OPEN QUESTION TO THE COGNOSCENTI.

A Spam posting seems to be the perfect place to ask about the costs of buying a subscription to an upgraded discussion forum where people have to register and some form of moderation can take place.

Bearing in mind the upsurge of trolls with multiple personality disorders on this board something needs to be done and I gues the costs need to be established first.

Does anyone have any idea how much this sort of service would cost on an annual basis?

And what do we mostly use it for? Porn, Justin Timberlake downloads, and penny stock scams.

Well, isn't this a sign that all those rich African princes have finally made it out of their war-torn countries? Best $10,000 I've ever spent.

What I don't get is how there is anyone with the intelligence required to turn on a computer who would take stock advice sent to them in spam. I understand it only takes one, but honestly, who falls for that stuff?

No no, it's like how they say we only use 10% of our brains.

Plenty to be proud of!

In all honesty, I get almost no SPAM any more.

Between my ISP's filter, and my Outlook and Gmail filter, I get maybe one or two a week.

Gmail, in particular, seems to be really skillful at filtering out the crap. I recommend it.

Bad Rabbit - I would go for it. A modest fee would discourage the trolls with their sock-puppet brigades, that's for sure. Especially if they had to register each screen name individually and pay the fee up-front for each one. It certainly bears consideration.

Well Kevin,

If The Washington Monthly would like to spring for the cost of a blog that requires registration for comments, then maybe the spam wouldn't be such a pain in the ass to you.

But apparently I DID win the Lotto in some unspecified European country...so I'm going to buy a whole lot of penny stock and Viagra.

We resent the grouping of pr0n with both penny stock scams and Justin Timberlake.

I've found that Google GMail has more effective spam filtering (it even works on image spam) than any commercial product I've used. But still you'd think that any decent blogger software like, say, Movable Type would have some means for filtering out spam posts written in kanji

My penis has never been so enlarged!

Oh please. What is the greatest invention of mankind ever? Consensus answer: writing. And what is it used for? Advertising, invective, threats, petty legalisms, mindless screeds, Atlas Shrugged, you name it.

And yes, also Homer and Shakespeare and Joyce and and and.

If you actually were able to add it all up, I'd wager the garbage outweighs the gems by, oh, hundreds to one.

The net is no different. And neither are radio, TV, print, public speech -- name your medium.

Hooray for humans.

The internet is arguably the apex of human technological development, the most complex and paradigm-changing invention so far in the history of homo sapiens.

While the internet is, undoubtedly, an amazing invention which has massively affected the world... well, my Torts professor is want to lose himself in tangents on the amazing effect that the telegraph and railroad had on society.

Somehow the difference between pre-telegraph (where the battle of New Orleans was faught after the Treaty of Ghent) and post-telegraph, and pre-railroad (where it was a matter of months, and serious risk of life, to get from one side of the country to the other) to post-railroad (where it became a matter of days) seems somehow larger. The telegraph and railroad allowed man to conquer distance. All other invention up to perhaps the internet was simply a matter of improving those facilities by a matter of degree.

The glory of the internet is that I can go use wikipedia to look up the name of the treaty that ended the war of 1812 and not look like an idiot in my post on Kevin Drum's internet blog. This massive, world-wide, instantaneous ability to inform oneself is a paradigm shift, unquestionably. However, the ability to fit the library into one's home seems less significant than the ability to travel across the globe in very short periods of time.

"And what do we mostly use it for? Porn, Justin Timberlake downloads, and penny stock scams."
Yeah, and blogs too. Why'd you leave them out?

In this vein, read Dan Simmon's Hyperion where humanity gets universe-spanning instantaneous teleportation and uses it to build bigger shopping malls.

At our small higher education institution, our servers handle some 700,000 e-mail messages a week. Of this, approximately 89% is spam. At some other institutions in our state, the figure is closer to 95%.

I agree.....who in their right mind would actually take action to buy a stock based on an unwanted e-mail message from someone we do not know or, after all the years of warning, reply to the 33rd son of a deceased African dictator claiming that he has chosen the recipient from among everyone in the world to help him get a few kazillion dollars out of his country? WHO? We have to find these people and whack them alongside the head with a four by six.

Finally! A post on porn!

But your link just goes to a fully clothed asian guy doing work. To each his own I guess.

What's wrong with porno?
mmmm p-o-o-rno. porno good.

And what do we mostly use it for? Porn, Justin Timberlake downloads, and penny stock scams.

So... what's your point, exactly?

Alright, since the R-word came up again and people are discussing it, here's one of my periodic summations on the issue, since Kevin discussed this publicly and in email with folks.

WM uses an older version of MoveableType that neither supports sitebanning by IP nor email-verified registration. This is not Kevin's issue; it's his bosses at the magazine. And they claim that upgrading to a newer version of the blog software would be both prohibitively expensive *and* time consuming to hire some geek to do -- even if it was to, say, a cost-free shareware package instead of MoveableType.

So as much as Kevin would *like* to ban a few miscreants and as much as he could be talked into supporting registration -- the word from the WM honchos is that It Can't Be Done.

