your gift for good. If you meet Nada in the middle maybe you could help him/her understand where you are coming from and he with you.

    Compassion cannot just be a one way street, it takes 2. His compassion will reflect from you and yours from him.

    I ask this in the name of civility and understanding, after all we are all members of the same race, the human race.

    C-caring for and commitment to the needs of others
    O-be observant, to recognize the needs of others
    M-meaningful dialogue with those with whom we disagree
    P-create patterns of productive behaviour
    A-articulate concern and caring for others
    S-satisfaction of compassionate action
    S-sublimate the ego to be aware of other people’s needs
    I-the object of compassion is an individual
    O-object to bad behaviour in others that is harmful to others
    N-neglect an opportunity to forgive at your own peril

    So Mike, I ask that you have compassion for Nada Libtard as well.


  77. Roco:

    You seem to have an endless supply of compassion for conservatives making the most vile personal attacks on Mike S. and those who threaten him with frivolous litigation. Personally, I’d recommend that someone as disgusting as NL be banned for a few weeks from the blog until he learns to behave. That’s what you do to indolent childish minds. You don’t enable them by showing them compassion when they demonstrate not an iota of remorse.


  78. Blouise:

    Thank you. That was interesting. And it does seem Fed 46 is touching on some of those issues.


  79. What mespo said.


  80. Actually Nada Libtard, troll though he is does make one good point.

    The need for donor organs puts doctors for “brain dead” patients in a position of having conflicting interests, there is a possibility that need for organs my bias their judgments as to whether a patient is truly brain dead.


  81. Mespo:

    then I say ban Mike and Otteray Scribe and Gene H as well. I am pretty sick of being called a sociopath, far worse in my mind than calling someone a Libtard.

    When you guys get your house in order, I will be all for banning Nada Libtard.

    That beam in the eye thing must be a real burden to bear.


  82. Accurate descriptions of your statements are not the same thing as committing a crime, Roco. But you really shouldn’t take it personally. I think all Objectivists above the age of 15 or 16 are likely sociopaths. The rest of them are just stupid teenagers. I even allow for a certain percentage of adult Objectivsts not being true sociopaths but merely intellectually and emotionally stunted in their growth, hence the likely qualifier.


  83. Roco:

    “then I say ban Mike and Otteray Scribe and Gene H as well. I am pretty sick of being called a sociopath, far worse in my mind than calling someone a Libtard.”

    *******************

    So that’s the conservative compassion you’re talking about. I see it now. How do you keep from getting dizzy with all those instantaneous changes in position?


  84. Mespo:

    How do you get by with those thick glasses you must wear to prevent viewing double standards.


  85. Gene H:

    I am pretty sure if my life was measured against yours, you are the one who would be considered a sociopath. In fact I would say if your life was measured against most Objectivists I know you would be the one considered a sociopath.

    Rational self interest doesnt mean you ignore human suffering when you see it. Funny thing is we want what we want because we think it will help eliminate human suffering.

    You want what you want because it creates human suffering as verified by history.

    You are a socialist/sociopathic/pathetic human being. In short you are a Fascist fut nuck. Go find some one to trample on, it is when you are at your best.


  86. I’m pretty sure I don’t care what you think, Roco. About anything. Thanks for illustrating my point about stunted intellectual and emotional growth though. That was nice of you.


  87. All,

    Sorry about the delay in response, I’m tooling around Afghanistan conducting inventories. Not great fun.

    Raff,

    I really do appreciate your thanks. It helps to know that people out there do care about us!

    And to be honest, I’ve been trying to define my particular brand of politics, but it really doesn’t follow any party line. I’m all over the spectrum, and go with what sounds like common sense. If I ever figure out what that means, I’ll let you know :)

    Mike,

    Thanks as well. Your comments hit home with me as a person who joined pre-“9-11″ and experienced all of the military and political ramifications of the event.

    Your mention of the man who chose to tackle and not shoot the assailant in Az. is a perfect example of a competent firearms handler (minus his ability to actually shoot since that wasn’t gauged). Someone who knows WHEN to shoot as well as HOW to shoot is the individual I trust with a weapon.

    Roco,

    I tried like hell to go off to school to be a lawyer, but boy scouts and the LAPD steered me to the military. I have a degree in Computer Science, not law, so forgive me if I don’t know some of the nuance. I’m not insinuating that you implied anything of the kind, I’m just making a statement.

    As far as my oath goes…. I take my oath very seriously, and learn something new about what I’m defending every day.

    One of the first things I learned first hand was that I was defending a populous. I knew intellectually that I was defending the citizens of the U.S. against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but didn’t realize to what extent I would endure criticizm to that end.

    I do not begrudge you any critiques of what I say, because I’m over here so that you may say whatever you like. It doesn’t upset me in the least, and I’ll offer you a reply.

    In policy debate years ago, I researched this topic at length, and debated it even further. I hated it.

    Your example is one of the prime reasons that make the debate untenable. My original statement still holds. The 2nd amendment does NOT clearly define the “well regulated militia”, otherwise there would BE no debate.

    I like the idea that I’m not ever going to be rendered helpless against a tyrranical government through the loss of my personal arms, but to what extent does that entitle me to stockpile arms “to form a militia”? What constitutes a militia? If these things were outlined in the constitution, I’d be happy as a clam.

    I do not say that your excerpt authored by Madison has no merit, because it does. Held alone, it would suggest that the 2nd Amendment both entitles us to our arms and suggests a limitation on federal troops (or at least a ceiling on the ability to maintain an army), so as to reduce the threat of an oppressive government using military power to enforce unfair laws, taxes, etc..

    But to be fair, there were many other people who signed the constitution of many differing viewpoints. One mans essay did not shape the amendment, and cannot be interpreted as such.

    That in itself makes the issue “murky”, which is why I do not entertain all of the “thoughts” and “ideas” of the people who wrote the thing as the only relevant piece of the argument. The folks who wrote our constitution made it vague on purpose, because they KNEW things would change. That in itself contributes the most to the issue being “murky”. While predictable, it probably seemed unlikely that individuals would eventually be able to procure weapons that could lay waste to an entire British column as a single individual, and hide them in a backpack.

    That’s another reason we have amendments written beyond the original ones signed. Times change, and things need clarification. It’s nothing new, and we should do the same for the 2nd Amendment.

    Another point that I didn’t think would need saying though…. How on earth is this issue not murky? How long has this issue been debated at the highest levels of government? How many lawyers have gotten involved? How many debates have focused solely on this issue with no actual resolution at the end of it? If that’s not the very definition of debating a murky issue, I’m not sure what is.

    I am also neither “for” or “against” the 2nd amendment. I am simply of the opinion that it should be re-written to be clear either way. I’ll comply with whatever’s decided, but I’d much prefer a re-write that favored individual gun ownership. Because I’m a closet gun-nut that hates clay pigeons. If I had my druthers, the 2nd amendment WOULD say that I could bear my particular arms. I’m fond of them.

    ———-

    As far as my “agenda” goes…. I’d just like to go home at this point. I don’t really have anything to pitch to anyone, I’m just spitballing my thoughts with some other folks that I believe have intelligent, and thought provoking conversations. If anyone has an agenda in here, it might be NL. I’m not sure what HIS is, but it’s bordering on fanaticizm.

    Also, I promise to read more about the surrounding issues with regards to your
    Fed 46 excerpt once I get back to my main FOB.

    Respectfully,

    CPT J


  88. Cpt J:

    thank you for your reply.

    I just disagree that it is murky. I think the reason it can be construed as “murky” is that there are many parties in the US and abroad who would like to see the 2nd amendment abolished. In my mind the amendment is clear. If you have a right to Life then you also have a right to protect your life. You cannot separate the 2.

    I am also quite sure the Constitution is principled guide and not some piece of paper to be manipulated as it has been. Free speech is a just a principle, it can extend to the television and the internet. Certainly our founders could not have conceived of either but they did know about free speech concerning newspapers and books and public speech. They would clearly not abolish free speech on the internet. So why would they limit a citizen to owning a flintlock and why would they assume the police and military alone could protect an individual?

    After all they were living on a frontier and a rifle was necessary for personal safety and for stocking the larder.

    With that being said, I think it perfectly acceptable to require firearms training.


  89. Gene H:

    I’m absolutely sure I don’t care what you think, Gene. About anything. Thanks for illustrating my point about stunted intellectual and emotional growth though. That was nice of you.


  90. Still with the “I know you are but what am I” defense.

    You really are a child, Roco.


  91. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 10:44 am Anonymously Yours

    Now Gene,

    Roco did show compassion on another thread….lol


  92. Well siad Captain J! Stay safe.


  93. I’ll second Raff’s thanks and wishes for a speedy and safe return, Capt. J.


  94. Gene H;

    Still with the “I know you are but what am I” defense.

    You really are a child, Gene.


  95. If I could only spell this morning! That should read Well “said” Captain J.


  96. AY:

    At least I am smart enough and gentlemanly enough not to piss off a nice lady.


  97. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 11:04 am Anonymously Yours

    Perception is everything Roco…


  98. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 11:10 am Anonymously Yours

    Maybe Roco it should be restated to say that most folks on here consider you to be self serving and inhumane…..it surprises me that you have compassion for others misfortunes….

    I could suggest rereading what has been posted and then reread it again and read between the lines…or in my case….the cross hairs…


  99. Capt. J.,

    Thank you for not only your honesty, but for your thoughtful comments on this issue. They have helped me to refine my own thoughts and reasons for supporting the right to bear arms at the same time decrying the excesses of the NRA. Please be safe and come back to us, you are the type of person that we need more of in our country.


  100. “then I say ban Mike and Otteray Scribe and Gene H as well. I am pretty sick of being called a sociopath, far worse in my mind than calling someone a Libtard.”

    Roco,

    Are you reading what is written? This isn’t about “calling names” it is about the fact that this man has invaded my home computer. The proof, given in his own words is indisputable and I have done some checking and his invasion is a felony on both State and Federal levels. As such I have and will contact the appropriate law enforcement authorities, while simultaneously taking steps to protect my PC from future invasions.

    Think about it. How would you feel if someone invaded your home or business PC’s and may have gained access to your private/financial
    information. Don’t you see that is a far greater wrong than someone calling you names?


  101. ay:

    “Maybe Roco it should be restated to say that most folks on here consider you to be self serving and inhumane…..it surprises me that you have compassion for others misfortunes….”

    they dont know me and I dont know you, she appears decent and actually you appear to be a decent sort as well.

    Better to forgive and forget and move on. Holding a grudge doesnt do anything for you and the other person could give a rats hiney anyway.


  102. Mike:

    I dont think he can invade your home computer unless he is a really good hacker and has your specific IP address and some other things. Although that is speculation on my part because I am not a computer person. I use them like I use a hammer. Only a tool, I dont know how to make one.

    If he has your name he can do a search, have you ever used your wifes name in this forum? If so he could do a search using her name. If she has a site with pictures on it, he could easily download one or more.

    So there could be an alternate explanation. But it is a good idea to have a good firewall. One of the reasons you should remain anonymous while on the web. Personally I would be worried that someone would stalk me or my family members. Some people take political discourse way to seriously.


  103. Mike:

    Just have a home brew and be happy.


  104. What a roiling coil of contradiction . . .

    They don’t know you – arguably wrong as they know you like we all know each other in this forum; from our words.

    You don’t know them – why most certainly you do by the same mechanism they know you; that you dislike or fail to understand some of “them” is an ancillary issue.

    “she appears decent and actually you appear to be a decent sort as well” – “Better to forgive and forget and move on. Holding a grudge doesnt do anything for you and the other person could give a rats hiney anyway.” – after calling for a ban of people you dislike/disagree with.

    Nothing contradictory there. Except all of it.

    Not only am I wondering how you keep from being dizzy (to echo mespo’s earlier comment), I’m wondering if you can talk from both sides of your mouth with it full of irrationality. I’m guessing you can, Roco.

    For the record, I have no grudge against you. When I think of you at all, if any emotion is associated with it at all, the emotion in question would be pity. In your myopic and slavish devotion to an irrational and inhumane religion – Objectivism – you’ve made a very small intellectual and emotional life for yourself. When you do that, it also impoverishes the intellectual and emotional life of those around you on a daily basis. But a grudge? I have no more grudge against you than I would against a petulant child, which is to say, none at all.

    “Holding a grudge doesnt do anything for you and the other person could give a rats hiney anyway.”

    Heed your own advice.


  105. “I dont think he can invade your home computer unless he is a really good hacker and has your specific IP address and some other things.”

    Roco,

    He has and I have the proof.

    “Just have a home brew and be happy.”

    Think about it. how would you feel in my position? Would you feel invaded? I think so given your caution about using ones real name on the net. I neither need, nor want your compassion, but I would think you might be able to experience being in my shoes.


  106. As a former resident of Illinois, and someone who hates the NRA, allow me to explain where the fear comes from. Obama Sponsored legislation in the Illinois General Assembly titled “Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon”. This law makes it a felony to have a loaded firearm outside of your property, or place of business. The law also makes it a felony to incorrectly transport a firearm, which I find to be most outrageous. In order to have your right to keep and bear arms uninfringed, I conclude there has to be a method that would allow you to bear arms, 49 of the 50 states have a method to allow you to legally bear arms… Obama sponsored a that law that left no method to allow citizens to legally bear arms for their own protection, in my opinion committing perjury of his oath of office. I do not believe someone who commits such perjury should ever be allowed to hold office, and yet now he is president.

    He successfully banned guns in his own state, and you people think the NRA is driving the hysteria? *facepalm*


  107. Mike:

    I can understand you would not be happy about it. But are you sure he got into your computer?


  108. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 1:28 pm Anonymously Yours

    Roco,

    I have a program that tells me what IP address has accessed my computer…Gmail offers this service free, if you have a gmail account…What is nice about the Gmail account…it will also allow you to obtain the physical address of the IP address access…or there abouts..So yes…it is possible to hack into someones computer….There are Federal Laws against it…Most states have defined theirs on the Federal Laws…


  109. roco, It is what it is. Don’t concern yourself about it. The posting by the phoney Irish lady was scary and was brought to my attention by another female blogger. You probably missed it. She was only on one morning. Maybe not, you don’t miss anything. We are still more than a year a way from the election, and it is getting pretty rough around here.


  110. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 1:56 pm Anonymously Yours

    Just remember the following. Many more people have been slain by words than weapons. That is subterfuge.

    I too have been frightened by what has been said to me and about me…

    I seem to recall… Are we back to that again…. And then move on… Well quit doing what you’re doing and move on please….

    FYI, I am not the Irish lady…again… If you’ve proof present it… Or just move on…


  111. IP addresses can be masked… Some go to internet cafes…. use false identities…


  112. Mike, if you believe Nada is in anyway a threat, I would suggest that you:

    a) create some form of blog
    b) write down everything you believe has happened to date on the blog
    c) take that to the local police, see what they have to say, and ask if the fbi should be involved since Nada is breaking federal law
    d) go to one or more online forums that specialize more in the technical aspects including
    1. quora
    2. Stackoverflow
    3. reddit
    4. hackernews
    And ask your technical questions there, including what you can do to further track nada down, and point them to that blog entry.

    If you think he has accessed your computer, I would urge you to buy a new computer. Leave that one disconnected from the internet, but it is evidence and you may be able to discover who nada is, or find out where he is coming from by examining logs on your computer.

    Same thing with your router. There is a reasonable chance it has logs on it. Consider buying a different router so that you can maintain the logs on your router. ASK on stackoverflow and quora and reddit and hackernews about the best way to maintain those logs.

    Make your case to Professor Turley and ask if he can find the IP addresses of where Nada posted from. Turn the tables on Nada if at all possible.

    CHANGE all your passwords online. GET a webapp like lastpass to help you generate new ones or store your new ones that you make up securely.

    Get some deadbolts. Install a security system. Do what you need to make your home physically secure.

    Go to jfpo.org and consider buying a shotgun.


  113. anon nurse There is a lot of that going on here. There is no accountability.


  114. geez….I leave for a tad and come back and things are all stalker scarey here….are you all ramping up for Halloween or something?

    I am definitely going to need more chocolate…..


  115. “Get some deadbolts. Install a security system. Do what you need to make your home physically secure.” –anon

    ….will only deter common criminals, but not those with the means to circumvent…


  116. Woosty,
    If I didn’t just get my blood test results back, I would join you in some chocolate.
    It is a shame that an individual might take the initiative to hack into another’s computer. We should all be careful and increase the security situations with our computers. The result of that alleged action could be costly to that individual.


  117. I can’t prove it, but I know it, and so does the woman that brought it to my attention.


  118. Swarthmore mom 1, September 27, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    anon nurse There is a lot of that going on here. There is no accountability.

    Swarthmore mom,

    … some decidedly ugly turns on the blog, recently… What a shame… and worse…


  119. rafflaw1, September 27, 2011 at 2:10 pm
    ————————–

    nothing serious I hope…..there re alternatives….sugarless chocolate and carob has been improved!


  120. anon nurse
    1, September 27, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    “Get some deadbolts. Install a security system. Do what you need to make your home physically secure.” –anon

    ….will only deter common criminals, but not those with the means to circumvent…

    Anon nurse is right, my advice is mostly worthless, I am glad she felt the need to point that out.

    In addition to the deadbolt and making sure your home is physically secure, consider getting:

    a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range
    a noisy cricket
    a smoke monster
    a team of hackers
    the A Team
    a predator
    a former terrorist turned security expert
    lots and lots and lots of mirrors
    midichlorian transfusion

    Props to anon nurse for making such an astute criticism.


  121. Mike Spindell,

    I’m very sorry to hear about your plight. You should immediately make an external sector based full image backup of all the hardrives you have for future forensic needs. Then of course tighten up your firewall rules and consider using AES encryption on your files in the future.

    If you need some help/advice in these areas please feel free to let me know on this thread and we’ll figure out a way to establish private communication.

    Best of luck,

    gbk


  122. GBK,

    Thank you I may take you up on that. meanwhile I have contacted the FBI and local authorities and been put in touch with a computer security expert and am awaiting his advice.

    Anon,

    Thanks for your advice, I am taking steps in those directions. I appreciate it. I’ll do without the weaponry, though I know you were being ironic in your second comment. There are many other means of home self defense which I obviously won’t go into, but coming from the big City I put into place years ago. However, do you know if the “A” Team gives discounts to Seniors?

    Anon Nurse,

    All you say is true, but I don’t think we are dealing with that level of crazy here. Some people get so caught up in their own anger that they cross the line. In this instance though any harm to me would immediately put the harsh light of suspicion on him and so he has an interest in my personal safety, since the authorities and many others have been contacted and aware of his trespass.


  123. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 3:05 pm Anonymously Yours

    Then if you can’t prove it, then please move on. Those are your very own words. Take your own advice and adhere to the traditions. As you’ve aleeady stated.


  124. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 3:08 pm Anonymously Yours

    Please do not jack this thread as well with your subterfuged attacks.


  125. anon

    1, September 27, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    “In addition to the deadbolt and making sure that your home is physically secure… consider getting:….”

    ———————–

    anon is absolutely right…

    After girding oneself with a false sense of security, “consider getting”:

    ….whatever makes one feel warm and cozy, snug as a bug….

    “Props to” anon for being “a cut above”…


  126. Ask your ISP for a new IP address. Explain the hacking and suggest they moratorium the old address for awhile.

    Alternatively, get a new ISP entirely, but don’t get rid of the old one and old IP address until your security experts and the cops tell you to. It may be useful in trapping nada’s future attempts. (Probably not, since um, he probably just read this too. :( )


  127. Mike Spindell
    1, September 27, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    Anon Nurse,

    All you say is true, but I don’t think we are dealing with that level of crazy here.

    —–

    Mike,

    My remarks were not specifically aimed at your situation, but that’s my mistake for not clarifying. Having said this, the “level of crazy” seems to be getting higher by the day, it’s sad to say…

    From your comments on the blog, you don’t seem like anyone who needs advice, which isn’t to take anything away from those who might, with the best of intentions, want to supply it, myself included.


  128. Mike Spindell:

    “meanwhile I have contacted the FBI and local authorities and been put in touch with a computer security expert and am awaiting his advice.”

    Great. Good luck, and btw I like your gravitar.


  129. I’m having trouble posting – this is a test…


  130. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 4:43 pm Anonymously Yours

    AN,

    It was never my intentions to air differences here, for that I am most apologetic. However, and in my defense, I do believe that I did not start the unnecessary chicanery. I as well as others post differences without being personal….Now, if that could have been maintained, I would never have stooped to that level. The only one that was chastised was myself. I think that this was patently unfair, then I only have defended myself in the last two weeks….

    When, one uses artful and sly attacks..that are or could be missed by those in the know…then, I do believe that human nature is to defend ones self….

    If you will read the other threads that have been jacked…I believe I only responded when I felt attacked….

    Initially…I was upset…I asked for an apology…today..I think about what Blouise has said…I will never get the apology that I want….I am good with that…I have forgiven the offense but not the act….I think I have a right to set proper boundary’s which are not being respected…..This says so much about the people …

    I am not responsible for other posters posting and/or the various sock puppets that one creates…I am only responsible for myself….and for that I do apologize to each and everyone that has been annoyed…..

    Now if we had equal footing….and I am not assailed…I will not respond….If we play victim…then I have a problem….If, this is cool and copacetic with the other person….Again, I will say that if they do not initiate anything….I will not respond….

    I think Paper Hanger said it succinctly yesterday….I think it was yesterday…

    For those unfamiliar with the term: chicanery, it is as follows…..

    1: deception by artful subterfuge or sophistry : trickery
    2: a piece of sharp practice (as at law) : trick


  131. I had one other name other than mine a long time ago. It lasted for a day and I outed myself. No sockpuppets here, but I certainly have been attacked by a multitude of them. I am honest in my personal life too. If I get accused of one thing by the people that know me, it is being brutally honest but not dishonest. I don’t have to resort to cheap manipulations, either. I have no goal except to represent my views openly and honestly and will continue to do so if I so chose.


  132. [name deleted],

    You seem to believe that I’ve somehow hoodwinked Professor Turley into denying that someone with site access shared information with me – I assure you that is not the case. In the interest of making it clear that this is, in fact, the truth (and in the hopes of fostering some interesting conversation…), here is what I did:

    My role in the “[name deleted]” issue:

    I wrote software to scrape the page source from all of the threads in the archives of this site. From this raw data I was able to easily mine the author handle, date/time, and gravatar ID from every comment on every thread. The last time that I updated my database (6/28/2011), there were 7737 threads with comments from 9730 different handles using 10046 unique Gravatar IDs.

    (The following is all supposition on my part, by the way, although it is the only hypothesis I can think of that fits the facts…)

    Did you ever wonder how gravatars worked? Well, what happens is that gravatar has an encoder that maps email addresses into unique alphanumeric strings (in mathematical terms [sorry raff… ;-)], this means that there is a 1-to-1 map [bijection] from email addresses to gravatar ID strings). The plug-in to allow blogs to display gravatars has a copy of this encoder and when a comment is posted it generates the gravatar ID, which is the URL of the image you uploaded to gravatar. Even if you didn’t upload an image, the ID is still there in the URL in the page source*.

    My application (sorry I don’t know how to post a screen shot here – the GUI is not really ready for prime time anyway… :-() displays a list of threads as well as a list of handles and displays associated information for selected entries. For instance, this is what I get when I click on “[name deleted]”:

    [name deleted]
    This author has2 siblings
    DeepCover7
    2010^12^05^who-should-have-the-right-to-vote-judson-phillips-rush-limbaugh-weigh-in-on-the-subject
    2010/12/07 at 21:33
    2010/12/07 at 21:40
    2010/12/07 at 21:52
    2010^12^04^a-good-offense-is-the-breast-defense
    2010/12/06 at 19:40
    2010/12/06 at 20:02
    [name deleted]
    2011^04^08^mississippi-polling-roughly-half-of-polled-republican-in-mississippi-believe-interracial-marriage-should-be-illegal
    2011/04/08 at 09:41
    2011^01^30^walmart-pitches-woo
    2011/01/30 at 09:29
    2011^04^25^supreme-court-denies-virginias-effort-to-get-expedited-review
    2011/04/25 at 11:36
    2011^04^20^things-that-tick-me-off-american-airlines
    2011/04/22 at 08:53
    2011^06^04^the-bells-are-ringing-sarah-palin-and-the-revised-story-of-paul-revere%e2%80%99s-ride
    2011/06/10 at 12:42
    2011^04^27^birth-of-a-nation-obama-releases-long-form-birth-certificate
    2011/04/29 at 14:01
    2011/04/29 at 16:19
    2011/04/29 at 17:05
    2011/04/29 at 17:46
    2011/04/29 at 17:56
    2011/04/29 at 18:06
    2011/04/29 at 18:56
    2011/04/29 at 18:58
    2011/04/29 at 19:47
    2011^03^16^iowa-legislators-seek-to-criminalize-those-who-disclose-abuses-at-factory-operations
    2011/03/16 at 08:37
    ———————————–

    At the time I outed you as DeepCover7, I was regularly providing alias dictionaries to Mike and Buddha using an earlier version of this software. Using this information in addition to previously known information we were able to determine that (for instance) Byron/Roco/Rae/Tautology are all the same poster (Byron, I’m not doing this to out you – I think pretty much anyone who cares is already aware of this – I just feel it is necessary to show how and what sort of intelligence was generated to fuel the tidbits that we dropped. As I said in an email to you, I wish you’d go back to Byron – it seems more honest to me and I don’t think you were fooling anyone anyway… and I’m sure you aren’t now ;-)) and get the following information on the email addresses (“authors” in the list) which were used to post under the name “Bdaman”:

    Bdaman
    This author has47 siblings
    You Know
    Wahoo
    :)
    Observant
    bdatroll
    bdaloser
    bdaman
    Buddahpest
    Ashton Kutcher
    BTW-AY
    OFF Topic
    Spyware Doctor
    bdimainman
    Copy/Paster
    Sarah Palin
    Bdaman12
    Bdaman13
    Joe
    JT SAID
    Tuna
    bdalier
    That Was Me
    Luck of the Irish
    Great
    John Swigert
    Duke
    Six plus one
    Bdama
    Obama Says
    James Lovell
    Just Sayin
    bdaTruth
    Jerry Garcia
    Inigo Montoya
    Catherine West Dale
    Joseph of Arimathea
    http://www.orkin-design.de
    COPY/PASTER
    Jacker of Threads
    Hoochie Mama
    Now We know
    Bdaman
    Don’t feed the Trolls
    Tokyo Rose
    Jimmy the Greek
    Chester Arthur

    This author has1 siblings
    Bdaman

    This author has1 siblings
    Bdaman

    This author has1 siblings
    Bdaman

    This author has5 siblings
    You Don’t Say
    James A. Crow
    Homer Simpson
    Ass Tight
    Bdaman

    This author has1 siblings
    Bdaman

    This author has1 siblings
    Bdaman

    This author has3 siblings
    John B. Seh
    Bdaman
    Eric Von Stroheim

    This author has1 siblings
    Bdaman

    This author has1 siblings
    Bdaman

    This author has1 siblings
    Bdaman

    This author has1 siblings
    Bdaman

    This author has3 siblings
    Bdaman
    bdaman
    OFF Topic

    As you can see, all of the intelligence I used has a non-invasive explanation – an explanation that comes with a time machine record of the development of the software (which has been separated from my computer for the last month and will remain so, by the way…). I don’t know what you did or what your talents are, but I would advise you to reconsider your conviction that I’ve done anything other than what I’ve laid out here – it is nowhere near as solid as you believe.

    * I would note that while gravatar’s encoder may be sophisticated, given the unlimited size of the dataset (email-ID pairs can be generated at will) and straightforward nature of the cryptography problem, I would assume that organizations like the NSA (and perhaps much smaller) are capable of cracking it should they care to…


  133. I had to replace the name of the poster in question with [name deleted] in order to get through the filter…


  134. Doc Slarti, they just do not realize how easy it is if you know how.

    Everyone else: There is no such thing as true privacy on the intertoobz. And another thing. Information deleted does not go away–ever. You might have to mine down several layers of deleted and overwritten stuff, but it will be there. In fragments most likely (analogy: think of the way torrent software works), but it can be pieced together by a determined investigator (analogy: think of assembling the jigsaw puzzle of shredded documents).


  135. Mathematics . . . not just for breakfast anymore.

    And as OS points out, it goes well with a side order of forensics.


  136. Nice script, but good luck, I’m behind 7 boxxies.


  137. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 5:25 pm Anonymously Yours

    So there you go… Violating the traditions and principals in one posting….. Taking other people’s inventory…. That takes talent…. Or not depending on ones perspective… Walk the walk or walk the talk…quit talking the walk…


  138. Spoke in “I” messages only.


  139. Swarthmore mom,

    I’m all for honesty – since I showed my cards on others, this is what I see when I look at the gravatar ID associated with “Swarthmore Mom”:

    Swarthmore Mom
    This author has8 siblings
    Blouise fan
    2011^05^05^felony-franks-sues-city-over-misdemeanor-message
    2011/05/07 at 20:01
    Swarthmore mom
    [a bazillion posts deleted]

    AnniSwarthmore mom
    2011^01^04^publisher-announces-intention-to-edit-huckleberry-finn-to-remove-n-word
    2011/01/04 at 10:18
    swarthmore mom
    2010^06^18^bp-chief-hayward-apologizes-to-house-while-rep-barton-apologizes-for-apologizing-to-hayward
    2010/06/18 at 16:54
    2010/06/18 at 17:03
    2010^09^15^porteous-impeachment-trial-day-three
    2010/09/16 at 10:15
    2010^09^20^poll-americans-more-supportive-of-torture-though-still-a-minority
    2010/09/22 at 22:03
    Swarthmore
    2010^04^27^new-hampshire-approves-new-two-year-college-for-potential-law-students
    2010/04/27 at 08:59
    Swarthmore Mom
    [only half a bazillion posts here…]

    Annie
    2011^05^05^felony-franks-sues-city-over-misdemeanor-message
    2011/05/07 at 20:14
    2010^12^27^bush-officials-praise-obama-for-going-further-than-bush-in-terror-crackdown
    2010/12/27 at 17:52
    Arturo
    2011^05^05^felony-franks-sues-city-over-misdemeanor-message
    2011/05/07 at 21:41
    2011^06^05^35875
    2011/06/05 at 21:10
    ———————————–


  140. Gene,

    Mmmm, forensics…


  141. If I understand what you are saying AY, I would tend to agree. But I’m not sure what you’re saying.

    That it’s possible to use Gravatars as tracking devices to defeat silly sock puppetry is a good thing for everyone to know, but not actually a technique that provides much value to a community.

    It’s also pretty easy to defeat. All one has to do is use a different email address to generate a different Gravatar id.

    For someone that shields himself with pseudonymity as Slarti does (as do most of us), it’s almost abusive for Slarti to strip away the pseudonymity of others.

    (btw, if you want to post images on this blog, and you run windows 7, you can pretty quickly get windows live movie maker to create a small movie out of your image and publish it to youtube.)


  142. No way, Swarthmore mom, so eager to call out others as sock puppets is a frequent user of sockpuppets!?

    Say it ain’t so.

    That would make her, well, so hypocritical!

    /wikileaks day her at the Turley blog.


  143. I forgot I made up same names to Blouise back. It was worth it. Annie was the one I was talking about. I outed her accidentally with Annie Swarthmore mom. To get to eight you are counting when I did not capitalize my name.


  144. Slarti, Is this site IRC?


  145. So now I am an offender because I did not capitalize my name.


  146. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 5:44 pm Anonymously Yours

    “I” sometimes becomes the negative in your posting. Such at least “I” don’t smoke dope….which connotates… that the person you are speaking to still smokes dopes….

    So with that said you implied…that I am not honest and you are….which is all a matter of perspective…..

    Again:

    chicanery, it is as follows…..

    1: deception by artful subterfuge or sophistry : trickery
    2: a piece of sharp practice (as at law) : trick


  147. I will leave.


  148. I’m feeling pretty embarrassed right now, because well, when Hoochie Mama showed up at this blog, I was really turned on, and I got to talking to her and eventually we were cybering. Man that was a long fun 72 hours.

    Roco, you’re a naughty naughty person. (But fun :) )


  149. anon,

    Slartibartfast/Dr. Kevin Kesseler has clearly identified himself and provided contact information. All you have to do is click his Gravitar to see his real name. He is a physicist and mathematician as he described several times previously in his comments. As best I can recall, he has never kept his identity secret.


  150. “Swarthmore mom
    1, September 27, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    So now I am an offender because I did not capitalize my name.”

    You’re an offender because all of those times when you claimed other people were sock puppets, and you alluded to some sort of inside information on this, and gave the impression that sock puppets were low, hey look, it’s Annie and Arturo.


  151. By the way the last time another name was used was June. I wanted to get Blouise, back. Ay, There is lot of good information on google about attorneys in Michigan.


  152. @OS, thanks, so I’ll amend my statement. Kevin Kesseler, physicist and mathematician was secretly and unethically abusing this website and the privacy most posters expected while being open about his name.

    That’s admirable.


  153. anon:

    right back at you.

    by the way, if you really are a liberal you are a damn fine one. you seem receptive to new ideas and different ways of looking at things.

    Most libs are stuck on 1968, that tiedye shit is getting old.


  154. anon:
    I am unfamiliar with any ethical code that says it is unethical to ferret out sockpuppets and zombies. Slarti did not “out” any user by name or location. He knows who I am and where I live, and I am comfortable with that because I trust him. The point is, that if one tries to deceive, it is next to impossible and the research is not very hard if one knows what you are doing.


  155. Heh. Mespo727272, Mark Esposito was whining to me yesterday that I had written all these horrible oppressive posts as sock puppets and that’s how he could tell that anon, me, was an oppressor.

    And I asked him to point those out, and he could not, because, heh, his logic, they were written by my alts!

    Maybe I should give him credit, maybe he had Dr. Kevin Kessler Ph.D from Duke’s information and did indeed have evidence of all these alts of mine and my horrible oppressor posts and he actually had the integrity not to post them.

    But up above, Kevin says he shared only with Mike and Buddha, and a week or so ago, someone said Buddha was Gene H.’s alt, so I guess mespo is now sort of being sad puppy that he didn’t have in on the peyton place script that kevin conjured up.

    But hey mespo, talk about a crowd that needs therapy! Kevin does for sure. And look you can abuse everyone about it! Win win!

    Anyway, it’s always fun when someone asks why anyone would want to write pseudonymously or anonymously and badgers them about it.


  156. Just want to make sure I have all these deceptive names correct: Swarthmore Mom. Swarthmore mom, swarthmore mom, Swarthmore, Annie Swarthmore mom, Blouise fan, Annie and Arturo. That is eight. Most are different spellings and certainly not an attempt to deceive. I am not the best typist as you might have noticed.


  157. Good grief, so what. We are all anonymous to some extent and not at all. What the hell is private on the net or in a chat. And tho this is a comment section it is still a chat.


  158. Jo,

    Huh?

    Swarthmore mom,

    I think you mean “back Blouise”… ;-) I’m not the one counting – my code is. You should see how many problems Mike S had with capitalization and spelling… (sorry Mike, I know I promised not to keep bringing that up ;-)

    anon,

    Nice try at spinning the data, but a reasonable interpretation backs up SM’s story. Out of nearly 60 pages of posts on my text widget, only 6 posts from 4 identities were sock puppets and half of those involved the situation that she herself had described. “Arturo” hardly looks like a horribly pernicious sock puppet to me – people can judge for themselves:

    http://jonathanturley.org/2011/05/05/felony-franks-sues-city-over-misdemeanor-message/#comment-229992

    (a post agreeing with an apology to Blouise – the entire text: “DITTO”)

    Arturo
    1, June 5, 2011 at 9:10 pm
    C.M. The newly elected republican governors are probably the most hostile group labor has faced in a long time. Don’t think the democrats have to worry about the labor vote this time around.

    Swarthmore mom
    1, June 5, 2011 at 9:17 pm
    Agree, Arturo. Think Scott wins the prize as the worst of all of them.

    http://jonathanturley.org/2011/06/05/35875/#comment-236680

    This is clearly use of a sock puppet, but compared to, say, Bdaman…

    (Swarthmore mom – I’m sorry to be picking on you, but you brought it up and specific examples help focus the discussion. I’d like to make it clear that I firmly believe that you have done nothing wrong and your comments above were made in entirely good faith.)


  159. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 6:15 pm Anonymously Yours

    See….You have said you are upholding the traditions….You so graciously have offered unsolicited information….in order to ridicule and create a negative impression in others minds….my, my….”Now What Don’t they know”…..

    I hope your posting does make you feel better….I hope that you do feel better as a person because of it….

    Does performing unsuccessful acts of suicide rings bells with you….Does being in a garage for 11 hours with the vehicle running qualify in your book? Like in July of 07’…..and waking up with one hell of a headache….

    Does taking overdoses like 70/60 of Xanax and Hydrocodone ring any bells….Like in October/November 10’…..and speaking with me then….

    Now isn’t one part of the program you alluded to require cleaning up the wreckage of the past…..ring any bells….Were these not shared with you in a confidential manner….My, my…You have achieved your goal….Upholding the principals….Principals before Personalities…..

    I so want your program….

    By golly…..You have rang some bells today…. I am sure you have helped me make my points as well….Thank you….I am not even hurt…..nor shocked…

    sub·ter·fugeNoun/ˈsəbtərˌfyo͞oj/
    1. Deceit used in order to achieve one’s goal.
    2. A statement or action resorted to in order to deceive


  160. SM, Sorry my post wasn’nt directed at you just happened to follow your post. I have always found your comments interesting and I like the persona that I see here, We All have a persona in chat just some people can use their nicknames to try to hurt . I gotta go guests are here


  161. “I am unfamiliar with any ethical code that says it is unethical to ferret out sockpuppets and zombies.”

    When facebook does this, when any body uses web bugs for tracking, many people consider that an unethical invasion of privacy.

    The EFF says:

    “18. Are the use of Web Bugs unethical?
    Clearly Web Bugs are controversial. Because they allow people to be monitored, when they don’t expect it, they certainly can be very upsetting. For example, most people will likely be troubled to learn that an outsider is tracking when they read Email.”

    In addition, I am pretty sure this site is hosted on wordpress which means he is bound by the wordpress tos:

    Responsibility of Contributors.If you operate a blog, comment on a blog… the Content is not pornographic, does not contain threats or incite violence towards individuals or entities, and does not violate the privacy or publicity rights of any third party;

    Violating a websites TOS is arguably (and bogusly) a federal crime, a misdemeanor, and could become a felony.

    The little-known law at issue is called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It was enacted in 1986 to punish computer hacking. But Congress has broadened the law every few years, and today it extends far beyond hacking. The law now criminalizes computer use that “exceeds authorized access” to any computer. Today that violation is a misdemeanor, but the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to meet this morning to vote on making it a felony.

    The problem is that a lot of routine computer use can exceed “authorized access.” Courts are still struggling to interpret this language. But the Justice Department believes that it applies incredibly broadly to include “terms of use” violations and breaches of workplace computer-use policies.

    So when Dr. Kevin Kessler Ph.D formerly of Duke’s mathematics department writes ” I’ve done nothing untoward.”, well, he may wish to shut up and lawyer up.


  162. “This is clearly use of a sock puppet, but compared to, say, Bdaman…”

    Hey, SwM, check out the following:

    sock puppet john lott
    sock puppet lee siegel
    sock puppet glenn greenwald

    Once again Arturo, when Dr. Kevin Kessler Ph.D formerly of Duke writes he thinks you’ve done nothing wrong, well, the Internet over the past 10 years or so, begs to differ.

    But hell, your sock puppetry behavior though rare is EXACTLY the kind of behavior that people decry.

    It’s one thing for people to change their pseudonyms around, I like to post as some famous author of a quote and then put in place the quote, but it’s another thing altogether to pat yourself on the back in the guise of a sockpuppet.

    What’s delish of course is your well known penchant for calling out others as alts and sockpuppets.

    Roco was wrong to use Hoochie Mama, sounds like that nym would have fit you way better.


  163. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 6:25 pm Robert Paulson is not my name

    Robert Paulson is NOT my name!


  164. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 6:27 pm Robert Paulson is not my name

    Wish I could go back to Mos Eisley Space Port, where people are much more civilized and much less passive aggressive, pretentious, holier-than-thou, and hypocritical than at this blog.


  165. Whoops sorry, alt fail. That was me.


  166. I guess bdaman and I are the only ones that have ever used them here. Of course I only had three and rarely used them. I don’t count the typos as legitimate sockpuppets. I think blouise fan was used once. I really did forget about Arturo. I think I was mad that there was no hispanic representation here. Annie was the only one I remembered.


  167. Not all sockpuppets are created equal.

    Anonymity, like words, has value that is contextually and motivationally (as in the speakers motive) relevant. It is a false equivalence to say all anonymity is alike just like it is to say all use of the word Nazi is alike. In one context, Nazi is an accurate historical label, in another context Nazi is an accurate and precise political science term, in another context Nazi is the exaggeration used to make a joke funny. The usage and meaning is based on context and intent of the speaker. Just so, the anonymous poster who would like to speak their mind but is perhaps in hiding from a formerly abusive spouse is not the equivalent of the anonymous poster hiding their identity to merely be a shit disturber without fear of repercussion is not the equivalent of anonymous posters needing a degree of anonymity for valid business reasons is not equivalent to the anonymous poster who simply wishes to avoid random loonies is not the anonymous poster who is a paid political operative.

    A false equivalence is a logical fallacy that is used to shift substance of an argument, a categorization error, or an attempt to apply an arbitrary or imprecise standard of judgement.


  168. anon1,2 o3?:

    “Roco was wrong to use Hoochie Mama, sounds like that nym would have fit you way better.”

    I never used Hoochie Mama. But that is a good one.


  169. Holy shit, you went straight to Godwin without even a hello and a kiss. I did _not see_ that coming. Hey Gene, can you confirm you were the beneficiary of some of this information!?

    @SwM, are you hispanic? If you aren’t how is a faux-hispanic alt providing representations of hispanics?


  170. Holy shit! Apparently you can’t read.


  171. I won’t even mention your pitiful comprehension skills.


  172. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 6:39 pm Anonymously Yours

    You should be pleased that I very rarely ever reveal anything anyone has told me in conversation…..especially anything personal about themselves…Good luck in your life….Please leave mine alone now….I think I have ample justification to not correspond any longer with you or about you or to you….

    Please leave me or anything you know about me out of it this blawg sphere…I hope the professor takes due note of this particular thread….I will not inform him….But he does read them when he has time….


  173. Nazi has a precise meaning in all situations. It never changes.

    You cannot change the meaning of a word based on how you use it.

    If you use Nazi in a joke [although I dont see how there is anything funny about the deaths of millions of people] you would be implying a totalitarian bent.


  174. Oh, I realize you did not violate the strong version of Godwin. You did not directly call anyone a Nazi. But you certainly violated the classic version, also known as the weak version which states,

    [All together class]

    “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1″

    So now you can tell us how your comparison did not involve Nazis themselves, only the word Nazi and it’s various linguistic uses.


  175. Oh, I realize you two clowns wish to merely distract from the fact you are indeed making false equivalences.

    And if you don’t think Nazis can’t be the exaggeration to make a joke funny?

    You’ve never seen a Mel Brooks film.


  176. Swarthmore Mom,

    Don’t leave. Please. You’ve done nothing wrong and anon is an ass.

    OS,

    Thanks for pointing out that my identity isn’t anonymous.

    anon,

    Did you find my dissertation? Byron actually read* it after I revealed my identity – which means that at least 1 person has read my dissertation… ;-)

    * Thanks Byron.

    you said:

    “I am unfamiliar with any ethical code that says it is unethical to ferret out sockpuppets and zombies.”

    When facebook does this, when any body uses web bugs for tracking, many people consider that an unethical invasion of privacy.

    I wasn’t tracking anyone – I was just making better use of the same information that everyone is downloading from Professor Turley’s server. I didn’t invade anyone’s privacy.

    The EFF says:

    “18. Are the use of Web Bugs unethical?
    Clearly Web Bugs are controversial. Because they allow people to be monitored, when they don’t expect it, they certainly can be very upsetting. For example, most people will likely be troubled to learn that an outsider is tracking when they read Email.”

    Wikipedia says:

    A web bug is an object that is embedded in a web page or e-mail and is usually invisible to the user but allows checking that a user has viewed the page or e-mail.[1] One common use is in e-mail tracking. Alternative names are web beacon, tracking bug, and tag or page tag. Common names for web bugs implemented through an embedded image include tracking pixel, pixel tag, 1×1 gif, and clear gif.[2]

    I merely scraped web pages and mined the data – if you’re going to call everyone doing this unethical, then you’re a fool.

    In addition, I am pretty sure this site is hosted on wordpress which means he is bound by the wordpress tos:

    Please explain to me how I am bound by any wordpress TOS when I request page source from a URL.

    Responsibility of Contributors.If you operate a blog, comment on a blog… the Content is not pornographic,

    It clearly isn’t.

    does not contain threats or incite violence towards individuals or entities,

    None of that – just information about what handles were associated with what gravatars…

    and does not violate the privacy or publicity rights of any third party;

    I’d like to see you argue that I’ve violated anyone’s privacy by mining information on a web site in court. Why do you think pages are usually scraped?

    Violating a websites TOS is arguably (and bogusly) a federal crime, a misdemeanor, and could become a felony.

    Well, it’s a good thing I didn’t violate it then…

    The little-known law at issue is called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It was enacted in 1986 to punish computer hacking. But Congress has broadened the law every few years, and today it extends far beyond hacking. The law now criminalizes computer use that “exceeds authorized access” to any computer.

    Isn’t the point of the web that anyone is authorized to request page source from any URL (which may or may not give it to them). I did nothing to fool Professor Turley’s server into giving me unauthorized information – I just made good use of information that is freely available to all.

    Today that violation is a misdemeanor, but the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to meet this morning to vote on making it a felony.

    Doesn’t matter – it clearly doesn’t apply to what I did.

    The problem is that a lot of routine computer use can exceed “authorized access.” Courts are still struggling to interpret this language. But the Justice Department believes that it applies incredibly broadly to include “terms of use” violations and breaches of workplace computer-use policies.

    When they start rounding up marketing companies for data mining the web then I’ll start to get concerned…

    So when Dr. Kevin Kessler Ph.D [sic] formerly of Duke’s mathematics department writes ” I’ve done nothing untoward.”, well, he may wish to shut up and lawyer up.

    Are you trying to intimidate me by using my real name from an anonymous identity? That’s pretty cowardly, but if you are such a pathetic person as to do such a thing, you should at least SPELL MY FUCKING NAME RIGHT!

    It seems to me that there are probably lawyers reading this thread – I wonder what they think about my culpability?


  177. “My application (sorry I don’t know how to post a screen shot here – the GUI is not really ready for prime time anyway… ) displays a list of threads as well as a list of handles and displays associated information for selected entries. For instance, this is what I get when I click on “[name deleted]“:” Slarti
    ———————————————

    do me now! do me now! do me now!
    (on second thought……mmmmm,no….)

    this is borderline creepy I’m pretty sure of it…..and strangely, Slarti, I’m extraordinarily impressed….

    so Slarti you can probably build a pretty good wall against trackware, spyscuds and intrusionary programs, no?


  178. Let’s make a few things clear here that need to be mentioned:

    The issue for me is not one of sock-puppetry, but the fact that a commenter here has hacked my personal computer, which is a Federal and State Felony. He did this too frighten me, not by exposure of my identity, but to imply unspecified harm. The identity part of the equation is a moot point because I’ve never hidden my identity and much can be gleaned by just knowing the name. I’ve been aware of that but my belief is if one is to express their opinions publicly, then hiding one’s identity is a cop out.