Even with contributions/fees from the users, because of the whole suite of effort that an upgrade would require.

And that is all for this public service announcement.

Bob

the most complex and paradigm-changing invention so far in the history of homo

To add to DJAnyReason...

I will grant you the "complex".

But "the most paradigm changing invention in the history of Homo Sapiens" ?

What about:
Fire
Agriculture
Animal Domestication
Clothing
The Wheel
Horseriding
Architecture
Seamanship
Writing
Gunpowder
The Steam Engine
Electricity
Nuclear Energy
etc...

Greetings
Karl Heinz

I just hope that the government factors in the increased spam when they make their next "hedonic" adjustment for the cost of computers.

The internet is really really great. For porn.

I read somewhere...possibly the comments section of this very blog...that the real market for spam is not the recipient of the spam email, but rather the person hiring someone to send the spam.

Not sure how likely this is, but it does seem plausible...

Get gmail.

What I don't get is how there is anyone with the intelligence required to turn on a computer who would take stock advice sent to them in spam. I understand it only takes one, but honestly, who falls for that stuff?

I had the same question about the Nigerian scam until I met one man, then soon after another, that had fallen for the scam. Both successful Republican Evangelical Christian businessmen.

Darn you Karl!

Your list just gave away all the good answers to the Blog question I was going to suggest Kevin do tomorrow. But we can still make it work.

Question: If the internet isn't the "most complex and paradigm-shifting invention in the history of homo sapiens" then what is, and for extra credit, why?

And I don't think we should limit it to species homo. Those birds and chimps invented those sticks to get the worms out of their holes, you know.

So as much as Kevin would *like* to ban a few miscreants and as much as he could be talked into supporting registration -- the word from the WM honchos is that It Can't Be Done ...
Even with contributions/fees from the users

I hear you, Bob, and as annoying as Charlie is I'd agree that there's little point in going to all that trouble just to ban him, but as a good liberal I believe you have to look at a cost/benefit analysis.

Yes, there's a cost to WM for getting some kind of handle on spam (although the technical excuses seem increasingly lame, IMO). Alternatively, there is -- or rather, I believe the WM honchos should realize -- that there's a cost for not doing it as well.

Hate to break it to you, Kevin -- I love you and all, man -- but I come here about 75% for the discussion, and only 25% to see whatever your take is on the latest post by Ann Althouse or the yo-yos at The Corner. And the trolling has really gotten out of hand -- especially the handle spoofing. Hell, I was even opposed to whatever genius was parodying tbrosz, and at least he or she usually used a recognizably fake email. And my perception is that the bullshit -- not the ordinary bullshit from the Bush Cultists, but the totally wack signal/noise ration -- has led to a decline in legitimate posts.

So is Washington Monthly also too cheap to install a spam filter, backup software or virus protection? Well, make no mistake -- someone is out to damage your blog, Kevin. It's insane to not take even minimal steps to protect your site's value.

The problem isn't with spam reaching the end node, but that it is taking up so much bandwidth. It's the routers that are getting clogged up faster than they can increase capacity. Never mind that it never reaches your mailbox, it's slowing down other data requests because they have to be sorted out. An analogy of an old-fashioned pneumatic-tube mail system where only every tenth "bottle" contains a real message and the other nine are stuffed with scams isn't far off.

I suspect the real scammers are those selling the spam software/services to the spammers. Nobody is easier to bilk than a person out to bilk somebody else.

Maybe if we had anti-spam laws with real teeth, like the California law that was gutted by the yes you CAN SPAM act, and if we tried actually enforcing them.

Indeed, Kevin. Don't forget Facebook and MySpace, which are turning our children into mindless zombies who spend hours linking to some idiot's personal page because they posted a cool (and often phony) picture of themselves there.

What I find ironic is that the Internet could make us the most knowledgeable and informed people in the history of the planet. Instead, people seem to be getting dumber and more misinformed, because they rarely pick up a book and instead go on-line and get opinion or misinformation posted by a Noah Goldberg or Michael Savage. How sad.

Kevin,

I agree totally with Bad Rabbit and Global Citizen. I enjoy your blogs but the trolls ruin it. They irritate me so much that I've been guilty more than once of getting out my flame thrower. It's why I spend most of my time over at the Daily Kos.

The Intenet is the greatest means of protecting First Amendment rights the world has seen. The MSM constantly dissemanates liberal propaganda, so ordinary thoughtful people like me can only freely express oursleves online.

What do you have against people like me, Kevin?

The internet is arguably the apex of human technological development, the most complex and paradigm-changing invention so far in the history of homo sapiens. And what do we mostly use it for? Porn, Justin Timberlake downloads, and penny stock scams. Makes you proud, doesn't it?

I recall having had similar thoughts about teevee back in the '50s.

I read bloggs at work because they've got the porn blocked
/snark

Every day I receive notices from Paypal and ebay that I need to update my registration information. I also receive similar notices from various banks all across the country. All they want is a credit card number. Never having bought anything on ebay, used Paypal or had an account with any of those nice banks I find it very friendly that they have emailed me the opportunity to give them a credit card number. Maybe I should introduce them to all the nice folks who have paying me 10% to shelter their Nigerian money in the account where I have parked my lotto winnings.