    That is, however, my belief and I’m also aware that many might have personal reasons for not doing so. I don’t disparage them for that unless their reason is clearly to be deceitful as we have seen on some occasions here on the blog. As far as Kevin’s identity goes, he made his identity and E Mail public long ago. As far as sock puppets go when he began his project, which I was a part of as an adviser (lacking the technical knowledge to even have a glimmer as to how it worked) I was shocked to discover that there were about 5 instances where my identity was different. Most of them were misspellings and on one I used Miconoclast. I say shocked though because I was unaware that I did that, but the evidence was there. So I can understand if others have had variances and frankly it doesn’t cause me much concern.

    What does concern me though is this about the use of Sockpuppets. It has been well documented that certain minions on the right have funded
    people to spread disinformation and disruption on the blogs. One that I know has suffered this is the website for OpEdNews, but there are many others. Last year every thread on this blog was attacked by a variety of commenters, under different aliases, whose purpose was to disrupt, rather than present alternative positions. I personally feel that that sort of thing is vile and especially so because our host is a man who has spent a lifetime of dedication to free speech. Trying to turn JT’s strength into a weakness may seem ironic fun to some, but to me it is disgustingly dishonest. This is so because I would think that if anyone had even a modicum of integrity they would be willing to honestly argue their positions, rather than play disinformation games.

    However, win at all cost seems to be a philosophy of many people who see life’s struggles in Neo-Darwinian Terms. Many think that it is “Manly” and makes them feel powerful to ignore simple rules of human interaction, integrity and decency. To allow them to get away with it, would be a vast mistake. Acceding to bullies is to encourage them to go to greater lengths and that was the spirit in which Kevin’s project proceeded. Since he was not getting inside information from any guest bloggers, or from JT, I think it was fair of him to do so. Pious pronouncements of shock are reminiscent of Claude Rains in “Casablanca”. Hypocritical and self serving at best.

    I might have used my site access to get the E Mail of the person attacking me, but I didn’t do so. Slarti provided it to me, along with this persons other persona’s and E Mail addresses. This begins to put me on an equal footing with him as I consult with the authorities. I think most people would think that fair. I am also writing this as a means of warning him to desist now, because there is now a clear record of what he has done. Those of you quick to criticize the work that Kevin did, with my compliance, should put yourselves in my position and perhaps understand the breech this person made and its wrongness.


  179. In recognition of Jason’s valid point earlier, I hereby amend my previous statement. The ownership of most firearms has never been at risk in this country. Ever.

    With regard to the rest of this thread, I confess that I am not able to follow a lot of the dispute and most of the technical information. However, hacking into someone’s computer is the electronic equivalent of breaking and entering. I find it amazing that people who would never think of sneaking into a neighbor’s home and rifling through their drawers don’t have a problem with sneaking into their computer and rifling through their files.

    I choose not to be anonymous not out of any false sense of pride, but because I am at an age where I no longer worry what others may think of my opinions. I don’t have a gravatar because I’ve never taken the time to figure out how to get one. Hell, I still haven’t been able to cut and paste an appropriate photograph with any of my guest blogs. And until I became a regular on this site, the only trolls I had ever heard about lived under bridges. It’s been an education.


  180. And by special request . . .


  181. The identity part of the equation is a moot point because I’ve never hidden my identity and much can be gleaned by just knowing the name. I’ve been aware of that but my belief is if one is to express their opinions publicly, then hiding one’s identity is a cop out.
    ~Mike Spindell
    ———————————————————-
    Mike the problem for me is that the internet is still just a faceless nameless tool. There are people behind most avatars but unless you know them in the real world you just don’t *know* them. Or thier intentions. Reading and posting on this blog for a good long while has given me an idea of whose who in Avatar-land….but I do understand that I am talking, for the most part, to ‘created’ personalities, not real people. You are the rare bird that walks real in both worlds….I admire that and I give your opinions extra weight because of it.


  182. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 7:12 pm Anonymously Yours

    I choose to be anonymously yours at the time…Purely because of social embarrassing reasons….As has been pointed out, I have some things to take care of….at the time it did not matter because I was not going to be living tomorrow….This was because of untreated depression and lingering suicidal idealization at the time and throw chantix in the mix…. Today…not so much….


  183. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 7:17 pm Anonymously Yours

    Does that make you happy SWM…..I will now conclude with the word subterfuge….I think you have made this point….Believe this or not…I have sympathy for your pain….that you’d stoop to this low….

    That glass out must be wonderful….


  184. Slarti, I thought you throwing me in with bdaman and then these guys piled on again. I don’t care who knows who I really am on here. I don’t have anything to hide. Like my daughter says,” mom, you are an open book”.


  185. Mike,

    What Kevin Kesseler, ph.d formerly of Duke exploits, is that you do have a gravatar. Yours is 454d2ef47f9dd8506bcf2cc7b18506d9, I think, and it’s almost certainly an MD5 hash of your email address.

    So if say one day you wanted to right, ethically, but anonymously, about a personal situation that you were expert in and wanted to discuss, but didn’t want other people to trace to you, say, you had cancer and you didn’t want your insurance company to know, or you were a whistleblower, and you didn’t want your employer or the feds to find you, but if you had carelessly used a pseudonym in the comment entry field, but used the same email address, almost ALL websites and blogs say will not be disclosed, well Kevin’s script and Kevin could detect that and know you were the one with cancer, or with AIDS, or who told congress about the torture, or whatever. And Kevin shared this with Mike and with Gene and who knows who else.

    Contrary to the expectations of most people commenting on this blog.

    And almost certainly contrary to WordPress’ TOS:

    “Responsibility of Contributors.If you operate a blog, comment on a blog, … you represent and warrant that: … the Content … does not violate the privacy or publicity rights of any third party”

    Now Kevin argues he is safe because he did not post content, he scraped content.

    But prosecutors and congress have used their woefully written computer fraud and abuse law to go after people who’s crime was merely that they used ALTs and logged in as someone not themselves.

    Facebook has gone after people they banned, and who changed IPs to avoid the ban, saying their scraping of data was illegal. (Facebook lost in that case.)

    But all in all, it’s pretty clear that Professor Turley, that WordPress, that Gravatar, that Facebook, that no one here at this blog gives Kevin permission to use the information this way, and to associate the email addresses (the gravatar hashmaps) to identify alts.

    And just look at the form that Professor Turley has to post with it says:

    Email (required) (Not published).

    Kevin found a leak, Kevin figured out how to associate that email with an ID, and so even though the clear intent that everyone who posts understands is that the email will not be published, and even though Professor Turley seems to be a strong proponent of anonymity, Dr. Kevin Kesseler, Ph.D, a mathematician and physicist, formerly of Duke, violated ALL OF THAT, intentionally, repeatedly.

    And now he says:

    “I merely scraped web pages and mined the data – if you’re going to call everyone doing this unethical, then you’re a fool.”

    I don’t know if what Kevin did was illegal. I know it was unethical. I know Kevin can understand that. I know there have been many prosecutors that have prosecuted others for much less than that.

    I also think that Mike and Gene, especially Gene, should have known better and advised Mike to stop.

    It is not clear to me what Professor Turley’s role in this is. Perhaps if the Professor did not tell him to stop, it could be seen as an okayal of the behavior.

    @Kevin Kesseler, Ph.D., mathematican, physicist, from Duke. Is my writing your real name down that OS says you’ve never been shy with a threat? No, it’s just a Santorum.

    I think what you did was crummy, unethical, and that you should have known better. I think some douchebag that expects an academic career owes shitloads to the public, and I think you have violated that agreement between academia and the public.

    And I would like later tenure committees to find it.

    Certainly there’s nothing unethical in my doing so.

    Play computer science security researcher on your goddamn blog, not on this one.


  186. “at the time it did not matter because I was not going to be living tomorrow”

    Hey, AY, be well.

    I’ve suffered from probably different, but similar situations, along with a host of various birth defects and self-inflicted bad choices I’ve made along with some frankly horrible injustices of the family law courts. And I go to sleep many nights hoping not to wake up.

    But, be well dude.


  187. I mean you were. I told you I can’t type. I am surprised I did not have more swarthmore names. I was thinking of changing the name to Annie since it is closer to my real name and I am no longer a Swarthmore mom.


  188. I also think that Mike and Gene, especially Gene, should have known better and advised Kevin to stop.

    It is not clear to me what Professor Turley’s role in this is. Perhaps if the Professor did not tell him to stop, it could be seen as approval of the behavior.

    FTFM


  189. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 7:33 pm Anonymously Yours

    Opps I meant to say…

    That Glass House must be wonderful….


  190. Mike S, What the person did to you was not a simple mean post or anything to do with using a different nickname. What that person did was evil. and criminal. From the posts I’ve seen he/she is not merely mean spirited but malicious.

    As you can see I have dropped my last name not trying to hide my identity but just because your name is so personal even if it is only a nickname used to comment. Joking, kidding, arguing, even being mean and offensive is part of internet chat. Malicious should be shunned by civilized folk. And Malevolent hacking can and should be investigated.


  191. That Glass House is a nice place. Have some friends there.


  192. Hey Kevin Kesseler, Ph.D, what you should do is write a paper or blog post explaining that gravatar and wordpress and most likely any site that uses gravatar has a security weakness that can be trivially exploited to detect alts, invade privacy and which has, as I point out for Mike potentially devastating effects on people that had real reasons for believing their pseudonymity was secure.

    I’ve long thought that the (Email required) (not published) stuff was bullshit and didn’t stop fake email addresses or spammers and should just be eliminated or at the least, made optional.

    And people should understand that the basic default behavior of Gravatar even for people not logged in to wordpress or Gravatar and with no Gravatar per se’ is to act as a web bug and track users.

    So you could get a blog post or even a paper and some press out of that, AND you would be doing a public good.

    But you can’t do that can you, because you would have to admit your acts at this blog are unethical and reprehensible and you’re another of those guys like Mespo727272 who just can’t do that.


  193. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 7:46 pm Anonymously Yours

    anon,

    Life is not so bad right now…Getting my house in order….dealing with the things that need to be dealt with….getting the things taken care of that I had no desire to do…but today…I have the desire to…

    There are something that are readily available about people…..it rarely bodes well in conversations to start out with the negative side of ones life…But depression hits many people in different ways….Today…I can say that I am dealing with it…That is why I have not backed down when I have been wronged…and today…it did go over the edge….some people have a convient truth….

    As has said….There’s one way to find out if a man is honest – ask him. If he says, “Yes,” you know he is a crook.
    Groucho Marx


  194. At least I try.


  195. Slarti, The only question I have with all of this is why did I get singled out when there are so many shenanigans going on here?


  196. SM, for what its worth I like Annie. But I am on a name kick today. My daughter is expecting my first grandchild. I have picked the name Tadpole from his first sonogram pic. They seem to want something more customary like Charles.


  197. Or here’s an idea, anon.

    If you don’t like the way the blog is run (as a public forum for free speech), go start your own and/or leave.

    As far as your pronouncements of unethical, let alone illegal, behavior goes? It’s all just the whining of some anonymous douche bag with an ax to grind from what I see. Technology doesn’t work the way you thought it did. Boo hoo. As pointed out already, numerous times now, there is no true anonymity on the Internet. If you have a problem with people scrapping data off the Internet in public forums? Get ready to be disappointed. Also as previous pointed out, data mining companies scrape the Internet 24/7/365 and sell what they learn to corporations and government. How did they get this ability? Academic research made into applied science, genius. And what exactly do you think makes Facebook an obscenely profitable business when they give away accounts to use their proprietary software for free? Here’s a hint: they aren’t selling the software. They couldn’t *gasp* be in the data mining business could they?

    As to your supposition about what I do? See the above statement about whining. I don’t need Kevin’s data. I have editorial access.

    But you keep bleating like the sheep boy who cried wolf if you like.


  198. Jo,

    I have to say I admire your sense of nomenclature.


  199. Jo, Thanks for the support. I don’t have any grandchildren yet just grand puppies.


  200. {W(t)=^..^ : t <= now} said:

    Woosty’s still a Cat
    1, September 27, 2011 at 6:53 pm
    “My application (sorry I don’t know how to post a screen shot here – the GUI is not really ready for prime time anyway… ) displays a list of threads as well as a list of handles and displays associated information for selected entries. For instance, this is what I get when I click on “[name deleted]“:” Slarti
    ———————————————

    do me now! do me now! do me now!
    (on second thought……mmmmm,no….)

    I did. Except for some spelling and capitalization issues there are just a bazillion post associated with your usual handle. *YAWN*

    this is borderline creepy I’m pretty sure of it…..and strangely, Slarti, I’m extraordinarily impressed….

    Thank you – and s’rry… I recognized the potential for creepy abuse right away – that’s why I brought people like Mike S in to discuss the ethics… This whole project was a result of my disgust at the HB Gary emails about persona management software on Wikileaks and an attempt to find a way to detect that sort of thing.

    so Slarti you can probably build a pretty good wall against trackware, spyscuds and intrusionary programs, no?

    No. I just know enough to know when I need to find someone who knows more than me – like last night… I’m not interested in playing defense against malicious software, I’m interested identifying posters (their online identities, not any personal information [which I don’t have and wouldn’t share if I did…]) who are acting in bad faith in online discussions. What I did with the gravatars was a one-trick pony – it works until people figure it out*, then people who want to use sock puppets just change emails when they do. The more difficult (and interesting) problem is how do you identify the author via their writing alone – that’s something that even anon couldn’t hide from (nor claim to be a violation of his privacy).

    * By the way, after the original incident this spring, I noticed several people – including yourself – changing their gravatar icons. Kudos for recognizing the nature of my trick, but minus points for a completely irrelevant countermeasure ;-)

    Swarthmore mom – working on a reply…

    Jo,

    I have a friend who’s name is “Charles”, but everyone calls him “Tad”… (it’s a family nickname, apparently).


  201. “If you don’t like the way the blog is run (as a public forum for free speech), go start your own and/or leave.”

    Gene, this is what leaves me dumbfounded about you.

    That you don’t understand that Kevin’s actions are totally antithetical with running this as a public forum for free speech.

    That when I point out the incongruity, you tell me that I should leave, and that that too is some move forward for this blog and free speech.

    That when Kevin showed you what he was doing, that you weren’t appalled and told him to stop, that it was a privacy violation of the commenters here.

    That you don’t understand how easily Kevin’s little script could have done real damage to a person.

    That you didn’t alert Professor Turley to this bug and have WordPress and Gravatar look into it, or at least remove the (Email required) field.

    That somehow you think you understand diddly squat about how the internet works or what free speech on the net is all about.


  202. SM LMAO Now thats funny


  203. Swarthmore Mom,

    As Slartibartfast said:

    “Don’t leave. Please. You’ve done nothing wrong and anon is an ass.”

    I concur with all three sentences.

    As to the rest of this thread — with the exception of Mike Spindell’s predicament — it is a perfect example of a tempest in a teapot.

    The age old political tactic of divide and conquer manifesting in the microcosm of comments in a blog is quite stunning to see.

    I would suggest that all here keep our energies focused on some salient issues:

    1. The Pentagon gets way too much money.

    2. The current global financial system is optimized for highly leveraged debt and high risk/short cycle ventures.

    3. Our representative form of government has — after much effort, time, and expense — been stripped from us.

    4. Executive branch powers need to reined in.

    Sockpuppetry is the very least of my worries.


  204. OOPs sorry Slarti, lmao now thats funny I think I need new glasses


  205. ““Don’t leave. Please. You’ve done nothing wrong and anon is an ass”

    Wait. Is that true?

    Swarthmore Mom are you considering leaving this blog because of something I did to you or said to you?

    Wow. What was that?


  206. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 8:20 pm Anonymously Yours

    Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.
    Groucho Marx


  207. @anon

    Maybe this will provide some explanation for Gene’s attitude.

    Don’t let them fool you. Slarti hasn’t figured out how to decrypt a gravatar. If he had, he’d easily be able to decrypt this one (1b98fd37f08879622720e47e7bf93f14)

    Slartibartfast may be able to tell you the username associated with that code, but he won’t be able to provide you with the email address. That’s because it has never been used to post a comment at this blog, or any other where Slartibartfast may have been provided access.

    Are you familiar with what it takes to convince a jury that a person committed a crime?

    Professor Turley granted Administrator access to all of his guest bloggers. That access not only permits them to have access to the email address and ip address used when someone posts a comment, it provides then with the ability to export the entire database of information from all the threads at one time; including the email address and ip address for every comment.

    That’s you means and opportunity.

    We only have motive remaining. Slartibartfast has acknowledged that there was a motive behind he, Buddha/Gene and Mike S. getting this information.

    There you have it. Means, Motive, and Opportunity all exist.


  208. Anon, You are not that powerful to make me leave. lol I was leaving because I was being singled out for using Annie,etc. while others that use a multitude of names were not mentioned.


  209. Thats only half where are the others. :)


  210. Thats only half where are the others.


  211. Swarthmore mom,

    The short answer as to why you got singled out: bad luck. You commented while I was trying to post my comment explaining what I did – if it hadn’t had the poster in question’s name in it, I would have posted before you did and you probably would have been more careful in what you said. However, given that I had raised the issue of the information I mined and you had made an issue of honesty, I felt it necessary to put the unaltered facts out there before giving my opinion. I knew that you were going to get pounded before I could give my opinion and I’m sorry about that, but you should notice that ever since I have been expressing the opinion that you did nothing wrong and supporting you (although I’ve got to say that “Arturo” sounds more Italian than Hispanic to me…). Also, I think that your case illustrates what to me is the key point – why is what you did okay (or the equivalent of a little white lie) while some of the things that Roco or Bdaman have done are inappropriate (in my opinion)? My answer is that your comments are all in good faith with the exception of a single post amongst thousands (I think – I never got around to putting in a counter so I don’t know for sure…), while Roco’s are full of logical fallacies and Bdaman engages in classic trolling (disrupt the discussion and then refuse to engage), both of which are textbook examples of bad faith in my mind.

    Pay the trolls no mind, Annie, there are plenty of people here who have your back – I’m one of them – but you’ll always be “Swarthmore mom” to me… ;-)

    Just to be clear, I am not trying to find information about anyone – this software hasn’t been run in almost 3 months and would have been gathering dust for a long while if not for this tomfoolery. Given that the issue came up, I’m more than willing to have the discussion and if anyone asks (like Woosty) I’ll certainly look for them, but I’ve got better things to do with my time these days than to try to find out anything about anon or his ilk. Anyone who would like to know what information of theirs shows up in my program who doesn’t want it published can send me email at (first name)@(last name).net. Keep in mind that my database is three months out of date and I have no intention of updating it (I never got the parallel processing running right so it would take half a day or so anyway – the Prof and his guest bloggers are prolific…). Now I’ve got to go clean up the mess NoWay made…


  212. Thanks NoWay,

    I do understand all Slarti has is what is most likely an MD5 hash of the email address, and I do understand that that is enough to tie various pseudonyms together.

    I think Professor Turley made a mistake granting admin access to these guys — I think they have clearly abused their privileges. I don’t think any poster here would expect that at Professor Turley’s blog, various guest administrators would be piecing together the various alts and email addresses and ip addresses of the posters. Or writing tools to scrape that. And that if there were specific problem users, that the typical WordPress tools and procedures would be used to deal with that.

    I’m still not sure on the motive. Maybe I missed it. Why did Slarti say these guys were doing this? It seems like a lot of overkill just to get rid of Nada, and it sounds like Slarti has had his tool up and running for months.

    Hey, Kevin, why did you write this tool again in the first place?

    What was so important that you felt you had to figure out all of Roco’s alts?
    Why couldn’t you use the tools that WordPress provided to do that?
    Why not just ban Roco by IP or email or whatever tools WordPress gave you?

    I understand, I guess, you were a guest administrator. Did you inform Professor Turley of your intentions before writing or before using your script? What made you think your activities were in the scope of your duties as a guest administrator?

    What made you think that scraping gravatar ids, and associating them with email addresses, login ids, and presumably IP addresses was congruent with a free speech forum?

    Anyway, thank you NoWay for clearing some of that up.


  213. “Swarthmore mom
    1, September 27, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    Anon, You are not that powerful to make me leave. lol I was leaving because I was being singled out for using Annie,etc. while others that use a multitude of names were not mentioned.”

    Thanks Swarthmore mom, I appreciate that.

    Anyway, so that when Kevin blames it on me and gbk pipes up in agreement, they are both just all wet.

    Personally, I think that name field down there is a creative writing entry field, and should be there for convenience only.


  214. Hey, Bdaman – I was just talking about you. Did you see your list of aliases above? My favorite is “:)”. Do you know how many times you used it?


  215. “Anyone who would like to know what information of theirs shows up in my program who doesn’t want it published can send me email at (first name)@(last name).net.”

    Oh I know, I know, pick me pick me!

    Hey, I got an idea! DELETE YOUR DAMN PROGRAM. SHRED THE DATABASE. Learn some self-restraint. Respect others.


  216. @anon

    I have no way of knowing if Slarti ever accessed this blog via Administrator. (Neither would Professor Turley or any of the guest bloggers. The WordPress logs are not that detailed.) All that would have been needed was for one of the guest bloggers to export the database and pass it along to Slarti.

    Can I prove that it happened that way? No. Have I established that the means, motive, and opportunity were present? You betcha.


  217. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 9:07 pm Anonymously Yours

    Slarti,

    I have admitted to doing sock puppets…and Mike S even said something along the lines of “You don’t say.”……There has never been a denial that I have posted under other nom de plumes…

    Gene,

    I posted something already to you…


  218. When do we get to the next part of Festivus? After the airing of grievances, I’m really looking forward to the feats of strength. :)


  219. Hey Kev, no and don’t really care.

    I can tell you for sure that not all are mine, but it doesn’t matter.
    I mean besides I posted as bdaloser well who use to call me that? Buddhapest.

    How many are associated with you seeing how your all into honesty. Why don’t you just go down the list

    P.S. How you been ?


  220. My favorite is “:)”. Do you know how many times you used it?

    I know I used it last night hence the big smile on my face this morning.

    Thats probably more than you can say :)


  221. Slarti, I see some live in a fantasy world. That’s cool. Let science march on and let them try to figure it out. Dr. Arthur C. Clark once said that sufficiently advanced, science is indistinguishable from magic. And our next necromancer bit of legerdemain is………


  222. I can’t believe that I just went through the thread and no mention of Fast and Furious. Biggest scandal of the Obama Administration.

    The U.S. Congress will expand their investigation of Operation Fast and Furious to determine its connection to the smuggling of explosives ordinance into Mexico, a police source in Washington, DC, told the Law Enforcement Examiner on Saturday.
    According to the law enforcement source — who requested anonymity — besides the firearms and ammunition allowed to “walk” by agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), grenades and explosives may have also been allowed smuggled across the border into Mexico, ending up in the hands of drug cartel members.

    Investigators are renewing their probe into a narco-terrorist attack in which 60 people were killed and upwards of 30 were wounded on August 24 when the perpetrators tossed three grenades into a casino in Monterrey, Mexico, the capital of Nuevo Leon.

    Continue reading on Examiner.com Fast & Furious: Congress expanding probe to include grenades – National Law Enforcement | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/fast-furious-congress-expanding-probe-to-include-grenades#ixzz1ZCq5YKU8


  223. Mexican attorney general demands explanation on Operation Fast and Furious

    Tom Ramstack – AHN News Legal Correspondent

    Washington, DC, United States (AHN) – Mexico’s attorney general is demanding an explanation from the United States as evidence grows the Obama administration was more deeply involved in Operation Fast and Furious than top officials admitted in previous statements.

    Operation Fast and Furious was a federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives effort to track more than 2,000 smuggled guns to Mexican drug cartels by allowing gang members to purchase them illegally from U.S. gun stores then take them back to their leaders.

    However, the federal agency lost track of many of the guns. Some later were traced to murders of police and civilians in Mexico.

    Officially, the Justice Department says the operation backfired but did not admit U.S. agents sold the guns to the Mexican smugglers.

    In June, President Barack Obama said he would take “appropriate action” against organizers of the operation. He said it never was approved by top Justice Department officials.

    Investigative news stories this week cast doubt on reports of no high-level government involvement.

    Documents obtained from Fox News show ATF agents sold some of the guns to gang members. They allegedly purchased the guns with taxpayer money.

    Mexican Attorney General Marisela Morales called Operation Fast and Furious “an attack on Mexicans’ security.”

    http://gantdaily.com/2011/09/27/mexican-attorney-general-demands-explanation-on-operation-fast-and-furious/


  224. First of all,
    Swarthmore Mom, your posts are always important to me and many others here. Even the posters that I don’t agree with very often are important to me. I don’t agree with Bdaman very often, but he is one of the family here. This situation has gotten out of hand, but that does not demean the good work done by everyone here.
    I can assure everyone here that I have always been rafflaw and nothing but rafflaw since I started posting here on Prof. Turley’s blog. I consider it an honor to be able to guest blog and I would not do anything to jeapordize that privilege or the private information of anyone. I hope we can get past this issue now that all of the facts have been placed on the table by Slarts.
    Now, what about that 2nd amendment Boogey Man???


  225. anon,

    “That you don’t understand that Kevin’s actions are totally antithetical with running this as a public forum for free speech.”

    I understand that you think that, but unlike you I understand both the meaning of the word public and understand the underlying technology of the Internet.

    “That when I point out the incongruity, you tell me that I should leave, and that that too is some move forward for this blog and free speech.”

    Actually it is exactly in accordance with free speech. I pointed out that the obvious solution to your dissatisfaction is to leave, but I also invited you to keep bleating.

    “That when Kevin showed you what he was doing, that you weren’t appalled and told him to stop, that it was a privacy violation of the commenter’s here.”

    Your assumption is that I saw Kevin’s data before today, but I’ll play your lil’ game. Had I seen Kevin’s data, I would not have been appalled or told him to stop because it is not a privacy violation of the commenter’s here. This is a public forum, accessible to anyone, and the WordPress sites and Gravatar carry no more uniquely identifying information about posters than any other website – indeed, they carry a bare minimum of data and do a fair amount to keep it away from casual snoopers.

    “That you don’t understand how easily Kevin’s little script could have done real damage to a person.”

    Again, I understand you think that.

    “That you didn’t alert Professor Turley to this bug and have WordPress and Gravatar look into it, or at least remove the (Email required) field.”

    It’s not a bug. It’s a design function. If you think you can convince the programmers responsible for either WordPress or Gravatar otherwise, you are welcome to try. Good luck with that.

    “That somehow you think you understand diddly squat about how the internet works or what free speech on the net is all about.”

    Actually I understand perfectly how the Internet works. I’ve been on the Internet since before it was the Internet. As to what free speech is all about? Either in meatspace or cyberspace? I’m going to go with the fact that I know a helluva lot more about it than you do. The Internet is not like a newspaper or a cafe or a park. Or wait a minute! Yes it is. Have you ever heard of the Locard exchange principle?

    Everywhere you go? Every contact you make? You leave something behind and you take something with you. This applies in the meatspace real world as a matter of the operation of physics. Ask any forensic scientist or watch an episode of CSI. It applies in the cyberspace Internet world because it’s a machine. It’s designed that way. One of the many amazing features of the Internet. It can also operate with a significant number of missing nodes too. It does this because DNS servers control and reroute traffic as required. It does this because the software identifies hardware attached to it by IP addresses in addition to changing a cryptic IP address into something a human can better understand and utilize like a URL (Uniform Resource Locater in case you didn’t know) or an email address (associated with the IP of your mail servers). It requires this information to know what is attached to it and manage the traffic accordingly. Short of “spoofing” your IP (a hacking method which isn’t foolproof), using a public hotspot or hijacking someone’s wireless router? You are never anonymous on the Internet. You connect? The DNS systems know where you are. What do you take with you when you leave a site? Does the term “cookies” mean anything to you beside a tasty treat? Computers touching other computers in cyberspace is no different than you touching a tree in meatspace. You’ll leave epithelial cells on the bark and take pollen, bark residue and possibly sap with you. On the Internet, you leave IP traces.

    The Internet?

    If you think you’re truly anonymous anywhere?

    You are sorrily mistaken.

    The Guest Bloggers follow the Professor’s rules concerning anonymous posters. This is a policy matter. It’s a policy matter designed to encourage free speech so you or Buddha Is Laughing or any of the anonymous posters no matter their motive for wishing anonymity can say whatever you like anonymously. It’s a policy I agree with. It seems to be a policy you agree with . . . up to a point. It doesn’t seem to bother you childish asses when you try to say I’m someone else, does it?

    That being said, this does not mean you are invisible. This does not mean you are anonymous to someone with the skills to extract the relevant data from the public areas of this forum or any other forum. This does not mean your information will not be passed along to the appropriate authorities if you are subject of a criminal investigation. If you are that concerned about your anonymity? Just like your apparent dissatisfaction with this forum, you are free to leave any time you should choose.

    Computers work without being networked, but if you want to have your say, you’ll just be talking to yourself. The Locard exchange principle applies otherwise.


  226. Rep. Issa chooses bloggers to replace “legacy media” in Fast and Furious reporting
    By Coach Collins, on September 25th, 2011

    So on September 20th, Congressman Issa hosted a telephone conference call with bloggers and those members of the “new media” who have written extensively on the “Gunwalking” story since its inception.

    Issa told the on-line reporters that his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee continues to investigate a range of Fast and Furious related subjects, including allegations of Gunwalking to Honduras from the Tampa ATF office; Gunwalking by the Indiana ATF; Administration violations of the Federal Arms Export Control Act and the involvement of numerous Executive branch agencies in the Fast and Furious affair.

    For example, 3 months ago it was revealed that the FBI had confidential informants working with Mexican drug gangs, providing money–taxpayer money–for the purchase of firearms and helping to clear a path to smuggle them across the border.

    In fact, the testimony of whistle blowers indicates the FBI might have been more critically involved in facilitating the Fast and Furious scheme than the ATF itself!

    And just a week ago, FOX News reported that a 3rd gun had been secretly removed from the scene of Brian Terry’s murder, also probably by the FBI, which then quickly and inexplicably deported 3 Mexican drug gang members, also discovered nearby.

    Yet other members of the legacy media have almost completely ignored these stories.

    But as David Codrea of the Gun Rights Examiner puts it, thanks to Darrell Issa, “if elite media ‘authorized journalists’ can’t be trusted to report on [Fast and Furious], a means now exists to bypass the former exclusive gatekeepers and get the word out. This will hasten their descent into irrelevance…”

    So when it comes to reporting on the Fast and Furious debacle, Mike Vanderboegh of the Sipsey Street blog might be right when he quips, “the era of big media is over.”

    And the only stonewalling Congressman Issa will face now will come from Barack Obama, Eric Holder and their Regime operatives.

    http://www.coachisright.com/rep-issa-chooses-bloggers-to-replace-legacy-media-in-fast-and-furious-reporting/


  227. I don’t agree with Bdaman very often, but he is one of the family here.

    Thanks Raff, that really makes me feel good. :)

    Now who cares, we are who we are.

    Lets talk about guns and the Obama Administration and how they purposefully let them walk across the border.


  228. A perfectly lovely suggestion, Bdaman.


  229. An ATF source has provided reporters a copy of a letter sent on June 1, 2010 which indicates that the monumental scandal known as ‘Project Gunwalker,’ or ‘Operation Fast and Furious,’ was never a sting operation as previously reported. If such an allegation is true, then the official Obama Administration explanation for the operation is entirely false.

    The commonly-reported talking point concerning Gunwalker is that it was intended as a sting operation but that it went bad when rogue ATF agents took it in a sinister direction.

    But the letter of June 2010, forwarded to reporters David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh, indicates that nothing about the operation contained any of the elements of a ‘sting.’ Everything ATF agents did in placing guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels was done in the open and with the approval of their supervisors:

    Per Section925(a)(1) of the Gun Control Act (GCA) exempts law enforcement agencies from the transportation, shipment, receipt, or importation controls of the GCA when firearms are to be used for the official business of the agency.

    Please accept this letter in lieu of completing an ATF Form 4473 for the purchase of four (4) CAI, Model Draco, 7.62×39 mm pistols, by Special Agent John Dodson. These aforementioned pistols will be used by Special Agent Dodson in furtherance of the performance of his official duties. In addition, Special Agent Dodson has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. If you have any questions, you may contact me at telephone number 602-605-6501.

    That letter was written by ATF-Phoenix Group VII Supervisor David Voth and was addressed to a federal firearms licensee, directing him to sell Agent Dodson the specified firearms off the books.

    Reporter Vanderboegh picks up the story:

    http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/gunwalker-bombshell-there-never-was-a-sting


  230. @anon

    Maybe this will provide some explanation for Gene’s attitude.

    Don’t let them fool you. Slarti hasn’t figured out how to decrypt a gravatar. If he had, he’d easily be able to decrypt this one (1b98fd37f08879622720e47e7bf93f14)

    I never said I had – in fact, your comment shows that you have no reading comprehension skills as I specifically said I couldn’t break the encryption although I think anyone with sufficient code breaking experience and resources could (like the NSA – but that’s probably overkill…).

    Slartibartfast may be able to tell you the username associated with that code, but he won’t be able to provide you with the email address.

    Which is why I wasn’t invading anyone’s privacy…

    That’s because it has never been used to post a comment at this blog, or any other where Slartibartfast may have been provided access.

    I don’t have any more access here than you do – I just post comments…

    Are you familiar with what it takes to convince a jury that a person committed a crime?

    Are you trying to scare me, because, if so, you suck at it.

    Professor Turley granted Administrator access to all of his guest bloggers.

    Which has all of nothing to do with me. I’m not a guest blogger and I don’t have admin access.

    That access not only permits them to have access to the email address and ip address used when someone posts a comment, it provides then with the ability to export the entire database of information from all the threads at one time; including the email address and ip address for every comment.

    I should clear up an error in Mike Spindell’s comment above – he said that I gave him NL’s IP and email addresses this morning, that is incorrect. I was copied on an email in which one of the guest bloggers gave Mike that information (it should surprise no one that there were many emails exchanged regarding this issue in the last 24 hours…), presumably from the site database. That was the first time I’ve ever gotten anything from this site’s database. Three months ago, I didn’t know anything except that NL and “DeepCover7″ commented using the same email address – and I still don’t as I never looked at the information.

    That’s you means and opportunity.

    Except that I can document an alternate explanation as to how I obtained the data, I didn’t so much as have the email address of a single guest blogger at the time – in fact, we discussed the matter and decided not to involve any of the guest bloggers due to potential conflicts. Later when Mike became a guest blogger it was a moot point as I wasn’t using the software anymore (there was some overlap after he became a GB and before I stopped working on the software, but not much if I recall correctly). Remember, NL falsely accused rafflaw and his only evidence was the information that I’ve proven could have been obtained by other means. Looks to me like you’ve got neither means nor opportunity…

    We only have motive remaining. Slartibartfast has acknowledged that there was a motive behind he, Buddha/Gene and Mike S. getting this information.

    Problem is, I have a motive for doing what I did, not for illicitly getting data from the site database. The motive you’re speculating on would never hold up in court – not against my coding history and the email discussion chains that go with it (by the way, I’m not saying anything about my motive because I think it will annoy you… ;-)

    There you have it. Means, Motive, and Opportunity all exist.

    If you were a DA you’d be about 5 minutes from the unemployment line – I could defend myself against your case without a lawyer (and I can assure you that should I find myself in court I will avail myself of the best lawyers I can get).

    Bdaman – you’re a pain in the ass! ;-) Working on it…


  231. Thanks Gene H ;) or who ever you are :)


  232. swarthmom

    what gbk said

    gbk

    agree with your issues list

    and i’ve used other names on here before
    only as a joke

    i don’t take much seriously.


  233. By the way the money that was used came from the stimulus package which was suppose to save or create jobs.

    It created more jobs for the gun industry and it didn’t save any lives but has caused the deaths of many.


  234. @Slartibartfast

    So who’s telling the truth here?

    Mike Spindell said

    “I might have used my site access to get the E Mail of the person attacking me, but I didn’t do so. Slarti provided it to me, along with this persons other persona’s and E Mail addresses.”

    But you explicitly deny that you have that ability?

    So who’s telling the truth here? If you provided the information to Mike, you had to get it from somewhere.


  235. For an additional amount for ‘State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance’, $40,000,000, for competitive grants to provide assistance and equipment to local law enforcement along the Southern border and in High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas to combat criminal narcotics activity stemming from the Southern border, of which $10,000,000 shall be transferred to ‘Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Salaries and Expenses’ for the ATF Project Gunrunner.
    Notice that’s $40,000,000 for Southern border enforcement, $10,000,000 of which specifically for Project Gunrunner. What does $10 million pay for here? It didn’t hire any new agents that I am aware of.

    So Obama didn’t know anything about this, but he signed $10,000,000 in funding for the program.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/07/07/someone-in-congress-knew-about-gunrunner-and-obama-signed-funding-for-it-into-law/


  236. bdaman

    it made the banks alot of money. maybe that was the idea.

    as far as who knew what with the mexican guns maybe obama can use reagan’s answer when he was asked about the contras.

    what? can i have more jello.


  237. @Slartibartfast

    Delay my last.

    You made it very clear.

    “I was copied on an email in which one of the guest bloggers gave Mike that information”

    Mike must have been mistaken, it was a guest blogger who decided to devulge the information. That’s good to know. I’m glad you cleared it up.


  238. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 9:48 pm Anonymously Yours

    gbk,

    I agree with you about the divide and conquer…This seems to be the goal…ever since I got the email or text…which inferred I owned the blog…But, I see women stick together…regardless of truth…so how is it going…I think I might know you…you still hang out in Dallas right?


  239. NoWay 1, September 27, 2011 at 9:42 pm

    @Slartibartfast

    NOWAY

    I’m going back through some threads and when I find the ones that were hateful in regards to my mother I WANT ANSWERS


  240. pete 1, September 27, 2011 at 9:47 pm

    Isn’t a shame Pete, every president as the thread title proclaims has it’s Boogey Man


  241. @Slartibartfast

    I find it very interesting that you were copied on an email from one of the guest bloggers in which a commenters information was divulged.

    Since you don’t appear to see anything wrong with that, would you care to disclose the identity of the guest blogger who kept you in the loop?


  242. @bdaman

    Where you been? I haven’t seen you posting much around here lately?


  243. The Guest Bloggers follow the Professor’s rules concerning anonymous posters. This is a policy matter. It’s a policy matter designed to encourage free speech so you or Buddha Is Laughing or any of the anonymous posters no matter their motive for wishing anonymity can say whatever you like anonymously.

    Well Gene, perhaps you can clarify the situation for me and layout the Professor’s rules concerning anonymous posters. I would greatly appreciate it — I too would like to move on to the feats of strength.

    .Short of “spoofing” your IP (a hacking method which isn’t foolproof), using a public hotspot or hijacking someone’s wireless router? You are never anonymous on the Internet

    Or using TOR, or NAT, or sitting outside the Starbucks, or using a VPN, or spoofing a MAC address, except for those techniques and many others you are never anonymous on the Internet.

    But that’s besides the point. The point comes down to the TOS and the policies and so I would very much like to see the policies Professor Turley gave you regarding the sorts of activities Kevin and the rest of you were engaged in.

    I understand that you think that, but unlike you I understand both the meaning of the word public and understand the underlying technology of the Internet.

    And so I asked Kevin what were you guys trying to accomplish by tying together who all the alts were. What was the goal? What privacy concerns did you have? How did you reconcile those with the importance of accomplishing Kevin’s mission?

    Your assumption is that I saw Kevin’s data before today, but I’ll play your lil’ game.

    Okay, so did you know what Kevin was doing when he was doing it?

    Was Kevin a guest administrator at the time?

    Who authorized Kevin’s activities?

    Kevin said I was regularly providing alias dictionaries to Mike and Buddha and others have said several times you are Buddha. But I take it you are denying that you are Buddha unequivocally. So that’s fine, and I’m glad to know.

    So what happened to BiL? I am genuinely curious.

    You connect? The DNS systems know where you are.

    Hey would you do me a favor Gene. That sounds really important, and I appreciate your taking the time to explain this stuff in detail. I had never heard of the Locard exchange principle before. I had spent too much time studying the Picard maneuver. Go figure.

    Can you in detail explain more about how the DNS systems know where “we” are when we connect? And how that might help in say, a crime examination? How they maintain that information, and for how long?


  244. NoWay, he explained it to everyone in the thread above. It is technical, and just a bit of ‘rocket science’ but given the way Gravitars are set up it is not hard. There is a ton on information on every post you make that is accessible for someone who has forensic computing investigation skills and software.

    Blame WordPress and the Gravitar folks, not the front page guest posters. As I said above, there are few secrets on the internet. This is information available to ANYONE, provided they have the persistence to learn how to do it. Again, this is not hard. Well, excepting Rafflaw but we try to shield him from the math so he will not have palpitations.


  245. @anon

    I hope you’re still reading. I think the disclosure of a commenter’s information to a third party (Slartibartfast) is in pretty clear violation of WordPress’ policy. The guest blogger would clearly be acting as Professor Turley’s agent.


  246. anon:

    “Anyway, so that when Kevin blames it on me and gbk pipes up in agreement, they are both just all wet.”

    I’ve never explictly agreed with Kevin abaout anything. As a matter of fact, I don’t recall any posts by him as opposed to posts from Elaine, AY, Swarthmore Mom, Gene H., rafflaw, otterayscribe, lottakatz, mespo, Mike Spindell, Mike Appleton, Blouise, et al.

    Your tying of my opinion with Kevin’s is purely your imagination, and using nominative pronouns such as “it” when attempting to butress your imagination instead of referring directly (quoting) to the same leads me to positively conclude that, to paraphrase Slartibartfast — you are an ass.

    So after all that, how about that Pentagon budget and all the emergency measures passed over the last 10 years to keep the war machine going?


  247. Here’s the thread where it all started.

    Bdaman 1, April 30, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    For the record I stand with Slarti and Buddha in this experiment, though my technical knowledge is not anywhere near theirs. I can assure everyone that nothing was done that was in any way foul play. None of the guest editors were a party to this experiment, nor were they aware of its taking place.

    Mike I knew you were involved when you made the Vinnie De whatever comment. It was a dead giveaway and is what got the ball rolling.

    http://jonathanturley.org/2011/04/27/birth-of-a-nation-obama-releases-long-form-birth-certificate/


  248. @gbk, Kevin wrote this:
    “Don’t leave. Please. You’ve done nothing wrong and anon is an ass.

    You wrote this:
    gbk: I concur with all three sentences.

    SwM wrote this:
    Anon, You are not that powerful to make me leave.

    I wrote this:
    “Anyway, so that when Kevin blames it on me and gbk pipes up in agreement, they are both just all wet.”

    You write this:
    I’ve never explictly agreed with Kevin abaout anything. … Your tying of my opinion with Kevin’s is purely your imagination… you are an ass.

    I write this:

    !?


  249. NoWay,

    As I said, Mike was mistaken. One of the guest bloggers obtained information regarding the individual who had attacked Mike – information which they were authorized to access – and provided it to Mike (who was also authorized to access it although I’m sure he doesn’t know how). As it was regarding someone who had apparently involved an illegal act and who was known to have animus towards me as well as Mike, I had been included on the email chain. I don’t think that anyone’s actions (except NL’s admitted cyber-stalking) were in any way illegal or inappropriate. The guest poster may identify themselves if they want to – I wont do it…


  250. Oh, right. Kevin is Slartibartfast.

    Sorry, I just don’t follow the sockstuff. I really don’t care “who people are,” as I can only read their writings, and one assumes their opinions, here. I really don’t care what they call themselves and quite frankly think that using muliple aliases for any reason is extremly lame.


  251. I don’t have time to go through the thread but here’s one Kevin I would like to know how many handles are associated with this poster.

    Obama Releases Long Form Birth Certificate – Jonathan Turley
    jonathanturley.org/…/birth-of-a-nation-obama-releases-long-form-bir…

    Who said this about me Kevin

    Apr 27, 2011 – You boys leave my half breed boy alone. He don’t mean no .

    Also who was this

    Vinny DeSwinger 1, April 27, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    Yo Vince, are you still into swinging? I hear you were at “Entre Nous” last week. Look me up if you will be there this weekend.


  252. @NoWay

    I hope you’re still reading. I think the disclosure of a commenter’s information to a third party (Slartibartfast) is in pretty clear violation of WordPress’ policy.

    I’m not quite sure I agree — I’d have to go back and look at their TOS again. I can see various reasons (mainly some form abuse is taking place) that this would be reasonable and justified. But there is a question of why was Kevin added to that list, what did Kevin bring to the table that it was reasonable to think that he could help Mike by knowing the name.

    But that’s why I keep asking just what the hell was going on.

    And for 99% of what I’ve seen described, I have a hard time believing that Professor Turley was aware of what these dumbasses were doing in his name.

    Regardless, it’s pretty clear that many sites would consider Kevin’s scraping unethical or not activity they would like and would tell him in no uncertain terms to knock it off. And similarly, many privacy advocates will probably be appalled when they find out about the leak that Kevin was exploiting. That’s why I suggest to Dr. Kesseler he disclose it.

    And while I don’t really know where Professor Turley stands on anonymity and privacy on the net, based on his various works, I cannot imagine he would be okay with Kevin Kesseler’s actions either.


  253. anon,

    “@gbk, Kevin wrote this:
    “Don’t leave. Please. You’ve done nothing wrong and anon is an ass.

    You wrote this:
    gbk: I concur with all three sentences.

    SwM wrote this:
    Anon, You are not that powerful to make me leave.

    I wrote this:
    “Anyway, so that when Kevin blames it on me and gbk pipes up in agreement, they are both just all wet.”

    You write this:
    I’ve never explictly agreed with Kevin abaout anything. … Your tying of my opinion with Kevin’s is purely your imagination… you are an ass.

    I write this:

    !?”

    ————————————————————————————–

    I do remember some months ago where it was stated that Slartibartfast’s name was Kevin. But you should know that I don’t care about such alias games and merely responded to his posting as Slartibartfast as given in this thread.

    It’s great that you remember, I have better things to do with my time.


  254. On April 27th this comment was made

    Apr 27, 2011 – You boys leave my half breed boy alone. He don’t mean no …..

    It shows up in Google but it’s not in that thread. That means the comment was deleted. This was the same time that the experiment was underway. This means the comment was deleted to protect who made it.


  255. gbk sez: “…quite frankly think that using muliple aliases for any reason is extremly lame.”

    ***********************************

    You got that right. I never understood the reason some folks want to create sockpuppets. Unless it were an obvious joke of some kind, I have not really seen much use for sockpuppetry. I have never used any persona other than this one when posting on this or any other blog. Never saw any need to do so. This username describes where I live (If you understand Cherokee) and what I am doing (writing). That is good enough for me.


  256. This username describes where I live (If you understand Cherokee)

    Thank you. I kept saying to myself, “He’s saying that in Britain he’s a worthless, unpleasant, or despicable person, but he sure doesn’t come across that way.”

    I use alts on occasion, but as you say, only to make an obvious joke, including when the spam filter activates, “Robert Paulson is not my name”

    However, while I recognize there is lots of dissent around here, I haven’t seen it reach such fevered levels as to suspect as apparently some did, that they had to do some sort of ALT outing inquisition, and I do think such activities, especially when not disclosed ahead of time to the commenters are very antithetical to running a free speech forum.

    Which is why I encourage Gene to be forthcoming about the policies from Professor Turley he says he was working under.