Folks welcome to the brave new world of the internet.

The sad thing about all of this, aside from the annoyance, is there are elderly shutins who respond to all this stuff. There always have been. They are the same folks who have kept generations of televangelists afloat.

". . . the most complex and paradigm-changing invention so far in the history of homo sapiens."

I can't tell if Kevin's joking here, but this is ridiculous. The internet is more "paradigm-chagning" than the first ever written text? Technology cheerleaders really need to get a grip.

They wouldn't send it if it didn't work. Even if 1 out of every 100,000 SPAMs gets a response, it still makes it worthwhile. Anyone caught responding to SPAM should be hit across the back of the head with a 2 by 4 and told not to do it again.

>>And the trolling has really gotten out of hand -- especially the handle spoofing.

Amen.

How soon they forget.

Damn straight I'm selfish - I will not share my Euro Lottery winnings with anyone - My vast legal team will be contacting the legal teams of anyone who attempts to share the wealth. Then, I can help more people in Nigeria.

And now back to more and more Tango spams.

Who benefits from Spam? Well, one group of people who benefit from it is the companies that are now being paid millions of dollars a year to filter corporate email and remove the Spam, e.g. Postini, MessageLabs, Ironport, et al.

If Spam disappeared, then these companies would all go out of business.

Bob, I hear what you've said regarding what Kevin has said regarding trolls, Kevin's bosses, and the upgrading to kill the trolls.

But I promise everyone this: the opinions of the WM editors is not unchangable. We're their audience. If enough of us act in concert, we own them, basically.

All that's neccesary is to make ourselves, basically, a large enough pain in the butt.

Here's how a *serious* campaign to force registration - or at least IP blocking (I actually have mixed feelings about registration, myself) would be done:

a) Start a website dedicated to it
b) get other leftist blogs to link to the website
c) get a petition to accomplish that purpose
d)if possible, get a leaker inside WM to provide membership rolls, or simply fill every comment board here with an open request to all WM subscribers to please write the WM and demand registration on Kevin's blog.
e) promise donations and user support.

Not neccesarily recommended, but if it really mattered enough, you could probably start a comment boycott. All you'd need are five dedicated people or so, to fill, say the first 50 posts on every comment with a repeated spam message saying :***********The League of Concerned Kevin Drum fans are implementing an anti-troll campaign to demand registration on this blog**. To sway the editors, we are requesting your help, leftist blogger: DO NOT POST COMMENTS OF ANY KIND IN THIS BOARD UNTIL THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED*********

Through a combination of spamming and boycotting, we could completely silence discussion on these boards. Leave it for the right-wing trolls entirely. That might get the WM editors' attention. At the very least, they might just turn off the comment feature entirely.
It might be an improvement.

If anyone is really serious about any of these ideas, you should email each other and get it going.

Movable Type started out life as shareware, but they charge a heft amount of $ for a license these days. Switching to WordPress would require some significant template customization, and if you don't have someone savvy to that stuff on staff, you have to pay them. And WM is not exactly rolling in $$$.

And yes, there's plenty of left-leaning techies out there with the skills to implement the changes needed, but this isn't like helping your buddy set up her personal blog. WM is a moneymaking entity. If you do work for then you ought to get paid for it.

Just to play Devil's Advocate--

The day after Washington Monthly really does change this site to the new format, the new software and requires registration and moderates comments, all you're gonna hear is--

IT WAS SO MUCH BETTER BEFORE!!!

kevin drum, this sux, sux sux!!!

I will *never* post here again until you remove the registration function and put this back the way that it was! Shame on you all!

Hey! It wasn't broke! Why did you fix it? GRR!

And so on and so forth...

Do NOT denigrate the porn.

Yes, there's a cost to WM for getting some kind of handle on spam (although the technical excuses seem increasingly lame, IMO). Alternatively, there is -- or rather, I believe the WM honchos should realize -- that there's a cost for not doing it as well.
Posted by: Gregory on December 6, 2006 at 4:29 AM

Absolutely. The worse the spamming and handle spoofing gets, the less I come here. The less I and others come here, the less hits this site gets, and the less hits, the less it can charge for advertising. Doing nothing, as Gregory points out, imposes its own economic costs as well.

And yes, there's plenty of left-leaning techies out there with the skills to implement the changes needed, but this isn't like helping your buddy set up her personal blog. WM is a moneymaking entity. If you do work for then you ought to get paid for it.

No, it's a non-profit. I think you could actually donate the work you do for them and get a tax write-off.

The problem is, fifty guys would show up and offer their services. Twenty-five of them would advocate doing it this way, twenty-four of them would advocate doing it the other way, and one guy would by jumping up and down, screaming his head off, that everybody was wrong and everybody was evil and everybody was out to get him and everybody was a tool of the establishment and that everybody was working for the secret international Jewish conspiracy to thwart his intended goal of helping the WM do things the right way...

And who needs that crap?

No different from TV, another medium of great promise

The less I and others come here, the less hits this site gets, and the less hits, the less it can charge for advertising.

Indeed -- does WM believe that Charlie and Al refresh-monkeying the site can really make up the shortfall?

and one guy would by jumping up and down, screaming his head off, that everybody was wrong and everybody was evil and everybody was out to get him and everybody was a tool of the establishment and that everybody was working for the secret international Jewish conspiracy

Yeah, but again, we already have at least one of those guys, with goodness knows how many handles / sock puppets.

Quoth trublu:
"It's why I spend most of my time over at the Daily Kos."

Yeah, but that place is such a friggin love fest, it kind of makes me sick. There's no dissent at all, unless you count arguments like "No, I'm sadder that Lamont lost" -- "No, I'm totally sadder than you!"

See, you go to Kos for the article, not the discussion. You come here for the discussion -- troll-baiting/-bashing and all. It's called "info-tainment" so get used to it.

BTW, while we're on the topic of spoofing:
"An analogy of an old-fashioned pneumatic-tube mail system..."
Saint Fnordius (aka Ted Stevens) should definitely be the first ban from your newly reconstituted blog.

From what I have read, the first known writing, developed by the Sumerians, was for receipts of economic transactions.

I was thinking there must be millions of comments posted on blogs around the world everyday. I would guess the number of comments posted daily is increasing at a very high rate. I do not know if that is something to be proud of, but it means people are communicating in a new way.

I think the 'mostly pron' thing is an urban legend. Cecil Adams does a pretty good job of disputing this in his Straght Dope column: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/051007.html

The internet is arguably the apex of human technological development...

No, its not, not even arguably. Its a point on a continuous climb, not an "apex".

...the most complex and paradigm-changing invention so far in the history of homo sapiens.

Er, no, that's pretty clearly not the case. It may be complex, but its certainly not the most paradigm-changing invention; Writing, the wheel, and fire are far and away ahead here, and I'd say movable type, the high-pressure steam engine, the electric light, and radio are all ahead of the internet, too.

Its perhaps the most recent major paradigm-changing invention.

And what do we mostly use it for? Porn, Justin Timberlake downloads, and penny stock scams.

While the first two of those may be legitimate, spam is probably a very small portion of the "use" of the internet in terms of man-hours intentionally devoted to producing or consuming it; there is lots of spam (whether of the "penny stock scam" type or otherwise) because its easy to produce in vast quantities automatically, not because it is a major focus of the "use" of the itnernet. Of course, its easy to destroy in vast quantities automatically, too; most spam emails are probably never seen by a human being at any point in their lifetime.

I don't know how spam relates to registration on a blog, but since somebody else brought it up I can throw in my two cents.

In a word: no. I visit a few blogs that require you to register to comment, and while I enjoy reading their stuff I'll go to other blogs before I'll register just to comment. First of all, It's a giant pain in the ass to have to register at every freaking blog I want to go visit just to be able to leave a comment on something I read. Second, has anybody ever noticed how conservative blogs seem to prefer requiring people to register? Does anybody think that's a coincidence? No, it's so it's easier for them to ban people that they don't get along with. If the cost of non-regististration requirements is some blog comment spam, well I can live with that.

See, you go to Kos for the article, not the discussion. You come here for the discussion -- troll-baiting/-bashing and all. It's called "info-tainment" so get used to it.

I think that is a very large part of the popularity of Political Animal. Registration will hurt that.

Monday night's thread about Liberaltarians started out as a spoof fest but turned into a decent comment discussion about liberalism vs. libertarianism. With registration the spoofing may go away, but would the diverse opinions and lively disagreement go with it?

I think my commenting falls into two categories: snarky drive by and journalizing. I think Political Animal serves me well. It is fascinating how blogs enable people to spontaneously find each other and create ether communities.

I admire Kos, but do not bother to comment there. Its community is more moderate and self regulating, which does not attract the political animal in me, which is admittedly iconoclastic and not inclined to agree with or follow the group. Ditto that with Move-On.

A 1-penny-per e-mail sent 'tax' would eliminate spam as we know it.

Collected funds could go to internet infrastructure -- whatever.

I, for one, would happily pay this tax.

I, for one, would happily pay this tax.

So would I, but what the hell -- let's exempt the first 1,000 emails. Then it'd hit spammers in a greater proportion to regular users.

And what do we mostly use [the Internet] for? Porn, Justin Timberlake downloads, and penny stock scams.

The conventional wisdom is that pornography drove the market for VCRs, back in the days when they were expensive high-tech. It's speculated that the demand for streaming video over the Internet was also due to pornography consumers. Thus it's fair to say that we've all benefited from pornography (some perhaps more directly than others, of course).

A 1-penny-per e-mail sent 'tax' would eliminate spam as we know it.

No, it wouldn't, since it wouldn't affect spammers who use botnets of hijacked windows PCs to send mail that doesn't trace back to themselves, or spammers who send mail from outside of the US, etc.

To effectively collect such a tax even within the US, you need email to be reliably accountable to a sender: but once you get that, you don't need a tax to end spam; accountable email systems would be spam free.