  257. AY,

    “you still hang out in Dallas right?”

    I was in Dallas for business for three days in the mid 1980’s. Never been back.


  258. Bdaman:

    It shows up in Google but it’s not in that thread.

    Yes it is in that thread, here.


  259. I have been to Dallas a number of times. I had no difficulty restraining myself from leaving the confines of DFW. Heh.


  260. Agree with pete in his agreement with gbk and also want to support SwM’s statement that she sucks (semantics) at sock-puppetry … she and I tried it once a few months ago as a joke on each other and she outed herself immediately … I mean right out of the gate … it was damn funny and I didn’t even get to reply to her. Fair warning … Do not make us part of your bank robbery team.

    At any rate, I’m sure you all can see what’s going on here. There is an active campaign to get rid of the guest bloggers and it’s all in preparation for 2012. It went into full swing when that dude (I forget his name) started on Gene while the Prof was in France. I was appalled by this latest attack on Mike S. but I figure such attacks are going to continue on each of our guest bloggers simply because the bad-boys want to silence their voices. All that gobbely-goop about ISP’s and guest bloggers having access is aimed at casual posters … if one can’t stop guest bloggers then put the fear of god into those who read.

    Foolishness.


  261. Nice Nal, great work !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I don’t know how I missed it other than being in a hurry. My comp did freeze up while on their and had to reboot. One of those long threads that has a history of doing that.

    Thanks again NAL

    Well Kevin ?


  262. @All (especially Mike Spindell)

    I doubt that NL hacked into Mike’s computer. How do I know that? Because I have known the same information for a long time. (over 1 1/2 years)

    Mike’s wife posted the the pictures that NL described when Mike was waiting for a heart. I think the site was transplantcafe.

    Where are pictures stored on someone’s computer? It’s not hard to guess that Mike Spindell was running Microsoft Windows. What is the default location? My Pictures.

    It’s pretty obvious that NL intended to get Mike spun up. Mike jumped to the conclusion that was probably due to a lack of knowledge of his wife’s activities.

    It’s all kind of ironic. Slartibartfast been snooping for one team, and NL was snooping for the other. I don’t think NL broke any law, but I’m pretty sure that one of JT’s guest bloggers violated JT’s confidence. Any bets that it was Buddha/Gene?


  263. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 10:37 pm Anonymously Yours

    I amend my earlier statement gkb….


  264. NoWay 1, September 27, 2011 at 10:37 pm

    NO FUCKING WAY

    you are fucking killing me. I’ve been applying my time elsewhere.

    How and when did you learn all this and who is NL and who attacked Mike. I missed all this.

    Mike hope all is well my friend. Lucky for you so far in re to Hurricane Season. You know what they say, it aint over till it’s over.


  265. @bdaman

    I rarely follow this blog as of late. I’ve got more positive things to keep me busy.


  266. Me too I do keep an eye on it though. Thats singular


  267. Blouise, you bring up a point I had not thought of. This may very well be the opening salvo in a new kind of psychological warfare. Those who are fearful of the free exchange of ideas do what they can to disrupt conversations and threads.

    They are underestimating the host of this blog. He did not just ride in on the last turnip truck. I guess they are trying to make his blog nearly unreadable for the everyday person who drops by to see the latest in interesting legal issues and politics. The Koch crime family made a ton of money in the past few years and they stand to make a lot more if they can keep the government in gridlock and the voters snookered. They are putting a lot more into projects like ALEC and other stuff. The Mafia has nothing on them.


  268. You know I do remember those pictures on the transplant site.


  269. AY:

    “I amend my earlier statement gkb….”

    With what?


  270. That was a very very bad time. If you were not aware at that Time Mike and I where at it pretty hard and I made a despicable remark to him.

    Then I found out he was ill and could very much loose his life. I couldn’t sleep for days and prayed to God for forgiveness.


  271. Speaking of sleep I’m beat.

    Night All


  272. Otteray Scribe,

    Yep … the beauty of this particular group of guest bloggers is their tough hides and incredible intelligence. However, they are taking some very well placed body blows. If it’s any comfort to them … such attacks indicate a real fear of the impact their words carry. Good lord, that Goldberg character even went after Elaine off blog.


  273. Noway,

    That leads to the obvious question, why were you on transplant cafe looking at pictures of Mike and his wife? More importantly, since Mike’s profile has been deleted (I looked) and no pictures come up when you use the sites search pictures functions how did “He Who Should Not Be Named’ get that info?

    For someone who complains loudly about their privacy getting ‘abused,’ you sure seem willing to share others online habits.


  274. on 1, September 27, 2011 at 11:16 pm Anonymously Yours

    Oh…Good seeing you Blouise…you got brought up today and often….I hope you are doing well…


  275. Blouise,
    Yep, correct on all points. I was just reading an unusually well written post by user Otto over at DKos. You might like it. The right wing trolls–not so much.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/27/1020774/-The-Enabling-of-Destructive-Behavior-by-the-Conservative-Political-Machine?via=siderecent


  276. AY,

    “I agree with you about the divide and conquer…This seems to be the goal…ever since I got the email or text…which inferred I owned the blog…But, I see women stick together…regardless of truth…so how is it going…I think I might know you…you still hang out in Dallas right?”

    What “email or text” are you referring to?

    It’s possible that you might, “see women stick together…regardless of truth…” because their perception of truth differs from yours. You should consider this.

    The Dallas question I answered above.


  277. AY,

    Most of your sock puppets have one of your elf gravatars – not exactly what I call covert… ;-) By the way, I’m moving back to EL next week… Hello El Az and Jersey Giant!

    Bdaman,

    My question about “:)” was shameless fishing for information. If you used it once, then it’s just one of your many non-de-plumes associated with addresses where most posts are by “bdaman” or some variant, if you used it more than once then you are actually two of the biggest puppet masters on this blog. I tend to think you are – I think that you were “Duh”/”Robert” on the 9/11 thread* (other aliases of the second “:)”) – but I could be wrong. Also, I agree with raff – while I think that you do nothing but disrupt discussions with misleading and often off-topic links (well, and chit chat, but there’s nothing wrong with that – hope your Mom is well…), you’re part of the family here (more so than me – I’ve pretty much been a distant cousin for the better part of a year…).

    *You cheered when Bob sent a broadside my way (referred to me being “knocked off my high horse”…) and then I think that after it turned out that I didn’t run away from Bob with my tail between my legs that you wanted to avoid me berating you with that and switched to your alter-egos. It’s totally supposition on my part, but it’s either that, or you sat out the whole 9/11 thread…

    As to my own sock puppetry, you’re right, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I’ve outed my main puppets and their gravatars several times, but here’s what I get when I look up “Slartibartfast” along with some notes…

    Slartibartfast
    This author has1 siblings
    Slartibartfast – My main account ([firstname]@[lastname].net) with the fractal that comes from my thesis research.

    This author has11 siblings
    a Bakersfield sycophant – Overt sock puppet

    Paully (really Slart in disguise) – Obviously overt

    Buddha’s Audience – Pretty overt

    Slartibartfast (I think) – wishy washy… but overt

    One more completely different and unrelated fan of Buddha’s – Ooh, sneaky… wait… nope, overt

    Slartibartfast – Yeah, I know, I’m not even trying…

    Baldy a.k.a. Slartibartfast – Baldy is my persona as a Cameron Crazy – Baldy is part of the “Four Fat Guy Phalanx” and a Duke basketball superfan. This must have had something to due with the devils [GTHC! {Sorry, Baldy just slipped that in there…}]

    Another Member of Buddha’s Audience – I’m really bad at the covert thing, eh?

    Psychotic Break – I think this came after “Existential Crisis”…

    A Third Fan of Buddha’s (unrelated to the other two…) – See what I did there? Clever, eh?

    Existential Crisis – That’s what too much sock puppetry will do to you…

    This author has3 siblings
    Slartibartfast – Damn! It was supposed to be covert, I swear!

    It’s not important… – Ahh, finally, COVERT!

    It’s not Important… – Evidence that I have capitalization issues, too…

    This author has5 siblings
    Slartibartfast – You just get in a rut, you know…

    It’s not Important… If anyone had looked at old threads, this identity never would have stayed covert…

    What Would Tootie Do? – Once you figure out the answer, do the opposite – works every time. Overt. Like Tootie.

    likao – Don’t have a clue – the posts were on the “Biden says stop whining” thread a year ago…

    It’s not important… When I went into self-imposed exile, this was an identity that I was going to use to subscribe to theads and make the occasional comment (you may recall I was being stalked around the blog at the time…). I think that the only reason that this remained covert is that I used it so infrequently – if I had written any serious posts I wouldn’t have been able to disguise my writing…

    The other images are either from my research or “Buddhabrot” images (a different way to view the Mandelbrot set…). Of the 3 other email addresses, one is defunct (gravatar still works), one is forwarded to my main account, and one is for giving out when there is a risk of spam (I never check the account)

    Satisfied?

    As for your attempted fast and furious thread un-jack:

    Investigating the scandal is fair game

    This administration has been comparatively scandal-free

    There is zero chance that this scandal will make me vote for the Republican or not vote

    I don’t care about it so I wont discuss it.

    It’s one of the most constructive posts I’ve seen you make (although it’s something that looks bad for President Obama, so I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised…)

    As for me, things are going very well, but I’ve just lost a whole day’s work on this… :-(

    Take care.


  278. @Blouise

    Didn’t Elaine go after Goldberg “off-blog” to begin with?

    The problem with the guest bloggers is their access to information. I know you have trouble differentiating between having a problem with them, and their Administrator access, but that’s you inability to see the problem.

    I’m waiting for you to post your email and IP address, since you don’t have a problem with your adversaries knowing that information.


  279. anon,

    “Well Gene, perhaps you can clarify the situation for me and layout the Professor’s rules concerning anonymous posters.”

    I did up above. You are able to post here anonymously and none of us will reveal your email address or identity without your specific request/permission or unless you are subject of a criminal investigation. If it comes to that point though, it’s not us you need to be concerned with but the ISP’s. The Feds or local LE will likely directly subpoena them.

    “TOR, or NAT, or sitting outside the Starbucks, or using a VPN, or spoofing a MAC address, except for those techniques and many others you are never anonymous on the Internet.”

    None of which are fool proof. There are known exploits to intercept TOR traffic. NAT and MAC exploits are better than TOR, but still not bulletproof in that they are only as good as the coding. Plus you run into data loss issues if you do a NAT exploit improperly. If you were going to exploit NAT? DNAT works better. VPN? I think you misunderstand how VPN’s work. They can be traced back to physical IP’s. I already mentioned the using a public node or hijacking an unsecured wireless. The bottom line is if someone with enough resources wants to find you? They will at least know where you were. Locard still applies. Do you have any idea how many cameras you walk past every day? Do you know that facial recognition software is considerably hard to fool with disguises?

    “The point comes down to the TOS and the policies and so I would very much like to see the policies Professor Turley gave you regarding the sorts of activities Kevin and the rest of you were engaged in.”

    See above in re anonymity. The only other policy you need be concerned with is attempting to hijack other posters identities is strictly forbidden. That will get you banned. Otherwise, this is a free speech zone. You can pretty much say what you like. It’s up to the Professor’s discretion if your behavior becomes obnoxiously disruptive to conversation or is somehow otherwise inappropriate (the examples I have been given involve intolerable and deliberate cruelty and the making of physical threats), but he deals with that on an ad hoc basis.

    Our other guidelines are all editorial in nature and do not concern commentators.

    “And so I asked Kevin what were you guys trying to accomplish by tying together who all the alts were. What was the goal? What privacy concerns did you have? How did you reconcile those with the importance of accomplishing Kevin’s mission?”

    Kevin has already answered that.

    “Okay, so did you know what Kevin was doing when he was doing it?”

    I wasn’t a reader at the time.

    “Was Kevin a guest administrator at the time?”

    Not to my knowledge. His statement that he did not then nor ever has had administrative access to this site is true to my knowledge. Professor Turley and the current stable of GB’s are the only people I know of having administrative access.

    “Who authorized Kevin’s activities?”

    No one to my knowledge, but then again, no one needed to. Look into the meaning of the word “public”. When you read this page? You are seeing all the data he saw. He simply has the skills to refine the resolution of that data. WordPress privacy policy is here. Nothing in it indicates a violation and the policies are geared to what WordPress does with your information, not what others do with publicly displayed information using their software as the publishing method.

    “Kevin said I was regularly providing alias dictionaries to Mike and Buddha and others have said several times you are Buddha. But I take it you are denying that you are Buddha unequivocally. So that’s fine, and I’m glad to know.

    So what happened to BiL? I am genuinely curious.”

    It is my understanding he took an indefinite sabbatical for personal reasons.

    “Can you in detail explain more about how the DNS systems know where “we” are when we connect?”

    The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) provides IP addresses. They are sold in blocks that are associated with a physical local (regional registries/ISPs). When you get service, the ISP’s know what IP address they are giving you (or what general block of IPs if they use dynamic IPs but even that can be nailed down from their records) and where. To send a bill if nothing else. Think of IPs as street addresses you buy/lease. That’s probably the best analogy. ICANN also maintains the protocols that make the Internet work (IPv4 and the newer IPv6 as IPv4 addresses run out) and also run the top level domain space (which includes many of the DNS servers and the root name servers). You must keep in mind location is key to the original design specification for what was to become the Internet, ARPANet and DARPANet. They were designed to function in case of a nuclear war where many nodes might suddenly cease operation. Knowing both “what” and “where” become critical to rerouting traffic in that situation. You have to know what’s working where to handle the flow. As long as some of the TLDS is working, the Internet will continue to work through most catastrophic scenarios.


  280. @Gyges

    “why were you on transplant cafe looking at pictures of Mike and his wife?”

    I was sent a link to the site by a friend who was concerned about Mike.


  281. Noway,

    So, no answer to why you felt free to divulge the information about Mike being a member there, after your long rants about how important privacy is?

    I’m truly interested, because I count three people that have posted anything about another’s life outside this blog in this discussion OS, you, and NL. OS posted information that Slart’s given out repeatedly. You and NL on the other hand have posted information that has not already been mentioned on the blog.


  282. For anyone who missed it on NPR this afternoon, an interesting discussion about the Conficker worm:

    http://www.npr.org/2011/09/27/140704494/the-worm-that-could-bring-down-the-internet


  283. It is my understanding he took an indefinite sabbatical for personal reasons.

    “Can you in detail explain more about how the DNS systems know where “we” are when we connect?” …. [Treknobabble excised]

    You didn’t answer my question and most of your technical answers are simplistic or evasive.

    Truth is locard’s principal is not any sort of physical law, and is mainly a happy coincidence for LE in the real world, that it exists in cyberspace is by design of logging in places, and in other places strictly designed out by not keeping logs.

    Do you understand that Gene? Locard’s principle in cyberspace does not exist. What exists are log files, log files that even in the best of times are rolled, rotated, archived, pruned, or may be purged, trimmed, or turned off entirely for performance reasons.

    The DNS systems know where you are.

    DNS systems do not know who you are, they do not know where you are, and they cannot map from the information they have to anything useful in locating you.

    DNS systems can log and maintain for a short amount of time the IP of a system and the host name being looked up but that has nothing to do with your contention that DNS systems can track us from the moment we log on.

    For instance: http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy.html

    Due to the distributed nature of DNS systems LE would even have a hard time knowing which DNS servers to look at. Do you use your ISPs? Google’s? Level 3’s? OpenDNS? Your own servers you set up on Amazon’s EC2 that you removed alll logging from? Other open access DNS servers?

    Google’s DNS system might know where you are, but only if Google is associating other information it knows about your system that you have given google.

    Gene, you’re such a fraud.

    Most of your treknobabble is so incorrect you may as well just say It’s Berthold Rays in the Jeffries Tubes and we have to reverse the polarity.

    It’s magic Gene. Just say, It’s the Magic Internet Fairies, that’s about as technically correct as any of the spew you’ve been tossing out.

    You evince almost no understanding of long known privacy issues, no understanding of the various laws or controversies, and it’s laughable that you pose as someone who does.

    In contrast I’ve linked to TOS, to privacy documents, to EFF statements, and more.

    If you had any respect for anything outside your navel your answers to them would be so much more improved.

    It’s shameful, really.


  284. NoWay,

    Yeah, yeah, yeah … work it on someone else.

    I have a good friend who is in charge of the law enforcement unit that goes after internet child porn users down in the southern district of the state. I know all about IP’s and access and all that other crap people are screamin’ about here … pure bullshit. He set up my wireless stuff, my firewalls … all that techie stuff … but go ahead … impress me with your expertise.


  285. AY,

    Yep, doing well … busy day taking care of grandchild off site.

    Who brought me up … please say Johnny Depp


  286. @Gyges

    I knew that Mike’s profile was no longer available at that site. That is why I found no problem with naming it. Nobody is going to learn anything there that wasn’t common knowledge here.

    I’m curious as to why you went looking for Mike’s profile.

    I’m sorry. Is this the first you heard of Mike having a heart transplant? That may explain why you have trouble comprehending why I would do what I did.


  287. @Blouise

    I don’t need to impress you. You already know about ip addresses. If that information was of no consequence you would have published yours.

    You enjoy your privacy. What I don’t understand is why you don’t have the same respect for others. Is it a lack of compassion?


  288. OS,

    That was a good read … thanks.

    It is important to note that not all of this attack against the guest bloggers has to be coming from the right … they also present ideas which anger the left. Closed mindedness is not just a conservative affliction.


  289. Bdaman,

    I’m working on what will be my last post of the night and I’m doing my best at answering your question but, until I do, STFU! (at least about asking me things) Remember that every time you ask me something and I answer it proves your hypocrisy (you never answer the issues I raise) and my integrity. If you address me (by any of my names you choose) in one (1) concisely worded post – AFTER I’m done for the night – as to what additional information/clarification you would like, I will see what I can do and give you a brief answer in the morning (morning for me – probably afternoon…). How much effort I put into it will depend on the quality of your answer to this question (some guidance – either “yes” or “no” is not a quality answer – you’ve got to go into enough detail that I believe you’re telling the truth):

    Were you Robert/Duh in the 9/11 thread?


  290. Blouise, you are correct of course. It is just the most volume and persistence comes from the right wing, as I see it. The radical left can be annoying, but is not anywhere near as obnoxious as the radical right.


  291. Swartmore mom,

    I hear you wish to know where I have been. I am sorry you feel threatened by my presence. You must do something about your mental issues. I have only posted here now 3 times. Each time it seems that you are attacking people, especially men. Is there some underlying reasons for your anger? Life does go on. you don’t have grand children so you must be in your late 40s’. What angers have you taught your children. Do you have a son and a daughter or are they both males or females. I may think that you have the most trouble with men and your boys suffer the most. Is there a reason? Do think that could be part of your trouble, you have unresolved Daddy issues. I will be back on Friday Evening. Please tell your female friend that I was here. Maybe we could meet via an internet connection camera. Until then, as it is late and I must get ready for employment.


  292. @OS

    “It is just the most volume and persistence comes from the right wing, as I see it. The radical left can be annoying…”

    What views of the radical left have been presented here? I have read many views that I would consider to be “left”, but I am unable to distinguish them from those of the “radical left”.

    I’m serious. I think pointing them out would be useful to many readers.


  293. NoWay

    @Blouise

    ……

    You enjoy your privacy. What I don’t understand is why you don’t have the same respect for others. Is it a lack of compassion?

    —————————————————————

    Must be … hey, do you want my credit card numbers too … won’t give you those either though here’s a compassionate hint … always carry your credit cards with the numbers facing inward and the 3 digit number on the back down (all numbers are thus hidden) and always sign the back “See ID”.

    You’re welcome


  294. Otteray Scribe,

    Well, just between you and me … I know some left-wing, liberals who take great pleasure in doing such things on conservative blogs. I don’t know them well enough to ask if they are paid.


  295. Blouise, you are correct of course. It is just the most volume and persistence comes from the right wing, as I see it. The radical left can be annoying, but is not anywhere near as obnoxious as the radical right.

    Otteray Scribe,

    Well, just between you and me … I know some left-wing, liberals who take great pleasure in doing such things on conservative blogs. I don’t know them well enough to ask if they are paid.

    @Blouise

    Do you remember that scene in Poltergeist where JoBeth Williams is asking Craig T. Nelsen do think back to a time he had an open mind?

    No, goddammit, you sit down! I
    mean… stand right there. And
    just… just have an open mind.
    Reach back into our past when I
    used to know you with one

    I see so many totally stupid arguments on the net, left and right, no exception, where all one side can do is excoriate the other side and always it’s “they started it. they’re worse. they started it. they’re worse. they’re traitors. No, they’re traitors.”

    And there’s a ton of that in the comments at this blog.


  296. anon,

    If you don’t like simplistic answers, don’t ask simplistic questions.

    As to you thinking Locard’s principle doesn’t apply in cyberspace?

    There are some members of Luizsec and Anonymous in custody that would disagree with you.

    “What exists are log files, log files that even in the best of times are rolled, rotated, archived, pruned, or may be purged, trimmed, or turned off entirely for performance reasons.” No shit. All of which can be recovered forensically if the access widow before maintenance purging can’t be beat. Currently legislation is in process to require maintaining log data.

    As to the rest of your blather?

    It’s just that. I didn’t say it was a perfect system for physical locations, only a possible one. Cross-referencing UU85 data with ISP logs and billing data is the probably the best way currently available to get physical location if you want the technical answer. It’s not perfect due to problems with the UU85 database, but there are solutions in the pipeline such as Mock87a & b protocols, the still developing GPOS protocols and fostering adoption of the X.500 directory service so it can be leveraged to facilitate more accurate geographical information.

    Can DNS systems be used to track your location? Yes they can. Are there technical challenges? Yes there are. Is it reliable enough to be court quality prime facie evidence? Not at this point in time, but we’re not talking admissibility of evidence are we? We’re talking forensic methodologies. Find the criminals, not prosecuting them.

    As to the tone of your last post? It’s shameful, really.

    I responded to you civilly, but now it’s time to say “Fuck you very much”.

    Go back to watching Star Trek.


  297. anon,

    I’m not a conservative and I find most of their arguments (not all) lack a sense of reality but some of my far left acquaintances live in a pretend world that never, ever existed and never will. On both sides the rant is just damn boring.


  298. Gene,

    It’s good to be reading you … I missed you last weekend.


  299. Thanks, Blouise. I missed you as well. I will be back in the saddle again this weekend though. Woo hoo!


  300. Gene,

    Well, if you hadn’t posted today, I was going to email you and inquire … you must know you are my one constant touchstone. :)


  301. Now I’m going to blush. :oops:


  302. anon,

    Yeah, the scene from Poltergeist is apt but I always think of the Bill Cosby routine where he talks about the children”Stop touching me” … “You stop touching me.” … “Mom, tell him to stop touching me.” … and Cosby’s wife, fed up with it all scream”Nobody in this house is allowed to touch anyone else in this house ever again!”


  303. Gene, I asked a very specific question, plucked right out of one of your bogus responses:

    ““Can you in detail explain more about how the DNS systems know where “we” are when we connect?””

    You chose to not answer it. I don’t know if that’s because you realized how asinine your statement was or if you were too clueless to be able to answer it or if you just don’t know how to answer a question.

    So here’s a question for you: Currently legislation is in process to require maintaining log data.
    What is your stance on this legislation, Gene? What are you doing to ensure it either passes or fails?

    And for bonus: how can they possibly enforce that in the DNS system? Be specific. How can they enforce that my Amazon EC2 instance running Ubuntu and djbdns that no one knows about and only I use maintains logs when in fact what it does is keep no logs intentionally?


  304. Gene,

    No you’re not … you know it and I know it! :) Good night … I believe I have a new Lee Child’s on my Nook.


  305. Yeah Blouise, there’s certainly a ton of that in here too.


  306. anon,

    I’m done playing your little game. Why don’t you play with yourself for awhile. You seem pretty adept at that.


  307. It’s just that. I didn’t say it was a perfect system for physical locations, only a possible one. Cross-referencing UU85 data with ISP logs and billing data is the probably the best way currently available to get physical location if you want the technical answer. It’s not perfect due to problems with the UU85 database, but there are solutions in the pipeline such as Mock87a & b protocols, the still developing GPOS protocols and fostering adoption of the X.500 directory service so it can be leveraged to facilitate more accurate geographical information.

    This is so weird. Gene, either you’re a bot, or you … died in 1990 or so.

    It’s really strange that you would so authoritatively reference Mock87a & b protocols by those names as opposed to the names those protocols were known by after 1987. Or that you would talk about UU85… and never mention anything about geoip.

    But I have to admit, you’ve really stumped me on GPOS protocols.

    Can you reverse the Berthold rays invert the flux capacitor and tell me more about GPOS protocols?


  308. Apparently you’re hard of understanding too.


  309. Well that’s fine, don’t answer Gene. Truth is, anyone here can google Mock87a and then google rfc1034 immediate realize what an enormous fraud you are.

    mock87b is known to the world as rfc1035. Adopted in 1987 of course.

    uu85 is the uumap project of 1985. Google it folks. Let the google results tell demonstrate Gene’s fraud.

    Now google GPOS protocols.

    And now google geoip

    Compare and contrast and wonder just what the hell is Gene trying to feed us?

    Gene, can you give us anything more recent than 25 years ago? I mean browsers can map our ip address to our physical location. Since you’re the self appointed expert, tell us how that’s done.


  310. I never claimed I was an expert. And if my knowledge on this topic seems out of date? I’m the first to admit it probably is. I haven’t coded seriously in 20 years. I was busy doing other things, like going to law school and kissing girls. However if you’re paying for GeoIP? You’re a sucker.

    http://www.ip-address.org/

    Same information. Free service.

    Now it would seem you’re the self-appointed expert.

    You can answer your own question from now on out.


  311. I’m not paying for anything dumbass. I am showing that your claims that DNS servers can be used to track the average PC user are mostly wrong, your explanations start off bogus and then grow to the absurd.

    I hate to use a feminist word, but you’re like the ultimate mansplainer.

    Mansplain
    To delighting in condescending, inaccurate explanations delivered with rock solid confidence of rightness and that slimy certainty that of course he is right, because he is the man in this conversation


  312. All you’re really showing that mepso’s assessment of your poor state of mental health on the Bake Sale thread is correct.

    I bet those therapists just loved you.


  313. Hey, great, now you’re doing it too. That’s beautiful.

    Oh man, you and mespo. Hate.admitting.defeat.

    Yeah, takes a special kind of slime to mock someone who’s talked about therapy.

    All those people that you think would benefit, but are afraid of how people would treat them?

    YEAH GENE, THAT’S YOU THEY ARE AFRAID OF.

    You should be so proud.


  314. Ya know Gene, one thing this thread has taught me, is that I am right to enter completely bogus email addresses into forum fields.

    Sometimes legitimate bloggers I respect get upset with bogus email addresses, but it’s clear with the crew here at this blog, that you guys are totally irresponsible, completely clueless, and have been shown to abuse the information.


  315. Bdaman,
    Thanks for trying to rein in this thread.
    OS,Thank you for trying to shield my heart from this high level math! :)
    Good night to all.


  316. Someone said:
    I’m still not sure on the motive. Maybe I missed it. Why did Slarti say these guys were doing this? It seems like a lot of overkill just to get rid of Nada, and it sounds like Slarti has had his tool up and running for months.

    I said that I had a motive which was consistent with my version of events and more plausible than the motive that was ascribed to me. Exactly what it was is none of your business.

    Hey, Kevin, why did you write this tool again in the first place?

    For reasons I deemed sufficient.

    What was so important that you felt you had to figure out all of Roco’s alts?

    First off, some of the knowledge about Byron/Tautology/Rae/Roco’s identity was independently obtained info (gravatar slips confirming suspicions, etc.), second, I LIKE Byron (although he’s wrong about nearly everything concerning politics or the economy…) – he stood by me in a knock-down drag out fight that happened at a pretty rough time in my life. He may not have known much of anything about it, but that support meant a lot to me. We’ve discussed this via email – I would like to see him post as “Byron” again, but he has his reasons, I guess…

    Why couldn’t you use the tools that WordPress provided to do that?
    Why not just ban Roco by IP or email or whatever tools WordPress gave you?

    Because I don’t have access to the blog administration and I have no desire to see him banned – I’d like to see him engage in discussions and defend his theories on their merits. He would go down in flames, but I think he’d earn back a lot of respect.

    I understand, I guess, you were a guest administrator. Did you inform Professor Turley of your intentions before writing or before using your script? What made you think your activities were in the scope of your duties as a guest administrator?

    Uh, I wasn’t a guest administrator. And why would I presume someone as busy and important as Professor Turley would want to waste his time hearing about something that was a much smaller scale and cruder version of something that marketing departments across the country do every day? A friend of mine boasted on LinkedIn once that his company had scraped over 6,000 websites one week – do you think he was worried about the people who’s privacy he was “invading”? Do you think he should have been? Why?

    What made you think that scraping gravatar ids, and associating them with email addresses,

    Didn’t do that – Gravatar’s plug-in associated the gravatar ids with email addresses, I associated them with author handles – the fact that they are in 1-to-1 correspondence with email addresses, makes that useful to do but it doesn’t make it unethical.

    login ids,

    What login IDs and how did I associate them with the gravatar IDs?

    and presumably IP addresses

    Your presumption is completely and utterly false.

    was congruent with a free speech forum?

    In what way did I violate free speech? Are not prior instances of speech by any given speaker important in determining the context in which to interpret their writing? No one has had their free speech stifled or their real identities violated – some people have been connected to prior statements made by their personas – what’s wrong with that?

    anon
    1, September 27, 2011 at 8:51 pm
    “Anyone who would like to know what information of theirs shows up in my program who doesn’t want it published can send me email at (first name)@(last name).net.”

    Oh I know, I know, pick me pick me!

    Hey, I got an idea! DELETE YOUR DAMN PROGRAM.

    No – reusability is a key part of the object-oriented paradigm. There are a couple of good objects and bunches of usable code there.

    SHRED THE DATABASE.

    Why? It has nothing improper in it. It’s useful to have a live database when I get around to salvaging that code…

    Learn some self-restraint.

    You should see some of the things that I delete before I post…

    Respect others.

    I respect those that earn it and give the benefit of the doubt to those I don’t know. You’ve earned very little of my respect – and plenty of my contempt…

    Blouise,

    You were brought up because most (two-thirds) of the many (3) posts by Swarthmore mom’s multitude (2) of unacknowledged sock puppets were in support of you. And… HI BLOUISE! *waving*

    Bdaman,

    Re the April 27th comment: I don’t have an easy way to search the threads in my database for that comment, but I was not preserving and archiving data, so if it was deleted from the thread anytime before the end of June I probably have the deleted version of the thread in my DB. As to why the comment was deleted, I have no idea what you were talking about – I wasn’t paying attention to this blog at all, I was too busy doing the “basement inventor” thing and gloating on obot sites that President Obama had “whipped out” his long form – so I was more concerned about the structure of the page source of this site rather than what someone was saying about you. As I recall the whole NL incident, I had been plugging along, trying to get my prototype working when the thread with NL blew up. I was basically coding on the fly and corrupting my database in order to gather current information (collecting threads multiple times). When it was over (meaning when we decided to stop using any more of the information we’d gathered – you and/or NL went fishing by using various handles and probably email addresses [maybe even IP masking] and we did… nothing. I never even looked at the data from that thread again) I was drained and basically collapsed for a day or so. When you add in any comments I posted on the thread, I wasn’t really doing anything else. The whole event served as proof of concept for that stage of my project, so after it was done I went back to coding with renewed enthusiasm and really wasn’t thinking about the blog at all. Then shit happened and now I’m late on my deliverables (code for my demo software) to my Director of Software Development because I’ve spent the day on this… That’s as honest (if not clear) a summary as I can give – how honest can you be?

    As for “Vinnie DeSwinger”… hmm… he’s a bad one (my opinion). 109 siblings (probably top 5 or ten on the site)

    a couple notable handles:

    Bdamommie
    Auntee Social, BS, MS, Phd
    Moar
    WestboroMan
    Tootles
    Jill Chavez
    BBB (one post – there is another email associated with all of the other posts by “BBB” who is also possibly “Duh” and thus also possibly you… as you can see, this starts to get messy)
    Buddha is lying
    Brother Hood
    Buddha Don’t Know

    This person had a number of first cousins (shared handle, different gravatar) creating several interlocking groups which probably in the end include over half the people on the site (all of these interlocks are not real – I figured out how to make a metric to determine the confidence of an implied association, but I never implemented it – generally associating cousins is unreliable, unless there are many posts on a given handle with multiple addresses [like with “Bdaman”…]). Actually, you are in a position to help me in this inquiry – you know what YOUR other multi-post handles are. So, if you want to know more about this poster and who they might (or might not) be related to, you can let me know (by email if you choose – but then you have to trust me… ;-) what other handles you post under (not the one-offs…) and what specific identities you’re curious about, and I’ll see what I can do. As for the deleted post, get me the handle of the poster and I’ll see what I can do about that too…

    So, Bdaman, let me say that I am extremely pleased with you right now – we’re going to play scientist and guinea pig (don’t worry, you wont feel a thing – until we dissect your brain BWA-HA-HA-HA-ha… um… well… you see… aw crap… ;-)). What we’ve got is a one-time, serial prisoner’s dilemma. Here’s how it works: You tell me the information you want to know and the information I want to know (in a comment or by email). The work I put in to giving you an answer will be directly proportional to my perception of your honesty and candidness. How badly do you want your questions answered?

    gbk,

    That’s why I prefer it when people call me “Slarti” – it gets confusing when people call me Kevin here…


  317. You should Google DNSstuff, expert. Since DNS information can’t be used to track criminals – and in the basic framework I lined out (comparing DNS information to ISP records). Their tools helped the FBI track down Craigslist killer Philip Markoff. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/042309-craigslist-dns.html

    I’ll admit defeat when I see some. Speaking of which, nice straw man you got there. You asked me a question in a field I didn’t claim expertise in, I answered to the best of my knowledge – never once claiming to be an expert – and then you say I’m not an expert. I admitted my knowledge was out of date and stipulated that I’m not an expert and yet you still haven’t invalidated the forensic methodology I laid out the basic framework for. A methodology that has been used to track killers and hackers alike.

    Let me tell what I am an expert in.

    Argumentation.

    Defeat?

    You just demonstrated the argumentative equivalent of masturbation with that little straw man argument of yours. And after your fine previous display of the fallacy of false equivalence! You’re a regular Clarence Darrow.

    Like mespo, I take pride in not suffering fools gladly. You argue like a fool and apparently to gain some sense of self-worth. This behavior is not a sign of good mental health. You are clearly compensating for something missing in your life and/or psyche. You want to think you won because you knocked down a straw man of your own creation? Will that make you feel better about yourself on those nights you are in bed wishing you’d just not wake up? Then by all means, consider this a victory. It means so much to you and so little to me.

    However, there are certain types of mental illness that prohibit social interaction with the patient because it only feeds their psychosis. I’m done feeding yours. Enjoy your victory such as it is and I bid you good night.

    *****************************

    Raff,

    For what it’s worth, I thought this was an excellent article and topic for discussion. I think every GB has had a thread hijacked at this point. Consider it a badge of honor. Maybe not Mike Appleton, but I’m sure he’ll get his badge soon enough. We live in interesting times.


  318. raff,

    Sorry about the maths – I get carried away sometimes… I did try to be as open and honest about what went on as possible, but sometimes that means stultifying detail.

    Gene,

    Actually, the implicit tolerance of threadjacks is something I like about this site – people should talk about what they want to talk about, if people want to get back on topic, then they can always re-jack like Bdaman tried to do (having had plenty of experience hijacking any and all threads available with his climate change denial weather girl routine… ;-)

    Bdaman,

    This is it, I’m out for the night – I’ll check back in the morning and see how much work I will have to put into answering your questions…


  319. Dr. Kevin Kesseler:

    When I read the email field in the Leave a Reply form it says:

    (Email required) (Not published)

    This gives most users the reasonable belief that their emails will not be published, released, or used in anyway to track them.

    It’s astonishing that you still don’t understand how your scraping, and your exploiting of a privacy leak in Gravatar and WordPress doesn’t violate the trust of the commenters of this blog.

    If Professor Turley wanted to track his users various alts, and do that via web bugs, he would put up a TOS that says he was going to do that. Instead he uses a system that says email addresses will not be published.

    If Professor Turley’s blog was ad supported we would all be warned about the various web bugs and trackers on the system.

    What you did was surreptitiously, on a free speech blog, act to subvert the casual users reasonable assumption expressly supported by the reply form that their email addresses would not be published or tracked or divulged in any manner. You did this by exploiting a privacy leak of Gravatar.

    You did this without telling the users. You did this without asking permission of Professor Turley.

    And you truly do not understand how that violated trust? Or was a privacy invasion? Or abused the TOS between you and Professor Turley?

    You don’t understand the possible damage your database could hold or that you could create by divulging as you have all day today the various alts of people that had a reasonable expectation there alts would not be divulged. I have AIDS and I need to say anonymously that … I work for the DOD and I need to say anonymously that …

    Facebook recently changed tactics to place undeletable cookies that work even when you are logged off. People are incensed.

    GM’s OnStar recently changed their TOS so that they will track your car, and sell the information, even if you have turned off their service. They say you need to physically disable the OnStar system for them to not track your location and sell it. Chuck Shumer calls for an investigation.

    Over and over and over again, companies place these tracking systems in gear, and the public is incensed.

    And you do it here, without divulging this, and without permission and you claim you cannot understand what the problem is.

    Your behavior was certainly unethical. And I think it is borderline illegal.

    The only positive upside is that you have identified a privacy leak, and I encourage and urge you to disclose that to WordPress and Gravatar.

    Do you really think that if you had explained what you wanted to do, and asked Professor Turley for permission he would have said yes?


  320. You should Google DNSstuff, expert. Since DNS information can’t be used to track criminals – and in the basic framework I lined out (comparing DNS information to ISP records). Their tools helped the FBI track down Craigslist killer Philip Markoff. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/042309-craigslist-dns.html

    Did you google them? Did you read the article you linked to? Did you watch the video it referenced?

    The tracked Markoff through his email headers. From the email headers they got his IP address. They used well known tools to map from IP address to ISP and from ISP to user.

    It had nothing to do with the DNS server. It had to do with IP Address Allocation.

    It had nothing to do with any realtime ability of a DNS server to track where Markoff was.

    Yes, if you give me an email someone sent, we can do a pretty good job of tracking down where that email was sent from through IP Address and geoip location technology. But that is wholly different than your claim that “The DNS systems know where you are.”

    Sheesh.

    You’re so stupid, you don’t even realize it.


  321. anon,

    The “privacy leak” of which you speak is structural to gravatar – they couldn’t operate if it were “plugged”. Mike S and Buddha weren’t the only ones that knew what I was doing – I had several more learned opinions including a lawyer. I respect what they had to say far more than I respect your nonsense. That was my LAST substantive answer to you on this topic. Piss off.


  322. I’ll admit defeat when I see some. Speaking of which, nice straw man you got there. You asked me a question in a field I didn’t claim expertise in, I answered to the best of my knowledge – never once claiming to be an expert – and then you say I’m not an expert.

    Actually Gene what happened was that I raised some issues and asked some questions in a field I have lots of understanding about, and very knowledgeable about (but not expert), and you, failing to understand any of that, told me I knew nothing about it, and THEN claimed you in fact did have that knowlege. And then you proceeding to Treknobabble 25 year total crap and long with random and total bullshit: And I called you on it.

    anon,

    “That you don’t understand that Kevin’s actions are totally antithetical with running this as a public forum for free speech.”

    I understand that you think that, but unlike you I understand both the meaning of the word public and understand the underlying technology of the Internet.

    The truth is, that though you boasted you did, you have no clue as to what the underlying technology of the Internet is and how it relates.

    You may have some idea circa 1985, but the large pieces to you are Magic Internet Fairies.

    You have displayed no qualifications, no current knowledge, no understanding of the issues.

    And you don’t even know how ignorant you are of it, so when I tell you what the scoop is, you can’t even recognize it, and when I ask you the simplest of questions, you fail them miserably.

    And when I point out your numerous errors and ask why, you tell me you never claimed to be an expert.


  323. anon,

    The “privacy leak” of which you speak is structural to gravatar – they couldn’t operate if it were “plugged”. Mike S and Buddha weren’t the only ones that knew what I was doing – I had several more learned opinions including a lawyer. I respect what they had to say far more than I respect your nonsense. That was my LAST substantive answer to you on this topic. Piss off.

    The privacy leak seems pretty trivial to fix and not integral to anything.

    Users that are not logged into Gravatar or are not logged into WordPress, or are logged into WordPress but have no Gravatar set for them should not have a unique Gravatar ID generated for them. And especially not one based on the email address.

    PERIOD.


  324. Hey Kevin,

    I used to call you Slarti, but I have too much love and respect for Douglas Adams and too much affection for Slartibartfast, designer of fjords to do that any longer.

    Anyway, sorry.

    I still encourage you to contact WordPress and demonstrate the problem and ask them to address it. You can write a paper on it, or at least a blog post, and be minorly internet famous for a day or two. But it would be a good thing.


  325. “At any rate, I’m sure you all can see what’s going on here. There is an active campaign to get rid of the guest bloggers and it’s all in preparation for 2012. It went into full swing when that dude (I forget his name) started on Gene while the Prof was in France. I was appalled by this latest attack on Mike S. but I figure such attacks are going to continue on each of our guest bloggers simply because the bad-boys want to silence their voices. All that gobbely-goop about ISP’s and guest bloggers having access is aimed at casual posters … if one can’t stop guest bloggers then put the fear of god into those who read.”

    Blouise,

    Your analysis bears repeating. This has been a concerted attack for at least the past year and it is motivated by an effort to cripple this site, rahter than any false search for justice.

    Anon,

    I refer you to Blouise’s words above and believe that they apply to you.


  326. on 1, September 28, 2011 at 3:30 am Mike's (really pissed off wife )

    NoWay…..HEY STALKER You are a goddam fucking liar. You are cyber stalking me and us. How dare you! We also know who you are. What the fuck is wrong with you. You should be ashamed of yourself.
    Marting. Briem lexis. DIGG? I’m sure you do even though you obviously short changed in the brains department.

    Now go take a hike, you sick prick and get a life.
    You don’t scare us. We have been through far worse and pressing issues than to deal with this crap of yours.


  327. Mike, ask Mespo and Gene, I’m pretty stupid, so I have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Are you claiming I am part of any campaign to get rid of guest bloggers?

    Please dude, you know that’s bullshit. But if you think that’s the case, lay it out, because I actually enjoy conspiracy theories. (I do, a good conspiracy theory is a lot of fun, sadly most are pretty bad.)

    Sad part of today is I found I’m one of the few here that both doesn’t complain about other people having alts and doesn’t have two dozen alts myself.

    I’m obviously too oblivious as to who the various personalities here are, and what their little peyton place dramas are to be able to participate in some putative campaign waged against them. But I’m not anyway.

    I will admit though, that I think of the guest bloggers write posts that are just total crap and demean the blog and Professor Turley and he would be better off moving on to different guest bloggers. And I guess it’s to his credit that he keeps these folks on.

    But I honestly don’t give a shit about who the guest bloggers are. I just wish more of you folks could write and argue coherently. And I truly wish that people that claim to be progressive could espouse progressive attitudes.

    Anyway, I’m not part of any organized or even disorganized group of anything.


  328. “I doubt that NL hacked into Mike’s computer. How do I know that? Because I have known the same information for a long time. (over 1 1/2 years)

    Mike’s wife posted the the pictures that NL described when Mike was waiting for a heart. I think the site was transplantcafe.

    Where are pictures stored on someone’s computer? It’s not hard to guess that Mike Spindell was running Microsoft Windows. What is the default location? My Pictures.

    It’s pretty obvious that NL intended to get Mike spun up. Mike jumped to the conclusion that was probably due to a lack of knowledge of his wife’s activities.”

    No Way,

    Fancy you showing up right after NL is banned and with a defense of him that actually runs counter to NL’s own claims. He was just trying to scare me you say and he “guessed” that they would be stored in the my pictures section. Let’s for a minute say that is true. If it was I assume then that you approve of what he did in trying to scare me and my wife. just some old-fashioned good natured fun at my expense. No big deal. Some how I don’t see it that way at all.

    However, this was not the case I believe he criminally hacked my computer and I am pursuing criminal action against him. I won’t go into the evidence details as to why this was there is a strong indication of his culpability, until it is needed, but I do believe this hacking has taken place and am in the process of reviewing my computers intrusion files and having the PC checked by an expert tomorrow.

    Back to you though No Way. How would you know about Transplant Cafe, it is a small site read by those most directly involved. You said you went to it because a friend was concerned about my condition, why that’s just special isn’t it. Why do I doubt that your friends would care at all about my health? As a matter of fact your friend NL, perhaps alter-ego is a better description directly criticized my morality in hoping and then receiving a heart transplant. Claiming I stole a living persons heart.

    The transplant cafe angle is interesting because it would seem that so many people were “so interested” in my health that they even checked out rather obscure sources to learn of it. I didn’t know you cared, No Way, or to be more blunt I don’t think you do care. My wife will be posting on her own on this and is doings so as I write. Whatever she’s written is not the result of collaboration because one of the reasons I love her is she has a strong mind of her own.

    As for to me the late, un-lamented NL, has contributed nothing to this blog, save for an overbearing rage and the viciousness of a bully. This is clear by seeing that each one of his first comments on any given thread are strong attacks followed by ardent bluster. The thing is though that each time he was responded to in kind, he became further enraged that anyone would return his fire and literally whines
    about the unfairness of it all. This has been a constant tactic of the Far Right and to me is either a display of cynical hypocrisy, or in the alternative the Psychological Defense mechanism of denial. Either way brings little credit or credibility to their words and deeds.


  329. “Are you claiming I am part of any campaign to get rid of guest bloggers?”

    Anon,

    When you lie down with swine by having the same goal, expressed with more elgance I must say, then yes I do have cause to think it possible. As I’ve said to you in other comments while you vaguely claim to hold antithetical views to the Tea Bag types, you sure spend most of your time here criticizing the other side. Why is that? Is it teaching or a cleverly disguised affinity?


  330. on 1, September 28, 2011 at 4:01 am Mike's (really pissed off wife )

    This sound familiar to anyone ? It should

    Mbrickman@briem.com
    How about this NoWay….. Marting@lexis.com
    Now that is really deep.

    Some cover. Now grow up.


  331. anon,

    Your talk of an “information leak” in gravatar (has absolutely nothing to do with wordpress, by the way…) shows how little you understand. If you don’t have a 1-to-1 mapping between gravatars and emails that you can distribute (as a plug-in), then you CANNOT provide the service gravatar does. Period.

    Calling me Kevin doesn’t bother me – I just think some people get confused. You comment made me ask myself, what would two of my biggest heroes (Douglas Adams and Richard Feynman) think about what I’ve done? I’m guessing that noted technophile and Apple enthusiast DNA would be so busy geeking out about how easy it was to do what I did in Python and rushing home to install it on his beloved Macs to worry about spending much time on what isn’t really a thorny ethical dilemma and that the man who cracked the safes holding all of the information from the Manhattan project just to show it could be done would be so fascinated by what could be done and how everything worked that he wouldn’t really be bothered by what could only be considered a trivial problem in morality when compared to making the Atomic bomb…

    Did it ever occur to you that I have been extremely ethical here? I did my experiment (consulting with a group of a half dozen people on the ethical issue), shelved the project after completing the successful test (for various reasons) and the first time the issue came up here (to my knowledge), I went on the blog of a noted civil libertarian and revealed EXACTLY what went on. Go me! What would you have done in my place? Would you have revealed how you did your tricks? Somehow, I doubt that you would have acted as responsibly.