Very proud. Almost as proud as I am of some of my stocks: DWSN, MIND and PMID. Hint, hint... :)

90% of this spam (by volume) is INFECTED WINDOWS MACHINES RUNNING SPAM BOTNETS!

Yes - Microsoft is to blame, and users who run Windows and do not take measures to run securely, surf for pr0n as Administrator, click on ad banners and run IE without any form of popup blocking - all are to blame.

Kevin, you seem to have wandered off-topic into issues that have no apparent connection to hating on Republicans. Please re-focus.

Here is my problem. I run a grassroots political organization with an email list of 600. I AM NOT A SPAMMER. I send out information on meetings and elections etc.

Howerver, several host servers have pegged me as a spammer and will not deliver the email. I have segregated all email addresses into their own group by host servers (AOL YHOO etc). This has helped but has not solved the problem.

What does someone do in my case???????

Hostile;
The reason I frequent THIS site, and NOT Kos, is because Kos has a much higher volume of traffic in comments, and it's easy to get lost in the noise. I rarely got into a thread before there were 300-400 posts already.

Drum's site, I think, chases away a LOT of posters because of the trolls. This, ironically, seems to increase the signal to noise ratio.

Also, Kos spends way too much time commenting on "little races" - which, while I agree are important, I personally find boring. Kevin's more issue-oriented.

Though - I think it would be a benefit to switch to (free) slashcode, and institute moderation controls. People would have an incentive to keep their karma maintained, as I have on Slashdot lo these past 9 years. The Charlies of this world would fade into irrelevance. I'd have to keep the same name - but I don't change all that much.

ER, Fire Dog Lake has too many commenters also, making it difficult to have discusions or running sparring episodes. I find the comments there boring. FDL also moderates over trifles, which I find annoying. I complained about TalkLeft's censorship and was admonished. FDL also closes comments before the thread has run its course.

I am not a fan of censorship and do not like the group think or cliques of Kos, which some seem to think will keep inflammatory comments at bay. I like inflammatory comments and I make them myself.

My sister was under the impression Karma occurs for behavior done in this life. I always thought Karma was about past lives' consequences being punished/rewarded in this or future lives.

After the invasion of Iraq began I made many comments endorsing our soldiers to frag their commanders. I would have been voted off the island at Kos, FDL, and was at TalkLeft for that. Do not even bother making complaint about Israel at TalkLeft, it is taboo. At Gilliard's News Blog one is just called an asshole, which I am fine with. I admit being a little disappointed more fragging has not taken place, but that is the price of having an all volunteer military.

Kevin,

Yeah, that wheel, written language, and steam engine thingies really pale in comparison.

Extradite:

Oh c'mon, OBF, you use a jillion handles (although, granted, always with the same email).

I tend to take a moderated view of registration. If enough people want it, I'd happily go along with it; I remember when we upgraded in the middle of the primary at Howard Dean's blogforamerica, and it improved things immeasurably, because everybody and their brother was trying to take down the frontrunner at the time.

But I also see Pale Rider's POV that there are unintended consequences, and even basic registration might drive a few good contributors away. Whether the loss of those people would outweigh the absence of a CharliFest is, I think, an open question -- though I tend to lean towards the side that it wouldn't. Spoofing really *has* gotten out of hand recently.

One nice thing about the new BFA registration system was that though you had to register with a handle, you could change it from post to post. What you *couldn't* do is change it to a registered handle or to somebody's handle currently in use. That seems to be the best of both worlds; allowing the anonymous snark or goof posts, while protecting people from having their main handles stolen.

What I don't support is glasnost's approach. First, human nature being what it is, it would only involve a handful of like-minded grizzled regulars going through all the trouble to destroy Kevin's blog in order to save it. This alone makes it undemocratic.

Mainly, though, I oppose most forms of counter-blogging. Trolls are trolls and spam is spam; I draw no distinctions between "good trolls" and bad, or between disruptive spam and spam for a purpose. One of the biggest delusions I've seen on this blog lately is a belief by some otherwise principled regulars that you can drive the trolls away by copping their methods. I think we've seen the results, and the results have been pure freaking anarchy -- and, surpise surprise, Charlie's still here and loving every minute of it. "Norman Rogers" was the best example of that. Look, I have no problem with parodies of an absurd reactionary. But when it turns out that "Norman's" purpose was to troll liberals, to "toughen them up" -- I'm sorry, that's balls-out trollish grandiosity every bit as obnoxious as Charlie, IMHO.

Maybe because I'm not particularly good at them (being pretty much too much myself to be comfortable or adept at playing that game) I don't much like spoofs or handle changing. I think it's really sort of immature when good regulars choose to snark in an anonymous handle. It doesn't make the target take these gems of wisdom any more seriously -- in fact, quite the reverse. You wanna really spank somebody or shame them into doing the right thing -- say it in your known voice and stand on principle.

But that's only a personal preference and I realize people are going to post how they see fit, especially under the current dispensation. For the record, I'd kick in a contribution or a registration fee because I really like this blog -- but I entertain no illusions that Kevin, we or both can change the minds of his employers. Especially by trying to make the blog worse rather than just proceeding with the discussion.