    How do you know what went on? Because I told you, that’s how. You still don’t get what the point was, though. My hypothesis had absolutely nothing to do with gravatars or mining information from them – it was much more interesting…


  332. When you lie down with swine by having the same goal, expressed with more elgance I must say, then yes I do have cause to think it possible.

    First, I don’t even know what to make of this. A few days ago you were laughing at me and denying you were a progressive or a liberal. I still don’t know how to classify your politics other than as iconoclast (which I read as “indepedent”). So I have no idea what your goals or any of that is, but I learn, I read you, take your arguments seriously, and engage with you.

    Think globally, act locally.

    I see no reason to support shoddy arguments and lousy policies that I thin are destructive to liberalism and progressivism just because some others holier than thou bigoted arrogant bullying individuals demand I do. Especially when their arguments consists of yelling and name calling.

    As an iconoclast yourself, I would think you could appreciate that.

    I come here because I find Professor Turley’s writings interesting and compelling. And I have no fucking clue, and I’ve said this in the past, how he developed the dumbest worst “progressive” blog community I’ve experienced. So many of you are just bleeding ears stupid. Hankerchief wearing morons. And enormously self-content, arrogant, non-thinking, bullies.

    Screw that shit.

    Mike, I realize you think, and you may be right, that someone is threatening you, and I would go ballistic myself, and I hope you get the aid you need to make your family safe, and I hope my advice to you was valuable and I also hope unneeded.

    But you’re barking up the wrong tree if you think I give a shit about who the guest bloggers are. Most of you are damn fools, but I still have no idea what anyone except for Professor Turley would gain by dumping your asses. Why? What is the motive? I just don’t understand this crap at all.

    Most of the guest blogs are so horrible that if I were opposed to Professor Turley, I would want to see more of you guys. More Mespo, what a jackass. More Gene, what a moron.

    But I really just don’t care.

    What I care about is that the arguments are interesting, relevant, and put together well. And when they are not I feel free to critique them. And if you guys had any guts you would thank us for taking your arguments seriously enough to spend the time to provide feedback.

    Anyway Mike, so what is it? Are you an iconoclast, an independent, a liberal, a progressive?

    Also, on a completely unrelated note, I was surprised, saddened, glad to learn of your heart issues. And interested to learn about transplant cafe. I’m not where you are, but I think I’ll be getting open heart #3 soon, and that’s due to a birth defect and apparently a body just really annoyed with the various replacement valves.

    Oh yeah, and though that douchebag Kevin Kesseler could never understand this, I think his acts to connect alts and break anonymity are the real threat to free speech at this blog.

    It’s because I think I can be anonymous and free from his scraping antics that I can talk about divorce, family court, heart issues, and therapy.

    Dr. Kevin Kesseler can take his privacy invading script and shove it so far up his ass it comes out his ears. What a fucking asshole. If anyone should be banned it’s him. His actions are unethical, and dangerous and borderline illegal.

    And I would think that you of all people could understand that.


  333. Kevin,

    WordPress owns Gravatar you dumbass.

    Gravatar has a simple fix. Anytime they are asked to display the null gravatar image, they should generate a null gravatar id. People that have not set up a gravatar image do not want to have a non null unique gravatar trackable id generated for them.

    How can you not understand that?

    Richard Feynman broke into lots of safes and offices. I have never heard of him saying it’s okay to violate the privacy of innocent bystanders.

    What you should have done is having found the exploit, done exactly what I said: write a blog post or paper and gone to wordpress and gravatar, explained it, and asked them to fix it. You then give them a reasonable amount of time to fix it and disclose it, or you disclose it yourself.

    THAT IS THE INDUSTRY STANDARD PRACTICE YOU IGNORANT JACKASS.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_disclosure

    I’ve been telling you this over and over. I’ve been explaining the privacy issues and the legal issues.

    But you are too busy peacocking all the alts you discovered, directly contrary to any activity I’ve ever heard associated with Feynman to read and listen and respect.


  334. anon,

    Nobody cares who you are, least of all me. No one’s personal information was revealed or compromised, just some people’s alternate personas. If you can’t see that I in no way acted unethically here, then you are seriously deluded. But I think that we all already knew that…


  335. Oh and one more thing Kevin, as I said earlier.

    NONE OF THIS REQUIRED DATA FROM OR THE USE OF THIS BLOG OR THE DISCLOSURE OF ALTS FROM THIS BLOG.

    Especially when you did not have the permission of Professor Turley or his commenters.

    Play security researcher on your own goddamned blag.

    That you can pretend your acts were ethical shows how deep up your ass your head is.


  336. anon,

    No, Feynman violated NATIONAL SECURITY (and potentially compromising people’s jobs – secretaries got in trouble because he broke their security). And you don’t know what you’re talking about regarding gravatars (although I will admit I didn’t know wordpress owned them – I would note that they show up on many non-wordpress blogs and fora as well). You seem to have some serious misconceptions about how web pages work…


  337. Kevin, just repeat the following:

    I Kevin Kesseler believe that if I had told Professor Turley ahead of time of the extent of my actions and the impacts that Professor Turley would have approved and given me the go ahead to write my script, execute it, and disclose the alts.


  338. anon,

    Strike two, I wasn’t doing security research…


  339. Shit spam filtered again, switching to Robert Paulson.

    But oh yes, Slarti, what you were doing, defacto, was security research.


  340. So the spam filter ate a post. But a basic examination of the Gravatar API reveals it as a privacy risk. It could be fixed if they wanted to and for blogs that want to eliminate the risk, it would be pretty easy.

    But read this:

    http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/44717/is-gravatar-a-privacy-risk

    ran across the comment below about Gravatar. I’m particularly curious of Meta Stack Overflow’s opinions on points 4 and 6, though the others may be of interest too. Are these concerns real, and if so, what defensive measures might be used?

    Comment by AL 2009-02-18 00:03:55

    I’m a lawyer specialising in internet and privacy issues at a Fortune 100 company and I personally think that Gravatar is easily the worst service available in terms of your data security and privacy. I generally don’t comment on any blogs that are Gravatar-enabled (this being an exception), for the following reasons:

    The entire reason Gravatar offers their service is to collect internet usage data across multiple sites. It is not offered free out of the goodness of their heart. The entire purpose of the service is to analyse the way YOU navigate the internet.

    Gravatar has clear plans to monetise this data. Whether they are successful or not is another story.

    It is unlikely that Gravatar would ever disclose individual user’s personal information, but it is not impossible. The Chinese government has often requested to these kind of information aggregators to disclose data for the prosecution of political dissidents – and very often these requests are met resulting in bloggers being jailed (see Yahoo!’s experiences in China). For example, if I leave a number of comments promoting democracy criticising the PRC government on various blogs, it is entirely possible that the Chinese government could use legal authority to request the holder of information to disclose that to them. By retaining this information and preventing you from stoppping it’s collection, Gravatar is putting both bloggers and commenters at risk. This is not just in China. The Patriot Act and many other new pieces of post-9/11 legislation in Western countries convey similar powers to government.

    The most egregious part of Gravatar’s service is the inability to stop them from collecting your data. I have in the past tried to cancel a Gravatar registration. Gravatar does not allow this and will continue to track your e-mail address for the rest of time.

    Much is made of facebook and Google Chrome’s use of personal information, but Gravatar is far and away the worst popular internet service I have encountered in terms of user (and non-user) personal information.

    As a lawyer, I strongly urge all blog authors and users who are concerned about their privacy to avoid Gravatar.

    Answers:

    Is gravatar a privacy risk?

    Yes.

    HOWEVER, Kevin, what you show is the problem is not just at Gravatar but to any third party scraper. You could take this as a privacy advocate and run with it.

    But you won’t.


  341. anon,

    What makes you think that this is the first time that Professor Turley’s blog has been scraped? Why do you know what happened this time? If the professor or any of the guest bloggers think that I’ve acted in any way inappropriately, they are free to say so, and I would give any of their opinions considerable weight because they have all shown themselves deserving of that respect. You… not so much.

    And I believe that, had I forced myself into Professor Turley’s attention to tell him about my plan, he would have been annoyed at the idiot wasting his time on a trivial issue. I would love it if Professor Turley made a post on this topic – I’ve been interested in the ethics of this issue since before you were aware that anything was going on.

    You keep mentioning writing a white paper or some such. I’ve got more important things to do with my time that to waste it writing a paper on a topic I think is trivial. If you think it’s important, I’ve revealed enough about what I’ve done that you should be able to repeat my work and do the paper yourself if you think its important. You can even have all of the credit – go for it! ;-)

    By the way, this is one of the “Buddhabrot” gravatars associated with my defunct UNC email address…


  342. Otteray Scribe,

    Godspeed North Carolina Mountain Scribe. Seminole myself, with a lot of Highlanders mixed in for temperament!


  343. WORDPRESS BUG THAT WORDPRESS CLOSES AS WONTFIX

    http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/14682

    Privacy leakage: gravatars leak identity informationReported by: jmdh Owned by:
    Priority: normal Milestone:
    Component: Comments Version: 3.0.1
    Severity: normal Keywords: close
    Cc: jmdh

    Description (last modified by Denis-de-Bernardy) (diff)

    If a commenter on a blog leaves a comment without having a log in to the site, and the “Comment author must fill out name and e-mail” preference is enabled for the blog, the author must provide an email address. The form for this says “Mail (will not be published) (required)”

    It’s true that the email address itself is not published, but if the site has gravatars enabled, the persistent identity of the commenter is nonetheless revealed. Together with inspection of other posts where the commenter has chosen to reveal their identity, on the same blog or other blogs, or a brute-force approach taking a known email address to find postings attributed to them (using a global search engine) this results in a complete loss of anonymity.

    At the bare minimum, the user should be aware of this, so that they can choose not to comment; preferably, the software should be changed so that gravatars are not used for these sorts of posts (or made configurable, in combination with the user being made aware).

    NOTE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN THROUGHOUT THIS THREAD.


  344. http://www.developer.it/post/gravatars-why-publishing-your-email-s-hash-is-not-a-good-idea

    Gravatars: why publishing your email’s hash is not a good idea
    In gravatar stackoverflow information leak md5

    The guys at gravatar.com offer a nice service: for website owners, they let you automatically associate an avatar to your users, through the user’s email address. The users who register to gravatars.com are able to change their gravatar and the change will be visible on all gravatar-enabled websites where they registered with the same email.

    The association email -> avatar is done through a MD5 hash function. If you register to a website with username at mailprovider.com, the website will compute the hash of your email address (in this case 476c8a979eed603fb855dca149c7af6b) and associate the avatar url
    /avatar/476c8a979eed603fb855dca149c7af6b?d=identicon
    to your profile. All other websites using gravatars will associate the same url to your profile, because the computation of
    md5sum ( username at mailprovider.com )
    will always yield the same result.

    If you register to gravatar.com with the same email, you are able to change the image associated to your md5 and so the various online communities you take part in will show the same picture next to your brilliant posts or comments and you’ll present a consistent face to your online fans.

    There is a piece of information which must be made public, though. It’s this 32 char string which serves as a token for your web browser to retrieve the right image. How much information are we leaking to the bad people inhabiting the internet? Can that key be used to retrieve our email?

    The email’s hash gives a quick way to check whether a certain email is the one associated to your profile. Given a list of emails, you can check whether the user has registered with one of them.

    Say that you would like to play a trick on user Michael Smith, who got on your nerves because of an Emacs vs. Vi thread gone too far. You see that his gravatar is
    /avatar/e57f4aa121ea7a10d5fcfb492dbcf0de?s=32&d=identicon&r=PG
    so he must have registered with an email having md5 equal to e57f4aa121ea7a10d5fcfb492dbcf0de.

    What could his email be?

    Let’s start trying with famousprovider.com addresses, which we know have 40% share of the email namespace at the moment. Let’s check whether he registered as michael.smith at famousprovider.com


  345. Kevin,

    You have shown something that none of the other bug reports emphasize, namely that this privacy leak exists across websites and is exploitable by third party scrapers, not just by Gravatar.

    You could be a white hat and make a fuss about it.

    But you don’t even understand the issue.


  346. Anon,

    I never even considered the possibility that Gravatar WASN’T using their site to mine massive amounts of data. Personally, I like having a personalized avatar on nearly any blog or forum. It seems like a fair price to have gravatar monitor whenever I use their service in a totally transparent way – that’s the free market (by the way, Byron should be all over your bid to restrain the free market when he sees this in the morning…). In what way have I been less that forthcoming about what went on here? Would we be having this conversation if not for my honesty and openness? Would the people reading this thread be aware of the information they give up when they post on a gravatar-enabled site if not for me? Sorry, but I’ve found your arguments as to my pernicious actions to be completely unpersuasive.

    Here’s a question for you: How would your argument change if this were a gravatar-disabled site? The way I read it, you would have no problem with what I did, correct? If so, what if I was able to determine authors by simply analyzing the text of comments? Would I still be doing anything wrong in your view? Can you actually address these issues or is making weak, fallacious arguments about how unethical I am the extent of your debating skills?

    (Gravatar is a heterodyning figure associated with my duke email address)


  347. Otteray Scribe, I didn’t say, “My friend Osama bin Laden . . . ”

    I said, “My friend, Ole, been loggin’.”


  348. “The NRA and Whole Foods have a lot in common:”

    Nuts and flakes?


  349. anon,

    I understand the issue. How much time do you think it would take to do what you suggest? If you’d like to pay me $200/hr I’ll write up your white paper and try to get people’s attention I’d be happy to do it, if not I can make better use of my time doing things that I consider important. I’ve given you my permission and absolved you from giving me any credit – go repeat my research and publicize it yourself… if it’s such an important thing then you should be willing to do it yourself, right?

    (Gravatar : another “Buddhabrot” image associated with my throw-away email address)


  350. Here’s a question for you: How would your argument change if this were a gravatar-disabled site? The way I read it, you would have no problem with what I did, correct? If so, what if I was able to determine authors by simply analyzing the text of comments? Would I still be doing anything wrong in your view? Can you actually address these issues or is making weak, fallacious arguments about how unethical I am the extent of your debating skills?

    When you come up with your algorithm that can identify commenters based on their content you let me know, and I’ll tell you if what you are doing is unethical.

    Answer: Yes. Violating anonymity, scraping sites to do so without disclosure or permission is unethical and probably illegal.

    Ya know, I have a degree in Physics as well, and was taught by Feynman and other Manhattan Project scientists. We were taught that what was doable was not always ethical. We actually had long discussions on ethics.

    Apparently your generation managed to sleep through that.

    Kevin, why don’t you right now send an email to Professor Turley and outline what you did and ask him for his opinion as to your behavior.

    It’s amazing. You think that by scraping all these people and publically disclosing their alts that you have done them a favor and that favor mitigates your actions.

    In truth you could have done all of this using 2-5 made up accounts. You could have done all this once you suspected what was happening just by using Google as I did, and not needing to disclose ANYONE’s accounts.

    You could have written a blog post and posted it to make other people aware.

    You could have mentioned it in a comment at this blog. You could probably have alerted Professor Turley to it and made it feature prominently at this blog.

    Let me guess: your favorite logical fallacy is exclusion of the hidden middle, amirite?

    You’re an academic, and you have no idea what ethical behavior is. And when it’s pointed out to you, you just cling to denial.

    Amazing.


  351. Slartibartfast
    1, September 28, 2011 at 5:28 am

    anon,

    I understand the issue. How much time do you think it would take to do what you suggest? If you’d like to pay me $200/hr I’ll write up your white paper and try to get people’s attention I’d be happy to do it, if not I can make better use of my time doing things that I consider important. I’ve given you my permission and absolved you from giving me any credit – go repeat my research and publicize it yourself… if it’s such an important thing then you should be willing to do it yourself, right?

    You have a paper you could add to your c.v. waiting to be written. You have a paper that needs to be written just to illuminate a poorly understood privacy risk.

    You demand someone pay you to do this public good.

    You’re quite the white hat. Your sense of ethics is overwhelming.


  352. Kevin, It’s a pretty simple thing for you to write down:

    I Kevin Kesseler, known here as Slartibartfast, believe that if I had told Professor Turley ahead of time of the extent of my actions and the impacts that Professor Turley would have approved and given me the go ahead to write my script, execute it, and disclose the alts.

    Amazing how you argue against obtaining permission to scrape a site and search for alts ahead of time.

    More amazing you can justify your actions as ethical in any manner.


  353. anon,

    I have two papers that are nearly ready to go, a third in which all of the “math” is done, and a fourth which is built around a proof that was in my thesis – all of which bolster my CV in areas in which I have significant expertise. Tell me again why wasting my time on a matter I consider trivial will help? I actually am not interested in writing papers – I’m interested in doing modeling. Also I am neither an academic (any more) nor do I have a degree in physics (all of my degrees are in math – I was a physics major for a couple of years – I’m pretty much solid through Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics and avoid the quantum…). If you truly had the opportunity to learn from Dr. Feynman then you are lucky – it’s too bad that it was wasted on such an asshole.

    By the way, I couldn’t have accomplished my goals as you suggest and as for an algorithm – I already have it, but it’s going to take years to develop and I have other goals in the interim. And there is no way in hell I’m telling you anything more about it…

    As for contacting Professor Turley, I don’t think that would be appropriate – he is our host, not a participant in the conversation. I don’t believe that he would see what I have done as unethical nor do I think he would see it as particularly significant. You’ve already posted on the comments page, which we know he reads – if he feels that it is necessary to weigh in in some way, he’ll do that and I would gladly answer any questions he had, but in the absence of evidence of interest on his part, I’m not going to presume that he finds this issue important.


  354. anon, I don’t think you can dictate terms to anyone. Personally, I find that little ploy more than offensive.

    NoWay, I did not say that annoying liberals were posting here. I did not identify the venue. But in keeping with the theme of this original posting, it annoys me to no end to see liberals doggedly pursue a ‘gun grabbing’ or ‘guns are only for the military’ running commentary on some blogs when it is clear that: 1) it is a losing issue for Democrats; 2) has zero chance of being implemented. That line just gives aid and comfort to the crazies at the NRA to raise more money against Democrats and progressive candidates. Those folks are among the most annoying liberals. The other annoying liberals are those who seriously think Dennis Kucinich can be elected President.

    Blouise, I don’t know of any liberals posting on right wing blogs as a regular thing. First, I do not hang out over there because it is not good for my blood pressure. Second, the feedback I see from those who do so tell me they get banned and their comments deleted so it is a waste of time and energy.

    Everyone who is fearful of their stuff being discovered: Stay off the damn internet. Live in a cave with no phone and do not own property. Use a postal drop box instead of an address. Never take the same route twice in a week. Give me a few days and I can know almost everything there is to know about you, including your mother’s maiden name, who you owe money to, and that speeding ticket you got that you did not tell your family about. And more–it is out there. I used to run a program that tracked back everyone who pinged my computer. The longest chain I saw was a dozen proxies that went through Spain, Peru, Indonesia and Mexico, among other places.

    If you insist on participating in the real world, get used to the idea that true privacy is a myth. To quote Muhammad Ali, “He can run but he can’t hide.”


  355. I might be an asshole, very little dispute about that. (Mike, I’m waiting to hear your denial. Mike?)

    But I’m not an unethical idiot coward.

    (just an idiot coward, but that’s a different story.)

    You should write the paper because you acted unethically and you would be repaying your considerable debt to this community.

    You should write the paper because it would be a public good.

    And you should write the paper because you do have a Ph.D and you will have a larger megaphone than I and a larger audience.


  356. anon, I don’t think you can dictate terms to anyone. Personally, I find that little ploy more than offensive.

    OS, what terms am I dictating?

    That Kevin Kesseler acknowledge what is obvious? That Professor Turley would never have given him permission? And that clearly makes his actions unethical and illegal?

    I am not dictating terms — I fully know that Dr. Kevin Kesseler, Ph.D. will never write such a thing, and why? Because your BFF Slartibartfast down deep is a goddamn unethical sleazebag.


  357. Hey OS, my entire life I was worried about my permanent record. But really, for us, there was no permanent record. The shit I didn’t do that I should have.

    Google will murder.


  358. Kevin/Slartbartfast it’s really not important. As per your admission you lost a whole days work yesterday. I’ve been focusing on other things as of late and have found that I’m more productive by not getting sucked into all the drama by posting comments here. I slipped up last night only because I was brought into the conversation.

    I hope what information you been able to gather becomes useful to you one day. Hopefully it will lead to additional income which has become a key focal point in my household. If it doesn’t then think of all the time you wasted.

    On topic from the off topic thread, which professor Turley really needs to consider having an open thread to discuss off topic matters instead of ruining IMO Raffs thread is this.

    ‘We didn’t mean to track you’ says Facebook as social network giant admits to ‘bugs’ in new privacy row

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2042573/Facebook-privacy-issues-Social-network-watching-youre-logged-out.html#ixzz1ZFoTV72o

    Later, got work to do.


  359. NoWay,

    You offered an explanation, I was examining the evidence. Since, your explanation only accounted for one photo that was mentioned, and then not even well (has NL been lurking on the site since before Mike deleted his profile? How do you explain the second picture reference? etc.) in my opinion it has holes big enough to drive a Stephen King Deus Ex Semi into.

    I didn’t know that Mike was a member of that particular site. I’d be few if any here knew it either. The point is, you freely shared information about somebody that they hadn’t deemed it necessary to share, after complaining about people invading your privacy. That just makes your complaints seem a little disingenuous, don’t you think?

    Anyway, I’m done. The serious crime is being handled by the proper authorities, and knowing how Slart’s program works, I can tell you that I could get the exact same information about with a couple of “xxxxx Site:Jonathanturley.org” and “xxxxxxxxx site:wordpress.com” searches.

    If I thought my advice would do any good, I’d suggest that if you’re as concerned as you claim to be about the issue, tell WordPress to fix it or else you’re no longer going to visit their sites, and then do that when they tell you they can’t. I’d go a step further and encourage you to start a website complaining about how you treated here and by wordpress, get the word out.


  360. Slarti:

    I got news for you, I dont believe in free enterprise to the point of violating some one’s right to privacy or to the point of violating ethical standards. There are 2 aspects to human liberty, they are economic and political freedom. You cannot have one without the other.

    Personal privacy is a part of political freedom. A violation of some one’s privacy is a pretty serious offense in my opinion. But I understand why you did it and I also agree with anon that just because something can be done doesnt mean you should do it.

    I also agree with anon [who is about my age] that there is a real problem in this country with ethics. Now I may have backslid a bit here [and you know why] but you and others did what you did to try and stifle dissenting opinion. You may think I am a troll but my views are shared by very many people who have concern for our country and people.

    The harvesting of email addresses isnt that big a deal, as Gene H said there isnt much expectation of privacy on the web, but the reason you did it is rather disturbing. Honestly, did you think about what you were doing? Did it occur to you and others that you were engaging in force to stifle dissent?

    To me that is the unconscionable part, that a person who classifies himself as a liberal would resort to force to discourage others from voicing their opinion. And then to defend the indefensible instead of just admitting a mistake. I would expect Buddha is Laughing to stifle dissent through force but not you.


  361. Bron,

    Glad to see you back after so long. What a fortuitous occurrence for you to suddenly reappear after a long hiatus only to run full into a heated debate. In your return you then offer this little tidbit:

    “Did it occur to you and others that you were engaging in force to stifle dissent? To me that is the unconscionable part, that a person who classifies himself as a liberal would resort to force to discourage others from voicing their opinion. And then to defend the indefensible instead of just admitting a mistake. I would expect Buddha is Laughing to stifle dissent through force but not you.”

    The destruction of any debate is deceit. One enters into debate with the hope that those with whom she/he disagrees are indeed the same individuals, even via the use of pseudonyms. The debate gets stifled and distracted one of the parties uses sock-puppets to distract via serving as a Greek chorus. This distracts because it diffuses the discussion and makes difficult the task of addressing others points. This was what was occurring here when Slarti began his project.

    A concerted effort was being made to disrupt each thread and thereby cause the topic to become unfocused. Since the days of Richard Nixon
    “dirty tricks” this has been the skill and the trade of various paid members of the Corporatists. The Koch Bros. ALEC Project is but an example. Professor Turley’s least activity of note is his blog. He has dedicated himself to taking principled stands on Civil Liberties issues, despite some of those stands unpopularity among the Corporate Establishment. This has made him a target and his blog, as one of his means of self-expression, has been attacked by those who would sow
    disinformation for fun and profit. Perhaps, given your past writings you may even fall among that group, who knows.

    No one’s debate/opinions were stifled by exposing their using the ruse of
    multiple, anonymous identities. What did occur was that their deceit in debate was exposed and I assume that made them uncomfortable. People of this ilk have as a group shown to be “whiners” when attacked, despite their own original duplicitous methods, somehow feeling they are victims when their deceptions are exposed. Their typical tactic, with which you are no doubt familiar is to call their attackers unethical, while
    conveniently forgetting their unethical behavior.


  362. “You offered an explanation, I was examining the evidence. Since, your explanation only accounted for one photo that was mentioned, and then not even well (has NL been lurking on the site since before Mike deleted his profile? How do you explain the second picture reference? etc.) in my opinion it has holes big enough to drive a Stephen King Deus Ex Semi into.”

    Gyges,

    Thank you for making that point, let me expand the argument further though. I’m not into keeping photographs on my PC. The “My Photos” section of “My Documents” only contained 3 photos. One labelled “Mike”
    which is what I use for my Gravatar. One labelled “Mike and Max” which is a picture of me and my wife at a Cocktail Party. This is the photo I cropped to get the “Mike” picture. The 3rd is labelled “Grampa and Grandson” of whom being obvious. No Way’s alter ego NL, clearly identified these three photos and referenced that they came from the “My Pictures” file on my PC. He described my wife’s dress and could obviously see that I had cropped my Gravatar from the couple’s photo.
    As to the one with my Grandson, he brought that into the discussion because it was taken when I was dying and I looked like crap. His point was that I was being deceitful in using a better picture of myself, from an earlier time, though God knows why he even considered that relevant.
    Given his writing and given that these are the only three picture of me on my computer, I think it is patently obvious what he was doing. Since the “My Photos” file is a subset of “My Documents” on my PC, it is obvious that his invasion of my privacy was of a more sinister nature. Beyond that the whole comment where he did this was of a threatening, sinister nature. Given that the unfortunately sidetracked topic was gun control one is left to wonder how far he is willing to carry his menace. The ironic part of it all is that I’m a supporter of the Right to Bear Arms and have made that clear here for years.


  363. Good luck in catching Vinnie, Slarti. He sounds like a piece of work.


  364. “It had nothing to do with the DNS server. It had to do with IP Address Allocation.”

    No shit, Sherlock. IP allocation that works with the DNS server systems to tell the server what’s connected to it where in conjunction with the regional Internet registries and the local Internet registries (a.k.a. ISPs and other entities that buy blocks of addresses). How does the FBI knows a hacker is working out of say, Lisbon? They analyze the DNS traffic to get the IP’s being used and cross-reference with the data of the RIR’s to narrow suspect addresses down to a local block of address owned by an ISP or other entity. They got Markham because his header information contained IP information for his mail servers. Mail servers that like everything else on the Internet are connected and have their traffic managed by the DNS systems.

    But you’re the expert. You should have known that.


  365. Otteray Scribe,

    Yes, indeed, banning is the way it’s handled. There are those who compete with each other to see how many times they can be banned … it’s a game for them and they write some nasty, nasty stuff to see how long it stays up.


  366. Mike,

    “Their typical tactic, with which you are no doubt familiar is to call their attackers unethical, while conveniently forgetting their unethical behavior.”

    Bingo!


  367. Slarti,

    “Blouise,

    You were brought up because most (two-thirds) of the many (3) posts by Swarthmore mom’s multitude (2) of unacknowledged sock puppets were in support of you. And… HI BLOUISE! *waving*”

    Damn, not Johnny Depp … waving madly back at you and very, very glad to see you posting again.


  368. “But you’re barking up the wrong tree if you think I give a shit about who the guest bloggers are. Most of you are damn fools, but I still have no idea what anyone except for Professor Turley would gain by dumping your asses.”

    “I will admit though, that I think of the guest bloggers write posts that are just total crap and demean the blog and Professor Turley and he would be better off moving on to different guest bloggers.”

    “Anyway Mike, so what is it? Are you an iconoclast, an independent, a liberal, a progressive?”

    Anon,

    I am an iconoclast, as I’ve already stated and shown through the years by the positions I’ve taken, the sense of which I presented in a comment way above. Now as for not giving a shit about who the guest bloggers are Anon that is totally disingenuous given your continued attacks on their work as well as my own. Whether you are working directly with others, or just your lonesome, does not belie the fact that your writings have all been to deface the credibility of these guest bloggers. That, by the way is your right and I would not want that right to be stifled, but because you have the right to say things doesn’t prevent others like myself from calling you on it.

    You claim to have a degree in physics and to have worked with Feynman. Very impressive and I’m sure a claim that cannot be at all substantiated.
    The advantage of anonymity is that you can claim to be anything you want
    and no one can dispute it. Slarti, has not invoked that privilege for himself and so right there I give him greater credibility. The guest bloggers also do not maintain anonymity. As for Anonymously Yours he has his reasons, but I know his name since we have exchanged E Mails. This is true for many of the other regular commenters here, there is discussion that goes on beyond the blog and there exists a community beyond it as well. Therefore in my scaling of credibility those who I know rise above your own. You have the right to be anonymous though and I don’t urge others to take the path I’ve chosen. However, while anonymity provides protection it also diminishes credibility.As for my take on your dispute with Slarti, I’ll let my two posts above talk to my position.

    “Also, on a completely unrelated note, I was surprised, saddened, glad to learn of your heart issues. And interested to learn about transplant cafe. I’m not where you are, but I think I’ll be getting open heart #3 soon, and that’s due to a birth defect and apparently a body just really annoyed with the various replacement valves.”

    I’m sorry to learn of your own heart issues and since via parents, siblings and myself have lived with them all my life I can empathize with your distress. As for Transplant Cafe, from what you describe of your issue I’m not sure if that will be a helpful resource for you at the moment. As an aside someone who gets to see the blog part of Transplant Cafe, would have to register there. This means that if in the bleak possibility that it was where the photos were gleaned (highly unlikely) that gleaner would have had to register there with the false information that he was a members of the pre and post transplant community, that is who and what it is for.

    Regarding your own heart problems i wish you well. I think, if your MD’s haven’t mentioned it you should explore getting an ICD (google it) because that device is minimally invasive and saved my life on at least 6 occasions. As for your possible need of a transplant though, that issue should be fully explored with your Physicians, many good Heart Specialists are not conversant with transplants and indeed though I’ve always had excellent Doctors, many were reluctant to tell me that my condition was degenerative no matter how I modified lifestyle. I was very lucky that just as my heart began to rapidly fail I ran into a doctor who set me on that path. I wish you well in your coming procedure.


  369. Finally, I want to mention that a computer technician will arrive shortly to deal with my security issues, so I’ll be offline.

    Actually though, tonight is the eve of the Jewish New Years, Rosh Hashonah. I have had many blessings this year and my thoughts and prayers will be involved in giving thanks for them, atoning for my sins and hoping I will be put into the Book of Life for another year. I extend that wish to all of you and also my regrets for offenses towards some of you that I might have made. I will be offline for the next 2 1/2 days so don’t expect further responses from me.

    L’Shana Tovah.


  370. Mike,

    Enjoy your holiday – see you on the other side!

    anon,

    I made the following post on the corrections page:

    Kevin K
    1, September 28, 2011 at 12:41 pm
    Professor Turley,

    For the past day or so there has been a spirited discussion about the data mining experiment I (Slartibartfast) and others performed last spring on your site that has hijacked the discussion on rafflaw’s 2nd amendment thread. While I firmly believe I did nothing unethical, I do think that there are some important privacy issues being raised (if only to make your readers aware of what is possible to do in regards online data mining) and that the topic is worthy of it’s own thread (as is the original topic of the raff’s now-hijacked thread). Maybe you or one of your guest bloggers could cover this issue in its own post.

    Thank you,

    Kevin Kesseler

    This is as far as I’m willing to go in raising the issue to the Professor. Once again, we see that I act in transparency and good faith while you consistently demonstrate the opposite.

    Bron,

    I’ll take your “new” handle as a sop towards my request and I greatly appreciate it. I meant what I said above about your support on the 9/11 thread – it was important to me, thanks.

    As for your arguments as to why the free market should be regulated, I’ll address them for a break this afternoon or this evening…

    Blouise,

    As I clearly still don’t posses the ability to comment here in moderation, I’ll probably avoid commenting regularly, but I am watching the site and will certainly add my $0.02 from time to time. Sorry I wasn’t Johnny Depp (I did bear a resemblance to Steven Segal when I wore my hair in a pony tail – before I shaved my head – but that’s just not the same, I know… :-()

    Bdaman,

    Thank you for respecting my time. Just so you know, I would have been happy to give you as much info as I could have dug up had you met my price of an act of good faith, but I’m fine with this, too.

    In regards my time and the drama, I may have lost a day of work time, but I also got other things out of it which I feel are worthwhile. This doesn’t impact my short-term plans, but it is a project I plan on returning to in the future. In any case, this distraction will probably cost me some sleep in the next couple of days, but I doubt it will cost me financially… Anyway, take care of yourself and your mother until someone summons you by using your name on another thread I’m commenting on.


  371. Mike,

    I never said I worked with Feynman. Student, not colleague. He wouldn’t have known me from Adam if you had asked.

    Also, I may have misled you, I do have heart issues, and have required (too many) open heart surgeries, but nothing yet to suggest I need a transplant. My interest in transplantcafe is that it is good and interesting to see a great support community.

    Regarding credibility, just go down this thread, first with Gene, then with Kevin. Google what I’ve said. Pass my comments regarding DNS etc past a friend. Gene is a total bullshit know nothing. Kevin an unethical tool. I’ve given you plenty of links so that you can determine the truth of each. Gene has given you a bunch of bluster, Kevin a lot of whining denials.

    But actually Bdaman is completely correct about the total waste of time.


  372. Why are people in so much pain. I read this space and ache.


  373. anon,

    A year ago last month my then 1 year old granddaughter went through a 14 hour open heart surgery to correct birth defects to her heart (valve, arteries, hole). After having gone through all the usual difficulties in life that any 65 year old woman encounters, that one day stands out as the hardest day of my life … multiply that 10 fold for my daughter and son-in-law. Her prognosis going in was not good … the result was a 100% cure that left her doctors literally stunned and to this day referring to her as their “miracle” baby.

    I tell you this for no other reason than to give you a context for my next comment … I wish you all the best in dealing with your heart situation and highly recommend St. Anthony to you. (Put any and all prejudices aside and look him up knowing that I am not Catholic, probably not even Christian, but willing to testify to the strength that can be found down that path.) If any ask me to back this up, I won’t. One does not argue these sorts of matters.


  374. Mike,

    I never studied with Feynman, but I did study with a student of Smale for several years (who is quite well-known on his own), Luol Deng once apologized to me for having a bad game on my birthday, and Cal Ripken, Jr. told me I had a good handshake (so I got that going for me…). I can’t verify any of these (well… I suppose I can verify the first – it would be on my transcript), but they are all true.

    anon,

    Actually, I’m guessing that I have once again demonstrated my integrity to anyone who’s opinion I’m likely to care about, while you have demonstrated your lack of the same. You’re nothing but an ignorant, hate-filled little troll and you are deserving of nothing by my contempt – but I pity you anyway…


  375. Slarti,

    Fret not, darlin’ … my only real attraction to Johnny Depp is his love of the Gypsy life style and with the way you’ve been traveling, perhaps I will switch my obsession to you! :)


  376. Uncontrollable mood swings and lashing out.

    Either very interesting or simply the banality of mental illness in action.

    I vote the later in this instance.


  377. Mike,
    Enjoy the holidays and good luck with the computer techie!


  378. So…how about them Red Sox?


  379. on 1, September 28, 2011 at 1:41 pm Anonymously Yours

    Elaine M.,

    Boston still has a team…. Since when?


  380. AY,

    They haven’t had much of a team these past couple of weeks–that’s for sure!


  381. Elaine M.
    1, September 28, 2011 at 1:38 pm
    So…how about them Red Sox?

    ————————————————————————–

    Love it, you sly fox, you. :)


  382. Elaine,

    Red Sox, pshaw – how about them LIONS and TIGERS? (Sorry, professor, no Bears – oh my… ;-))


  383. Blouise,

    I’m always happy to bring a smile to your face.

    ;)


  384. Elaine,

    Hope still blooms in Boston as they hold on to a chance at the Wild Card slot. I’d much rather see them hold on to than lose it to Tampa Bay. Hopefully we’ll know after a Thursday play off. I’m no fan of the Rays, but I can’t wish for no playoff because that would put me in the position of having to root for the Yankees. A man’s got to know his limitations.


  385. Slarti,

    I heard that the Bambino had returned to Boston–and had brought with him his infamous curse.


  386. Gene,

    You know what Red Sox fans always say about the Yankees, don’t you?


  387. Slartibartfast
    1, September 28, 2011 at 1:46 pm
    Elaine,

    Red Sox, pshaw – how about them LIONS and TIGERS? (Sorry, professor, no Bears – oh my… ;) )

    ————————————————————————–

    Oh great, now raff is going to get all pissed off … I suppose it could be worse … you could have thrown some stats (math) into your comment.


  388. Elaine M.
    1, September 28, 2011 at 1:51 pm
    Gene,

    You know what Red Sox fans always say about the Yankees, don’t you?

    —————————————————–

    I’m sure Gene knows but I don’t … what?


  389. Elaine,

    I’m not sure other than I’m sure it’s not complementary. :D


  390. Elaine,

    I’m just happy the Lions have cleared the curse of Bobby Lane. When he was traded he said the Lions would lose for 50 years – and they did – but that’s over now and the ROAR is RESTORED!

    Gene,

    There’s plenty of room for you on the Tiger bandwagon (and for Verlander’s impending Cy Young award, too…) – no one should EVER feel compelled to root for the Yankees!


  391. on 1, September 28, 2011 at 2:01 pm Anonymously Yours

    Elaine M.,

    Put me in the camp that wants to know….

    Slarti,

    I don’t think Gene could handle Cork town….


  392. Blouise & Gene,

    It’s emblazoned on many of the T-shirts worn by Red Sox fans at Fenway Park: Yankees S*ck.


  393. Gene,

    Gene H.
    1, September 28, 2011 at 11:50 am

    “It had nothing to do with the DNS server. It had to do with IP Address Allocation.”

    No shit, Sherlock. IP allocation that works with the DNS server systems to tell the server what’s connected to it where in conjunction with the regional Internet registries and the local Internet registries (a.k.a. ISPs and other entities that buy blocks of addresses). How does the FBI knows a hacker is working out of say, Lisbon? They analyze the DNS traffic to get the IP’s being used and cross-reference with the data of the RIR’s to narrow suspect addresses down to a local block of address owned by an ISP or other entity. They got Markham because his header information contained IP information for his mail servers. Mail servers that like everything else on the Internet are connected and have their traffic managed by the DNS systems.

    But you’re the expert. You should have known that.

    IP Address Allocation has nothing to do with DNS.

    The Internet would work just fine, AND DID, without DNS.

    DNS came into existence long after the Internet was created.

    IP 1974
    DNS 1987

    The Internet IS based on IP Addresses.

    An IP Address is vaguely like a phone number. If in 1960 I give you my phone number, you can call me. The machines and switches involved don’t need to know my name. The number rules all.

    A DNS system is a phonebook.

    Before DNS, yes, you would write my number and my name on your wall. And above that Mike’s name and number and above that Kevin’s name and number.

    We would each take our horses to the phone company and they would hand us a phone and give us a number.

    And at my place, I would write your name and number and then I would write Roco’s.

    And Mike would write your name and number and Mike would write Rafflaws name and number.

    And Rafflaw would just write his own name and number on his wall over and over and over.

    But to make a phone call never required the name. The machines only cared about the numbers.

    And from 1974 on, computers also had walls to write names and numbers on. Those walls were called HOSTS files.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_(file)

    History

    The ARPANET, the predecessor of the Internet, had no distributed host name database. Each network node maintained its own map of the network nodes as needed and assigned them names that were memorable to the users of the system. There was no method for ensuring that all references to a given node in a network were using the same name, nor was there a way to read the hosts file of another computer to automatically obtain a copy.
    The small size of the ARPANET kept the administrative overhead small to maintain an accurate hosts file. Network nodes typically had one address and could have many names. As local area TCP/IP computer networks gained popularity, however, the maintenance of hosts files became a larger burden on system administrators as networks and network nodes were being added to the system with increasing frequency.
    Standardization efforts, such as the format specification of the file HOSTS.TXT in RFC 952, and distribution protocols, e.g., the hostname server described in RFC 953, helped with these problems, but the centralized and monolithic nature of host files eventually necessitated the creation of the distributed Domain Name System.

    Around 1987, Paul Mockapetris (Mock87a, remember?) wrote an RFC describing how Internet phone books could be created and used.

    DNS is a centralized phone book. It’s a way of having a different set of machines having nothing to do with making the calls or routing or switching the phone calls maintain all those lists mapping names to numbers.

    And here’s the thing.

    UNLESS you have at home some sort of web server or other internet based server, FTP, HTTP, NTP, that you have set up and publicize on the web with a NAME: geneh.com that lives at your home, then your computers are not in the DNS system.

    The DNS system is only for computers that we want to address by name because of some service they offer.

    wordpress.com
    jonathanturley.org
    redtube.com
    google.com
    cnn.com

    How does the FBI knows a hacker is working out of say, Lisbon? They analyze the DNS traffic to get the IP’s being used

    No. They don’t.

    They analyze the IP traffic,

    They go to the computer the hackers are attacking and they examine the packets and they extract NOT NAMES but numbers, IP Addresses of the computers originating the packets are coming from which are included so that services can RETURN any requested information to those computers.

    DNS traffic may be analyzed, but equally or more likely is HTTP traffic and TELNET traffic and SSH traffic and the traffic of various protocols with known vulnerabilities in them that can be exploited.

    They got Markham because his header information contained IP information for his mail servers.

    Almost certainly not true.

    Markoff’s email server was probably gmail, hotmail, yahoo, or aol. You would send email to him as markoff86 at yahoo.com. Yahoo.com’s email servers need DNS service to provide that.

    Markoff would send that email from his home computers. Like all networked computers they needed an IP address.

    Yahoo’s, gmail’s, aol’s web based email programs would accept email from Markoff’s computers and place in the headers, a Received: header that looks something like this:

    Received: from [23.435.654.321] by web52302.mail.ac4.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:57:51 PDT

    That’s an IP address of a home computer that has nothing whatsoever to do with DNS.

    Gene,

    You are just simply wrong on this. I do not know your motives for continuing to spew the wrong information.

    Gene, it should be pretty clear to most people with the links I’ve included and the statements I’ve made that way way up there, when you claimed I had no idea what was going on, but that you did, that in fact, it was just the reverse.

    You’ve even said your information is 20 years old. And you even have that information wrong.

    At this point, you are either too stupid to know how wrong you are or just lying to misdirect others.

    Mike S. Just google hosts.txt and domain name system and check out the wiki and then figure out who has more credibility.


  394. AY,

    How about Hockeytown? ;-)


  395. on 1, September 28, 2011 at 2:06 pm Mike's (really pissed off wife )

    Since everyone else has their own agenda here. and especially on this post. It’s basically been hijacked by a zillion side topics purposefully or otherwise.  Everyone is out for herself, and frankly, and this point so am I. MY agenda is to protect my family. My agenda after close to three years of care giving of a very sick husband, of seeing him on the brink of death so many times, to have actually saved his life on more that one occasion,  and to finally see him healthier than he has been in 10 years. To finally get a chance to get out of the patient caregiver/caregiver mode and to start living again. I will not allow anyone to destroy that.  Do you hear that NL. Do you hear that N*oWay – Do you hear that any of this creeps other alter egos. I know you are one in the same. So does everyone else now. So I will repeat what I posted in the early morning hours for it bears repeating….and NL and N*oWay, and if any of you didn’t get it, I am letting you know that I know for a fact that they are one in the same. 
    Mike’s (really pissed off wife ) at 3:30am
    N0 WAY…..HEY STALKER You are a goddamned fucking liar. You are cyber stalking me and us. How dare you! We also know who you are. What the fuck is wrong with you. You should be ashamed of yourself.
    Marting. Briem lexis. DIGG? I’m sure you do even though you obviously short changed in the brains department.
    Now go take a hike, you sick prick and get a life.
    You don’t scare us. We have been through far worse and pressing issues than to deal with this crap of yours.

    Mike’s (really pissed off wife) at 4:01 am
    This sound familiar to anyone ? It should

    Mbrickman@briem.com   How about this NoWay….. Marting@lexis.com

    Now that is really deep. Some cover. Now grow up. 

      ——————————————————————————————————–

    So, deepcover prick……..We know who you are. We know what you do and we know where you are.

    We also all know Mike can certainly take care of himself, but somehow I have a vested interest in his welfare, and I will not stand idly by whilst someone with too much testosterone threatens me and my family, whilst someone stalks me on obscure sites they have no business being on, whilst someone makes couched threats or otherwise to us. Whilst some says that Mike took a heart from a  person that was still alive. How dare you. How fucking dare you. Whilst someone hacks our computer network.  This is not over. As far as I’m concerned the battle has just begun. 

    The sick fucker NL is banned so should N* Way be banned since they are one in the same.
     


  396. Elaine,

    Thanks … See, I can do straight man.

    To all,

    As an Indians’ fan I will bow out with as much grace as possible.


  397. “That’s an IP address of a home computer that has nothing whatsoever to do with DNS.”

    Really.

    Other than the traffic from it goes to and from an ISP which has its traffic to the rest of the net managed by DNS systems. How does his ISP (or alternate DNS service) know where to send that traffic such as the data from his computer to get it to Yahoo’s mail server? The DNS systems.

    Blow your smoke up someone else’s ass.


  398. Hi BLOUISE, *waving back, also* my little dove, it’s your own true hearts desire stopped in for a “hello” and some pie.

    It’s truly me, my Gavatar proves it; was there ever a more delightful or beautiful Sweeny Todd? :-)
    .
    .
    .
    .
    HE is shooting Dark Shadows. HE is Barnabas Collins. I swoon :-)


  399. Mike S.

    L’Shana Tovah to you as well.

    Blouise thank you for your comment and suggestion.

    Angerona, an astute and sad question.

    Kevin, thank you for writing that on the corrections page. Of course I dispute this bullshit: “This is as far as I’m willing to go in raising the issue to the Professor. Once again, we see that I act in transparency and good faith while you consistently demonstrate the opposite.”

    Yes, Kevin, after I painstakingly go through it a dozen times with you suggesting you obtain permission from the Professor, showing you how many others in the rest of the world consider the underlying exploit a privacy leak, and hence your behavior a privacy invasion, After all the denials and attacks from you, you write a post on the corrections page, and this you believe is an indication of my bad faith.

    You are a dishonest, unethical, arrogant jackass.


  400. on 1, September 28, 2011 at 2:29 pm Blouise for Mort Rainey

    But as Mort Rainey you won my heart

    http://www.imdb.com/media/rm27434240/tt0363988


  401. opps … that last post was addressed to YourstrulyJohnnyDepp who looks a lot like loota


  402. Have a good holiday Mike and Maxine.


  403. lotta … aaagh, time for an afternoon latte


  404. Other than the traffic from it goes to and from an ISP which has its traffic to the rest of the net managed by DNS systems.