Bob

You wanna really spank somebody or shame them into doing the right thing -- say it in your known voice and stand on principle.

Yeah, we tried that with you and it didn't work.

Bob, I mentioned the Liberaltarian post earlier and think it somewhat instructive regarding troll spoofing. I made a drive by comment then I read the earlier comments, as is my MO. The spoofing of the comments by anonymous made me laugh, but then I wrote a longer comment describing my thoughts in more detail on the subject, even though someone spoofed my first comment immediately. When I came back to the comments the next day, it seemed the thread did not devolve into a spoof fest but did become a good discussion and I made more comments. My point is, like yours, that engaging in honest commenting actually stifles the trolls and the spoofing. I agree with you that becoming troll-like only encourages more of that type of behavior.

Hostile:

Pretty much in agreement. I've learned after hard experience that ignoring truly noxious individuals is the only way to proceed. It's contrary to human nature -- and I don't begrude anybody who feels like responding to whatever -- but in terms of practicality, it's the only thing that has a chance of working. Trolls or otherwise, people post to get responses. If they don't get responses, it's less likely they'll post if they have nothing to offer that's germane to the discussion. Human Nature 101.

Pale Rider:

I'm probably taking a risk by responding to this, but I'll say it anyway. Look, Pale, I understand why you just snarked at me. I don't begrudge you. After all, you've been one of the biggest advocates for counter-blogging here -- and it's probably kind of humiliating to see the strategy fail so badly. And it was as preordained to fail as Bush invading Iraq. You don't create less chaos by creating more chaos. You can't "annihilate evildoers" on a forum in cyberspace -- only insult them and maybe piss them off enough to respond in kind. Nobody's really dependent on their standing on a particular blog for their self-esteem (one can only hope). And the ones who *really* need to go are insensate to criticism, anyway -- so the ones who do say enough of this, this atmosphere is too toxic, are the ones you want around.

Believe me, I've learned some lessons here and have incorporated them in my recent incarnation. I'm not one of the ones who are insensate to criticism. And thank goodness there's Pynchon blogging when this place gets too much. But *making* the place "too much" for some people winds up degrading the experience for so many others that even if you did somehow manage to drive away the genuine sociopaths that it'd be like returning to the field of battle after a nuclear war or an anthrax attack.

Hostile and I are in total agreement. You manage this stuff by just trying to stick to the issues under discussion -- or at the very least by not attempting to overly personalize criticism.

Bob

rmck1: Look, I have no problem with parodies of an absurd reactionary.

...once you finally let go of your myriad breezy pronouncements that "so and so is for real, not a parody." This goes on and on despite your well-documented inability to recognize voices and writing styles, enormous evidence of other posters' parodic intent and even outright confessions of the parodists.

And recent evidence would indicate that you do have a very large problem with parodies of an absurd reactionary...when, despite every pity hint, freebie and wake-up call it was possible to give you, you wouldn't accept that Norman is a parody--and you reacted with volcanic rage, panic and neediness when you finally got it.

But when it turns out that "Norman's" purpose was to troll liberals, to "toughen them up" -- I'm sorry, that's balls-out trollish grandiosity every bit as obnoxious as Charlie, IMHO.

You bring up Norman so often that it's hard not to assume we have a little obsession cooking over there in New Jersey. May I suggest that it doesn't make much sense to trade one death-gripped misconception for another? In other words, why would you take the "toughen them up" statement as gospel when it's been demonstrated to you over and over that the very talented and chameleonic author of the remark makes a lot of contradictory comments, some of them genuine and others simply for banter, laughs or to make a point?

People have been doing Norman parodies for an entire year now. Despite his recent acceptance of your much-proffered invitation to help you make a fool of yourself, he's not all about you, nor is he only about toughening up liberals. And he's been remarkably kind to you since your meltdown; you notice that he never engages you, while you obsessively snipe at him whenever you encounter him.

As you continue to snipe at Pale Rider--you're doing it now, I see, as I preview this comment. It's a compulsion that's embarrassing to watch, your desire for a do-over that isn't going to happen.

Time to let it go, Bob. Continuing to pick the scab just makes you look more foolish. You'll feel better if you stop taking all of this--and yourself--so seriously.

shortstop:

If cyberspace were only a court of law ... but it isn't; it's the ultimate postmodern environment, where literally everything is interpretation.

What you cite here wouldn't stand up to a review of the recent threads, where I assiduously ignored Norman save for a two-line dismissal -- including the followup attempt to suck me back in. I only bring up Norman because it's an example of the sort of techniques employed in the roundhouse flamewar against PR that was happening for the past few days, and in which I had only the smallest of peripheral roles -- pointing out spoofers and defending regulars, most especially including PR.

I meant what I said a few days ago that I have no bad blood against PR -- but I do disagree with counter-blogging as a strategy to deal with trolls. And since the thread was talking about trolls, I merely stated my views on the subject. Pale snarked at me; instead of returning it, I took the opportunity to make a case against counter-blogging.

This is really a lot less personal than you're attempting to read it.