    The phone book is not the map and not the traffic lights.

    DNS systems do not manage anything. They are a phone book.

    How does his ISP (or alternate DNS service) know where to send that traffic such as the data from his computer to get it to Yahoo’s mail server? The DNS systems.

    Traffic from an ISP out to the rest of the net and back is managed by routers. These routers do not need the DNS system. They have various tables of various sizes using various algorithms that take an address and tell it the next place to pass that packet to.

    At its simplest your home router knows two things: what computers are in your home and which are outside your home. When it receives a packet from inside your home that is destined for outside your home, it passes it to your ISP’s router.

    Depending on your ISP your packets there probably get shunted around to one or more routers at your ISP, based each time on some mathematical function or table lookup into a routing table telling the router the next router to pass your packet to.

    Ah shit Gene, you don’t know how this works. It’s not my job to instruct you. And it’s not fair to me or to others reading this for you to pretend you do.

    Google and wiki how the internet works. Ask Kevin. Go onto quora.

    It has almost nothing to do with DNS.

    Routing works solely on the IP addresses.

    DNS only provides at the initial steps the phone book. It does not manage the process.


  405. Blouise, A side of corn with a nice meat pie is good, excellent in fact. ;-)

    Hmmm, YourstruleyJohnnyDepp turned (link) blue but lottakatz is not. Even his name is *magic*.

    ———–

    Nice to see you Elaine!


  406. You must really love the sound of your own voice.

    How does the UDP interact with the local link layer?

    Through the TCP/IP layer using the DNS servers as the guide to IPs connecting the local link layers to the Internet.

    Again, blow your smoke up someone else’s ass.


  407. anon:

    are you a computer guy?


  408. Gene H, stop your trolling. You win.

    Simply write down:

    Dear anon,
    YHBT YHL HAND
    trollface.jpg


  409. Bron, sadly, yes.


  410. Gene H:

    I hate to admit it but you actually sound like you know about computers. But then so does anon.

    Could you both be right?


  411. Bron, I must be a very bad one, given that at this point, both you and Mike (and Kevin) have to ask.


  412. Bron,

    Gene is absolutely wrong on this. He admits his knowledge is 20 years old. And that knowledge is wrong.

    As I said, google hosts files and google domain name system.

    His post at 2:50 pm is technobabble trolling.

    For instance, UDP has absolutely nothing to do with TCP. it certainly does not “interact with the local link layer through the TCP/IP layer using the DNS servers as the guide to IPs connecting the local link layers to the Internet.”

    http://www.skullbox.net/tcpudp.php

    TCP is meant to send streams of data reliably, guaranteeing delivery of the data. Doing that means it is somewhat slow.

    UDP is meant to send short blocks of data very fast, even if they never get to the end point.

    You request a web page using TCP so it gets to you in one piece.
    You might listen to a realtime stream of audio data with UDP so it gets to you fast, knowing that if a piece of audio data drops out, that’s okay, it will cause a momentary glitch, but it’s more important to keep up with the real time nature.

    UDP/IP is an alternative to TCP/IP, and does not interact through the TCP/IP using DNS servers as the guide. That is just Gene’s trolling or ignorance shining.


  413. gbk
    1, September 28, 2011 at 5:01 am
    Otteray Scribe,

    Godspeed North Carolina Mountain Scribe. Seminole myself, with a lot of Highlanders mixed in for temperament!

    ———————————————————————————

    OMG … since I am all Highlander with one small touch of Lowlander, well … temperament has always been an issue …
    “Am measg nan cbmh-strithean guineach nach b’ ainneamh aig olanna Ghaidheal, is iomadh Hatha fuileach agus deannal cruaidh a chuireadh air fraoch-bheanna gonna nan Garbh-chrioch, air nach ‘eil iomradh no ainm aig lluchdseanachais san llinn so. (Among the sharp conflicts which were not infrequent among the Highland clans, there was many a bloody day and fierce encounter on the purple hills of the
    Wilftg that are not recorded nor even mentioned by the historians of our time.)”


  414. Bron,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP/IP_model

    Here is an article describing the TCP/IP model of networking. It is revealing that the phrase “Domain Name System” does not appear within the article. Neither does the word “domain”.

    “DNS” appears twice. Once as a link in a sidebar in a collection of internet protocols. Once as a throwaway example of what one might do using UDP, not using TCP.


  415. Here is an article on Classless Inter-Domain Routing, which describes the format of the IP addresses and how a collection of computers with related IP addresses form a network.

    http://compnetworking.about.com/od/workingwithipaddresses/a/cidr_notation.htm

    Here is an article on routing tables, which describes how a router takes an IP packet and determines where to send it next.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_table

    Notice on in neither of these articles does domain name service play any role, or appear, except as an aside.

    The IP layer does not need DNS. AT ALL.

    It existed just fine for more than a decade without DNS ever existing.

    Bron, Mike, I have given you plenty of links to the wiki and elsewhere.

    Has Gene (or Kevin) given you anything external remotely resembling support for their claims and positions?


  416. Blouise, I am an officer in one of the oldest Highland Clans. My (now) teenage granddaughter could recite a number of Robert Burns poems in a thick Scottish burr when she was five. She could hear a Burns poem once or twice and remember it–she is a sponge. Last week, we buried my wife with her MacBeth tartan scarf.

    http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1018396/43361686


  417. on 1, September 28, 2011 at 3:52 pm Mike's (semi pissed off wife )

    Anon…

    I have nothing against you personally, but…

    … Why don’t you give it a rest. Stop getting yourself worked up over this, since it’s not beneficial for your health. Besides, it’s getting old.

    There is such a thing as overkill.


  418. Mike’s (spow):

    Well, for one, there is: http://xkcd.com/386/

    And two, though you’re 100,000% correct, well there is http://xkcd.com/386/

    But regarding the last posts, it’s because Bron asked a question, could you both be right, so I thought I would give him a few short links so he could decide for himself.

    I admit it took me way to long to realize that Gene was just trolling.


  419. Otteray Scribe,

    “Last week, we buried my wife with her MacBeth tartan scarf.”

    A noble clan … It is a generally held opinion by Scotch historians that if MacBeth had not been killed by the future King Malcolm III, Scotland would probably have remained a separate nation until this day and might have conquered England.

    “When death’s dark stream I ferry o’er,
    A time that surely shall come;
    In Heaven itself, I’ll ask no more,
    Than just a Highland welcome.” (Burns)

    Peace to you, Otteray, and May God hold you in the hollow of his hand.


  420. I was shocked that this thread got waylaid by some illogical discussions about the Detroit Lions and the Yankees! All I can say is Da Bears will recover their senses and finish ahead of the Lions and the Yankees do suck. The Tigers are for real, this year, but the Sox will reign now that Ozzie is gone.


  421. Blouise, thank you for your kind words. She now rests with the Flowers o’ the Forest.

    This was one of her favorite songs. Every time she saw Alex Beaton she would ask him to sing it for her. And he would.


  422. on 1, September 28, 2011 at 4:24 pm Anonymously Yours

    Well Raff…..

    You know not everyone can be a tigers fan but you can be a Chicago Calubs fan….My favorite one is the hybrid…Ch-ubby… Then you have the other one…..

    Elaine….

    Now that link was funny….


  423. on 1, September 28, 2011 at 4:57 pm Mike's (moderately pissed off wife )

    @ anon now that is cute. Thanks for the comic relief. It was needed today. Nice humor site.

    Someone is always wrong on the Internet.


  424. on 1, September 28, 2011 at 5:09 pm Anonymously Yours

    Maxine,

    Now that is funny….I appreciate seeing you here…Welcome…


  425. AY,
    Please don’t say that word, Cubs in mixed company!


  426. I thought that this was a site for adults. How many people on here are under 18 or have ceased medications against doctors advice?


  427. on 1, September 28, 2011 at 5:34 pm Anonymously Yours

    Well raff….the way I see it….Chicago does not have many options in regards to professional sports…I can understand your frustrations…..


  428. Otteray Scribe,

    Beautiful … “and I have come home”


  429. AY,
    Wait a minute now. The Sox won the Series in 2005 and didn’t they win the division last year?, the Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup two years ago, the Bulls made it to the Conference finals and the Bears were one game away from the Super Bowl last year. We do OK, but the Cubs just will never learn.


  430. on 1, September 28, 2011 at 6:19 pm Anonymously Yours

    We Sir…..

    Other than College Football and the American League Baseball………is tShere really any other sport….. but you did say the chubs….right?

    Now the Lord Stanley would rather see the chalice exactly where….


  431. Otteray Scribe,

    I’m sorry to hear your news, I hope comfort does not elude you for long.


  432. Its nice to meet you Mrs Mike’s wife. Most of the people around here are fond of Mike. And you can see what the type of person is that doesn’t like him. Consider the source. Hope to see you around here after the Holidays.


  433. Otteray Scribe, You have very kind to me as a newcomer and I haven’t said anything before because the words sound so empty, But I am sincerely sorry for your loss.


  434. Mike’s (moderately pissed off wife )
    1, September 28, 2011 at 4:57 pm
    @ anon now that is cute. Thanks for the comic relief. It was needed today. Nice humor site.

    Someone is always wrong on the Internet.

    ——-

    How true. But fear not, many on this blawg are making it our mission in life to point that out, thread by thread, poster by poster, day by day.

    Not me, no, never ever me :-)

    Nice to see you again Maxine, stick around or drop in if you get the time.


  435. OS, I am so sorry for your loss. You just can’t catch a break lately and it sucks beyond words. You are in my thoughts.


  436. on 1, September 28, 2011 at 11:09 pm Anonymously Yours

    Slarti,

    El az….It finally dawned on me…the roof top lounge…..The only issue I see the Peoples Republic of EL…..Then again….Ceder Fest will never be the same….Damn that Judge…that blocked the part tays….


  437. AY,

    The REAL El Az was in the basement on the first block of MAC (between Grand River and Albert). And whatever pathetic remnants remain aren’t Cedarfest either – if there aren’t bonfires in the street in Cedar Village… (and if you can control it without tear gas…)


  438. on 1, September 28, 2011 at 11:49 pm Anonymously Yours

    El az in EL is better that the one on Saginaw…..there is or was an El Palmento on saginaw across from the old gm plant… Yeah Cedar Fest…good times…

    When I first moved there I bought Sally Rogers old home by grossbeck golf course…nice times…

    You going back to ll rd?


  439. AY,

    I’ll be living near the corner of Coolidge and Lake Lansing Rd.


  440. on 1, September 29, 2011 at 12:08 am Anonymously Yours

    So then you have all those new developments on the west side of 127… Plus ll rd…. There is the 7/11 meeting place…My daughter wants to go to the university of HI… Think that won’t happen….she’s taking accelerated high school and college courses…. However that works…


  441. AY,
    Hawaii would be a great place to go to college! As long as you are paying for it! :)


  442. I was taking a break from being a busy critter and thought I say, “Hi, Max!”

    You should drop by more often. :D

    I hope you and Mike have a wonderful holiday with the family.


  443. Bron said:

    Slarti:

    I got news for you, I dont believe in free enterprise to the point of violating some one’s right to privacy

    Which I didn’t do – all I revealed is what author names were siblings – there’s no right to sock puppets in the Constitution…

    or to the point of violating ethical standards.

    Something else I didn’t do – people are data mining websites all the time – it’s perfectly legal and acceptable. Some websites will kick you out if they catch you scraping, but they can’t stop you from using the data you gathered (unless you violate fair use on copyrighted material – which I certainly didn’t).

    There are 2 aspects to human liberty, they are economic and political freedom. You cannot have one without the other.

    Yet you are supporting anon who wishes to violate my economic freedom by depriving me of my own work product… You’re on really thin ice here (given your known positions).

    Personal privacy is a part of political freedom. A violation of some one’s privacy is a pretty serious offense in my opinion.

    Who’s privacy was violated? Again – there is no right to not have your sock puppets identified.

    But I understand why you did it and I also agree with anon that just because something can be done doesnt mean you should do it.

    First off, you don’t understand why I did it – you and anon and NL all have made very wrong assumptions about my motives. I wouldn’t base your analysis of my behavior on those assumptions. Second, I didn’t do this on a whim – I’ve got a long email chain of discussion about the ethics of what I was doing. None of your or anon’s arguments that what I did was unethical hold water and a group of people that I respect all agreed with me that it was ethical at the time.

    I also agree with anon [who is about my age] that there is a real problem in this country with ethics.

    Yup – it goes along with Lazeiz faire capitalism. Ethics have no value in the free market – the only reason not to break the law is the prospect of getting caught, that it is unethical isn’t a consideration to the free market.

    Now I may have backslid a bit here [and you know why] but you and others did what you did to try and stifle dissenting opinion.

    Again, completely wrong. We didn’t stifle anyone’s opinion and would have completely ignored you if you had stuck to posting under “Byron”. Our beef wasn’t with dissenters, it was with bad actors. There IS a difference.

    You may think I am a troll but my views are shared by very many people who have concern for our country and people.

    I don’t think you’re a troll – I think you avoid engaging (which wasn’t always true – for example, we were starting a really good discussion when the thread got hijacked by 9/11 truthers…) and you have a tendency towards straw men… (and you’re really wrong about a bunch of stuff)

    The harvesting of email addresses isnt that big a deal,

    Nor is it relevant since I didn’t harvest anyone’s email address.

    as Gene H said there isnt much expectation of privacy on the web, but the reason you did it is rather disturbing.

    What do you think my reason was? So far, no one here has come up with the correct one…

    Honestly, did you think about what you were doing?

    As I said – yes. There were discussions about what I was trying to do (before the fact). Since it is something that many companies do every day, why are they not unethical? Do you think that I’m the only one that’s ever mined Professor Turley’s site?

    Did it occur to you and others that you were engaging in force to stifle dissent?

    We neither stifled dissent nor did we use force in any way, so, no, it didn’t.

    To me that is the unconscionable part, that a person who classifies himself as a liberal would resort to force to discourage others from voicing their opinion.

    No one was singled out on the basis of their opinion – people were singled out on the basis of what we considered bad actions. What we did was refer to them by their other screen names. How did calling you “Byron” when you were posting as “Roco” discourage you from voicing your opinion? How is that the use of force? Because that’s all we did.

    And then to defend the indefensible instead of just admitting a mistake.

    You should know that I admit mistakes when I make them, I stand by my actions here – I did nothing wrong.

    I would expect Buddha is Laughing to stifle dissent through force but not you.

    My dictionary says that force is: “coercion or compulsion, esp. with the use or threat of violence : they ruled by law and not by force.” Please provide a link showing me coercing someone, compelling someone, threatening someone, or taking violent action against someone. If you can’t (and I know you can’t) then you should probably shut up about how I used force.

    Anyway, thanks for posting as “Bron” – at the very least, I appreciate it… Now can you try to cut down on the straw men?


  444. Personally, I’d like to see evidence where anyone here coerced or threatened you with violence, Bron.

    And simply losing arguments, being the butt of a joke, or having your opinion challenged doesn’t count as either coercion or threat.


  445. Elaine,

    So sorry about your Sox.

    This in no way changes that the Yankees suck.

    Better luck next year.


  446. on 1, September 29, 2011 at 8:17 am Anonymously Yours

    Gene,

    Sorry…but you’ll have Tampa to deal with….


  447. AY,

    Don’t get the impression I dislike Tampa because I said I’m no fan. I dislike the Yankees. I’m indifferent to Tampa.


  448. on 1, September 29, 2011 at 10:09 am Anonymously Yours

    I am sorry…

    Tampa Bay at Texas 5:07 PM TBS Shields vs Wilson

    Detroit at NY Yankees 8:37 PM TBS Verlander vs Sabathia

    Now I do have a quandary..Tiger or Rangers….But, then I resolve it by….going with my favorite….The Tigers……


  449. AY,

    Good choice!


  450. on 1, September 29, 2011 at 11:23 am Anonymously Yours

    Kevin K,

    I have been a Tigers fan since my early years….


  451. Ranger fan here, but I don’t watch baseball much until the play-offs. Dallas Mavericks and Mark Cuban are my favorites and of course the Texas Longhorns. See the movie “Moneyball”.


  452. Gene,

    Like the Yankees, the Red Sox sometimes $#&*. (Crude term deleted by the poster of this comment.)


  453. Elaine, was the redacted word a noun, verb or adjective?

    One can imagine variants of all three, none of which would be suitable for a family newspaper.


  454. Otteray,

    Don’t feign innocence with me! Besides…one would think you’d be able to determine whether the redacted word was a noun, verb, or adjective by my sentence construction.

    ;)


  455. The anonymous idiot wrote the following on the corrections page:

    Sigh.

    Professor Turley, as you consider what happened at your blog, and what steps you feel you should take, note that Kevin above at 6:11, and here too http://jonathanturley.org/2011/09/25/second-amendment-boogey-man/#comment-272439 states his belief that the database of scraped commenters and their alts is both somehow valuable AND that he intends to somehow profit off of that database.

    I didn’t say that I intend to profit off of the database, but so what if I do – if I develop intelligence out of it and sell it to a marketing company, for instance, what’s wrong with that? As for it’s value – no way is my code and database worth $50K – I just put what I think is a fair value on the request to destroy something that took me six months to create. I think that it is important to the discussion to put a value on it – I’m not trying to sell it, just putting a price on complying with your request…

    Me: you are supporting anon who wishes to violate my economic freedom by depriving me of my own work product…

    If you talk to Kevin, and decide to write a post discussing what has happened, you may wish to ask him what his motives are, since he says he has some but will not discuss them, what he intends to do with the data and how he intends to profit from it.

    It just burns you up that you don’t know – doesn’t it? My motives are my own unless I choose to reveal them. Feel free to speculate on why I did this – I find it funny… ;-)

    Other issues to consider:

    Has Kevin broken anyone’s terms of service?

    No.

    Who owns the data Kevin has scraped?

    Me – possession is 9/10ths and all that…

    Can Kevin’s data be used to effectuate identity theft?

    No – I can’t even get email addresses without breaking the hash – something I have neither the expertise, resources, nor inclination to do. However, someone else without those limitations might be scraping this site right now – you’d better stop posting here, just to be safe. Actually, you should probably protect yourself by staying off the toobs altogether… they’re not safe.

    Will Kevin honor requests from individuals listed in his database to be removed from his database?

    Sure – for a fee (it would be a pain in the ass requiring several hours of work, but I’ll do it if someone asks nicely and pays me $200/hr).

    Now on to responding to people who are more articulate, erudite, and interesting…

    AY,

    As a natural born (State of) Michigan sports fan (and “Michigan State sports fan” as well – “University of Michigan” is right out…), I root for all of the Detroit teams, but my level of passion for the various teams waxes and wanes. Currently, the rankings look something like this:

    0. LIONS

    1. Tigers

    2. LIONS Offense (Stafford & co.)

    3. LIONS Defense (SUH and friends)

    4. LIONS Special Teams (led by the 40-year-old Jason Hanson – still kicking 50 yarders…)

    5. LIONS coaches! (I’ve got a man-crush on Jim Schwartz…)

    6. Red Wings (I’ve got plenty of love for the Wings, it just doesn’t generally start percolating until March…)

    […]

    infinity-1: Pistons (generally the Pistons rank #1 or #2, but the current NBA labor situation is giving me flashbacks to the year idiotic NBA labor strife cost me half of Joe DUmars final season…)


  456. Who me? My mind is not that dirty. ummmm……. never mind.


  457. Can somebody explain in layman’s terms what happened to cause an argument about identities and scraping and harvesting emails? I don’t understand when one IT guy asks the other to prove his knowledge by asking for the OPFAC number of his ORTUPS unit.


  458. Harry, you don’t want to know. Trust me on that. It made about as much sense as being gone a week or two and coming back to find two respected regulars here sniping at each other; over what, I have no idea. And please, don’t anyone take it upon themselves to explain it to me. I’d rather not know.


  459. OS,
    I am with you. Ignorance is bliss sometimes.


  460. OS,

    Please ignore this post… and I am so sorry to hear of your loss – you have my sympathy as well.

    Harry,

    Last spring I (under the name “Slartibartfast”) wrote code and used it to scrape this entire site and parse the information into a database. With this, I was able to identify which handles were associated with which gravatar ID hash (which are in 1-to-1 correspondence to email addresses) and Buddha is Laughing, Mike Spindell (not a guest blogger at the time), and myself used this information to out sock puppets. One poster who shall not be named (their name is banned – if you use it in a post it gets eaten by the spam filter – but their initials were “NL”), assumed that I have been given his email and/or IP address by one of the guest boggers (rafflaw) and went crying to Professor Turley. I assured the professor that no information from the blog database had been shared – only what was publicly available (for those clever enough to “read” it…) and my story was corroborated by several long-time commenters on this blog. The professor accepted our word (as did NL – grudgingly – though I think he believed that we had hoodwinked the professor). Earlier this week, NL apparently hacked Mike Spindell’s computer and essentially admitted it in a comment on this thread. After being contacted by Mike and offering what help I could, I revealed exactly what was done and how (look at the posts from “Slartibartfast” on this thread if you’d like the specifics). This resulted in pathetic whining from “anon” and “NoWay” along with frivolous claims that I had done something either unethical or illegal. Anon has been spamming the comments page trying to get Professor Turley to address my heinous crimes – apparently in vain. Since anon is a sniveling waste of space, he will probably keep making his idiotic and fallacious accusations, but anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that he’s full of nothing but shit.

    raff,

    Made you look. ;-)


  461. Harry,

    Kevin used a privacy leak that is built into Gravatar and WordPress to associate the email address fields with the name field in the reply form.

    He then went over several days or weeks or months of posts, and built up a list of which email addresses were being used by which names.

    If you look at the email address field, it says: “Email (required) (Not published)”

    And so, if you follow my links, you will find many people, including attorneys specializing in Internet issues that point out that the privacy leak, is actually fairly dangerous, and can result in total loss of anonymity.

    While it is true that the pages Kevin accessed were publically available, and so the information that he scraped was publically available, it is not actually true that information made public by accident is actually public information. But that’s neither here nor there.

    What is more relevant is that this site is the site of a well known civil libertarian, and you can see evidence of course in today’s op-ed.

    In that light, it would not be unexpected for Professor Turley to be a strong advocate for speech, including for anonymous speech, include even for anonymous ugly speech.

    Kevin broke the trust of the community.

    His scraping, while trivial, has the possibility of outing people who needed their anonymity.

    Kevin maintains the stance that since the information was available by public scraping, what he did was okay.

    But what he did was actually unethical, and even dangerous.

    Kevin did not ask Professor Turley for permission to do this, and I have asked Kevin if what he thinks Professor Turley would have said, had he asked for permission ahead of time.

    I’ve also asked Kevin to write this up as a blog post or a paper and to make WordPress and Gravatar aware of the privacy leak.

    I’ve shown Kevin what the industry standard recommended behavior is when these leaks are found.

    And Kevin has refused all of those relatively mild requests, and instead demanded $200 to write a paper, and $50,000 to delete the database.

    I find Kevin’s behavior bizarre, and troubling, and I find it curious that at a civil libertarian’s site, one which seems to aim to defend and protect free speech, that Kevin’s acts to counter free speech, his potentially real world dangerous acts to do so, are so well defended by the long time commenters and friends.

    I do not believe that had Kevin asked ahead of time, that Professor Turley would have let him crawl and scrape his site with the intent to destroy anonymity.

    I regard the various defenses of Kevin as signs of the one way partisan hypocrisy we all get caught up in.

    I don’t believe Kevin’s database has any real value, and I think there are more ethical and effective ways to stop sockpuppetry, and I encourage Kevin to delete his database.

    Basically I find that Dr. Kevin Kesseler, Ph.D, is mostly a self-absorbed, unethical, free-speech-for-me-but-not-for-thee, situational ethics kind of douchebag.

    Professor Turley can handle the situation anyway he sees fit.

    I have stated that I am curious of Professor Turley is concerned with the destruction of anonymity that the Gravatar privacy leak enables, and Ive made suggestions on steps he might take to remediate that.

    And I am frankly curious if Professor Turley is okay with Kevin’s scraping, and would have given Dr. Kesseler permission to perform that scraping had he been asked in advance.

    The one step Kevin has done is not to write a paper, not to file a bug report, not to create a blog entry, not to delete his database, but to post a comment on the corrections page.

    When I followed up his comment with some analysis, like this, and added other statements Kevin made regarding his belief the data is valuable and he believes he can profit from it, I have been accused of spamming that page and this.

    You can read this, you can read the links I’ve posted from wordpress’ bug reports, to discussions of the problem from other developers and lawyers, and you can decide for yourself.


  462. Harry, a clarification, …

    “He then went over several days or weeks or months of posts, and built up a list of which email addresses were being used by which names.

    If you look at the email address field, it says: “Email (required) (Not published)”

    Anyway, to most people, that line “Email (required) (Not published)” gives them the reasonable expectation of privacy. It lets them know that Professor Turley and perhaps some authorized agents will be able to see their email address, but no one else will.

    Kevin discovered a well known bug that lets people do the following:

    1) They can effectively guess and verify the email address a user used.
    2) They can verify the author of one post at this blog who may have used a pseudonym of Bob at this blog, actually authored another post using the name Carol, if they left the non published email address the same.
    3) They can determine that Bob at this blog wrote a post by the name of Joe at another blog.

    Many people consider all of these to be privacy leak that has the potential to out whistleblowers or others that have a real world need to maintain anonymity when writing blog posts.

    During the time frame that Kevin was scraping this site, he neither asked Professor Turley for permission to do so, nor disclosed to the community that he had done so.

    Instead, he actually did (2) above. He used his tool to out some of, but not all of, the users here who were writing posts under multiple names.

    It’s my belief that his actions were:
    a) unethical, especially at a “free speech site”
    b) borderline illegal given how they may have breached either WordPress’ or Professor Turley’s agreements with site users, but probably not illegal since WordPress knows of the privacy leak and refuses to fix it.

    But I also think that Professor Turley *should* warn commenters here that regardless of what the wordpress fields may say, that their anonymity cannot be guaranteed due to problems with the gravatar system.

    And I would like Professor Turley to explain his views as a civil libertarian on the various issues, I believe that would be interesting and valuable to us all.


  463. Harry,

    The other thing you should know is that whenever you enter a comment at a site that has Gravatars, that regardless of whether you have ever registered or logged into Gravatar, regardless of that, the email address you enter into the comment field will be turned into a web bug that anyone in the world can see at any time.


  464. Harry………….
    See what I meant. :roll:


  465. Otteray Scribe, we look to you for various aspects of your experience. Your experience with aviation for one, guides us and helps us understand issues surrounding the Reno crash, or the Obama helicopter.

    When others with other sorts of expertise and interests come here to discuss the clash of civil liberties, free speech, privacy violations, and web bugs, something that seems afield from your expertise, well, I dunno, you may wish to just listen and ask questions that help you learn.

    You can trivialize my concerns, but I linked to the same exact concerns coming from the EFF as well as to other developers as well as to some random guy calling himself a lawyer and expert on these matters.

    It is commendable and understandable you wish to defend Kevin’s behavior, but you should not minimize what he did, and nor should I, or have I, exaggerated it. That way lies partisan hackery.

    If you don’t understand, all you have to do is ask.

    As Harry did.

    If you were commenting on a blog anonymously where you felt you needed your anonymity, and you felt the majority of the site opposed your views, would you view a similar scraping to out your anonymity as a lot of todo about nothing, or as evidence the right wing will take any step it can to repress the people?

    If a right wing site had systematically attacked the Huffington Post in a similar way, what would be the reaction at Salon, or Mother Jones or Think Progress?

    I think the questions I have asked are pretty much par for this sort of privacy leak and scraping.


  466. anon, do not assume too much about my areas of expertise or capablities. There is a lot about me that is not public knowledge.

    Just be careful with assumptions.


  467. Because all of us (our age more or less) remember Felix telling Oscar…


  468. (goodness in the above clip starts at 4:30)

    (Okay, that’s Felix telling the Court.)


  469. Thank you, all, for the non-technical explanation. Nobody need tell me the OPFAC number of their ORTUPS unit.


  470. Kevin’s defense and the defense of Kevin has been this is public information, anyone can do what they want with it.

    So one day the folks at Microsoft scrape all the Gravatar sites. The hidden web bug is merely an md5 computation of the email address. Microsoft’s Hotmail is a great source of email addresses. So Microsoft can put together a nice database of email addresses and the blogs they comment at.

    Google can do the same thing with gmail addresses.

    Yahoo with yahoo addresses.

    AOL, and so on.

    So your blogging tendencies, political, left right, gay, cancer, religious, all of that can be trivially added into the profiles that Microsoft, Google, WordPress, etc., build on you. And that can be sold to insurance companies, or anyone. And Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, AOL, will know what the email address is. So it’s a pretty big email privacy leak.

    And the various ad networks can also do this. And it might be worth it for them to do that too.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/technology/30adstalk.html

    Retargeting Ads Follow Surfers to Other Sites
    By MIGUEL HELFT and TANZINA VEGA
    Published: August 29, 2010

    The shoes that Julie Matlin recently saw on Zappos.com were kind of cute, or so she thought. But Ms. Matlin wasn’t ready to buy and left the site.

    Then the shoes started to follow her everywhere she went online. An ad for those very shoes showed up on the blog TechCrunch. It popped up again on several other blogs and on Twitpic. It was as if Zappos had unleashed a persistent salesman who wouldn’t take no for an answer.

    “For days or weeks, every site I went to seemed to be showing me ads for those shoes,” said Ms. Matlin, a mother of two from Montreal. “It is a pretty clever marketing tool. But it’s a little creepy, especially if you don’t know what’s going on.”

    People have grown accustomed to being tracked online and shown ads for categories of products they have shown interest in, be it tennis or bank loans.

    Increasingly, however, the ads tailored to them are for specific products that they have perused online. While the technique, which the ad industry calls personalized retargeting or remarketing, is not new, it is becoming more pervasive as companies like Google and Microsoft have entered the field. And retargeting has reached a level of precision that is leaving consumers with the palpable feeling that they are being watched as they roam the virtual aisles of online stores.

    In the digital advertising business, this form of highly personalized marketing is being hailed as the latest breakthrough because it tries to show consumers the right ad at the right time. “The overwhelming response has been positive,” said Aaron Magness, senior director for brand marketing and business development at Zappos, a unit of Amazon.com. The parent company declined to say whether it also uses the ads.

    Others, though, find it disturbing. When a recent Advertising Age column noted the phenomenon, several readers chimed in to voice their displeasure.

    Bad as it was to be stalked by shoes, Ms. Matlin said that she felt even worse when she was hounded recently by ads for a dieting service she had used online. “They are still following me around, and it makes me feel fat,” she said.

    With more consumers queasy about intrusions into their privacy, the technique is raising anew the threat of industry regulation. “Retargeting has helped turn on a light bulb for consumers,” said Jeff Chester, a privacy advocate and executive director of the Washington-based Center for Digital Democracy. “It illustrates that there is a commercial surveillance system in place online that is sweeping in scope and raises privacy and civil liberties issues, too.”

    Retargeting, however, relies on a form of online tracking that has been around for years and is not particularly intrusive. Retargeting programs typically use small text files called cookies that are exchanged when a Web browser visits a site. Cookies are used by virtually all commercial Web sites for various purposes, including advertising, keeping users signed in and customizing content.

    In remarketing, when a person visits an e-commerce site and looks at say, an Etienne Aigner Athena satchel on eBags.com, a cookie is placed into that person’s browser, linking it with the handbag. When that person, or someone using the same computer, visits another site, the advertising system creates an ad for that very purse.

    This is what the Gravatar code does.

    This is why that attorney, and so many other developers and users call it a privacy leak.

    What Kevin did was no different than any other third party, except Kevin didn’t do this to sell shoes, Kevin did this to break anonymity.

    @OS I don’t know what your expertise is in, and I don’t know how you can defend Kevin’s behavior.

    I would be interested in learning how you do that.


  471. anon, outing sockpuppets, trolls and zombies is a pastime at almost all blogs. If you have sockpuppet names, that is NOT the same as identifying who you are, where you are or your email address. Revealing or ‘outing’ identities is not considered appropriate. There are some obvious exceptions, such as where the person uses a clearly identifiable name or link in the username–on this blog that would be the usernames in blue typeface, or for example Slarti’s gravitar which has his name listed.

    It is not considered unethical to reveal the alter egos of users who register under different names. As you know, there are numerous ways to do this, only one of which is to mine the background of photos, links and Gravitars. I have managed to catch a few zombies and sockpuppets by analyzing writing styles. Everyone is unique and to me, writing style is like looking at a fingerprint. Also, use of language tells me a lot about the person if I want to devote the energy required to do the analysis.

    There was one zombie on Daily Kos recently who was outed as having well over a dozen usernames and kept coming back after being banned repeatedly for inappropriate and inflammatory behavior. It was not unethical to reveal the multiple usernames under which that zombie had registered.

    As for what I do, just out of curiosity I put my (real world) name into Google Scholar. Got almost seven hundred hits. Go figure. Somebody out there must like me.


  472. An anonymous dipshit said:

    [yammering deleted]

    Let’s break this down:

    you say: gravatar has a leak

    I say: gavatar is entitled to their business plan (which depends on mining massive amounts of data) – if the leak bothers you, then don’t post on any gravatar-enable blogs (incidentally, on most forums you need to put your gravatar’s URL in your personal profile before it shows up…).

    You say: I exploited this leak unethically

    I say: It is implicit in gravatar’s business plan that they are exploiting this leak on a scale that makes what I did look utterly trivial – and, in point of fact, my actions have brought this to the attention of the patrons of a noted civil libertarian’s blog…

    You say: What I did could expose whistleblowers

    I say: Only stupid ones – if you want to be a whistleblower and think that making a post with a different handle and the same email protects you, then you are a fool. Anyone who wants to leak something anonymously should go to Wikileaks…

    You say: I should destroy my work.

    I say: It is my work and I wont destroy it unless you pay me to do so (if you want to control someone else’s work, you’ve got to pay for it – or don’t you understand basic capitalist economics?). I get to decide the price for which I will sell my work – you can decide whether or not you want to buy it.

    You say: I should write a paper (and, by the way, the $200/hr figure was for the work I’d need to do to remove someone from the database, not write your stupid paper…

    I say: I don’t see the point of writing a paper regarding a known issue that is a part of gravatar’s business model (if they fix this “leak” as you suggest, they cripple their business…[I expect you to support me on this point, Bron – otherwise you are being a blatant hypocrite]) on a topic that is already understood by every expert and most people well-versed in the internet. I think that I would make myself look stupid by writing and publicizing such a paper and in addition, I don’t find the issue very interesting (my interest does not now and never did have anything to do with mining gravatars – that was just some low-hanging fruit so I picked it – and as the article you posted points out, I’m hardly the first…). I am not willing to write the paper you suggest for any amount of money – it would be an unacceptable waste of my time. If you think it’s important, you should do it – if you aren’t willing to do so, then stop suggesting I do it. Anything else is hypocrisy.


  473. I don’t know about anyone else, but I am exhausted! :)


  474. “If a right wing site had systematically attacked the Huffington Post in a similar way, what would be the reaction at Salon, or Mother Jones or Think Progress?”

    If you don’t think all of those sites get scraped by data miners on a regular basis, you’re dumber than I think you are. By the way, “Expert”, you’re the one who keeps calling me an expert. I never claimed I was an expert. I just know enough to know you’re a pants load. And before you protest too much, let me just say HBGary Federal, TIA, MATRIX, Oracle, SAS, Intellidyn, RapLeaf, Facebook, EXelate and Google’s Ads Preferences. And that is not even a comprehensive list by a long shot. If you’re so worried about your privacy? These companies and Federal projects should have you far more concerned than someone whose goal seems to have been finding a method of combating sockpuppeting by trolls. These people sell your information to private corporations, the government and in some cases are the government. If you don’t think corporations and government will put their gathered data to more nefarious uses than combating trolls, then you’re naive as well as being a pants load. If you think 50K is too much to ask, why not call Google and ask them to destroy their data mining databases and see if you can get a quote on what that would take. If you can get them to stop laughing at you long enough to look up a figure.


  475. Slarti:

    “I say: It is my work and I wont destroy it unless you pay me to do so (if you want to control someone else’s work, you’ve got to pay for it – or don’t you understand basic capitalist economics?). I get to decide the price for which I will sell my work – you can decide whether or not you want to buy it.”

    You are right about that. But I wouldnt design a program to gather people’s information even if I could.

    Maybe you have a future with the DHS? :)


  476. Bron,

    So you wouldn’t do anything that involved data mining? (By the way, a potential use for my idea [which this project was merely a small part of] is tracking terrorists, but I guess that would be unethical…)


  477. Harry Nevus GED: “Thank you, all, for the non-technical explanation. Nobody need tell me the OPFAC number of their ORTUPS unit.”
    —-

    I have found that there are two kinds of of guys: guys who are always bragging about the OPFAC number of their ORTUPS unit and guys that are secure enough that they don’t need to.

    Oh, wait……
    :-)

    ———————————————–

    Anon: “But I also think that Professor Turley *should* warn commenters here that regardless of what the wordpress fields may say, that their anonymity cannot be guaranteed due to problems with the gravatar system.”
    —-

    He could more correctly post the statement “There is no real security for all of your information ANYWHERE on the interwebs, this site included, so y’all need to be careful.” But I’m sure he assumed his posters were smart enough to know that.

    ************************
    Anon: “And I would like Professor Turley to explain his views as a civil libertarian on the various issues, I believe that would be interesting and valuable to us all.”

    Don’t you read any of his postings?
    :-)

    *************************

    BTW, continuing efforts to embroil the Professor into making statements and judgments about this dispute is rude at best and sinister at worse. Lawyers that give information that could in any way be described or construed as advice may well accrue some liability for that ‘advice’ or subsequent stupid actions by the folks taking that ‘advice’. A lawyer told me that so it may well be true. Settle it between yourselves.


  478. @OS, “anon, outing sockpuppets, trolls and zombies is a pastime at almost all blogs”

    True, but mining email addresses for sockpuppets is usually reserved for the admins whose behavior is known and regulated by the TOS.

    For the rest of us, we do, as you do, by analyzing writing patterns, catching lies, and slip ups.

    And I’ve never heard, and please do correct me if I’m wrong, of a blog that supposedly champions free speech and anonymity being okay with the data mining of its commenters.

    As I said yesterday, I hear from you guys lots of complaints of other people using sock puppets, but then I find out when Kevin does reveal some data, that it’s frequently the people complaining the loudest that turn out to have a lot of the sock puppets.

    From my attendance here, I just don’t perceive a sock puppet problem here as being so serious as to overwhelm the privacy issues and the non disclosure issues inherent in Kevin’s code.

    If this was 4chan it would be one thing. But it ain’t.

    Kevin’s actions were uncalled for and they were abusive and if anyone else you didn’t know or agree with had done them, you would be the first to shout.


  479. Dr. Kevin Kesseler, Ph.D,

    “I say: gavatar is entitled to their business plan (which depends on mining massive amounts of data) – if the leak bothers you, then don’t post on any gravatar-enable blogs (incidentally, on most forums you need to put your gravatar’s URL in your personal profile before it shows up…).”

    Since you wrote the code, it’s amazing you still don’t understand it.

    The problem with Gravatar has nothing to do with anyone being logged in or associated with Gravatar. It has only to do with having an email address.

    It is that email address that is hashed and placed as a web bug in the page.

    It is that email address that WordPress says “Not published” that is in fact published as an MD5 hash. It is that MD5 hash that is unique to the original email that is placed in the source of the page, that will be trackable across websites.

    I have never logged into Gravatar. But the email address I use, “anonyfk24@kevinsmother.com” is the same email address I use everywhere, and the md5 hash of that is what is placed in the source page at every wordpress or gravatar enabled blog, and that’s the trackable web bug.

    Kevin, you say, “You say: I should write a paper (and, by the way, the $200/hr figure was for the work I’d need to do to remove someone from the database, not write your stupid paper…”

    but earlier you said,

    “I understand the issue. How much time do you think it would take to do what you suggest? If you’d like to pay me $200/hr I’ll write up your white paper and try to get people’s attention I’d be happy to do it, if not I can make better use of my time doing things that I consider important.”

    Kevin, your excuses and apologies and arrogant defiance jumps around from rationalization to rationalization. I am certain you find them convincing.

    First you told us your datamining was actually a service to people here that did not know or consent, then you said it was fine because it was all public information, then you said, Gravatar exploits the privacy leak on a far bigger scale, and so it’s okay what you did, now you say, your acts brought the problem to the attention of others so its okay.

    The one thing you haven’t said is

    “I, Dr. Kevin Kesseler, Ph.D believe that had I asked Professor Turley for permission to scrape his website in advance, and explained the issues, that I believe Professor Turley would have given me that approval.”


  480. @LK,

    “BTW, continuing efforts to embroil the Professor into making statements and judgments about this dispute is rude at best and sinister at worse. Lawyers that give information that could in any way be described or construed as advice may well accrue some liability for that ‘advice’ or subsequent stupid actions by the folks taking that ‘advice’.”

    I did not embroil Professor Turley in this.

    It was Dr. Kevin Kesseler, Ph.D., who scraped the web, and built the database and did so without obtaining permission that has embroiled Professor Turley in this.

    I am not trying to embroil the Professor in anything. The fact is that at his blog a privacy leak was exploited and a database of users and their alts was created that can be used to break their anonymity and privacy.

    When this happens at other websites and blogs, it is customary and expected for the relevant admin or owner to disclose the nature of the leak, who it may have effected and how, steps being taken to correctit.

    In addition as I have said, there is an interesting clash here between free speech and privacy.

    Your claim that all commenters know that everything is insecure is trite. At many blogs at many times, we’ve seen anonymous posters pop up from time to time with interesting, useful, insights and information.

    They do that because while they know there is no absolute guarantee of anonymity, that regardless, the customary behavior is that when a field says “Email, not published” it means the email will not be published.

    They know that anonymity is encouraged and respected.

    If Professor Turley wants to turn off anonymous logins he can do so.

    If Professor Turley wants to encourage anonymous speech, he should take steps to encourage that. Dr. Kesseler’s behavior seems fundamentally antithetical to that.

    Since all of this occurred on his blog, it would seem very appropriate for Professor Turley to give us his views on these issues.

    I did not embroil Professor Turley in this.

    It was Dr. Kevin Kesseler, Ph.D., who scraped the web, and built the database and did so without obtaining permission that has embroiled Professor Turley in this.


  481. Once again, whether it’s Kevin, Gene or others, it’s pretty cool to see self-identified liberal zealots defending privacy invasion, corruption of anonymity, and the maintenance of databases.

    Presumably, because it’s a friend a fellow zealot doing this to attack conservatives.


  482. Two points of order.

    First, if you use Dr. as the form of address preceding the name, it is not acceptable for to use the title ‘after’ the name (e.g.: M.D., Ph.D., etc.). Use one or the other but not both.

    Second, if one puts anything on the internet, assume you might as well put it on a billboard beside a busy highway. If you expect privacy and use the Internet, I have some beachfront property in Wyoming to sell you. All the hue and cry about something called ‘privacy’ is in the wrong venue. As I said yesterday, if you want true privacy, live in a cave, do not own property of any kind, do not have a bank account or credit card, do not have a telephone, and above all, DO NOT OWN A COMPUTER OR USE THE INTERNET. Give me a few days and I can tell you all about yourself including some stuff you definitely would not want made public. The data mining companies are out their with their spider bots and it is all for sale.


  483. I understand what my code is doing perfectly – the only way to protect yourself from gravatar data mining is to not post on gravatar-enabled sites (or to do so with a fake email address). So why don’t you stop endangering your precious bodily fluids… er… data and stop spewing your pathetic bile here?

    And by the way you sniveling fuckwad, my mother is dead and I’m done with you.


  484. “I am not trying to embroil the Professor in anything.” (anon)

    Stop being disingenuous … you’re beginning to sound like Speaker-elect Livingston.


  485. “Second, if one puts anything on the internet, assume you might as well put it on a billboard beside a busy highway. If you expect privacy and use the Internet, I have some beachfront property in Wyoming to sell you.” (OS)

    … and I have some slightly damp property just north of me that I’ll throw in with OS’s Wyoming land.


  486. You guys are going to have to stop that. Do you have any idea how much orange juice burns when snorted out one’s nose?


  487. Defend Internet privacy?

    It’s pretty cool common to see some self-righteous right-wing nitwit try to defend something that isn’t real.

    And I’ll sweeten OS’s deal by throwing in a slightly musty antique turn of the century bridge.


  488. doc slarti

    i’ve been keeping up with the ongoing discussion about how you found a way to keep up with the number of sockpuppets some of the posters use.

    i am not an attorney and my opinion is my own but i view what you did as no more egregious than taking pictures of a public meeting and comparing the ratio of men to women and what type of footware they have. a simplistic comparison but it works for me.

    i realize that by going to a website and commenting, i leave footprints (or mouse droppings) and i conduct myself accordingly.


  489. pete, it is obvious that you “get it.” I understand why some folks who have bogus accounts are paranoid and would like to shut down any revelations of their sockpuppets if they can. I also have more news for them. It is not always just the Gravitars that are a hole in the blanket. Just registering leaves a track. Not easy to access, but it is doable.

    I am reminded of that reality TV show Mantracker. The tracker can be slowed down but has yet to be beaten. Same for the intertoobz. As for the gnashing of teeth and breathless rending of garments, what group is it that keeps saying that if you have nothing to hide you should not fear the Patriot Act.


  490. “As for the gnashing of teeth and breathless rending of garments, what group is it that keeps saying that if you have nothing to hide you should not fear the Patriot Act.”

    OS, I’ll have you know that blueberry juice isn’t much better for the nose than OJ. :D


  491. Anon, Just read this thread and the Corrections thread. You’re still trying to embroil the Professor.

    From Corrections:

    “My suggestion would be for Professor Turley to direct Kesseler to delete the database and request he delete the code as well. But to definitely inform Kesseler he had no permission, and no authority to do what he did and does not have any permission to do so in the future.

    I suggest as full disclosure that Professor Turley should put up a post describing the scraping, what has been disclosed, and who has received the information.

    My suggestions only, I know Professor Turley can figure out how to handle it.”
    _______

    You suggestion on method, but a presumption that other than allowing his bandwidth to be used for the principals to discuss it, that the Professor needs to or will “handle it”.

    Different posting:

    “If you talk to Kevin, and decide to write a post discussing what has happened, you may wish to ask him what his motives are, since he says he has some but will not discuss them, what he intends to do with the data and how he intends to profit from it.

    Other issues to consider:

    Has Kevin broken anyone’s terms of service?
    Who owns the data Kevin has scraped?
    Can Kevin’s data be used to effectuate identity theft?
    Will Kevin honor requests from individuals listed in his database to be removed from his database?”
    _______

    You’re attempting to embroil the Professor and from your last posting you seem to want him to act as your agent in considering certain points and talk to Dr. Kevin.

    Slarti was gullible enough to actualy go to the Corrections thread and make a statement to the Professor and suggest it might require it’s own thread after your relentless hectoring (I’m going to start hectoring you Slarti, to clean out my basement LOL) but he’s a science guy, not a law guy.


  492. I do admire pete’s take on matters before this blog … what works for him also works for me,

    Ye gods … orange juice is bad enough but blueberry juice!!! Who drinks blueberry juice!!?? Yuk … by the way … I hate blueberries so factor that into this post.


  493. What’s that you say? Slarti cleans basements? Does he also do attics? How do we guilt him into it? I think he’s in Mich or maybe N J (hell, I don’t know where he is) but he’s closer to me than he is to lotta (though I’m not totally sure where she lives) … anyway, my attic hasn’t been cleaned out for 30 years … I just keep sticking things up there so I really need him.


  494. Blouise,
    Does Slarti do windows too??


  495. raff,

    He’s a scientist … don’t they usually live in caves and work magic spells trying to create gold? I doubt he’ll do windows but basements and attics are perfect places to run experiments.


  496. BLOUISE!!

    And here I thought you were my bud and I always looked so favorably on your postings. Just turn my back for 1 minute and here you are hatching a plan to preemptively harangue and guilt Slarti into doing your attic before I even have started my campaign to get him to do my basement. And throwing in that he lives closer to you than me; girl, that was just … something.

    Well, all is fair in chocolate and house-work after all.

    Perhaps we could work out some kind of multi-target, guilt driven, time-share thing. If we work it right, we can rope Raf into this some way and while Slarti is doing his windows we can guilt Raf into our fall yard work. Yea, that’s the ticket. :-)


  497. I just want to know who you ladies plan to harangue and guilt into the job of “Boy Toy”.

    And blueberries are awesome, although I prefer what the Native Americans called them: star berries.


  498. Well Gene, if there are any volunteers for that I’d need first to know the OPFAC number of their ORTUPS units. ;-)


  499. You know we are going to pay a heavy price for this when Slarti checks in. I suggest we all take my usual out when righteous blame starts falling … blame HenMan.


  500. Blouise,

    I’m very disappointed in you (not HenMan) – I can’t believe that you would do such a thing… I mean really, what did I ever do to you? What you did just wasn’t right and you should be ashamed. What was possibly going through your mind when you suggested that I lived in New Jersey? :-(


  501. Blouise-

    I have been invited to show my condo on “Hoarders”, but they say I must first drink enough 2 liter bottles of MelloYello to create a pile of strewn plastic bottles 3 feet deep. If I do that, I won’t be able to see the bobcats stalking me and have time to pull my shiv. I also won’t be able to find my CD’s by McKinney’s Cotton Pickers, The Mound City Blue Blowers, and Jelly James and his Fewsicians. I had to tell them I only do inadvertent clutter- never premeditated clutter. A man must have standards, you know.


  502. Blouise-

    I don’t think I can come back to this 2nd Amendment commentary. I have a 1955 Muntz computer that only gets the Turley blog and the DuMont Network. If the atmospheric conditions are just right, I can sometimes get “Super Circus”- that Mary Hartline is one hot babe!!! Anyway, my Muntz bogs down badly when it hits the 500 comments threshhold, so I must leave. Good night.


  503. Damn, meant to switch sockpuppets on the last post… grrrrr.

    Lotta,

    You’re right about my comment on the corrections page, my bad. I would note, however, that since I’ve been divorced for over a decade and have gotten set in my bachelor ways, I’m probably pretty resistant to being hectored into cleaning out your basement. Although, actually, my dad and I (and his girlfriend – which is really weird, but I’m glad he found someone after my mom died…) are closing up our cottage for the winter this weekend and I’ll be moving back to the house I grew up in and I’m thinking about cleaning out the basement (or part of it anyway) to set up an office – that way, whenever I’m online, I really will be in my parent’s basement… ;-)

    raff,

    I don’t do windows.

    e to the y dy dx
    e to the x dx
    cos sec tan sin
    3.14159
    Dis-integrate them EL High!

    – Mr. Steidle, my high school calculus teacher

    Now behave or there will be more maths… Don’t make me get Pythagorean on your ass!

    Gene,

    Sorry, but that’s another one that I’ll just have to take for the team…

    And I have to agree with Blouise on the blueberries – now, raspberries… yum!

    Ppptttthhhppp! :-P

    Blouise,

    It all depends on the attic. I spend my summers in a light, airy attic (which, by the way, is here [pointing at the first joint on the middle finger on my right palm]*) looking out over the 5th most beautiful lake in the world (according to National Geographic). How does your attic compare?

    By the way, you asked (in email) if I had gotten a grant – the answer is no. I’m starting a company – I’m working on an email telling you about it, but I keep getting distracted (like by people trying to get me to do their chores for them…). I’d finish it tonight, but if I don’t get some code to my Director of Software Development and an updated version of the business model to my Director of Communications by tomorrow night, then, as the boss, I’m going to have to chew my own ass out – and I’m just not that flexible… but I’ll send it eventually.

    * It’s a Michigan thing… You can’t do that shit in Jersey, but in Michigan, that’s how we roll, eh.

    http://www.mystery.com/~gabe/michigander.html


  504. Are you a Yuper or a Troll?


  505. I’m a Troll and a natural born Spartan fan (as well as having a BS and an MS from MSU…), but I can talk Yuper, eh.


  506. I’m a Yuper wannabe. No joke … if I could talk Tex into it I’d move there tomorrow … there or New Mexico … yeah, I know … extremes …


  507. Slarti,

    Okay … I had to google it but I found the lake … sad to say my lake only ranks as thirteenth largest globally … but I’m relatively close to the river that caught fire.

    Having done your basement you can just skip lotta’s … boring doing the same thing twice … which leaves you free to do my attic. The house is 115 years old so god knows what’s buried up there … but be prepared … HenMan calls it home.

    I see you know how to handle raff but really 1+1=2 is enough to shut him up.

    We share a love for raspberries. I do a Blitz Torte filled with raspberries bound with whipped cream (almonds, cinnamon). If you survive the attic, especially HenMan’s bobcats, I’ll make you one.


  508. HenMan,

    You coy devil … I see through your claim that this thread is too much for your Madman Muntz computer … you just want me to make a fool of myself chasing you around the blog.

    As far as DuMont is concerned, I never imagined you as a “Captain Video and His Video Rangers” kind of guy … a man of mystery limping with the bobcats. If you take a shower you may join Slarti and I in a slice of torte.


  509. Lotta,

    Come and join us for torte … admire my attic :)

    Gene and raff … come and throw blueberries at HenMan …


  510. Slartibartfast: “…whenever I’m online, I really will be in my parent’s basement…”
    —-That is a BIG club Slarti, but your attic sounds lovely. :-)

    Blouise: “Having done your basement you can just skip lotta’s … boring doing the same thing twice … which leaves you free to do my attic.”
    —-“The two women exchanged the kind of glance women use when no knife is handy.”** Blouise, how nice to see you this morning dear, you’re up early.

    **Ellery Queen :-)

    I have 3 generations of stuff in my basement including littering every room, as well as rather nice collections of some stuff I spent time amassing myself. I could give HenMan a run for his money at a shot to be on Hoarders. You have no idea how interesting the prospect of rooting through an attic in 115 year old house is. It’s downright titillating. Perhaps I could clean out your attic and you could clean out my basement? Somehow, I don’t think Slarti is going to be at all cooperative. :-)

    Torte? I love torte of any kind at any time and I’m sure I would admire your attic, thanks for the invite.


  511. Slarti:

    “So you wouldn’t do anything that involved data mining? (By the way, a potential use for my idea [which this project was merely a small part of] is tracking terrorists, but I guess that would be unethical…)”

    as we see today, the current liberal/progressive administration is all for killing American citizens without benefit of due process.

    Like I always say scratch the surface of a lib and you find a person who doesnt care much for codified law. You can read codified as Constitutional in this case.

    Obama should be impeached for doing this. I dont think Bush ever killed an American citizen without due process. Nor Cheney either.

    Plus I dont think Roberto Gonzales put automatic weapons in the hands of Mexican drug dealers, of which some have probably ended up in the hands of Al Qaeda or worse. To be used at some future time against American citizens here or abroad.

    I hope progressives have the same level of outrage over the killing of an American citizen as they did over the torture of enemy combatants.

    By the way, the New York times felt tracking cell phones was unethical and outed the administration when Bush did it which probably prevented the capture or killing of Bin Laden early in 2002. I am pretty sure you were all for the Times outing cell phone tracking at the time. So why are you now for the use of tracking devices? Because you developed something and now want to sell it?

    Maybe you can also get a 528 million dollar loan from the govmint to develop the technology. :) Well maybe not, I doubt you gave large sums of money for Obama’s campaign.


  512. Slartibartfast and Blouise,
    Damn, now I have to do the windows myself!


  513. on 1, September 30, 2011 at 7:54 am Anonymously Yours

    raff,

    FYI,

    If you want them done right…its best to do it yourself…Especially when you are a type a personality….


  514. Bron,

    You have forgotten Marcus Aurelius’ advice to “ask of each and everything what is it in itself.” You’re making the mistake of identifying the current administration as liberal and/or progressive and it is neither. It’s Bush-Lite.


  515. Gene H, Obama is the best republican president we have had in a long time.


  516. Bron,

    Was Nixon a lib? Because President Obama is unquestionably to the right of Nixon…


  517. Jo,

    I hope you continue posting. You’re a hoot.


  518. Slarti:

    Nixon was a person who implemented wage and price controls and Carter got blamed for the ensuing economic devastation. Obama is a collectivist, I dont think Nixon was, he just didnt know much about economics.

    Gene H:

    I already know what kind of “thing” Obama is – a collectivist (which covers a multitude of evils). And in that respect you are right, compassionate conservatism is nothing but watered down collectivism.


  519. Bron,

    You are mistaken as your identification of Obama as a collectivist as well. The majority of Americans wanted the Bush Administration held accountable for his actions. The majority of Americans wanted BP and Halliburton held accountable for their actions. The majority of Americans want Wall Street held accountable for their actions. If he doesn’t follow majority wishes in enforcing the law, he cannot be a collectivist either. He’s every bit the elitist George Bush was just as he’s a liberal/collectivist in name only. You should learn to think outside of that box Ayn built for you. You remember her. The woman who bemoaned collectivist programs like SSI and Medicare/Medicaid until she needed them and claimed the benefits under her married name so as to avoid the scorn of her followers for talking the talk but not walking the walk. The brainwashing of your religion aside, society by definition is a collective endeavor. If you outgrew your egoism and the inherent selfishness that engenders, you might be able to comprehend that simple fact.


  520. loota,

    —-”The two women exchanged the kind of glance women use when no knife is handy.”** Blouise, how nice to see you this morning dear, you’re up early.”

    ———————————————————————-

    And now you have just scared every male on this blog out of his ever-lovin’ mind! ;)

    Hell, let’s skip the cleaning part and just eat cake!


  521. lotta …. (sorry, I did it again)


  522. Steal from cats!!! What kind of person do you think LK is, Blouise? ;)


  523. Gene,

    Excellent, and I wish I could claim the witticism but my honest nature demands the truth … a typo … 2 “t”s, not 2 “o”s

    In all actuality, I’m trying to build raff’s numbers though I don’t think my efforts are going to bring the numbers on this thread anywhere close to your first thread.


  524. Blouise,

    It’s Higgins Lake (or Majinabeesh which means “sparkling water” in Chippewa…):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgins_lake

    And I’m generally adverse to nuts in my desserts (except baclava…), but I’ll make an exception for your torte – it sounds great!

    Bron said, “[President] Obama is a collectivist”

    What does that even mean? He is demonstrably to the right of Nixon on a great many issues – that’s not liberal to me…


  525. Blouise,

    I love old houses, but it’s not looking like your attic has much to offer over mine…

    As for becoming a Yupper – it’s beautiful up there, but not for the faint of heart. Us trolls have four seasons – construction, more construction, still construction, and winter. The Yuppers have: construction, almost winter, winter, and still winter… I’m happy that it looks like we’re going to get the cottage closed before the snow starts flying.


  526. Blouise,

    In the spirit of full disclosure, there was some “gray area”* precipitation a couple of days ago…

    * could have been rain, maybe sleet, there was the occasional hail stone and possibly the odd snowflake or two… thankfully no freezing rain, though.


  527. Bron,

    “So why are you now for the use of tracking devices? Because you developed something and now want to sell it?”

    Yes, beyond the boundaries of this blog, I have often found this specific rationalization at the heart of many “sincere” changes of heart.

    Money corrupts, although in this case, the means have been also justified by the end of a strike at the heart of Koch’s minions of sockpuppets plaguing this blog.

    But yes, too, these guys would be the first screaming under the reverse conditions.


  528. Blouise1, September 30, 2011 at 11:46 am

    loota,

    —-”The two women exchanged the kind of glance women use when no knife is handy.”** Blouise, how nice to see you this morning dear, you’re up early.”

    ———————————————————————-

    And now you have just scared every male on this blog out of his ever-lovin’ mind!

    Hell, let’s skip the cleaning part and just eat cake!
    —————————-
    —————————-
    this is sooooo sexycool…..

    I was thinking I wasn’t going to learn anything new today… :)


  529. Thanks for telling us who you work for.


  530. Bron,

    Sorry, but your straw man doesn’t hold up – I was neither cheering or complaining the NYT outing the Bush administration. I didn’t even notice (I didn’t follow politics very closely – I was working on my PhD). I have no intention of making money off of selling information gained from gravatar’s business plan – and this is part of a long-term project that is on a back burner in any case. Currently I’m working on making money off of my post-doc research (I’m allowed to do that, aren’t I?). I’m not the one who’s taking stands that lead to contradictions, except in straw man arguments from you and some anonymous asshats…


  531. {W(t)=^..^ : t <= now} said:

    Blouise, September 30, 2011 at 11:46 am

    loota,

    —-”The two women exchanged the kind of glance women use when no knife is handy.”** Blouise, how nice to see you this morning dear, you’re up early.”

    ———————————————————————-

    And now you have just scared every male on this blog out of his ever-lovin’ mind!

    Hell, let’s skip the cleaning part and just eat cake!
    —————————-
    —————————-
    this is sooooo sexycool…..

    I was thinking I wasn’t going to learn anything new today…

    This comment will also have an affect on every man reading the blog – it just wont scare them… ;-)


  532. AY,
    But it is such a messy job. Especially doing the windows from the outside!


  533. Gene, stop trolling you moron.

    Blouise mentioned sock puppets.
    OS said, yes, it could be Koch
    Mike S, said, yes, definitely Koch.

    “A concerted effort was being made to disrupt each thread and thereby cause the topic to become unfocused. Since the days of Richard Nixon
    “dirty tricks” this has been the skill and the trade of various paid members of the Corporatists. The Koch Bros”

    And all three used it to justify Kevin Kesseler’s acts to violate trust on the blog.

    Please stop being a dumbass troll.


  534. rafflaw,

    When we renovated our house, we had new windows installed. You can tilt them in and clean the outsides of the windows from inside the house. They’re great!


  535. sLARTI:

    you are entitled to make as much money as you want and can. I hope you make a big pile. But please do me a favor, dont sell my email address to Rick Perry or Ron Paul.


  536. Bron,

    What about selling it to Chris Christie?


  537. Elaine M.

    Out of the question, I dont want another North Eastern Liberal republican after suffering through a South Western North Eastern Liberal republican.


  538. Bron,

    Christie is “liberal?” What have you been smoking?


  539. Gene H:

    What does Ayn Rand have to do with me calling Obama a collectavist? She has one definition of many. The general idea though is the majority against the individual. True democracy is a collectivist notion decried by the founding fathers.

    I could go on and on, but you know what I am saying.

    “People have often been willing to give up personal identity and join into a collective. Historically, that propensity has usually been very bad news. Collectives tend to be mean, to designate official enemies, to be violent, and to discourage creative, rigorous thought. Fascists, communists, religious cults, criminal ‘families’ — there has been no end to the varieties of human collectives, but it seems to me that these examples have quite a lot in common. I wonder if some aspect of human nature evolved in the context of competing packs. We might be genetically wired to be vulnerable to the lure of the mob.” — Jaron Lanier


  540. “We might be genetically wired to be vulnerable to the lure of the mob.” — Jaron Lanier

    I would say some of us are at least the collectivists among us.


  541. Bron,

    Liberal. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means…

    Don’t worry, I wont be selling anyone’s email address (let alone that of someone who trusted me enough to give me their address). As for making a pile of money – I plan to. I believe that my pragmatic, progressive empiricist philosophy is good business and plan on supporting my hypothesis by making my investors rich (I already have my first investor, by the way). We’ll see how it turns out…


  542. on 1, September 30, 2011 at 2:31 pm Psychopath on Warpath

    Why do people Obama like sheep? He is batshit crazy.


  543. Gene H:

    “Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” — Robert A Heinlein

    Which one are you? I am in the latter.


  544. Slarti:

    I know what the word means, it doesnt mean what it used to mean if that is what you mean.

    By the way liberals used to believe in free markets.

    Also did you know you are a little late to the party in regards to web scraping? You can buy them on-line. I just got mine, it is amazing what you can find out with it.

    I figure if you have one, my side needs one to, mutually assured junk mail.

    Now I know how Reagan felt in Reykjavik. :)


  545. Bron,

    I am an independent thinker who doesn’t take my operating philosophies and methodologies from fiction writers. I’m also someone who uses adjectives in their actual meaning, not in a meaning I’d rather they have or some definition I’ve made up. As to Rand? Your unreasoning hatred of the forms of the word “collective” in all its forms stems from your worship of her blind selfish egotism. Repeat this until it sinks in: society is a collective of individuals and as such is a collective endeavor. You cannot care for the individual without caring for the collective and you cannot care for the collective without caring for the individual. That’s why Objectivism is a failed extremist doctrine, laissez-faire economics is a failing extremist doctrine and why Communism is a failed extremist doctrine. Objectivism (and ultimately laissez-faire economics) is all “me, me, me” and Communism is all “us, us, us” when the nature of reality regarding society is “both me and we”. What I am is not blinded by binary thinking. Most things in life are more complex than a binary solution and the more complex the system in question, the more true that statement becomes.


  546. It’s pretty clear where Gene is.

    When I first read Adam Smith, I thought business guy, economist, dead white guy widely heralded by all these boring rich mostly annoying TV pundits, so therefore Smith must be a boring stuffy conservative.

    Then I read him and found in many ways he was a radical leftist. And pretty cool. And his enemies, if any, were landlords and undisclosed secrets and secret agreements.

    I wonder where he would be today in terms of liberal, libertarian, republican. Well, I do know he would be in the group of “those who have no such desire [to control others]”.

    Likewise, it’s pretty clear where too many of the civil libertarian commenters peacocking in these comments actually are.

    It’s bizarre after his own behavior and his days of justifying it badly that Kevin would wonder what other people think of the word liberal.

    It used to not involve undisclosed privacy invasions and building up of databases and lists. That was left to the FBI and COINTELPRO but now advocated by Mike S, and OS and Gene H and many others to counter Koch’s minions and implemented by Kevin Kesseler.


  547. It’s without a doubt what you are, anon.

    A pants load working for the Koch Brothers and/or like fascists.


  548. Well then it should be easy for you to find one, just one statement I’ve ever made that condones fascist like, or even non-liberal behavior.

    We watched mespo make that claim last week, and he was less flaccid than you.


  549. Gene H:

    Nuance it all you want, Heinlein has taken it to its essence. People who wish to control others and those who do not.

    That is all there is. Simple, elegant and straight to the heart of the matter. Even some republicans have the soul of a controller and some progressives have the soul of liberty. But then I call those people old fashioned 19th century liberals and have great respect for their views.


  550. Bron,

    Personally, I don’t care whether you respect my views or not, but if you don’t understand that the law is the control mechanism of society and that as such – even when talking about preserving liberty – the discussion of both control and feedback mechanisms are always going to be integral to the discussion, then I cannot reach accord with you. If you fail to realize that in discussing law and liberty that it is always the pursuit of both maximizing both liberties (me) and social necessity (we), then I cannot reach accord with you. The bottom line is your religion blinds you to the facts of both what society is and what it takes to effectively manage society to maintain peace (and ideally maximize happiness) while protecting individual liberty. If you were to frame the law to only protect individual liberties while not taking into account the common good, the system would collapse when the needs of the many outweigh the desires of the one. Conversely, if you were to frame the law to only protect the common good, the system collapses as the individual components of society wither from either lack of motivation or repression. It’s a balancing act. Your devotion to “I before we” prevents you from accurately assessing the situation let alone formulating effective solutions to problems presented. And that’s what it’s all about: effective solutions to problems that maximize liberty and promote justice and equity. The desire to control is as illusory as control itself. Society is to big and too complex a mechanism to lend itself to control. The best one can hope for is influence. Do laws against homicide prevent homicide? No, they do not. However, they do deter a great many potential homicides. Do regulations of business requiring worker and product safety prevent all worker abuses and unsafe products? No, they do not, but when properly enforced, they deter a great many abuses. You may think I have a desire to control. I do not. I have a desire to influence with the goal of maintaining peace while maximizing both liberty and happiness. This is antithetical to those who desire “control” to pervert the course of peace, justice, liberty and happiness of others for their own benefit. People like the Koch Brothers who would have the socially necessary safety nets provided and best provided by government from society in furtherance of their personal profits. The people who put “me before we” instead of considering solutions geared to “me and we”. That this conflicts with your religion (and yes, I consider Objectivism a religion) is sad, but it is ultimately a reflection of your bad choices in following an unrealistic extremist system of belief.


  551. anon,

    If you’re going to bat for the Koch troll army’s right to remain anonymous on a system where there simply is no guarantee of anonymity?

    You’re going to bat for corporatist enemies of the Constitution and democracy, in short, fascists. So please, mention the Koch Brothers again and how battling their influence on the system is somehow bad. It’s really funny.


  552. “It used to not involve undisclosed privacy invasions and building up of databases and lists. That was left to the FBI and COINTELPRO….”

    **************************************

    Lets see now, how that logic works out. There are those that say anything government can do, the free market can do better and cheaper. Well, at least part of that is probably true. Then there are those who say that the government should take care of virtually all things. Hmmmm…at least part of that is true too.

    But then there are those who say government should not do things and neither should free marketeers who seek to profit off building a better mousetrap.

    My head hurts.


  553. Gene, Gene, The Dancing Machine:

    anon,

    If you’re going to bat for the Koch troll army’s right to remain anonymous on a system where there simply is no guarantee of anonymity?

    You’re going to bat for corporatist enemies of the Constitution and democracy, in short, fascists. So please, mention the Koch Brothers again and how battling their influence on the system is somehow bad. It’s really funny.

    Sad, by this logic Professor Turley today and you just announced your backing with Al Qaeda.

    http://jonathanturley.org/2011/09/30/did-obama-just-assassinate-a-u-s-citizen-aulaqi-killing-raises-questions-over-presidential-powers/#comment-273033

    Gene, I have to admit, you are such a pathetic sad parody of a liberal, your logic is so wrong, your bullshit so strong, that I have real suspicion you are a Koch false flag operation.

    Gene, my pointing out you’re an idiot does not make me a fascist.

    Gene, my arguing that commenters on a “freespeech” blog should not be trying to out anonymity by scraping the blog, does not make me a corporatist enemy of the constitution even if it helps the minions and bots of the Koch brothers.

    Gene, Professor Turley’s insistent on due process, even when that helps al-Aulaqi, does not make him an Al Qaeda supporter.

    Gene, your continued dribbling does not help that rash on your chest.


  554. @OS,

    I think there are somethings that no one should do, even if it is possible to do them.

    Outing anonymity on a “free speech” blog is in there.

    Wearing white after labor day is not.


  555. anon, repeat after me, rinse and repeat again:

    There is no such thing as true anonymity on the Itertoobz. Also, there is a difference between catching a zombie or sockpuppet and outing a user by real name.

    You do not really want me to have you write that on the blackboard 100 times, do you?


  556. anon, repeat after me, rinse and repeat again:

    There is no such thing as true anonymity on the Itertoobz. Also, there is a difference between catching a zombie or sockpuppet and outing a user by real name.

    You do not really want me to have you write that on the blackboard 100 times, do you?

    Yes, however, you are trivially wrong on the technical issue, with proof via Starbucks and McDonald. And that’s long before TOR, and long before MAC spoofing or DNS poisoning or other techniques.

    You can write it on the blackboard 100 times, and you would be wrong each time.

    And on the other issue, as I said, there are things that communities should not put up with. One user scraping and exploiting privacy leaks to out the others is one.

    I’m a member of many online communities, and I’ve never seen this behavior by a regular member of the community condoned or defended.

    If there is any outing of sock puppets like that, it has always been from the owner of the blog or community who has known access to the registered emails, and IP addresses and the like. The rest of us use the other typical techniques, by noting that both GeneH and HGene always misspell the word “logik”, or “diapre”, or by accidental revelation.

    If Professor Turley was worried about anonymous sockpuppetry, there are other measures he could take, including required email verification of all email addreses.

    As I’ve said, if Kevin Kesseler had asked Professor Turley ahead of time of his intent and his actions and his goal and the impacts, would Professor Turley have said, sure, go ahead, it is okay to do this on my blog.


  557. You do not really want me to have you write that on the blackboard 100 times, do you?


    There is no anonymity on the Internet
    There is no anonymity on the Internet
    There is no anonymity on the Internet

    There is no anonymity on the Internet

    And yet, it moves.


  558. @Otteray Scribe,

    Intriguingly, just 44 minutes ago, the EFF published this:

    http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/09/newspapers-public-discourse-and-right-remain

    September 30th, 2011
    On Newspapers, Public Discourse, and the Right to Remain Anonymous
    Commentary

    by Jillian York and Trevor Timm

    In a recent Washington Times editorial titled “Internet trolls, Anonymity and the First Amendment,” Gayle Falkenthal declared that “the time has come to limit the ability of people to remain anonymous” online. She argued that any benefit to online pseudonyms has long since dissipated and anonymous commenters have polluted the Internet “with false accusations and name-calling attacks.” Newspapers, she wrote, should ban them entirely.

    This argument is not only inaccurate, it’s also dangerous: online anonymity, while allowing trolls to act with impunity, also protects a range of people, from Syrian dissidents to small-town LGBT activists and plenty of others in between.

    Unfortunately, many newspapers have already banned anonymous comments, and while not all have offered an explicit reasoning for their policies, “civility” is often cited as justification in discussions on online anonymity.

    There’s much more there and it’s all beautiful and I would be surprised that anyone in this forum defending Kesseler, including Kesseler, would disagree with any of it.

    /As an aside to the problem here, what York and Trimm left out was that newspapers have done much worse than eliminate anonymous communication, they have done much much worse, they’ve made all of that communication facebook communication.


  559. @OS:

    Simplest way to be anonymous on the Internet.

    Download and use the Tor/Firefox bundle:

    https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en

    Simple way to be anonymous on the Internet
    1. Goto starbucks.
    2. Attach to their wifi
    3. Make your post
    Repeat 1-3, rinse, cycling on Starbucks, Burger King, Culvers, McDonalds, Barnes & Noble, Mall food zoos, airports, libraries….

    4, Withdraw $20 from your ATM. Go to best buy, by a USB wireless adapter.
    On occasion, at intervals you prefer, buy a new USB wireless adapter to change your MAC address.

    Alternatively:

    5. Use a ethereal and determine one or more MAC addresses on your network.
    6. Change the MAC address of your adapter to one of the sniffed MAC addresses.

    Repeat 5-6 at intervals you prefer.

    And other ways to be anonymous on the Internet:

    Java Anon Proxy
    I2P
    TOR

    and many many other ways.


  560. anon, I am in agreement with the premise and policy of allowing anonymous posting. For a variety of reasons, all of them pragmatic, I prefer to have a username myself. Most, if not all, the guest posters know my name and address and I do not really care. They are responsible with what knowledge they have.

    Having said that, I do think the identity of whistleblowers and others who post anonymously need to be protected. That is NOT the same as outing trolls, zombies and sockpuppets by username. Usernames are still anonymous.

    If the Professor asks anyone to be a guest front pager, he requires posting under one’s real name. Should he ask me, I would consider it and probably consent, but would need to weigh the implications before deciding.


  561. I want to echo what Elaine mentioned earlier. Chris Christie is a Liberal????
    Elaine,
    Nice windows!


  562. Having said that, I do think the identity of whistleblowers and others who post anonymously need to be protected. That is NOT the same as outing trolls, zombies and sockpuppets by username. Usernames are still anonymous.

    A couple of thoughts.

    One is that the Gravatar bug, as I’ve explained above, means that usernames are no longer anonymous and can be correlated through their email address. This is true even for people who have never created a Gravatar account.

    The email address field says “Email (required) (Not published)”, but the truth is, the privacy leak is, that a simple, very unique, practically unique (though not completely unique) mathematical coding of the email address IS published.

    So if you publish at several blogs, say you’re Gene H / geneh@gmail.com here, but you’re GenePak97 / geneh@gmail.com at the Moran Support Blog that third parties can completely determine that Dribbler87 is Gene H here.

    And with that, there are other techniques, like befriending Gene H here, that can be used to get Dribbler87’s actual email address, and use that to embarrass Gene, or whatever.

    For this reason and others I have explained above, and that the lawyer explained and the developers explained, the Gravatar issue is real.

    This is one reason I have suggested to Professor Turley that he, as a civil libertarian, approach WordPress and Gravatar and ask them to fix the bug, OR to remove the “(Not published)” or even the email field entirely from his templates. And to warn commenters that their usernames and email addresses are vulnerable to attack. (As I linked above). And to tell people how to make their email address more secure. (Add random letters to it.)

    And this brings up the other insight.

    Having said that, I do think the identity of whistleblowers and others who post anonymously need to be protected. That is NOT the same as outing trolls, zombies and sockpuppets by username. Usernames are still anonymous.

    Protection of whistleblowers and others who post anonymously almost certainly, and perhaps regrettably, requires protection of the trolls, zombies, and sockpuppets.

    If the moderator of the forum doesn’t like certain commenters, moderation, banning, devowelization, shading, voting down, and many other techniques can be used to protect the forum, while protecting the speech.


  563. “…..requires protection of the trolls, zombies, and sockpuppets.”


  564. rafflaw,

    “I want to echo what Elaine mentioned earlier. Chris Christie is a Liberal????”

    I haven’t heard back yet from Bron. He hasn’t provided his reasons yet for his claim that Christie is a liberal. So it goes…


  565. “This comment will also have an affect on every man reading the blog – it just wont scare them… ”
    ———————————————————
    fear is overated and under-efficient …. :)


  566. anon Koch toady,

    You’ve mistaken me for someone who doesn’t think you’re simply a paid troll or a random jackass. Also, “Expert”, we’ve covered the whole “go to Starbucks” strategy and you still apparently don’t understand Locard’s principle. You can call me whatever you like (as your opinion means absolutely nothing to me or most people I would suspect), but that won’t change the fact you’re simply not nearly as bright or as invisible on the Internet as you think you are. If you use the Internet and somebody wants to find you bad enough and has the resources, they will find you eventually.


  567. Okay Gene,

    You keep telling me about Locard’s principle and starbucks. And clearly I just don’t understand.

    Please tell me one more time how a truly anonymous post to this specific forum cannot be made from my nearby Starbucks.

    Please outline, according to Locard’s principle, exactly what records are made, and how that will inexorably lead the authorities back to me.

    If it helps any, assume the following:

    I drive to a best buy and using cash, I buy a new usb wifi adapter.

    I take my year old laptop runing windows 7 and that adapter and drive to a starbucks 20 miles away — I confess I live in the 5th largest city in the united states a land locked desert hellhole of 4 million sprawled over 250 square miles.

    At that starbucks, I order a double espresso. It arrives in a paper cup. This galls me to no end, because espresso, even at Starbucks, should be served in a ceramic, or glass cup. I put in my usual American’s amount of sugar, and cream, and spying some Europeans looking at me from the balcony against the snow capped peak of one of the countries few mountains topping 14,000 feet, I chug back that espresso in one gulp, flagrantly tossing the paper cup into the trash.

    I install the wifi adapter, connect to their wifi, click yes on their terms of service, and visit this page.

    I leave the following, threatening note: “Gene H.,I know where you keep your adult diapers, and I plan to go there tomorrow night, and rub chili pepper over all of them.

    I then leave the Starbucks, and laughing maniacally, ten miles down the road, and I throw the new wifi adapter into the ocean.

    So Inspector Retǻrd, how exactly is that post not anonymous?


  568. Bron said:

    Slarti:

    I know what the word means, it doesnt mean what it used to mean if that is what you mean.

    By the way liberals used to believe in free markets.

    I believe strongly in the free market – if things are properly priced. In the thread that was hijacked by the 9/11 discussion I was making a free market argument. Namely, that the way to control pollution is to tax it (i.e. put a price on it so that the free market can properly value it). I maintain that the free market totally ignores anything without a price on it (and regulation designed to make companies do things for no financial benefit is always inefficient and usually ineffective – witness CAFE standards). Here’s a hypothetical: Suppose that anyone who cared to could make $1 million by putting arsenic in your well and that it was perfectly legal to do this (it is perfectly legal to do this sort of thing and worse, by the way…). Suppose further that there was no cost to doing so (as there is currently no cost to corporations who devalue our shared and private assets via pollution). Do you think it would be safe to drink from your well? What if a tax were introduced that imposed a $100K fine on arsenic dumping that doubled every year. Do you think that would eventually result in clean water again? What if the funds raised were used for cleanup? Would companies keep dumping arsenic until the went out of business or would they find other ways to make money? If a company who’s sole purpose was to make money by arsenic dumping went out of business, would that be a bad thing for society?

    You’re not for the free market – you’re for a market which is biased towards corporations, not consumers (and you’re against informed consumers as well, according to your comments here).

    Also did you know you are a little late to the party in regards to web scraping? You can buy them on-line. I just got mine, it is amazing what you can find out with it.

    You still don’t get it do you? I don’t care about the data I scraped – if I just wanted the data I would have bought a scraper myself. I wanted to learn how to make a web scraper myself – what can be done, what’s easy, what’s hard, and what’s impossible. The prize here wasn’t my code or my database, but the knowledge I gained.

    I figure if you have one, my side needs one to, mutually assured junk mail.

    Knock yourself out – but I’ve done my experiment and

    Now I know how Reagan felt in Reykjavik. :)

    Sorry, I don’t get the reference (remember I was 11 when Regan was elected – I cared about Legos much more than politics at the time… then I discovered girls).

    You’re an extremist Bron (and a hypocritical one at that, since you don’t want a free market, you want a market biased towards corporations) – as in most cases, the best solutions is not an extreme, but a blend of different systems in appropriate places. The Founding Fathers understood this – that’s why we’re a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy – and certainly not the plutocracy that following your philosophy would result in….

    anon Quixotic,

    You keep talking about how Professor Turley is a civil libertarian and implying that I’m violating people’s civil liberties – here’s how my dictionary defines civil liberties:

    civil liberty
    noun
    the state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community, esp. with regard to freedom of action and speech.
    • ( civil liberties) individual rights protected by law from unjust governmental or other interference.

    As I am not an arm of the government, I fail to see how I could possibly violate someone’s civil liberties?

    As for anonymity:

    anonymous |əˈnänəməs|
    adjective
    (of a person) not identified by name; of unknown name : the anonymous author of Beowulf | the donor’s wish to remain anonymous | an anonymous phone call.

    Since no one I “outed” was identified by name (or email address), I couldn’t have violated anyone’s anonymity.

    Looks like for all of your pathetic whining, I haven’t done the horrible things you’ve accused me of. What does that make you? I’d say it makes you a lying POS, but maybe that’s just me – or maybe you’re just an incompetent moron who doesn’t know what he’s talking about…


  569. Woosty remains feline,

    Now I’m scared again…


  570. Note: just to make it clear, in real life, I actually do not know where Gene keeps his adult diapers, and I do not plan on rubbing chili pepper on them. That was not a real threat up above, but merely a hy-po-the-ti-cal to provide Gene an example to work with.


  571. @Kevin Kesseler, Ph.D.,

    I don’t believe I’ve ever said you violated anyone’s civil liberties. If I am wrong, certainly you, a Scientist, can point that out to me.

    I said your undisclosed web scraping and exploitation of a privacy leak violated the trust of the community, and were possibly against WordPress’ Terms of Service and potentially illegal (depending on the prosecutor.)

    I pointed out how the WordPress / Gravatar bug is serious and allows the use of an email address which was promised not to be published to be published in an encoded manner that allows disparate emails all around the web to be identified as to author.

    I pointed out how *that* means the Gravatar bug is serious and can be used to break anonymity,

    And that regardless, you would almost never have been given permission by Professor Turley to do this, had you asked him ahead of time.

    In return at various times, you have denied the privacy leak is a privacy leak. You have justified your acts as okay because they were technically feasible. You have claimed your building of your database was an act providing value to the community which we should all thank you for. And you have said your little privacy raid was nothing compared to the big kids and therefore okay as well.

    Oh, and I also in a fake email address implied I had anonymous carnal relations your mother. That part was true. You told me should was dead, and I admit, I still don’t understand what difference that made.


  572. Registering for a WordPress blog like this one, and registering a Gravitar is two entirely different operations with different risk levels. Anyone old enough to be allowed out of the house without adult supervision should know that.

    The information box on WordPress blogs tells you that your email information is kept private. That is a true statement of fact.

    If you click on the avatar box and the Gravitar site pops up, it also explains the privacy limits of using their proprietary product. You do NOT have to have a Gravitar to blog here. If you choose to use the Gravitar service, the terms of service and privacy statements explain exactly what that means.

    Now, all who do not understand that need to go back inside and tell Mommy and Daddy that you have been out in the big wide world, found it to be too scary and want them to protect you.


  573. “I take my year old laptop runing windows 7 and that adapter and drive to a starbucks 20 miles away — I confess I live in the 5th largest city in the united states a land locked desert hellhole of 4 million sprawled over 250 square miles.”

    Driving and walking past how many public and private time stamped security cameras on the way?

    Your powers of invisibility are only in your mind.

    If you want to be invisible to society? Don’t use phones or Internet and live in a cave in the woods never venturing forth for supplies, living on spring water, cave lichens and bugs. Your lack of understanding of Locard’s principle is truly an amazing thing.


  574. To the worthless POS anon Quixotic,

    You are a lying moron who does nothing but willfully misinterpret my words.


  575. Re: Locard’s principle:

    A few years ago I became aware of a case that illustrated how that worked perfectly. The local police crime scene investigators were summoned to a location where a crime had taken place. They gathered their evidence, and uncovered 27 clues, but no real leads to the perpetrator.

    In the course of the investigation, it was discovered a Federal crime had taken place. The FBI was summoned and their own crime scene investigators went over the site. They found 155 clues, leading to the arrest of the perpetrator.

    Once again, I refer our dear readers to watch an episode of the TV reality show, “Mantracker.” It is like watching an instruction manual on how easy it is if you know what you are looking for.


  576. P.S.: Gravitars are not a “bug” as claimed repeatedly in the thread above. Gravitars are a service. You sign up for it, hopefully after reading the terms of service and privacy notice. You are warned and have no reason to claim it is a privacy leak “bug.” It’s not.


  577. @OS,

    THE BUG AND PRIVACY LEAK have NOTHING to do with signing up for a gravatar account.

    I have stated this repeatedly.

    The leak affects EVERYONE that visits here, even if they have never used Gravatar at all.


  578. “Driving and walking past how many public and private time stamped security cameras on the way?”

    You’re such a troll.

    How do the inspectors know which car or person on their cameras made the post about rubbing chili pepper into your adult diapers?


  579. anon, do you know that for a fact? If so, how do you know unless you have been mining for data yourself?


  580. Thirdly, if you go to ANY blog, you will find it leaky as a sieve. And just what is your interest in keeping malignant sockpuppets and zombies from being investigated and revealed using publicly available knowledge, provided one knows how to do the investigation.

    Somebody’s ox is being gored here, and it ain’t mine.


  581. —-”The two women exchanged the kind of glance women use when no knife is handy.”** Blouise, how nice to see you this morning dear, you’re up early.” (lotta)

    ———————————————————————-

    And now you have just scared every male on this blog out of his ever-lovin’ mind! Hell, let’s skip the cleaning part and just eat cake! (Blouise)

    ——————————————————————–

    this is sooooo sexycool….. I was thinking I wasn’t going to learn anything new today… (Wootsy)

    ————————————————————————————

    This comment will also have an affect on every man reading the blog – it just wont scare them… (Slarti)

    ——————————————————————————-

    fear is overated and under-efficient …. (Wootsy)

    ——————————————————————————–

    Woosty remains feline, Now I’m scared again… (Slarti)

    ———————————————————————————

    The women give each other a knowing smile … :)


  582. on 1, September 30, 2011 at 9:40 pm Anonymously Yours

    anon,

    Because they can see….Watch out for the bow tie….


  583. “anon, do you know that for a fact? If so, how do you know unless you have been mining for data yourself?”

    Yes, it’s true, Gene wears adult diapers for fun.


  584. Woosty, … my apologies for continuing typos


  585. anon
    1, September 30, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    Simple way to be anonymous on the Internet
    1. Goto starbucks.
    2. Attach to their wifi
    3. Make your post
    Repeat 1-3, rinse, cycling on Starbucks, Burger King, Culvers, McDonalds, Barnes & Noble, Mall food zoos, airports, libraries….
    ==========================================================

    you should remember that while at these locations you are most likely under video surveillance.


  586. Blouise,

    That’s it – I’m getting out of here before I end up cleaning out someone’s attic or basement…

    Take care (don’t worry, I’ll be back from time to time… ;-)).


  587. @Otteray Scribe:

    anon, do you know that for a fact? If so, how do you know unless you have been mining for data yourself?

    Visit the links I posted above. It is explained the bug report ticket I posted.

    What happens is the code for this page or any wordpress page takes the email address you type into the email field and creates an MD5 hash of it.

    An MD5 hash is a long string that is almost (but not quite) unique specific to your email address.

    So for instance if your email address that you type in, expecting it to NOT be published is otteray_scribe@gmail.com, the MD5 hash of it is:

    73a1531a49c3f638b7a502ec70d5e896

    That will be unique. Visit ANY gravatar page anywhere in known space that you have posted on and you will find that (almost) unique string 73a1531a49c3f638b7a502ec70d5e896 right next to your post.

    @OS, if in your browser, you view the source to this page, you will find the string “3419571b4b0e49e2b526d4d45caa67f8″. That’s an Md5 hash of your email address. And right near that string it will have your username Otteray Scribe

    Go to this link http://md5-hash-online.waraxe.us/ and enter the email address you use here. The result will be “3419571b4b0e49e2b526d4d45caa67f8″

    Now go to any other gravatar enabled blog and add a comment. Use the same email address. If you want, use a different username.

    Then look at that source to the page, and it too will have the string 3419571b4b0e49e2b526d4d45caa67f8

    That’s the web bug tracking effect of Gravatar.

    It has nothing to do with being logged into Gravatar. But it lets people track you through your email address contrary to what people expect when they see the words “Not published”


  588. @Pete,

    “you should remember that while at these locations you are most likely under video surveillance.”

    I’m sitting at a starbucks, back to the wall, computer screen facing the wall, there are 5 other people there using computers, some with their backs to the wall, some with their computer screen in open view.

    It’s 12pm.

    After visiting random websites for a random amount of time, while others are coming and going and using the net in the Starbucks, I type in my note threatening Gene H’s collection of adult diapers. After that, I drink my espresso, visit a few more sites and leave.

    Later that day across the planet, Gene feels threatened and call up his dad who runs the combined NSA/FBI/CIA joint task force. He explains carefully to them that I have just threatened to cross the streams so they pull up WordPress’ logs with their backdoor, and find the IP address I used which they are quickly able to determine belongs to a Starbucks in Denver.

    They then enter AT&T’s networks because they have the backdoor, and use the administrative password to check out its router logs, and sure enough, they find an http request to the jonathan turley blog. So they know I was there and they know my internal IP address, and from Wordress’ log they know what browser I was using and that I was running Windows.

    So from there they know where I was and what time I was there.

    From there they hack into Starbuck’s security cameras and looking into the lobby they see 5-20 people, 5 of whom are using laptops. 3 others iphones and one a mac.

    They zoom in and 2 of the laptop users are on facebook the entire time, and the other three, including me, they can’t tell what we’re doing because our screens do not face the camera.

    However, by examining arm movements, they can tell that I and I alone press enter at precisely the time that the message threatening to destroy Gene’s diapers has been entered.

    It’s ME! And they have a photograph.

    They now switch to the security cameras in the parking lot and they follow me to my panel van. Now they enhance enhance enhance pan left, zoom back, track right enhance, and that’s it! THEY GOT MY LICENSE PLATE.

    Shortly after that they capture me just as I was crossing the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge with 2 tons of chili pepper crammed in the back of my van about to release it into an adult diaper laundering facility!!!

    And so Pete, what you and Gene are saying is that I am not anonymous on the Internet because we live in a police state in the real world and there are cameras everywhere that the guys down at CTU can hack into.

    Okay, yes, given that cameras are everywhere in the real world, we are never anonymous on the internet.

    Now coming back from planet Pete, can you specifically tell me how my post will be tracked to me in real life?


  589. What I’m saying is that you leave a trail of evidence everywhere you go in both meatspace and cyberspace, that the trail can be connected given resources and time, and your idea that you’re truly anonymous on the Internet is simply delusional. Personally, I’m waiting for you to get the idea you can fly or leap tall buildings in a single bound in addition to being invisible. Also, concerning your apparent obsession with spicy adult diapers, the next time you visit your therapist you might want to mention your pica is acting up again.


  590. And with that, let’s have a bit of Leadbelly.


  591. What I’m saying is that you leave a trail of evidence everywhere you go in both meatspace and cyberspace, that the trail can be connected given resources and time, and your idea that you’re truly anonymous on the Internet is simply delusional. Personally, I’m waiting for you to get the idea you can fly or leap tall buildings in a single bound in addition to being invisible. Also, concerning your apparent obsession with spicy adult diapers, the next time you visit your therapist you might want to mention your pica is acting up again.

    Yes, and once more you are wrong.

    And you counter specific facts and specific situations with vague generalities, and on those you are proven wrong time after time after time.

    So we can’t anonymously post on the Internet because we live in a video surveillance state that has cameras everywhere and that’s why it’s okay for Kevin Kesseler, Ph.D to scrape this website and build an anonymity destroying database and not face the condemnation of the other members of the community.

    Okay then dickless, I use I2P to connect to TOR from my home. How am I caught then?


  592. OK, now you have done it. I am sending for the heavy artillery. Memphis Minnie is gonna go Hoodoo Lady on you.


  593. “Yes, and once more you are wrong.”

    I realize you think that and you’re entitled to your opinions no matter how delusional they might be.

    Now say good night, Irene.


  594. Gene, I think I have about had it too. I interviewed fourteen police officers this afternoon. I get tired of the willfully ignorant and deliberately obtuse and I know you do too. Additionally, when you have spent the day talking to a substantial subset of a law enforcement agency, that does leave one’s sense of humor on life support.

    G’nite all. May there be a brighter day tomorrow.


  595. anon-

    I warn you against attempting to hack into my 1955 Muntz. And stay the hell away from my Betamax. I have bobcats, you know. Badass bobcats with rabies and paranoia.


  596. “Which one are you? I am in the latter.”

    Bron,

    So nice to see your return. As for Heinlein, he unlike Rand was a writer of enormous talent and range. However, he didn’t have Rand’s pretensions that he was a political/economic philosopher, yet he was of libertarian bent. Much of that do to his own personal sexual exploration and his rightful annoyance with government intrusion into sexuality. He was most definitely a writer of great fiction.