I don't share your view that Norman is all that clever; he has a schtick, but it's grown kind of old. The mistake I made was to believe that a liberal spoofer would go so completely out of his way to construct a persona that looked genuine, for the expressed purpose (and the confession is in archive) of trolling regulars, not only yours truly. The fake tbroszes, Al's Mommy's and such play it exclusively for laughs. I made the naive mistake to discount that level of grandiose malice from a liberal regular ...

And I have learned from the experience, and most assuredly consider those events over.

If you'd like to wonder about the length of my response -- consider the length of the one which provoked it. I'm merely setting the record straight from my own perspective.

As always in cyberspace, YMMV.

Bob

shortstop:

And let me add as a final comment that your interpretation of *past* events wouldn't stand up to fair-minded scrutiny, either.

It's all in archive if anyone cares -- and it is nice to know that they don't, especially.

Bob

Commenting, like blogs, is journalizing in public. It opens your thoughts up to analysis and criticism, while it also helps you to organize and clarify what you may never have written down and reconsidered. Commenting is also like a bull session, where you throw out ideas and see if anything is saluted while going up the flag pole. Commenting is also a good place to find adversaries to spar with or insult. I have only made comments at blogs since the invasion of Iraq and it has allowed me to express my impotence to prevent it and the anger I feel about its consequences. The ability to express these emotions publicly is a bonus. The reason I prefer PA is they are not bound either by a moderator or peer pressure like those other 'greasy kidstuff' blogs.

And let me add as a final comment that your interpretation of *past* events wouldn't stand up to fair-minded scrutiny, either.

Yeah, because as we know, you don't project at all and you don't have the slightest bit of self-awareness or shame, do you?

... in which I had only the smallest of peripheral roles -- pointing out spoofers and defending regulars, most especially including PR.

Didn't see the exchange in question, but am amused that even now, despite all historical evidence to the contrary and a number of very public corrections, you believe you're able to make these distinctions with even minimal accuracy.

Of course the "confession" (telling choice of words, that) is in the archives. As I just noted, so are a whole lot of other statements that contradict it.

How do you keep trusting your latest deeply-held conviction after so many of the previous ones were proven wrong? This time you're sure you've gotten to the bottom of Norman--and Pale Rider? This time's really the time, honest, huh?

No, you haven't learned. You don't. But I am glad to hear you're trying to let it go. I look forward to your posts beginning to reflect that.

P.S. on yours of 5:55--Yes, it's all in the archives, and I'm comfortable with it all. I'm glad you've rethought your policy of sending readers to your meltdown thread. It was inexplicable that you should have wanted more people to see you like that.

Good luck, Bob.

I have melted down here many, many times. But, to keep the hair cream analogy in play, I came back, and I'm glad I did.

shortstop:

Look, this is just basic harrassment. There's nothing particularly moral about it. That's, in fact, why you've lain off me since I've been back. You console yourself by re-labeling the guilt you feel for acting so malicious as "pity."

I don't care who sees any of the threads. They stand as a record of nothing any nobler than something you might read in Lord of the Flies.

And, deep down, you know it.

Bobb

Uh huh. Some people, rational and balanced people, might say to themselves, "Gee, when I make gratuitous pokes at Pale Rider, as I've done for months now, people always come in to call me on it. Maybe I should stop that crap."

But not you, Bob. No, you see anyone calling bullshit on you as "harassment" and Lord of the Flies action. Has anyone ever been as big a victim as you have? Man, did you see that Norman parody? That was some kind of malicious shit, that wildly over-the-top fake rich Republican! They only warned you he was fake like 800 times--those bastards blindsided you! It was a mob action, I tell you!

It's not "pity," Bob. The phrase is "exasperated pity." Do you even begin to understand the difference?

Here's a hint: the first one implies compassion for someone who's been thrown into a bad situation through no fault of his or her own. The second one implies combined compassion and annoyance for someone in a bad way whose ego prevents him from helping himself.

Now I'm heading out for the evening and I'm done with this silliness. I'm returning to the only sane policy--one which I've followed for many months, not since "you've been back," whatever that means (were you gone more than a day?)--not engaging with your nonsense or even reading most of your posts. Get it together, and move on.

shortstop:

Wow. And you accuse *me* of projection and lack of self-awareness. Shortstop, the bottom line is that you're an extremely angry person -- I've known this since we started posting together -- and you're looking for a safe place to dump it. You misread stuff immediately upthread, let alone what happened a month ago.

I did not, in any way, take a shot at Pale Rider in this thread. He took a shot at me, and I deflected it into an argument for why I think counter-blogging is a bad strategy for dealing with trolls. That's the objective issue, and Norman only happens to be the apotheosis of those sorts of tactics. I used him as an example of a general tactic that resoundingly failed over the past few days in a war I had little to do with. Norman can come back and write all the parody he wants, but Norman's days of *trolling* are over. And that's to the good.

And here you are, attempting to ressurect a flamewar from a month ago while simultaneously telling me that I "can't let it go?" If that's not projection, shortstop, then what is?