    To write fiction is to create a fantasy world, constructed from the writer’s inner fantasy life. All people with reasonable self-esteem have an inner fantasy life that makes them the hero of their own life story. The fantasy’s of successful writers, both were, create sales because their fantasies resonate with many. Both Heinlein (with skill) and Rand tapped into the
    American cult of the singular man, rising by dint of his own qualities to a status superior to his fellow humans. They were inheritors of Alger, but with more consistency. The problem is that no one individual rises on his own, without some support from the surrounding society. However, I can understand why you and many others would sustain that fantasy because it rationalizes their own self-serving actions, creates an enemy blame their own failures on and allows them the self-delusion that they made it on their own. Donald Trump is the most famous purveyor of this self delusion today.

    For myself I would prefer to see the world as it is, rather then imprint my own ideal fantasy upon it,


  597. Since unfortunately I have had so much to do with the impetus for sidetracking this thread I feel that in the spirit of my holiday past I should bring some closure. This will be my last comment on this thread, because unfortunately what was a quite good and pertinent post by Raff was taken in an unfortunate direction, no doubt turning off quite a few new voices in the process. Capt. J., for instances, leading his men in a dangerous place must have viewed what ensued after his measured comments, with disgust and disaffection. If so that is our loss here as I think he would have made quite valuable contributions in the future.

    My computer system has been swept by a computer technician I had to bring in and I was also given the tools to sweep it on my own by the generous dint of a security expert. In neither event, it turns out, was there any evidence of my system being hacked. However, while that has been a relief to myself and my wife, I’m still not quite certain that it wasn’t done.
    While the most reasonable explanation, given the expert intervention, is that the dual personae of NL & NW merely were cyber “stalking” myself and my wife, which in itself is very creepy, it is still not clear to me how “they” would refer to the only 3 pictures in my “My Pictures” directory. I assume that “My Pictures” is ubiquitous with Windows because so many people build up a collection of photos. I imagine that i’m among the few who does not and so the “guess” at what was contained there seems to indeed be an extremely lucky one, or perhaps one informed by knowledge.

    In either event, threatening someone who writes here seems to me to have gone beyond the bounds of decency and should lead the person threatening to deserved consequences. This is especially true when one considers the topic of this thread which is “gun control” and the fact that there are many crazy people out there on the Net. Beyond that we all know that “identity theft” in all its permutations has become rife today and so the suggestion that one has hacked someones PC is a dire one, that is not befitting of this forum, or indeed any others on line.

    Anon,

    Your actions are somewhat suspect to me. You have consistently taken part in an effort to denigrate and cause suspicions about the “guest posters” here, most often in highly disparaging terms. While you seem to profess admiration for Prof. Turley and his blog, your words and arguments definitely call into question whether your are evincing “respect” or merely trying to sow disruption. This seems particularly on point because Mespo, Rafflaw and myself have been here for a long time and the balance have not only been here for years, but have made extraordinary contributions. Since we in effect go along with the Turley Territory my conclusion is that your purposes are to disrupt the proceedings. That you would disrupt, is not by itself a suggestion of bad faith on your part and could merely be your measured opinion. It is my personal belief though that your agenda is somewhat less than one of sensibility and more one of purposeful
    creation of disharmony and disaffection and below I will use your own writing to display what I see as your duplicity.

    [Anon]
    “I leave the following, threatening note: “Gene H.,I know where you keep your adult diapers, and I plan to go there tomorrow night, and rub chili pepper over all of them.”

    Context is everything. While this was addressed to Gene, I think in context considering the dismay and upset caused to my self and my wife, this was an ironic way of trivializing our feelings about what happened here. However, that alone is not evidence enough so let us look at some other examples of dis-ingenuousness from this thread.

    [Anon]
    “I never said I worked with Feynman. Student, not colleague. He wouldn’t have known me from Adam if you had asked.

    This Anon is quite frankly bullshit. You definitely implied knowing Feynman and did so to increase your credibility in your silly argument with Kevin. Because somehow you claim might be dis-proven you backtracked when challenged.

    [Anon]
    “Also, I may have misled you, I do have heart issues, and have required (too many) open heart surgeries, but nothing yet to suggest I need a transplant. My interest in transplantcafe is that it is good and interesting to see a great support community.”

    Not only did you mislead me about your heart issues, but did so in a duplicitous manner. You knew well that NW used a rather weak reason for visiting TransplantCafe, interest in my health, as a means of justifying where his other self NL, might have gotten the information about the photos. TransplantCafe is strictly a resource used by the Transplant Community. It is certainly not a large, well-known site, with many visitors who are merely curious. To access photos on its’ blog, as I had explained prior to the comment where you wrote this, one would have to register. As for your wanting to know about it for future reference I had already suffered 3 MI’s, had all major arteries blocked,
    and had had disabling CHF for five years before a cardiologist even mentioned the possibility of transplant to me. When he did, I was shocked that that could even be an option for me. With what you describe yourself as having you are not anywhere near the transplant ballpark and I suspect you know it.

    Now here is where your disingenuousness really shows::

    [Anon wrote that I definitely said the Koch Bros. were behind the attempt to disrupt this blog]

    “Mike S, said, yes, definitely Koch.”

    As proof of the above he quoted me but dishonestly, cropping my words:

    “A concerted effort was being made to disrupt each thread and thereby cause the topic to become unfocused. Since the days of Richard Nixon “dirty tricks” this has been the skill and the trade of various paid members of the Corporatists. The Koch Bros.” {omitting} “ALEC Project is but an example.”

    Anon, I don’t know who in hell you are and frankly I could care less. I don’t consider you a troll and do consider you a regular. However, like most regulars here, including myself, you have an agenda. Unlike my agenda and that of many other regulars, yours has been quite murky. I think that for whatever reasons your agenda is one of disruption and negativity towards many here. Have at it, I say, this is a place for free expression from all venues of thought. That being said I think that you have been insulting and you have purposely defamed many who write here including myself and at this point I have no need to comment further on this thread.


  598. Mike:

    I have had help from people but they didnt have to help me, they werent forced to help me.

    When I as in college I had 3 very well paying good jobs, I got them by writing letters and taking a bit of risk by going to the state in which one was located and saying I received your letter and here I am. I was hired.

    That job led to the other 2, one from a complete stranger who took a chance on some kid writing him a letter. The third was because I had some experience from the other 2. You could say I made my own luck.

    I see the world exactly as it is and have no illusions about my abilities or how well I could do in a different economy. I would probably do about the same, the only difference being I would have a little more money in my pocket.

    The left always thinks that if someone is wealthy they had all kinds of help or it was merely luck. I would say that is pretty delusional. I didnt see you helping me when I used to work 16 hours a day and 8 on Saturday and 4 on Sunday for almost 10 years to get to the point where I could relax a bit. I didnt see Slarti help me with medical expenses and I didnt see Buddha is Laughing giving me free legal advice.

    I havent achieved what I wanted to, but that is my fault not societies and not our current tax systems. Although I could have used the money I spent in taxes for additional equipment or to hire one more worker. Which would have helped not only me but the equipment producer and the worker that didnt get hired. But all in all it depends on how smart you are, how hard you are willing to work and how much you want to be successful. At least that is what I have figured out. Luck has a small part to play and so does getting a break from a stranger.

    But then had I not taken the course of study I took and had I not had other jobs that I could place on a resume to show these strangers that I was willing to work, they may not have hired me.

    You say I am deluded, fine. I have health issues too but my friends didnt abandon me, quite the contrary, they help me any time I ask and gladly. I consider myself lucky to have such caring people as friends. I wonder what that says about you and what that says about me since you have said your friends didnt hang around during your time of need?

    You really dont get it, maybe someday you will.

    By the way Trump started out with a 50 million dollar option on a property, a rich father and a business degree from Wharton. He is now a multi-billionaire with 3 fine children who he is grooming to take over the business.

    How many people who started with those advantages are now billionaires and how many are broke and how many are, like the Kennedy’s, doing nothing and living on daddy’s money?

    Trump admits he was born into the lucky sperm club. I have heard him say it, but he took that lucky start and has multiplied it more than most can or would have. I think he has earned it at this point.

    2 differing views of reality Mike, mine and yours. From what I can see around me, you guys on the left are the ones who are wearing tinted lenses on your glasses and have no understanding of the human soul.


  599. Bron,

    Filing for corporate bankruptcy more than once helped Trump hold onto his fortune. I believe he makes most of his money by selling the Trump name. He is indeed a very successful self promoter.

    *****

    Lots of people work hard…lots have more than one job. Some people–no matter how hard they work–still struggle to achieve/maintain a middle class life style.

    One has to wonder where Trump would be today if he didn’t belong to the “lucky sperm club.”


  600. Mike S,

    I have been accurate the entire time, and actually very polite towards you and your numerous misreadings and misunderstandings of what I wrote.

    For example, regarding heart issues, I wrote specifically this:

    Also, on a completely unrelated note, I was surprised, saddened, glad to learn of your heart issues. And interested to learn about transplant cafe. I’m not where you are, but I think I’ll be getting open heart #3 soon, and that’s due to a birth defect and apparently a body just really annoyed with the various replacement valves.”

    READ THAT MIKE.

    It says:

    1. I am not where you are.
    2. I’ll be getting open heart #3 soon.
    3. That’s due to a birth defect and apparently a body really annoyed.
    4. ANNOYED WITH WHAT MIKE?
    5. REPLACEMENT VALVES.

    Mike, what is the most common congenital heart defect, and the fix for that?

    The two anomalies in the above is that I say “glad” and I express an interest in transplant cafe, and when asked, what do I say?

    “My interest in transplantcafe is that it is good and interesting to see a great support community.”

    And actually my dad founded a support community for his rare disease in the offline days of ditto machines.

    Which is why I have an interest in support communities, and am glad you found a good one.

    Since in my profession, I have helped develop software to create forums (like this one) and online communities, like transplantcafe, and since I’ve had my own health issues including “I’ll be getting open heart #3 soon”, can you understand why I am interested in support communities for heart issues?

    Mike, you have read and misread and misunderstood and misconstrued and thought suspiciously about practically everything about me in this thread.

    I can’t help that. That speaks to your issues. It quite literally speaks to nothing I have written, as I have provided links and explanations of almost everything I’ve said.

    I think you and OS are clearly intelligent enough to read links from the wiki and a few other places and verify for yourselves that what I’ve said was true.

    But apparently, not.

    Somewhat shockingly, you took detailed explanations with links attached to them and subordinated them to Gene’s arguments even though Gene provided, mostly, nothing but vague generalities.

    I actually find that interesting to see how supposedly intelligent people will value easily debunked technobabble explanations that come from long known and named sources over accurate and true explanations that come from anonymous and short term acquaintances. Nothing surprising in that, but it is interesting from both an anonymous speech aspect. It’s also an expression of Arthur C. Clarke’s Third Law?

    And then in a discussion of whether someone is anonymous on the internet and could be found a pretty whimsical scenario directed at Gene H WHO HAD BY THEN CALLED ME A PANTS LOAD THREE TIMES.

    What Mike does a PANTS LOAD refer to Mike?

    It refers to having filled your pants with shit. That is, crapping your pants. That is, losing your bowels in your pants. That is, defecating in your pants.

    Well, what would anyone do who has that problem happen to them regularly?

    So I want to provide a humorous scenario of a foul deed that would make Gene and others want to find me. Given that it’s the internet, and way to easy to misconstrue threats, there is no way I’m going to make anything that sounds like a real threat of physical violence.

    Since Gene has been telling people that I regularly crap my pants, well, yeah, I may as well go there and reflect that back onto him, and portray him as having a diaper fetish.

    And the outrageous, clearly not a threat hypothetical was that I was going to rub spicy chili pepper in his diapers.

    Now, again, if you can go from that discussion in which I don’t think you were referred to once, to believing I was mocking you, again, that speaks much more to your issues than anything else.

    The whole world does not revolve around you Mike. Not even this thread, which has careened wildly from one issue to another.

    I’ve been entirely truthful and sincere throughout this thread. I’ve explained my positions repeatedly, and provided links, explanations, and support from other sources.

    Get over yourself Mike, and be well in the New Year.


  601. anon:

    you make a good deal of sense. Are you sure you are a 21st century liberal?


  602. Elaine M:

    So what, is it illegal?

    Dont like the law, change it.

    Trump has many businesses, he doesnt just self promote. But that is a good skill to have in the business world. I had never even heard of the Kochs until a year ago from people on this thread. But I had heard of George Soros, I guess he is also one of the self promoters.


  603. Bron,

    Did I say it was illegal? It’s much easier to make money when you already have money. I still wonder where Trump would be today if he hadn’t been born on third base.

    I didn’t bring up the Kochs or Soros. I have no great love for any of them.

    *****

    More join lawsuit against Donald Trump over failed Tampa tower

    http://beta2.tbo.com/business/breaking-news-business/2010/jan/15/more-join-lawsuit-against-donald-trump-over-failed-ar-55355/

    Excerpt:
    TAMPA —
    Ten more individuals and companies have joined a lawsuit against The Trump Organization and Donald Trump, saying they were duped into investing millions of dollars in the failed Trump Tower Tampa Project. There are now 41 plaintiffs, and they say they purchased because they thought Trump himself was building the property.

    The real developer was SimDag/Robel LLC. Trump leased his name to be used on the project to induce buyers to purchase, according to the lawsuit, which was originally filed in November in Hillsborough County Circuit Court. Because of jurisdictional reasons, the suit has been moved to federal court in Tampa.

    *****

    Donald Trump Sued In New Lawsuit Over Failed Project

    http://www.luxist.com/2010/03/09/donald-trump-facing-new-lawsuit-over-failed-project/

    Looks like the saga of the failed Trump Ocean Resort Baja is far from over. Radar Online has documents that show a new lawsuits has recently been filed by seven investors in the project. The individuals sued not just Donald Trump but his children, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump and others saying they were ” duped into buying hotel-condominium units that were never built.” The plaintiffs have asked for punitive damages of no less than $10 million dollars.

    The lawsuit details the many ways that the plaintiffs feel like they were swindled by Trump. They were led to believe that Trump was directly involved when instead it was a licensing deal. The lawsuit produces evidence including newspaper stories to prove that the project was widely known as a Trump project and that Ivanka Trump and Donald J. Trump, Jr. attended key sales events for the project and announced that they would be purchasing units in the project.

    What was to be a 526-suite luxury project with a spa, swimming pool, restaurants and shops has instead turned into an abandoned excavation site with six cement pads sitting on it. The lawsuit papers say that Trump and the developer Irongate did not have financing and construction permits approved before the sales and that the site itself had contamination and mold issues. There is also an allegation that certain “favored” buyers were allowed to purchase without a deposit while others including the plaintiffs were forced to tender hefty sums before purchase.

    Last year after a first lawsuit in which investors sued Donald Trump and Los Angeles developer Irongate Wilshire over the failure of the Trump Ocean Resort Baja Mexico, Trump filed a lawsuit of his own. His lawsuit accessed Irongate Wilshire’s principals of not following through on the plans for the five-star resort which bore his name. At that time Trump claimed that he was “unfairly targeted” by the buyers’ lawsuit because he was not a developer of the project but the latest lawsuit does indicate that his family’s involvement may have gone deeper than a name.


  604. Donald Trump: Not As Great A Businessman As He Claims To Be

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/donald-trump-not-as-great-a-businessman-as-he-claims-to-be/

    Excerpt:
    Ed Morrissey notes that Donald Trump’s actual business history isn’t quite as great as he likes to pretend:

    Trump’s Taj Mahal casino had to go through bankruptcy, which cost Trump half of the casino. The Trump Plaza Hotel next went through bankruptcy, which caused him to lose 49% of the hotel and resign from its management. Two years ago, Trump Entertainment Resorts filed for Chapter 11, and in 2008 his Trump International Tower in Chicago defaulted on a $40 million loan. In response, Trump blamed the global economic collapse and tried to have it declared an Act of God to relieve himself of responsibility for the default.

    That’s not exactly a great track record for a chief executive. It’s worth noting that his own investors have booted him from management at these holdings after his risk-taking and failures.

    *****

    Donald Trump’s Scam School Gets Sued

    http://gawker.com/5530699/donald-trumps-scam-school-gets-sued


  605. Elaine,
    Thanks for the links.


  606. Bron,

    This is why you are completely wrong:

    “I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,'” Warren said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.

    “You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.

    “Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”1

    Hopefully Elizabeth Warren will win back Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat from Scott Brown next year (she just entered the race and is already the frontrunner). Personally, I think that the best chance for our country lies in electing her president in 2016…


  607. Slarts,
    You may be right about Warren in 2016!


  608. I’m not sure anymore Bron. I used to snark at Ann Althouse and others that would say how they didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left them. Now, I feel my ears burn.

    [rant on]

    This is one of the most dysfunctional web communities I’ve encountered.

    I cannot believe the antics they support and defend in the name of fighting the Koch Brothers and the Tea Partiers and sniffing out the evil doers and this blog’s axis of evil and double agents.

    I was out with my daughter today when it struck me, so I looked online, and sure enough I found that a famous documentary was made in 1960 about this very blog, and in it, right there is our charming rogue’s gallery. Mike S is there. Otteray Scribe is there. Kevin Kesseler’s there. Gene’s there.

    Sadly, I could not find it on youtube, but here it is:

    http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/7051963

    @Mike, you’re not the iconoclast you think you are. My constant reading of you gives me the impression of a standard, and cliched trope. So if you want to find the monsters at this blog, look in a mirror.

    Mike S, don’t start
    telling me who’s dangerous and who isn’t and
    who’s safe and who’s a menace. (He turns to
    the group and shouts.) And you’re with him,
    too—all of you! You’re standing here all set
    to crucify—all set to find a scapegoat—all
    desperate to point some kind of a finger at a
    neighbor! Well now, look, friends, the only thing
    that’s gonna happen is that we’ll eat each other
    up alive—

    Sure Mike, I’m an alien monster from outerspace for pointing out the theories here about newcomers to the blog, about sockpuppets, about conservatives, about tea partiers, about the Koch Brothers are at times nonsensical, bigoted, contrary to known science and engineering and beyond the pale. Because my brain still works, even when the power was turned off in yours.

    By the way Mike, ask Gene, it’s Retard Gene’s principle that says you were not hacked. Personally, I don’t believe in Retard Gene’s principle in cyberspace, and think it’s certainly the case you may have been hacked, but then, I have an agenda… Don’t I Mike. So don’t call out me for mocking you, it’s been Gene with his Retard Principle that has been laughing at you this entire time. Or maybe, Gene doesn’t know shit.

    So it can’t be I simply disagree with you, Mike. You’ve found a pattern, and I must be a monster.

    Figure One. Understand the procedure now?
    Just stop a few of their machines and radios
    and telephones and lawn mowers. . . . Throw
    them into darkness for a few hours, and then
    just sit back and watch the pattern.
    Figure Two. And this pattern is always the same?
    Figure One. With few variations. They pick
    the most dangerous enemy they can find . . .
    and it’s themselves. And all we need do is sit
    back . . . and watch.
    Figure Two. Then I take it this place . . .
    this Maple Street . . . is not unique.
    Figure One (shaking his head ). By no means.
    Their world is full of Maple Streets. And we’ll
    go from one to the other and let them destroy
    themselves. One to the other . . . one to the
    other . . . one to the other—
    Scene Three
    (The camera slowly moves up for a shot of the starry
    sky, and over this we hear the Narrator’s voice.)
    Narrator. The tools of conquest do not necessarily
    come with bombs and explosions and
    fallout. There are weapons that are simply
    thoughts, attitudes, prejudices—to be found
    only in the minds of men. For the record,
    prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy.
    A thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat
    has a fallout all its own for the children . . .
    and the children yet unborn, (a pause) and
    the pity of it is . . . that these things cannot
    be confined to . . . The Turley Blog

    It’s vile and disgusting how well this episode mirrors so many threads at this blog, and right wingers had nothing to do with that. Our favorite regulars are the ones that keep rewriting this script.

    Take your theories of the Koch Brothers and Evil Hackers and evil Tea Partiers and Retard Gene’s Principle and shove them up your ass.

    [rant off]


  609. There must be a leaky faucet somewhere. I hear a drip.


  610. Otteray,

    Imagine that–a documentary made about this blog in 1960. Professor Turley must be a master of time travel!

    ;)


  611. http://www.alternet.org/story/152573/suspicious_department_of_justice_denies_guns_to_medical_marijuana_patients%2C_and_the_nra_is_silent/

    you can take oxycotin and still carry but if you’re a cancer patient and have trouble keeping your weight up you’re at the mercy of the evildoers.


  612. Elaine,

    Oh my god – Professor Turley is THE DOCTOR!


  613. He did it with neutrinos.


  614. Neutrinos. Not just for breakfast anymore.


  615. Elaine M:

    “I still wonder where Trump would be today if he hadn’t been born on third base.”

    Where he is today with maybe a few less dollars in his bank account maybe he would only be worth 1 billion instead of 2.7 billion. Or maybe he would just be a guy worth 600 million. He would still be rich.


  616. on 1, October 2, 2011 at 11:38 am Anonymously Yours

    Bron,

    I think the point is being missed by you…I think maybe it is being said….What if Trump had not been born into a very wealthy New York Real Estate Family…..say he had been born in Harlem or Cabrini-Green…….

    Maybe…something like he actually had to think of a way to make money….rather than the family way?


  617. Bron,

    How do you know that Trump would be rich today if he had not been born into a wealthy family?


  618. AY:

    And I think you dont understand America. There are many people who rise out of devastating poverty through shear force of will alone. A man like Trump would have done it in spite of his surroundings, maybe he wouldnt have risen as far, but he would still be a rich man.

    And many people rise out of poverty and do other things as well.


  619. Elaine M;

    how do you know he wouldnt be?

    To some people you started on third base. Did you have 2 parents? Did they own their own home?

    If you did then compared to some you started on third base.


  620. Without the advantages of his birth, Trump would have ended up a used car salesman or a pimp. The same thing he is now, just on a smaller scale.


  621. Gene,

    Do you think Trump is ethical enough to be a used car salesman?

    ;)


  622. Elaine,

    Ehhhh . . . probably not.


  623. Bron,

    What are the odds of a person from the ghetto becoming rich? What are the odds of a person born on third base becoming richer? It seems to me that you are saying that Trump would have been part of a 1 in a million group* (conservatively) had he been born to a poor family in Detroit, say, because he was part of a 1 in 10 group** (pessimistically)? I call bullshit on that and I don’t think you are dumb enough to truly believe it either.

    * People born poor who have become rich

    ** People born rich who have become richer


  624. Slarti:

    who pays the most in taxes in this country? the Top 10%.

    I also say that since you guys charge a gas tax to pay for roads the people who use them the most are paying for them.

    And schools? if they were private they would be less money and individuals would be paying for them. And she wouldnt be able to say that. Most people are forced to go to a public school because they cannot afford a private one because of taxes.

    Police protection is a valid function of government and so is the military and that is what taxes should be used for.

    The social contract is not a contract to give up your liberty which is what Warren and people like her insist on.

    It is all about control with people like Warren. God same us from people who think they are smarter than the combined intelligence of 300 million people acting in their own best interest.


  625. “The social contract is not a contract to give up your liberty which is what Warren and people like her insist on.”

    That’s exactly what the social contract is – group of people band together and agree to limit absolute individual liberties in exchange for mutually derived social benefits administered through the forms of laws and governance. There is a word for an absolutely free state of total individual liberty and that word is “anarchy”.


  626. It works both ways Slarti. A good many people born rich see their fortunes reduced. Think Kennedys.

    Lots of dirt poor people rise out of poverty in this country. Use to happen more before all this progressive crap started but it still happens.

    How many people born into the middle class become rich? It isnt easy to do no matter what your station in life.

    How many people born rich increase their fortunes vs lose it all or a portion?

    You are an extremist in your views and surely arent dumb enough to believe what you write.


  627. Who knew that being mathematically correct was a form of extremism?


  628. Bron,

    You’re dead wrong about Elizabeth Warren – she’s been a tireless advocate for consumers and understands economics better that 99.99% of Americans.

    Richard Feynman pointed out (in his autobiography) that he’s smarter that the AVERAGE of 100 engineers – similarly, Ms. Warren is far smarter than the average of 300 million people who are acting in their PERCEIVED best interests (which is rarely truly in their best interest).


  629. Gene,

    Sadly rationality is an apparently an extreme position in America these days…


  630. Gene H:

    you dont give up your liberty to enter into a social contract. You give the government some power to protect you from force by others and you submit yourself to an objective rule of law. You do not give up your liberty.

    What Warren and others want is for us to give up our liberty by forcing us to behave in ways that suit her vision and not our own personal vision. She and people like her do not believe in objective law.

    You keep saying I am advocating anarchy, I am not a Libertarian, you are either doing it because you are disingenuous or too stupid to understand the difference. Anon thinks the latter, I believe it is the former.


  631. Slarti:

    do you hear yourself? You just stated that one person has the right to tell a bunch of other people what to do just because they are smarter. I can find a person smarter than Warren and now her view needs to be subordinated to the superior intellect.

    Wow another totalitarian outed.


  632. Bron,

    And you clearly don’t understand the concept of a social contract. You’ve again made up a definition to suit your needs. What you advocate is precisely a path to anarchy.

    As to what you and anon think of me personally? The “Gene Cares What You Think” Ride has minimum age, height, intelligence and rationality requirements. Sadly, neither of you meet the requirements to get on board.


  633. Bron,

    Wow – another straw man from you. How surprising.

    I said Elizabeth Warren was smarter than the average of 300 million people (and, in fact, I think she’s smarter that 99.99% of individual Americans in her specialty). I didn’t say that she should therefore be obeyed mindlessly, but I think we would be wise to listen to people like her when making policy decisions (and hope that she is put in the position of making those decisions herself) – as opposed to people like you.


  634. Why is it that so many men dislike or fear Elizabeth Warren–even some in the Obama administration? WHY? Because she tells people what is actually happening on Wall Street–and she doesn’t let Congress or the bankers intimidate her. She’s a woman to be silenced! She’s my kind of gal.

    I’ll definitely contribute to her campaign and work hard to see that she gets elected to the Senate.


  635. People should be listening to Warren–just like they should have listened to Brooksley Born during the Clinton Administration. Unfortunately, Born was pushed out by the likes of Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, and Alan “The Oracle” Greenspan.


  636. sLARTI:

    “similarly, Ms. Warren is far smarter than the average of 300 million people who are acting in their perceived best interests (which is rarely truly in their best interest).”

    So Warren by implication should be listened to by the “unwashed” masses because we are too stupid to make our own decisions for ourselves and our families.

    I havent laid out a straw man at all. Because given her rhetoric she thinks she is smarter and she thinks she knows what is good for people and god damn it she is going to give us what we should have for our own best interest (as she perceives it to be).

    I think you would go along with that because you think she is right.

    I dont see any straw man there at all. Not even a red herring.

    I think you wish I had laid out a straw man.


  637. Gene H:

    As to what you and Slarti think of me personally? The “Bron Cares What You Think” Ride has minimum age, height, intelligence and rationality requirements. Sadly, neither of you meet the requirements to get on board.


  638. Bron1, October 2, 2011 at 12:57 pm

    Slarti:

    who pays the most in taxes in this country? the Top 10%.
    —————————————————
    would who pays the most in taxes in this country? the Top 10%., be a collective #????
    could you provide that number and your source?

    could you pass the chocolate please……


  639. Gene, Slarti, et al: Looks as if we have another clinical example of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Heh!


  640. NATURAL RIGHTS, Self-government
    and.-Every man. and every body
    of men on earth. possesses the right of self-government.
    They receive it with their being
    from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise
    it by their single will; collections of men
    by that of their majority; for the law of the
    majority is the natural law of every society
    of men. When a certain description of men
    are to transact together a particular business.
    the times and places of their meetinlot and
    separating, depend on their own will; they
    make a part of the natural right of self-government.
    This, like all other natural rights,
    may be abridged or modified in its exercise
    by their own consent. or by the law of those
    who depute them, if they meet in the right
    of others; but as far as it is not abridged
    or modified, they retain it as a natural right,
    and may exercIse them in what form they
    please, either exclusively by themselves, or in
    association with others, or by others altogether,
    as they shall agree.-OFFICIAL OPINION.
    vii, 496. FORD ED., v, 2Olj. (1790.)

    NATURAL BIGHTS, Authority
    over.-our rulers can have * * * authority
    over such natural rights only as we
    have submitted to them.-NoTES ON VIRGINIA.
    viii, 400. FORD ED., iii, 263. (1782.)

    NATURAL RIGHTS, Equal
    Rights va.-No man has a natural right to
    commit aggression on the equal rights of
    another; and this is all from which the laws
    ought to restrain him.-To F. W. GILMER.
    vii, 3. FORD ED., x, 32. (M., 1816.)

    NATURAL BIGHTS, Retention
    of.-The idea is quite unfounded that on entering
    into society we give up any natural
    rights.-To F. W. GILMER. vii, 3. FORD ED.,
    X. 32. (M.. 1816.)

    This guy Jefferson gets it, how come you dont? He says you can change it up as long as you dont infringe on any one’s rights. But that is pretty limiting. So you cannot go all socialist and make people buy national health insurance and you cant tax the piss out them (The DOI says that basically by talking about a right to Life).

    Let me know when you figure out about individual rights and all that implies. Right now you and Slarti are just a couple of intellectual teenagers wanting to save the world at the expense of others. Problem is though, totalitarian societies limit human potential and life for that matter.

    You 2 enjoy your Fascism.


  641. Bron,

    Who pays the most taxes EXPRESSED as a portion of their income? Who pays the least?

    You said:

    Slarti:

    do you hear yourself? You just stated that one person has the right to tell a bunch of other people what to do just because they are smarter. I can find a person smarter than Warren and now her view needs to be subordinated to the superior intellect.

    Wow another totalitarian outed.

    In response to me saying:

    Bron,

    You’re dead wrong about Elizabeth Warren – she’s been a tireless advocate for consumers and understands economics better that 99.99% of Americans.

    Richard Feynman pointed out (in his autobiography) that he’s smarter that the AVERAGE of 100 engineers – similarly, Ms. Warren is far smarter than the average of 300 million people who are acting in their PERCEIVED best interests (which is rarely truly in their best interest).

    Anyone with two functioning brain cells can see that I said absolutely nothing about Ms. Warren having the right to do anything whatsoever, so the question becomes: Are you an idiot or a liar?


  642. Bron,

    Do you realize exactly what a child you look like when you repeat the statements of others in your “I know you are but what am I” mode? Not that I care. Except that it is really, really funny coming from an allegedly grown man.

    An appeal to authority, even when that authority is Jefferson, is still a logical fallacy over proper logic – in this case because it lacks context. Jefferson was a brilliant and great man. He was not perfect. Neither is your copy/paste understanding of him. Jefferson believed that preserving individual liberty as much as possible was essential to the social contract. As our social contract in this country is contained in the Constitution as informed by the Declaration of Independence, you’ve conveniently forgotten Jefferson’s response to a Bill of Rights not being included in the Constitution as drafted by the Convention (from which he was absent). He said in a December 1787 letter to Madison “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.” He did, however, believe in the rule of law. “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.” (Jefferson in a letter to Wilson Nicholas, 1803.) He wanted a way to balance liberties against the rule of law. Now where have I heard an idea like that before? http://jonathanturley.org/2011/09/25/second-amendment-boogey-man/#comment-273212

    You don’t know what fascism is any more than you understand the nature of the social contract – which Jefferson understood far better than you do as evidenced by your superficial cherry picking. He knew the trick was to maximize liberty while maximizing the social benefits of law and governance retained by entering the social contract.

    You acting out like a child saying “Daddy said so!” has absolutely no relevance to finding solutions whatsoever other than as a guide of what not to do, Bron. However, to those capable of rational thought, it does say a lot about you and your Objectivist religion that is the distorting lens by which you look at all things. The prism of “you and you first”. Just like a child. And a spoiled selfish one at that.


  643. “maximizing the social benefits of law and governance retained by entering the social contract.”

    social benefits? Like welfare, social security and socialized medicine? I dont think the founders would have gone along with that.


  644. Slarti:

    “But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

    and how do you do that? It doesnt go to the next kid who comes along, it goes to the old guys and the poor for the most part. And the middle class is so stupid they think the government is giving them benefits when in reality all the government is doing is giving back some of the money it took from them in the first place.

    A small fraction goes to roads, police, and fire. She is a socialist, which is fine just dont blow smoke up my ass and tell me I am on fire.

    Are you a moron or an extremist?

    And no I am not a liar, just expand on what she is proposing and on what you said. It ends up where I have indicated.


  645. Gene H:

    I believe in the rule of law as well. Limited government as was originally intended is the best course.

    I am sorry you are a big government, cradle to grave liberal who thinks the government should handle all sorts of things it was never intended to handle.

    I have a sneeking suspicion Jefferson would be appalled at the state of our government.


  646. Bron,

    I’m sorry you’re for a non-functional government. Size is irrelevant. Functionality is the only test. Big enough to get the job done and no bigger . . . including the job of providing for the general welfare of citizens whether that fits in with your greedy philosophy or not. Our current problem isn’t size of government. It’s non-responsive, malfunctioning government that services only corporate and wealthy interests at the expense of the welfare of the whole. As to Jefferson? He would be appalled without a doubt. Just not for the reasons you think.


  647. Why am I not surprised. Of course the teabaggers and Randians feel that unfettered free markets without regulations will guarantee largesse for the masses. Because the super rich create jobs and have the other 99% best interest at heart.

    Koch Industries Made Illicit Payments, Stole Oil On Federal Land And Lied To Authorities

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html


  648. Great link OS!
    Imagine my shock that the Koch Brothers might have broken the law in order to make more money! :)


  649. raff-

    Ask Bron about the Koch Brothers- they’re right across the room he’s trolling from. He got docked $5.00 yesterday for failing to denounce Federal mining regulations for killing American jobs.


  650. HenMan,
    That is a pretty cheap salary from such wealthy corporate thugs!


  651. Henman:

    Koch has nothing to do with this. One mans troll is another mans sage.

    Like it or not there are 2 trains of thought in this country.


  652. Most people don’t consider unindicted business criminals to be sages.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html

    Ayn Rand. The Koch Brothers.

    Your taste in heroes sucks, but at least it’s consistently selfish and greedy.


  653. Did I mention amoral too?


  654. did I mention your taste in heros really sucks? Marx, Lenin, Mao, Che, Fidel, Pol Pot.

    Did I mention murdering scum? Oh and immoral as well.



  655. Gene,

    Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I can’t think of anyone who exemplifies that more than Bron…


  656. “Did I mention your taste in heros really sucks? Marx, Lenin, Mao, Che, Fidel, Pol Pot.”

    Why are ascribing those heros to anybody on this board?


  657. Why are you ascribing . . . ?


  658. Slarti:

    So being consistent is the mark of a small mind? How exactly is that?


  659. Bron,

    You really should work on your reading comprehension – it sucks. FOOLISH consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds according to Ralph Waldo Emerson. The full quote is:

    “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

    A foolish consistency is exactly what you display – i.e. free market capitalism is always best for everything.


  660. By the way, Bron, misrepresenting my position was a nice way to illustrate the “straw man fallacy” described in the video Otteray Scribe posted… although I’m sure it wasn’t intentional.


  661. To be fair, Bron knows three tricks:

    1) I know you are but what am I
    2) The Straw Man
    3) If you don’t think money and/or egotism are the best things in the world, you must be a Marxist/Fascist/Some Other Word He Doesn’t Know The Meaning Of.


  662. Gene,
    I love Paul Simon! Great choice for this discussion.


  663. raff,

    Not only is that a great song, that’s a Ferrari of backing bands Paul has in that video. Those guys are tight.


  664. Noah,

    Bron tries all of his tricks for the same reason – because he is incapable of attacking ideas on their merits…

    Gene,

    Yeah, but the other two are hardly worth acknowledging – I try to ignore the part of Bron which comes across as a petulant child…

    Bron,

    You said, “One mans troll is another mans sage.”

    Here a definition of “troll” from the urban dictionary:

    troll 3565 up, 582 down
    One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks […] with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

    A man who confuses this sort of person with a sage is a fool.


  665. Slarti:

    “A foolish consistency”

    You believe in big government, I think that is a foolish consistency. It has been demonstrated all over the world as folly. As has socialism been demonstrated a failure except in small pockets.

    We havent had a “free” market for almost a hundred years because of all the government regulation. [free is in quotes because I fully understand there has never been a totaly free market although the 19th century wasnt too bad]

    I think it is foolish to believe a few “elites” are smarter than the combined intelligence of people making decisions for themselves. I agree some people make terrible decisions but that doesnt give you the right to impose your will on everyone else to correct their bad decisions.

    You cannot control an economy and expect a good result, no matter how much you may wish it were so.

    I rarely resort to ad hominem attacks unless attacked. You and Gene see fit to do it on a regular basis. It is rather funny actually.

    When you have an idea that merits a reasoned response, I will respond in kind. Both you and Gene froth at the mouth like rabid dogs for the most part.

    As to straw men? You guys are the masters at that and red herrings as well.

    You and Gene are foolishly consistent as far as I can tell. You are just like me, you believe in your own mind and think you are right. But what you dont understand is that other people have a right to their own beliefs and you would silence those with whom you disagree. I enjoy seeing your side of it and find it interesting even when I disagree.

    You guys think you are right and so would like to silence those of us who believe otherwise. Very KGB of you.

    Maybe you should actually read Emerson’s essay Self Reliance some day soon. ROFLMAO


  666. “If you don’t think money and/or egotism are the best things in the world, you must be a Marxist/Fascist/Some Other Word He Doesn’t Know The Meaning Of.”

    Good straw man there Gene.

    I think freedom/liberty and responsibility are the best things in the world, second only to the love of your friends and family and a new puppies wet nose.

    I want my children growing up free, they arent now because of people like you and Slarti. I wonder if that is because you dont have children? Still in that me, me, me stage that normal people outgrow when they have children.

    You are still a moron even in a nebula.

    Let me know when you finally make it out of intellectual adolescence.


  667. Slarti:

    “A foolish consistency is exactly what you display – i.e. free market capitalism is always best for everything.”

    no dip stick, individual liberty is always best for everything. I’ll type really slow so you can understand:

    human freedom is based on political and economic freedom. You need both to have liberty.

    and please dont bother saying that is anarchy because you are limited by the rights of your neighbor. If you even thought that you are clueless.


  668. Bron, Do you believe there should be no regulations on “the market”?


  669. on 1, October 6, 2011 at 9:25 am Anonymously Yours

    Jo,

    Bron, et al….Thinks that the FDA is a waste of time and costs consumers…The market will run those with bad products out…I think this is what I recall…I may be wrong…but that is and was my understanding…


  670. AY, Yeah I just want a Yea or nay on that so I will understand Bron’s position. I have been reading this post “Second Amendment Boogey Man” since the start . And have become fascinated with it. Emotions running the gamut from amusement to horror. The horror part from the vileness of Libtard. And now I am following this bit by Gene, Slarti and Bron. To know Brons opinion on Regulations on the market will help me follow along better.


  671. on 1, October 6, 2011 at 9:45 am Anonymously Yours

    Well Jo,

    It is I believe….a fairly tale world…Honest Businesses will survive….bad ones will go under…The Koch’s will do right….and if they didn’t get charged with theft of oil from the government….they must not have done anything illegal…Tariffs stifle competition…and people are only unemployed because they want to be…and The Donald would be rich today….even if he had not been born to wealth….My thoughts…he’d be behind bars for mortgage fraud or a something else…I do not think that he is smart enough to have run a Ponzi scheme this long…but I am skeptical…


  672. Jo:

    it is perfectly acceptable in my opinion to have objective rules.

    Setting objective, scientifically proven standards for pollution are fine. If it is shown that 100 ppm of arsenic causes harm to human life then you figure out what the safe level is, if there is no scientifically proven safe level then ban it.

    We have zoning laws which prohibit putting a high rise in a single family neighborhood. Fine with me.

    What I object to is unilateral prohibitions against doing this or that based on political expediency/ideology.

    The FDA has not exactly served us well, on the one hand it restricts drugs from coming to market and on the other it doesnt catch bad drugs that cause harm. It is a joke.

    I think big corporations are way to cozy with the government and I am against that as well. I am opposed to farm subsidies and I was opposed to the wall st. bail out-privatized profit and socialized loss is not the way to go.

    I am saying Slarti and Gene H are supporting the current status quo through their economic beliefs.

    I also have no illusions about human beings or big corporations, that is why we have laws and a court system. Some people are bad actors and need to be restrained.

    But I believe the majority of people are good and decent and would act ethically/morally in a free economic environment. Those that dont and harm others can either be jailed or taken to civil court.

    I am beginning to wonder if people who think people are unethical and immoral may be that way themselves.


  673. AY, LMAO at Trump. I’ll explain how I see Trump by analogy. Trump and three others, Lets say You, Bron, and I sit down to play Monopoly. Trump of course is the banker ( he throws a tantrum if he doesn’t get to be Banker AND he wants the SHOE) So he starts handing out the money. He gets All the money and we are set up with Direct Deposit Accounts with the usual beginning $$$. Oh and did I say that our accounts are not interest accounts but that we have to pay fees of $100 every time we pass go. And so we only collect in our accounts $100 for passing go. Other fees and penalties are levied during the game however if Trump is to be penalized he can get a loan from the bank and if his penalties are $500 or more he can claim bankruptcy. We can not borrow from the bank because we do not have cash but a direct deposit account. There is a cash fee for declaring bankruptcy and so we cant do that. Also in declaring bankruptcy he does not lose any cash or properties. When we land on a property we can buy it and there is a fee for doing so because we are using the banks services to pay the monies for the purchase. Because Trump doesnt need to use the bank to purchase he doesn’t pay fees. Also if you land on a property you can buy all properties of the same color if you can afford it and place hotels on properties right away. Now guess who wins the game. And because he wins the game he thinks its due to his business acumen. Trump is also an ass because he thinks his Comb-over means he is not bald.


  674. Jo:

    By the way I also think taxes are OK but they need to be reduced to take the burden off of the middle class and poor. Federal taxes are not all of the problem because of deductions but when you add SS, property, state, sales and other taxes and the cost of compliance it adds up and takes money out of the economy.

    I would say if everyone paid no more than 15% of their income in taxes of all kinds that would be reasonable.


  675. Jo:

    and how many of the regulations in your make believe analogy exist and were created by government? Banks are heavily regulated and it works out about as well as Durbins insisting that banks not charge merchants a high swipe fee.


  676. Bron Should we do away with the FDA?


  677. I would like to see the super rich pay as much as 15%. I can remember the days back in the 1950s when the top tax bracket was 90%. We did not have high unemployment and there was prosperity with a robust middle class.

    The trickle down theories of Laffer and the so-called objectivism of Rand are about as viable as the nutty theories of Marx. And for exactly the same reason. They do not take into consideration human nature.


  678. taxes in the 1950’s were full of loopholes. and only a few people were making over 400,000 dollars a year. the average salary was around 4 or 5 thousand a year.

    Laffer theories work pretty well. Reagan presided over the largest tax increase in the history of the US.


  679. Bron,

    “I agree some people make terrible decisions but that doesnt give you the right to impose your will on everyone else to correct their bad decisions.”

    Then it is simply the rule of law that you object to. Laws (restrictions and corrections on bad behavior and mistakes a.k.a. criminal law and torts) are part of the price of the social contract (which you’ve already demonstrated that you don’t understand).

    “You and Gene are foolishly consistent as far as I can tell. You are just like me, you believe in your own mind and think you are right. But what you dont understand is that other people have a right to their own beliefs and you would silence those with whom you disagree. I enjoy seeing your side of it and find it interesting even when I disagree.”

    Actually the primary consistency of both mine and Slarti’s statement is a reliance upon logic and verifiable proof. You are entitled to your beliefs, however, silencing you is not on the agenda no matter how often you claim it is (and I’m still waiting for evidence that you were coerced or intimidated into silence – which won’t be forthcoming because it simply never happened). However, you are not entitled to espouse your beliefs and have them go unchallenged. I know it’s hard to understand through the prism of “you”, but free speech applies to us all – including the right to challenge and ridicule ridiculous beliefs and distorted information and abuse of terminology. If you don’t like that you bear the brunt of the lumps dished out because your beliefs and arguments are often ridiculous, again, that’s your problem for adopting faulty beliefs and putting forth ridiculous arguments. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, “If your positions are constantly slammed and destroyed, maybe the problem is you. You should take a long look in the mirror and come away with some other thought than ‘There’s something wrong with this mirror.'” Your foolish consistency lies not in the willingness to hear other arguments but in the continued refusal to examine your beliefs in the light of enormous countervailing evidence that both your beliefs and your facts are both likely wrong and fundamentally destructive to society. Your arguments don’t get smashed because we don’t like you. I know for a fact Slarti likes you while I am merely indifferent. Your arguments get smashed because they lack logical substance and quantifiable verifiable proof, i.e. they are crap.

    “I rarely resort to ad hominem attacks unless attacked.”

    Are you sure you want to go there? Because ridiculing your lack of range in tactics, unrealistic beliefs and ignorance at the meanings of terminology isn’t the same thing as ridiculing you as a man. That you take being made to look foolish personally? That’s another matter and entirely your problem. Much like most of the terminology you use, you don’t understand what an ad hominem attack is.

    “‘If you don’t think money and/or egotism are the best things in the world, you must be a Marxist/Fascist/Some Other Word He Doesn’t Know The Meaning Of.’

    Good straw man there Gene.”

    Again, you demonstrate your ignorance of what a straw man argument is, Mr. Makes Up Meanings To Words. It would be a misrepresentation of your alleged tactics if you didn’t on a regular basis make up the meanings of words to suit your arguments, Roco. Stop using your own definitions and learn about that of which you speak if you think that’s unfair.

    “I am saying Slarti and Gene H are supporting the current status quo through their economic beliefs.”

    Being for proper regulation that benefits society as opposed to coddling of special interests and the K Street graft machine is hardly supporting the status quo. For example, the issue with banks isn’t regulation, it’s improper regulation – starting with the repeal of Glass-Steagall and ending with the steady erosion of oversight and enforcement purchased by the banking lobby.

    “But I believe the majority of people are good and decent and would act ethically/morally in a free economic environment. Those that dont and harm others can either be jailed or taken to civil court.”

    And that is a delusional belief. Without rules, bad behavior is encouraged by their very lack and the resulting lack of consequence for bad actions. This applies to the markets as well. You cannot jail or sue someone unless you have a law prohibiting their bad actions in the first place. You say you are for objective regulation? Then you cannot be for laissez-faire capitalism without being a hypocrite. Objective regulations consider societal outcomes. It requires a utilitarian analysis of the societal benefits of taking an action (such as regulating or criminalizing) to contrast with the societal cost incurred by limiting behavior. An objective and utilitarian analysis reveals that greed must also be curbed by force of law because greed is at the heart of the three social ills bringing this country to its knees:

    1) political exceptionalism driven by special interests and their political money influencing the electoral and political processes,

    2) corporate misbehavior in the unrestrained (through buying exemption and limiting oversight of their businesses) pursuit of profit above all other considerations and

    3) the aforementioned problems creating an economic environment that stifles competition against large corporations from below by creating barriers to entrance into business and creating an unlevel playing field (both purchased with corporate funded lobbyist cash).

    The difference if your approach and mine to solving the problem is analogous to forestry practices. Uncontrolled and improper growth is killing the forest. My position is one of responsible husbandry in doing selective cuttings to eliminate problem species while encouraging the development and spread of beneficial species. Your position is to burn down the forest and trust that the beneficial will survive even in light of the tyranny of the strong (beneficial strong species or not).

    Mine is a course built on rational decision making and analysis.

    Yours is a course built on wishful thinking and irrational beliefs that the free market – an irrational mechanism – will sort out the good actors from the bad actors.

    You have the right to hold those beliefs and engage in wishful thinking, Bron.

    You do not have the right to express those thoughts without challenge.

    If you think that’s the equivalent of silencing you, you are again engaging in a false equivalence. No one here has ever said you cannot express yourself, they’ve said your ideas suck. If you think that is the equivalent of an ad hominem attack, you are again displaying a lack of understanding about what constitutes an ad hominem attack (and indeed when that form can be properly used). If you think this is a personal affront, then I suggest you are again looking at the problems facing society through the prism of “you” when the problems of society – by necessity – must be looked at through the prism of “me and we”. Your fundamental errors are rooted in your dogmatic adherence to Objectivism and the inherent egotism Rand’s irrational beliefs foster. Society and the laws that shepard it are not about what you want but ideally are about what best provides for the benefit of all society. Serial killers want to kill, thieves – both white collar and blue collar – want to steal, but neither want to personally be held accountable for their actions. The laws against killing are for the common good and against the individual liberty of the serial killer. The same goes with the laws against blue collar theft. Where the system is breaking down is political money buying exemption though various means for white collar thieves and allowing them to rig the system so not only are they not held accountable for their bad actions, they are rewarded for their bad actions.

    Regulation, like size, isn’t the problem. The problem is dysfunction. Dysfunction isn’t a reflection of size or of regulation, but rather a reflection of mismanagement brought about by corruption – corruption that requires that requires two parties to complete the crime as graft requires someone willing to pay it and someone willing to neglect or improperly execute their duties of office for said pay; including making a dysfunctional regulatory system that malfunctions just as described above that fosters the now criminal but unpunished status quo.

    My position leads out of the status quo.

    Your position (and those of the Libertarian economic bent and the followers of Kochs) encourages it.

    You will never get rid of bad actors by removing the law from the equation.

    You can only improve its efficiency by making sure the law is both objective and utilitarian in formulation and absolute and equal in enforcement.

    If this cuts into profits?

    Too bad.

    The welfare of all of society is far more important than some corporate asshat getting to buy a new yacht to show off in Monte Carlo this season.


  680. Bron,
    When taxes are calculated at a percentage, whether 9% or 90%, it does not matter how much a rich guy makes. The percentage of $4,000 or $4,000,000 is still a percentage.

    As far as “loopholes” go, of course there were, and still are “loopholes.” They are called deductions. Some are engineered to create jobs. For example, when the “loophole” on expensive cars and executive jets was closed by Reagan, it shut down segments of the auto and general aviation industry. Beechcraft had to close a whole assembly line, laying off somewhere around 15,000 highly skilled workers. I read that some shipbuilding companies had to lay off a lot of people because the market for luxury boats dried up. When manipulating the so-called loopholes, both Congress and the Administration seem to forget the Law of Unintended Consequences.


  681. “But what you dont understand is that other people have a right to their own beliefs and you would silence those with whom you disagree.”

    I don’t agree. Silencing people would mean banning them. I think if you offer your view, and somebody else disagrees with you and says so, you’ve both had a turn. Nobody silenced you, they just disagreed with you.

    I do deplore the “you’re an idiot” remarks, regardless of who says it.


  682. GENE H: “If you don’t think money and/or egotism are the best things in the world, you must be a Marxist/Fascist/Some Other Word He Doesn’t Know The Meaning Of.”

    BRON: “Good straw man there Gene.”

    That would be a strawman if it were unprovoked. Within this very thread you said, “did I mention your taste in heros really sucks? Marx, Lenin, Mao, Che, Fidel, Pol Pot.”

    Apparently, you think there are only Republicans and Socialists. Anybody who doesn’t want unfettered corporations free to ignore public desires, must want an over-regulated economy, a bloated government, and a mob that can loot the mansions of the wealthy.

    I don’t want big government for the sake of big government. I don’t want government that measures the size of the janitor closet at the women’s clinic. I don’t want a Bureau of Filing Everything in Triplicate. I don’t want a government that looks into my bedroom or tells me I’m too fat.

    I think most people (who don’t own multi-national corporations) want government to be just as big as necessary. The billionaires who contribute to Karl Rove’s Super-PAC would tell you any regulation is too much regulation. Without enough regulation, factories could pollute our rivers, pipelines could leak onto the ground, medicine could be prescribed without testing, meat could be packaged rotten side down, cigarettes and liquor could be sold to kids, all of America’s banks could merge and become THE Bank of America, employers could make people work 12 hour days without overtime, and people could drive 100 miles per hour while crossing the intersection the second they get there, etc.

    A proponent of free markets would say that people who find rat shit in their coffee will buy their coffee somewhere else. What happens when all coffee distributors realize they can leave rat shit in their beans?

    If you think we’re over-regulated, throw out some regulations that hurt you or us or the country. Let’s debate them.


  683. Gene H:

    I said above:

    “I agree some people make terrible decisions but that doesnt give you the right to impose your will on everyone else to correct their bad decisions.”

    I am talking about legal decisions, such as buying a Yugo or investing in GM prior to the bailout. Not stealing from someone.

    Do you buy your hay by the truck load?


  684. Bron,

    And where did Gene say that he wants to prevent people from buying Yugos or investing in GM? I can see why you’re asking after hay – you’ve obviously used up your entire supply of straw…


  685. Gene H:

    How big is the Code of Federal Regulations? It is huge. I am probably violating some law sitting in my chair.

    More of the same is not going to change the system. Lawyers do not know enough about what they are doing to pass laws. Most of them know the law but do not know any other subject. Most politicians are lawyers, most scientists, economists and engineers are not.

    No one individual has all of the knowledge needed to design a successful regulation. There are too many permutations to take into account. Look what Dick Durbin did by restricting swipe fees. Now they are talking about passing a regulation to limit debit card charges. All that will do is cause banks to raise some other fee to compensate for their costs.

    I see regulations failing all around me, why would I think they will work if someone else tries? For gods sake there is a regulation concerning the color of margarine, no doubt paid for by the butter industry so that margarine would have to add coloration to make it more expensive for the margarine producers.

    This isnt about millionaires and their Gulf Streams and Yachts, it is about providing jobs for plumbers and painters and oil field workers and machinists and carpenters and waiters and bar tenders. It is about providing jobs for the middle class and the poor.

    The bail out of Wall St. hurt main street, the EPA is shutting people out, government is out of control and you want more? I sincerely disagree.
    All the “elites” have done is screw things up, I have elite fatigue.


  686. Slarti:

    “Then it is simply the rule of law that you object to. Laws (restrictions and corrections on bad behavior and mistakes a.k.a. criminal law and torts) are part of the price of the social contract (which you’ve already demonstrated that you don’t understand).”

    I do not object to objective laws which prohibit people from harming their neighbor. He is saying I do, I am talking about decisions of normal law abiding citizens in the pursuit of their daily lives, not serial killers.

    I believe Gene has engaged in scarecrow construction.


  687. Noah,

    I apologize (to you and everyone else who those remarks were not directed at) for my ad hominem remarks. For some reason I felt personally attacked on this thread and while I believe in the teachings of Jesus, if not his divinity, “turn the other cheek” is a hard one to live…


  688. As usual, Bron, when faced with an allegation you can’t refute, you change the subject. If, in fact, Gene had constructed a straw man of your position – as you say he did – then you would be able to explain how Gene had misrepresented your position (as Gene and I have both done to you on multiple occasions). Your unwillingness or inability to do this speaks volumes.


  689. Bron,

    “Then it is simply the rule of law that you object to. Laws (restrictions and corrections on bad behavior and mistakes a.k.a. criminal law and torts) are part of the price of the social contract (which you’ve already demonstrated that you don’t understand).”

    The only scarecrows being built are by you. I was not arguing by analogy using serial killers to make my point at that stage, merely pointing out that your objection seems to be the rule of law as you fail to understand how it interacts within the social contact. Regulation of business is how society defines what is and is not proper business activity. That you chafe at the idea of regulation shows that you do not understand the role of the rule of law within the social contract. Regulation – proper, focused, objective and equitably applied – is required to prevent abuses by businesses who could under a laissez-faire model claim “we didn’t break the law, we’re not regulated”. And if a societal benefit means stopping a businesses otherwise profitable activity under penalty of law? Too damn bad. Law (rules) are what make the social contract enforceable and they have to apply to everyone. Even (and recent history would suggest “especially”) businessmen.


  690. Only slightly OT. I have just been listening to Terry Gross on NPR’s Fresh
    Air. She interviewed writer Jane Mayer. The subject was Art Pope and his political takeover of the state of North Carolina for the ultra right wing.

    This is some scary stuff. It explains people like Bron and his ilk and where they get their talking points. And why they are totally unswayed by logic and reason.

    http://www.npr.org/2011/10/06/141078608/the-multimillionaire-helping-republicans-win-n-c


  691. on 1, October 6, 2011 at 7:49 pm Anonymously Yours

    OS,

    It is scary stuff…..


  692. Otteray Scribe:

    ooooooh, rally scary stuff. No it is called hard ball politics and it is about time our side started playing by the rules you guys promulgated.

    You should have seen the outright lies and the amount of money spent to ruin the reputation of a decent republican in my district. It was vicious and it was hard ball. He cannot ever run again.

    I dont feel at all sorry for the Dems in North Carolina. Live by the sword, die by the sword.


  693. Bron,

    Meh.


  694. Gene:

    “That you chafe at the idea of regulation shows that you do not understand the role of the rule of law within the social contract.”

    First of all I dont chafe at the idea of regulation, as I stated above objective law is a necessity for living in a society.

    What you want is carte blanch to control the behavior of business operating in an ethical and legal manner. You do this for the sole purpose of control so that you can determine social outcomes.

    It is pretty simple and you and yours are pretty transparent.


  695. AY,
    You are right it is scary stuff!


  696. Bron,

    You say that lawyers don’t understand how to write regulation so we should just do without regulation. If you had actually read and understood what I’ve been saying in my comments here (and in emails to you), you would know that I’ve been advocating a different way of designing regulation – viewing it as a feedback mechanism (which is exactly what it is) and applying the scientific method. Instead of actually addressing the merits of ideas like this, you choose to make straw man arguments and whine about “Gene did it too” (which was, in itself, another straw man argument – Hofsteadter would be proud…). Can you explain in what way intelligently designed regulation is inferior to no regulation at all or do you just want to call me more names that you don’t understand?


  697. Bron,

    If you don’t chafe at regulation, then you should quit whining about it.

    At to this?

    “What you want is carte blanch to control the behavior of business operating in an ethical and legal manner. You do this for the sole purpose of control so that you can determine social outcomes.”

    That only further illustrates that you don’t understand the role of law in the social contract nor do you actually read what I post. Law is a corrective and influencing mechanism required by the social contract and according to our Founders it should work for justice and equity of ALL – not just those who make money. Control? How many times do I have to tell you that control is an illusion before it gets through that Objectivist brainwashed skull of yours? Laws and regulations don’t prevent bad actors. They provide ideally just remedies when bad actors hurt others and deter the casual criminal. What I “do this for” is for influence to attain positive social outcomes. Because if the law doesn’t work for the common good? It doesn’t work for good at all. You think I’m “doing this” for tyrannical control and you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. Transparent? Here’s the crystal clear version:

    I do what I do in pursuit of equity and justice for the common good.

    You do what you do in pursuit of ego gratification and money – which gives you the illusion of personal power and freedom.

    Until you realize you’re not the center of the universe and money isn’t an end that justifies the means? You will always be part of the problem and not the solution. You have built a small world for yourself with your poor philosophical choices. If you don’t like how other people see you – namely selfish and uncaring – the problem isn’t with the other people not understanding your ideas. It’s your ideas that influenced that negative opinion of you in the first place. You will always be dissatisfied with the world because you don’t realize the fatal flaws that drive your dissatisfaction lie within yourself, not in the world’s myriad imperfections. If you want others to be more accepting to your ideas and by relation you and you clearly aren’t getting that with your current (and quite rigid) ideas, then you have to learn to change your ideas until you get better reception. You cannot change your ideas if you are not willing to change yourself.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I don’t hate you. I’m largely indifferent to you and when I feel anything at all it is pity. I do, however, hate most of your ideas. The reasons why are quite obvious.

    There is nothing wrong with the mirror.


  698. Gene, if you read the story from NPR I linked to above, you will note that it has nothing to do with understanding. I think Bron and his kind understand just fine. It is a simple matter of having a point of view to sell. As the story from NPR interview reflects, the state of North Carolina is now a wholly owned subsidiary or Art Rose and his family. And who is Art Rose? For starters, he is an obscenely rich asshole buddy of the Koch brothers; aka, the Koch Crime Family.

    And when you have the kind of money they have, you can buy folks like Bron by the metric tonne. They are nothing more than online pamphleteers for the cabal.


  699. OS,

    Sadly, I realize what you (and the article) say is true. Some people are simply more susceptible to manipulation than others even when that manipulation is against their best interests. The best puppeteers let the puppets think they are free and the Jedi mindtrick is real. There is no better way to get someone to do something than to make them think it’s their idea in the first place. That’s the dirty core secret of all propaganda. That is why I am so interested in the topic. To expose its dirty little secrets is to shine the light of truth on what is essentially a form of deception. Say what you like about the truth, but it will set you free unlike anything else.


  700. “I am probably violating some law sitting in my chair.”

    You know that isn’t true – unless you have a naked minor on your lap.


  701. Gene H:

    there is no common good, there is only individual good. The founders created our country with the individual in mind, not the common good. You know the rights of man and the enlightenment? Individuals pursue happiness, individuals have a right to life, individuals have liberty. The common good is nothing but a way to control and take away individual liberty. Freedom is the common good because it is the individual good.

    You need to quit reading Rousseau and Marx and start reading some thinkers who actually believe in human liberty.

    You should know a good deal about propaganda, you engage in it on a regular basis.

    By the way, big corporations in bed with government is fascism or socialism.


  702. Slarti:

    your idea of a feedback mechanism may be fine for a laboratory with a limited number of parameters. You dont have the grey matter [no personal slight implied] nor the computing power to accurately predict or control the system when you put a brake on a particular action taken by a particular organism.

    Out of curiosity how many variables could you control in a laboratory and tweak to see what the outcome would be? 5, 10, 100, 1000? How long would it take to determine, accurately, the consequence of tweaking those variables so you could get to the point where you could, with confidence, publish a paper on your findings which could withstand the scrutiny of a peer review?

    Let me just say that the price of the pizza you had for dinner is probably dependent on, conservatively, 100,000 different variables. The change in any one could change the price of your pizza. In a similar fashion how do you know that the mechanism for feedback doesnt actually have a negative impact somewhere other than where you intended it? And how do you know the punishment is taken by the perpetrator of the bad action and not some other entity who is not even involved?

    As I have said many times before, the tax you want to levy is not paid by the company but by consumers. Also how do account for people who would not behave ethically in the application of the feedback mechanism since you seem to believe people in business do not behave ethically what makes you think regulators would behave ethically? Some people are motivated by ideology, some by money, some by sex, some by selflessness, etc. How do you objectively apply a feedback mechanism?

    Through objective, rationally developed standards? I think I mentioned that above.


  703. Bron,

    “there is no common good, there is only individual good. The founders created our country with the individual in mind, not the common good.”

    Wrong.

    Of course there is a common good (something you’d realize if you weren’t an Objectivist) and our founders not only knew this, they incorporated it into the wording of the Preamble.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    This once again shows you have absolutely no idea how the social contract works by any standard. Social contracts are entered into to gain mutual benefits. Our social contract is the Constitution as informed by the Declaration of Independence. Not only do you not know how a social contract operates, you apparently don’t know the meaning of the word “mutual”.

    mutual \ˈmyü-chə-wəl, -chəl, -chü-əl; ˈmyüch-wəl\

    1a : directed by each toward the other or the others
    b : having the same feelings one for the other
    c : shared in common
    d : joint

    Directed by each toward the other or the others? Why that sounds suspiciously like “me and we”, doesn’t it?

    Without a common good, there is little or no reason to enter into a social contract. If the social contract didn’t provide mutual benefit, you’d simply be limiting your absolute liberty under the state of nature for no reason at all.

    You should learn to comprehend what you read instead of focusing on building straw men, engaging in “I know you are but what am I”, making up definitions to terms you clearly do not know the actual definition of and butchering concepts you clearly don’t understand.

    As to propaganda? Well maybe if you understood it better, you wouldn’t be such a sucker for it in the future, Randy von Mises. You’d also know the difference between propaganda and counter-propaganda. I engage in the later. You consume copious quantities of the former.

    This above post could have been entirely avoided if you simply knew what you were talking about. You have two ears/two eyes and one mouth for a reason. While the later gives you the means to express your opinions, the former gives you the means to inform your opinion if you process that information with your brain.

    In your case, clearly only the mouth is in working order.

    Or maybe it’s just a case of garbage in, garbage out.

    Remember: reading without comprehension is a monkey chasing its own tail.

    Run, monkey, run!


  704. “You need to quit reading Rousseau and Marx and start reading some thinkers who actually believe in human liberty.”

    Why do you keep making assertions like that? You don’t know anybody’s reading material or heroes, unless they say so.


  705. Bron said:

    Slarti:

    your idea of a feedback mechanism may be fine for a laboratory with a limited number of parameters.

    And right off the bat, your ignorance is on display – the systems that I’m modeling in the “laboratory” are HUMAN CELLS. Care to estimate how many parameters control the behavior of a cell? Or even how many parameters control just the parts of the cell division cycle that are involved in signaling DNA damage, arresting the cell cycle, and repairing the damage? My area of expertise (the focus of what I’m doing right now) is in managing complexity in models, so when I say, “you have no idea what you are talking about”, it’s my professional opinion.

    You dont have the grey matter [no personal slight implied] nor the computing power to accurately predict or control the system when you put a brake on a particular action taken by a particular organism.

    What you don’t understand is that I do have the Grey matter (the “G” should be capitalized or it should be “gray matter”, by the way) to develop the software tools and modeling methodologies to solve complex modeling problems of all sorts. I make predictive models and I can apply my ability to the economy just as readily as I can apply it to human cells. I figured out a methodology for modeling the impact of public policy on business over a year ago (as a result of an email exchange that I had with you, in fact…) – I just haven’t had the time or motivation to actually build the model. Maybe I’ll get around to it someday, but the point is that there are other people like me who have the ability to construct predictive models of complex systems given sufficient time and resources. You are negligent in dismissing the possibility of something that you in no way understand.

    Out of curiosity how many variables could you control in a laboratory and tweak [This is a word that I usually avoid – if you are “tweaking” variables in order to produce some sort magic values that give you the behavior you’re looking for, then you’re doing it (modeling) wrong…] to see what the outcome would be? 5, 10, 100, 1000?

    Actually, just this week I solved the problem of how to deal with hundreds of parameters in my protein-protein interaction model (I’m pretty pleased with my solution, if I do say so myself, by the way… 8)). John Tyson (probably the foremost cell cycle modeler) has a phrase to describe what you’re alluding to – “flailing around in a 100-dimensional parameter space”. Do you think that you are clever by bringing that up? Do you think that any competent modeler isn’t already aware of the problem and taking steps to deal with it? In the model I did for my post-doctoral research, we did tens of thousands of runs with the parameters being randomly permuted to show that the behavior we were describing was robust over a range of parameter values. The issue you raise is only a problem if one ignores it – and I never would.

    How long would it take to determine, accurately, the consequence of tweaking those variables so you could get to the point where you could, with confidence, publish a paper on your findings which could withstand the scrutiny of a peer review?

    Currently it would probably take the better part of a year of my effort before I could have sufficient research for a paper (not including writing the paper – just the research). I have reason to think the answer to that question will decline significantly in the next year or so, though… The proper question (to me) is: How long will it take to pioneer a modeling process, engineer it so that it can be done efficiently, and mass produce it so it can be profitably sold as a service? I’ll let you know how long that takes after I’ve done it a few times.

    Let me just say that the price of the pizza you had for dinner is probably dependent on, conservatively, 100,000 different variables.

    And you think all of those 100,000 variables are equally important? I think that it would be a piece of cake (or, more accurately, as easy as pie ;-)) to make a model of Sir Pizza’s (the local establishment I patronized yesterday) business – I’m currently making a model of my own business which is substantially more difficult (fortunately I have help with that – and I’ve done it before). Making a model to determine if their business plan (i.e. pie price) is viable would be pretty easy for me (and it would be much more useful than a predictive model of the pizza price).

    The change in any one could change the price of your pizza.

    And that’s a problem why? You would collect all of the information you were using in an automated way (at least that’s how I would do it…), so your model would respond to any changes in the variables you were tracking – making you aware of, say, the impact of a possible pepperoni workers strike on your cash flow as soon as union negotiations break down…

    In a similar fashion how do you know that the mechanism for feedback doesn’t actually have a negative impact somewhere other than where you intended it?

    That’s what you use your model to figure out – and why you build it in the first place.

    And how do you know the punishment is taken by the perpetrator of the bad action and not some other entity who is not even involved?

    The idea is to make business plans that include undesirable actions (like polluting) unprofitable – then the businesses can either choose to adapt to the new reality or go out of business. The only thing necessary to accomplish this is putting a price on the behavior you want to eliminate and slowly increasing it. The (regulated) free market takes care of the rest…

    As I have said many times before, the tax you want to levy is not paid by the company but by consumers.

    The tax will eliminate the behavior – if one company eliminates their pollution (and thus doesn’t have to pass along the cost of the tax to their customers) and another company just passes along the tax to their customers then they will go out of business and the first company will thrive – I call that an ideal outcome. You encourage that outcome by offering additional incentives to research green technology. In the end you not only have a green industry, but you’ve developed technology which can then be sold to other manufacturers. It’s called a virtuous circle – it’s similar to the viscous circles which you are advocating, but delivers MUCH better results.

    Also how do account for people who would not behave ethically in the application of the feedback mechanism since you seem to believe people in business do not behave ethically what makes you think regulators would behave ethically?

    I would base the tax on measurable quantities (like carbon or other emissions). As for regulators (which are separate from what I’m talking about but also important), I would hold them to the highest conflict of interest standards possible (unlike the Bush administration who believed that industry lobbyists were the best ones to write and enforce regulations…).

    Some people are motivated by ideology, some by money, some by sex, some by selflessness, etc. How do you objectively apply a feedback mechanism?

    Kilograms of carbon emitted (as an example – there are other metrics and a combination of many of them would be best). You objectively apply a feedback mechanism by using a quantitative algorithm.

    Through objective, rationally developed standards? I think I mentioned that above.

    Your standard may be objective, but it’s far from rational – I, on the other hand, want to use the scientific method. I’m thinking that I will get far better results.

    Do you really think that I’m so bad at what I do that I could be tripped up by your naive analysis? If so, you are sadly mistaken…


  706. Slarti:

    I wasnt trying to trip you up, I was asking questions and posting my thoughts on it. I am not a research scientist.

    But any how your response shows a political bias which was one of my points.

    A couple of cells in a petri dish is a far cry from a complete organism.

    By the way, the market already has a feedback mechanism, it is called the price of something.

    “flailing around in a 100-dimensional parameter space”.

    no I did not think I was clever for bringing it up, it is one of my questions on how you would handle that issue.

    I hope your model works, you will make a bunch of money and help mankind. I would think you would get a Nobel Prize in economics for work like that.

    “A good scientist is a humble and listening scientist and not one that is sure 100 percent in what he read in the textbooks,” Shechtman said.

    Recent Noble prize winner in chemistry.

    I think you should head Dr. Shectman’s advice.

    one final thought:

    “Grey matter (or gray matter) is a major component of the central nervous system”

    wiki

    “Grey matter – closely packed neuron cell bodies form the grey matter of the brain. The grey matter includes regions of the brain involved in muscle control, sensory perceptions, such as seeing and hearing, memory, emotions and speech.”

    http://www.brainexplorer.org/brain_atlas/brainatlas_index.shtml

    You may think I think I am being clever, but I think you think you are smarter than you really are because you dont think you can be wrong.

    And that is another reason I dont think human beings can or should control the free actions and associations of hundreds of millions of people.
    Their own personal internal bias.


  707. Bron said:

    Slarti:

    I wasnt trying to trip you up, I was asking questions and posting my thoughts on it. I am not a research scientist.

    You came at me in my specialty (modeling) – I’m always going to have a strong response. It’s not my fault that my field is nigh universally applicable and I’m not going to pretend that it isn’t.

    But any how your response shows a political bias which was one of my points.

    Making a statement about bias: cheap

    Making a statement about bias with evidentiary support: apparently more than you can afford

    Rebuilding your personal credibility: priceless – or is it “valueless” to you?

    A couple of cells in a petri dish is a far cry from a complete organism.

    Yeah, it isn’t like you can figure out much of importance about an organism by studying it’s cells… Oh wait – that’s complete and utter bullshit. You chose what you are modeling based on what you are trying to understand and the hypotheses you are trying to test. For virtually every choice there is something useful to model.

    By the way, the market already has a feedback mechanism, it is called the price of something.

    Okay, now follow along carefully, because your reasoning has repeatedly failed here…

    If something DOSEN’T have a price (like dumping arsenic into a river), then the market ASSIGNS it a price of $0.00. CONVERSELY, if a price is ASSIGNED to such an item (by taxing every kilogram of arsenic dumped into a river, for instance), then the market will account for that in its pricing (of everything else). This is really simple economics that you seem completely unable to grasp.

    “flailing around in a 100-dimensional parameter space”.

    no I did not think I was clever for bringing it up, it is one of my questions on how you would handle that issue.

    And what I wanted to make clear is that it was stupid to believe for a second that I couldn’t answer this question. I’ve spend a good bit of my time over the past two decades thinking about how to answer this question and I’ve come up with some very sophisticated answers (which will succeed or fail on their merits rather than anything I say about them, by the way. I’m not trying to prove anything here – all of my ideas are about to be tested in the real world…).

    I hope your model works, you will make a bunch of money and help mankind. I would think you would get a Nobel Prize in economics for work like that.

    It’s not something I’m working on right now – it’s something that I’ll probably do when and if I am in a position to influence public policy. My point was that it could be done, not that I am doing it. And I don’t think you will find many Nobel laureates who’s goal was to win the prize…

    “A good scientist is a humble and listening scientist and not one that is sure 100 percent in what he read in the textbooks,” Shechtman said.

    Recent Noble prize winner in chemistry.

    I think you should head Dr. Shectman’s advice.

    It’s “heed”, by the way – your sentence puts me in mind of a soccer move… Actually, Dr. Shectman’s advice is pretty much 100% wrong in my case – I am certain that 100% of what I read in the vast majority of my textbooks is completely accurate. What’s more, I can PROVE it (which was the point of all of the books…). I believe that I can apply those mathematical principles to a wide range of disciplines (anything that can be quantified) – do you really think I’m wrong?

    one final thought:

    “Grey matter (or gray matter) is a major component of the central nervous system”

    wiki

    “Grey matter – closely packed neuron cell bodies form the grey matter of the brain. The grey matter includes regions of the brain involved in muscle control, sensory perceptions, such as seeing and hearing, memory, emotions and speech.”

    http://www.brainexplorer.org/brain_atlas/brainatlas_index.shtml

    You may think I think I am being clever, but I think you think you are smarter than you really are because you dont think you can be wrong.

    No, I am aware that since I’m willing and able to admit it when I’m wrong and adapt my arguments to account for new evidence that when I am wrong, I wont be wrong for long – it gives me a confidence that you are completely misinterpreting…

    And that is another reason I dont think human beings can or should control the free actions and associations of hundreds of millions of people.
    Their own personal internal bias.

    The fact is that billions of people acting in their naive self-interest (as you would have) leads inevitably to some sort of Malthusian catastrophe. So you choose: death by plague, death by famine, death by pollution, death by war, or participation in a social contract. The best choice seems pretty clear to me…


  708. Slarti:

    Malthus hasnt been right yet and technology has raised humans out of our own filth and provided abundant food.

    Free countries dont make war on their neighbors, they trade with them.

    What good is a social contract if the rights of some individuals are violated by other individuals just because your group has 51 and my group has 49 or vice versa? Individuals make up society and when individual rights are protected society is protected.

    I dont see how you can model a full complex organism on a single cells worth of information. Furthermore how do you account for human behaviour in your model? What about the guy who has absolutely nothing to lose and decides to make a one time dump of pollution which will net him millions of dollars in profit? You cant control that, but you can track him down and arrest him and punish him. So why isnt the law good enough for controlling pollution? The laws we already have against harming other people, why do we need more control? More control leads to less freedom for everyone.

    You ought to start thinking about the possibility that most people are good and that the out of control businessman screwing the little guy, while it does happen, is more the figment of fertile imagination than reality.


  709. Bron,

    You: “Malthus hasnt been right yet and technology has raised humans out of our own filth and provided abundant food.

    Malthus is inevitably right so long as technology cannot increase the carrying capacity of the Earth at an exponential rate to match population growth (that’s what science says – Malthusian catastrophes are triggered by the population exceeding the effective carrying capacity* of a region).

    * the effective carrying capacity of a region is the number of people it can support given existing inefficiencies in transportation and distribution – in general this is less that the carrying capacity which is the number of humans which can be supported by the region without taking transportation and distribution into account.

    You: “Free countries dont make war on their neighbors, they trade with them. What good is a social contract if the rights of some individuals are violated by other individuals just because your group has 51 and my group has 49 or vice versa? Individuals make up society and when individual rights are protected society is protected.

    Great – a word salad straw man…

    You: “I dont see how you can model a full complex organism on a single cells worth of information.

    Gee, you’re right – a single cell couldn’t possibly hold all of the information necessary to describe an entire organism… No… hold on… what’s this little balled up thing over here… hmm… DNA you say? All of the information necessary to describe an organism you say? Inside of every cell you say? Well, imagine that… another of Bron’s statements displays a profound ignorance.

    You: “Furthermore how do you account for human behaviour in your model? […]”

    What human behavior am I failing to account for and how does it effect my model? You don’t really have any substantive objections because you don’t have a clue how the modeling process works – you just don’t like the idea that the fact that your arguments have no merit could possibly be demonstrated scientifically.

    A model is a map – no map shows all of the features of the territory. What is important is to understand what the map is telling you about the features that it does show. You can argue all you want about the highway map you just got being dangerously wrong because it doesn’t show the shoals and depths in the straits of Mackinaw, but if you disregard its notation that King Snyder sold the bridge and it’s been removed, then your planned trip to the UP isn’t going to turn out so well (and you’ll get some first hand information about the depth of the straits…). [Apologies for the Michigan metaphor – I love Michigan in the fall and I’m seriously in need of a word that means the opposite of homesick (as in a word to describe how happy I am that I am home…) ;-)]

    As you point out, your scenario is already covered by the law – my proposal would add monetary penalties to the action that the person would be aware of up front – most likely destroying the “arbitrage” opportunity which you posit. On the other hand, you have no way of dealing with the industry which is dumping arsenic into the river right now (and in perfectly reasonable fashion, as well).

    You: “You ought to start thinking about the possibility that most people are good and that the out of control businessman screwing the little guy, while it does happen, is more the figment of fertile imagination than reality.

    You are hopelessly naive as well as a tireless crafter of straw men. I assume that corporations will act in a way that they believe will maximize profits based on the available information and any constraints that are placed on them (obeying the law, etc.). Most individual people may be good, but most individual corporate persons are amoral – why would you expect them to be otherwise?


  710. To come back to topic, we should apparently drop the concept of general welfare, because 51 of us will make 49 of us do something we don’t want to (like have George W Bush as President)?

    The solution is apparently to buy a gun, live far from anybody, can our own green beans, make our own clothes, sell our goods at an open-air market, clean our own teeth, and agree that when two cars meet at a crossroads the better shot goes first.


  711. Slarti:

    we arent talking about building another organism from a single cell. Dont they call that cloning? We are talking about using feedback as a method of controlling a system. If you test something on a single cell and it has an effect y, how do you know an entire complex organism will respond in the same way to your stimulus which created y?

    You are taking the results out of the context of the larger organism.

    I dont think you can do it accurately enough to get good data, I say again; too many variables to keep track of. It is easier to model an airplane in flight. At least air follows certain principles. A tip of the hat to Daniel for that knowledge. An economy follows certain principles as well such as supply and demand but there is also the human element which is far harder to predict. How are you going to model Aunt Milly wanting to sell half of her stock in McDonalds because she wants to send her favorite nephew to MIT to study modeling under Herr Doktor Professor Slartibartfart?

    You cannot do it accurately.

    By the way a highway map is based on a static system, at least relative to the frame of reference. Roads dont move and you can always call about the bridge if you have doubts.

    The world isnt going to run out arable land anytime soon, all of the people in the world could fit quite nicely in the US and have room to spare. I’ll let you do the math on that. Make sure you keep New York, Singapore and Hong Kong in mind.

    People who work for corporations do not check their morality at the door and decide to be neither moral nor immoral. People look out for themselves but most do not screw people over. They want a fair price for both parties. I dont know how many times people have told me they want to make money but they want it to be a win win situation for all parties involved. It only makes sense. You might want to do business with that person again. If you screw a person for a big one time profit you may miss an opportunity for a life time of profitable business dealings with that person.

    Business is not about the immediate moment, it is not about a 1 week or 12 month time frame. It is about the far future. How you treat people today effects future profits. Future profits are another feedback mechanism. The mechanism is already in place for ethical behaviour, it just has to be released from the control of government regulation. Regulations distort markets which prevent proper pricing and long term planning. A regulated market is a distorted market. And you want to increase that distortion which, in my opinion, will make things worse not better.

    You dont have control over the dumper right now either, you cannot levy a fine based on what someone intends to do. Do you think the threat of prison or civil penalties is any less deterring than the threat of an extra tax should the person get caught?

    How about salubrious?


  712. Noah V:

    that is an interesting take on things.


  713. Bron,

    You said: “I dont see how you can model a full complex organism on a single cell[‘]s worth of information.

    Since every cell includes DNA, a “single cell’s worth of information” necessarily includes a blueprint for the entire organism. I was just answering what you said rather than what you meant. What you meant was wrong, too (as further evinced by your later comment), but I don’t have time to go into it now – maybe tomorrow.


  714. I thought the pissing contest might be over by now. Sorry. I’ll just put my raincoat back on and depart. See you later. Bye.


  715. HenMan:

    I dont know about Slarti but I am not pissing on him. We have been having this discussion on and off for at least a year.

    I think it is rather interesting and I am trying to learn something. I think Slarti has a point but I am not sure how you would go about implementing it without possibly causing more problems.

    I also think he is wrong about a free market spinning out of control, there is already a mechanism in place to prevent that, it is called recession and if left alone and not “smoothed” out by the “elites” the market re-adjusts and comes out stronger. Recession is the “lion” which thins out the herd and culls the businesses which are miss using capital. Recession transfers capital to where it can be better used.

    Slarti thinks humans should be in charge but I say they already are by the decisions they take as individuals. People like Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke cannot control the market. What you see now is their attempt failing. Had the markets been allowed to work in 2008 we would most likely be on our way to recovery. It would have been a real bitch but it would probably have lasted 6-18 months. There is historical evidence to support this contention.


  716. HenMan,

    I’m a little annoyed with Bron for his reliance on straw men, but I’m not pissing on him either – and it’s more like a year and a half or two years that this discussion has been going on (if I recall correctly, it started on the thread hijacked by the 9/11 discussion).

    Bron,

    I can answer any of the issues that you raise, but I can’t answer all of them (at least not at once…). The most pressing seems to be your lack of understanding of the scope of a model – in other words, where a model is applicable. Newtonian physics is a good model, but that doesn’t mean it wont give you a completely bogus answer if you are using it on velocities near the speed of light. When you are building a model, you decide what parameters need to be accounted for and then determine if they are sufficient to give you the behavior that you’re interested in. There is an iterative and synergistic process by which improvements in the model lead to a better understanding of the subject of the model which enables further refinement in the model and so on. No, you can’t predict what Aunt Millie will do, but, if necessary, you can make a pretty good statistical model of what all of McDonald’s shareholders will do (McDonald’s, in particular, has the information necessary to do a great job of this…). Modeling complex systems requires identification of the factors (and their relative importance) that must be accounted for as well as management of those variables (so that one doesn’t end up flailing around in a 100-dimensional parameter space). Everyone who makes models knows (or should) that they can’t create a perfect map – the question is, can they create a useful map? I believe that I could create a useful map for investigating the effects of public policy (specifically, a pollution tax) on businesses.


  717. Slarti:

    I dont doubt you can create a useful model for seeing the effects of a pollution tax on business. I doubt it would be that hard for someone with that kind of background. Which is fine, for what if scenarios. But I dont think it should be used to make policy.

    I think there are too many variables that are not necessarily fully understood to make it part of policy decisions. I think your model would lead to additional regulations because your model did not anticipate a negative effect which caused a ripple in space time.

    That happens all the time, a regulation causes a problem which another regulation has to fix and so on and so on.

    Pollution is bad but I think technology can solve that problem if markets are allowed to work. Look at the 20th century, from horse and buggy to space flight in about 60 years.

    Dolphin safe tuna, I would pay extra to save the dolphins so would most people. I would also pay a little more for paper to save my favorite trout stream and so would many other people.

    At this point would you want to be the guy that killed a bunch of fish and polluted a river? The market would crucify you.


  718. Slarti:

    http://www.nysun.com/national/new-nobel-laureat-warned-against-stimulus-package/87512

    “Toward the end of the Phillips Lecture, Professor Sargent also cites Walter Bagehot, who “said that what he called a ‘natural’ competitive banking system without a ‘central’ bank would be better…. ‘nothing can be more surely established by a larger experience than that a Government which interferes with any trade injures that trade. The best thing undeniably that a Government can do with the Money Market is to let it take care of itself.’””

    Maybe Prof. Sargent is the anti-Krugman. I’ll see your Nobel Prize winner and raise you this one.

    Sometimes it is nice to see ideas you hold be vindicated.


  719. Bron
    1, October 10, 2011 at 8:06 pm
    Slarti:

    I dont doubt you can create a useful model for seeing the effects of a pollution tax on business. I doubt it would be that hard for someone with that kind of background. Which is fine, for what if scenarios. But I dont think it should be used to make policy.

    You don’t think that scientific research is a better way to set policy than our current method – that’s your right. I disagree. Strongly.

    I think there are too many variables that are not necessarily fully understood to make it part of policy decisions. I think your model would lead to additional regulations because your model did not anticipate a negative effect which caused a ripple in space time.

    You’re thinking of a model as a static thing (one makes a model and then moves on…). A static model is a dead model – you continually work to improve it and validate it against new empirical results. As I said above, it’s an iterative process.

    That happens all the time, a regulation causes a problem which another regulation has to fix and so on and so on.

    Yes, there are problems with the way we currently do things, but, regulation being necessary, I’m suggesting a better way to do things – a way in which regulations can be designed to react to unforeseen consequences so as to achieve the desired policy goal.

    Pollution is bad but I think technology can solve that problem if markets are allowed to work. Look at the 20th century, from horse and buggy to space flight in about 60 years.

    The markets disregards anything that doesn’t have a price (like the societal cost of pollution). As long as cost of an polluting (in terms of damage to the environment) exceeds the price of doing it (in terms of taxes, penalties, and public relations), there will be an arbitrage opportunity for those who choose to pollute.

    Dolphin safe tuna, I would pay extra to save the dolphins so would most people. I would also pay a little more for paper to save my favorite trout stream and so would many other people.

    At this point would you want to be the guy that killed a bunch of fish and polluted a river? The market would crucify you.

    You’re making one critical assumption that completely guts your entire argument – perfect information. Many people would pay extra for dolphin-safe tuna, but most never explicitly make the calculation nor do they know the corporate policies of the companies that they are supporting with their purchases (especially in regards to undifferentiated products like gas or monopolies like the power company? *cough* Koch Industries *cough*).
    I’ve noticed you arguing against more informed consumers from time to time – essentially advocating the massive arbitrage opportunities that the consumers’ ignorance (i.e. the lack of a truly free market) has provided to fuel corporate greed (these are not companies like Ford that produce something of value and provide jobs that let people afford it – these are companies generating massive profit in ways that put the original purpose of the system [stabilizing prices] at serious risk).


  720. Bron,

    When will you ever learn that it’s not the CV of the expert, it’s the merits of their argument? I think his argument is (or your/the reporter’s use of his words) is a straw man that doesn’t address the relevant merits of the stimulus, but I don’t have time to explain that to you right now… Also, he makes an assumption that injuring trade is always a bad thing – it’s not. If Glass-Stiegle were still injuring the financial markets, we probably wouldn’t have had the financial collapse. Just sayin’…


  721. Remember Slarts,
    It was the teachers and unions and their pensions that brought the economy down in December 2007 when the recession officially started!


  722. Sorry raff, my bad… :blush:


  723. D’oh! I guess that didn’t work…


  724. sLARTI:

    yes, ignorant consumers are a problem. But technology, the Internet, has gone a long way in eliminating ignorance. You could make the case that most people are not able to sort the massive amount of data available and take decisions based on confirmation bias.

    Wall St really only has one function, to get money into the hands of people who are able to create wealth. The rest is window dressing and regulations make these guys go to extreme measures to get the money into competent hands.

    Glass Steagall and other financial regulations distort that one function and create complexity where it is not required but is necessary to comply with the laws. I think you could make a case for the complex regulatory environment preventing consumers from understanding financial markets.

    You have a company, you need money, I have money and need to invest it. If your idea is good then I lend you the money or take a risk anticipating X amount of return. That is all their is to it, it is my responsibility to determine if your idea is good. Why does the government need to be involved?

    Back to pollution-

    Your point is taken, pollution is also a local issue. If GP pollutes my favorite trout stream its only me and a relative handful of people who care. So maybe that is the only way to make them act properly. I would hope they [companies] would see the broader picture and not need to be bitch slapped to behave ethically.

    Bitch slapping gives too much power to government.


  725. Bron sez: “At this point would you want to be the guy that killed a bunch of fish and polluted a river? The market would crucify you.”

    ****************************************

    Really? I worked on the Leaf River case in Mississippi where Georgia-Pacific dumped vast amounts of dioxin into the river, with predictable results. Remember who owns G-P? Waiting on them getting crucified, but not holding my breath.

    Then there was the massive pollution when the North American Rayon warehouse caught fire a few years ago and the runoff polluted the Watauga River in east Tennessee, killing one of the best trout streams in North America.

    And never mind the coal ash spill in Roane County, recently which polluted an entire waterway system..

    Then there is the massive pollution of mountain streams caused by mountaintop removal. I am waiting for the locals to crucify the mine owners for the massive alkali runoff that changes potable water into poison.


  726. on 1, October 12, 2011 at 7:23 pm Harry Nevus GED

    “If GP pollutes my favorite trout stream its only me and a relative handful of people who care. So maybe that is the only way to make them act properly.”

    Is there a polite way to say “That’s the dumbest fucking thing I’ve heard today.”?

    Since streams run to rivers, which run to lakes, it might have made more sense to say “my favorite pond,” but even that’s fucking dumb.

    Your statement is the epitome of letting corporations shit in everybody’s buckwheat, while everybody fights back one at a time.

    Why do we need police or fire departments. If somebody burns your house down, its only you and a relative handful of people who care.

    If you’re really that isolated, insulated, and anesthetized; why do you spend so much effort trying to recruit the rest of us into living in cocoons?


  727. Harry Nevus, GED:

    Have you thought about having that removed?

    But I do understand that at some point in a watershed any pollutants become diluted. So that it does not effect that many people relatively speaking. Heavier pollutants will settle out into the stream bottom.

    Part of the effectiveness of a poison is the concentration.

    I think they must not have explained watersheds to you in your GED program.


  728. Otteray Scribe:

    Yes and your point is? You get rid of all that industry and where do people work? All those “green jobs” Obama created?

    I don’t see you complaining about farmers polluting the environment with chicken and hog waste and insectides and herbacides. At some point you cannot engage in human activity without polluting.

    Engage the court system, that is what it is there for.

    The country is a good deal cleaner than it was 50 years ago, but then we had more industry too.


  729. Bron,
    the internet has done little to educate Republicans that Obama was really born in the United States and is not a Muslim.


  730. Bron, my point was that you made an indefensible statement when you wrote, “At this point would you want to be the guy that killed a bunch of fish and polluted a river? The market would crucify you.”

    Obviously, the marked did not crucify any of those people. You changed the subject by talking about people losing jobs. Nowhere in any of that was anything said about jobs. You were the one who brought up the market crucifying the polluters, which has not and will not happen.

    In the meantime, we have more pollution. You not only cannot fish in those waters, you don’t even want to wade in them, let alone getting drinking water from them.


  731. Also, if the environment as a whole is cleaner or safer, it is due to the efforts of the EPA. If industry had their way, they would be able to dump whatever they wanted into the environment.

    But yeah, let’s do away with that bad old EPA because it hinders industry.


  732. on 1, October 12, 2011 at 8:49 pm Woosty's still a Cat

    Bron1, October 12, 2011 at 7:46 pm

    Harry Nevus, GED:

    Have you thought about having that removed?

    But I do understand that at some point in a watershed any pollutants become diluted. So that it does not effect that many people relatively speaking. Heavier pollutants will settle out into the stream bottom.

    Part of the effectiveness of a poison is the concentration.

    I think they must not have explained watersheds to you in your GED program.
    ——————————————————
    fishies love those shiny wittle toxic bits at the bottom……mmmmmm…tasty…


  733. on 1, October 12, 2011 at 8:50 pm Woosty's still a Cat


  734. Otteray Scribe:

    If people figured out who was doing that kind of polluting, I think they would pay a price in the market place.

    I dont hear about these incidents on the nightly news unless they are huge or a fire is involved.

    So yes I think companies who are poor corporate actors will pay a price if people know about what they are doing. I dont buy BP gas because of the Gulf oil spill. How many other people have done the same?

    So I dont think corporations would run wild without the EPA if the press would do its job and there were effective laws to address large events like you mentioned.

    Even with the EPA we have pollution so how effective are they?


  735. So I dont think corporations would run wild without the EPA if the press would do its job and there were effective laws to address large events like you mentioned.

    http://www.tftptf.com/

    this is a link to site for marines who spent time at camp lejune between june1957 and march 1987

    wonderful place to visit, just don’t drink the water.


  736. Bron, keep digging. Anyone who is paying attention knows this is going on. The Leaf River case is a very famous pollution and environmental disaster case. Anyone not living in a cave in Uzbekistan knows about mountaintop removal. And so forth. Those pollutants do not just go away. They get in the ground water and in the soil where they are absorbed by food plants. And in the air we breathe.

    But those bad old government regulations keep getting in the way of profits, so congress keeps cutting the EPA budget so they have fewer and fewer inspectors.


  737. The intention of the Ffederal Clean Water Act is to eliminate additional water pollution, not to allow Appalachian headwater streams to be buried beneath mining waste. But in 2002, the George W. Bush Administration reclassified mining waste as permissible “fill material” under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). That created the loophole allowing the dumping of mountaintop removal waste into streams. This change has allowed the extreme acceleration of mountaintop removal mining. In the words of U.S. District Judge Charles H. Haden II:

    “When valley fills are permitted in intermittent and perennial streams, they destroy those stream segments. The normal flow and gradient of the stream is now buried under millions of cubic yards of excess spoil waste material, an extremely adverse effect. If there were fish, they cannot migrate. If there is any life form that cannot acclimate to life deep in a rubble pile, it is eliminated. No effect on related environmental values is more adverse than obliteration. Under a valley fill, the water quantity of the stream becomes zero. Because there is no stream, there is no water quality.”

    http://appvoices.org/end-mountaintop-removal/ecology/


  738. OS,
    Great link and great response.
    By the way, how are you doing?