Look, I'm not going to lay out the anatomy of what happened. You all know it. It was a coordinated attack in an attempt to drive me out of here, and you were all in touch by email -- and you should know I have confirmation of this.

So yes, this was like The Lord of the Flies. It was done to no greater purpose than to get a reaction from me -- and congratulations, you did. The fact that my getting upset is what vouchsafes your amusement is what marks it as malicious.

These techniques don't work against Charlie, let alone against a regular like me.

And that's the take-home lesson of my initial comment to Pale Rider.

Bob

Wow. And you accuse *me* of projection and lack of self-awareness. Shortstop, the bottom line is that you're an extremely angry person -- I've known this since we started posting together -- and you're looking for a safe place to dump it. You misread stuff immediately upthread, let alone what happened a month ago.

No, shortstop is not an angry person and you're an asshole for even trying to go there. What shortstop is, and this is difficult for you to understand, is tired of your shit.

You had your ass handed to you. Plain and simple. You are not man enough to admit it--we had to stop the joke because you were melting down. We had you in a place and time of our choosing, executed the plan, and turned you into swiss cheese. You were pinging off the walls, ready to explode, and I talked you down, didn't I? Go back and read the thread, Bob--I brought you back and brought you down like you were on some kind of acid trip. Don't think I enjoyed that--oh, no. No. What I wanted to do...you're lucky, Bob. You think you know everything, but you don't. You have no idea how lucky you are.

Had it been entirely up to me--Pale Rider--I would have continued it until you exploded and had to check into Bellevue, you idiot.

I did not, in any way, take a shot at Pale Rider in this thread. He took a shot at me, and I deflected it into an argument for why I think counter-blogging is a bad strategy for dealing with trolls.

Stop--yes you did, asshole, and you can't stop taking shots because you think you're the aggrieved party. WE'RE the aggrieved party--we've had to put up with your endless drama and your endless dimestore analysis of things you know nothing about.

That's the objective issue, and Norman only happens to be the apotheosis of those sorts of tactics.

No, it's a parody. If you can't spot that it was a parody, you're a moron. It was over the top and satirical and you weren't smart enough to figure it out. A joke was played and you did not have the ability to pick up on it.

Do you know what the funniest part of it all was? We would have a half dozen Norman posts and then I would pop on there and go Bob, you idiot--it's Pale Rider doing Norman And then you would go on and on and on--ad nauseum and at length,oh, no, it couldn't possibly be Pale Rider, he's too literal minded and he's not talented enough. And what causes you the most grief to this day is knowing--knowing--that Pale Rider did the posts (about 75% of them) and you couldn't figure it out. And it would have died on the first day if you had any brains--but no, you had to be the stupidest fucking guy on the planet and go, there's no way Pale Rider could do that--he's simply not equipped to do Norman.

Guess what asshole? It would appear that I am.

And you did this at least ten times. And we were screaming, hysterical with laughter about it.

I used him as an example of a general tactic that resoundingly failed over the past few days in a war I had little to do with. Norman can come back and write all the parody he wants, but Norman's days of *trolling* are over. And that's to the good.

You're not qualified to say--you're really not. You've never demonstrated the ability to accomplish anything at all--you just post and post and post and everything that's wrong--you project that back onto anyone who challenges you. People fisk the crap out of your logic, analysis and use of the facts and it tears you to pieces; it gets to the point where you are cursing them out and maniacal.

How many meltdowns have you had in the last three months alone? Shall we count the number of times you went ballistic when someone thought you were using a sockpuppet?

And here you are, attempting to ressurect a flamewar from a month ago while simultaneously telling me that I "can't let it go?" If that's not projection, shortstop, then what is?

Give it a rest--you're projecting. You can't let it go. I reached a truce with you and you broke it--and you gave your smug, self-satisfied *shrug* about it--you're the one who's projecting. No one cares either way what happens to you anymore. You were give a mulligan way back when and now that's eating you alive. You got punked, you got burned, you got roasted and we had to shut the joke down and pull back the curtain to keep it from getting out of hand.

Now you walk back over that and think you won? You're pathetic. Can't you see? Every time you get caught 'projecting' your one and only defense every single time is to say, "I'm not projecting, you're projecting."

That's projecting, dumbass--it's what you're famous for.

Look, I'm not going to lay out the anatomy of what happened. You all know it. It was a coordinated attack in an attempt to drive me out of here, and you were all in touch by email -- and you should know I have confirmation of this.

Really? It wouldn't be because everyone who was in on it told you that, would it? Duh.

Name names or shut the fuck up. Go ahead. You name who supposedly told you this. Name the person or admit that you just lied.

So yes, this was like The Lord of the Flies. It was done to no greater purpose than to get a reaction from me -- and congratulations, you did. The fact that my getting upset is what vouchsafes your amusement is what marks it as malicious.

You are the malicious one--we were trying to get free of your malicious behavior. You're not stable or competent to post here on a level you would like to claim for yourself. All of us comment here and then go back to our lives--you don't.

These techniques don't work against Charlie, let alone against a regular like me.

So you're now a 'regular?' Well, that's fucking hilarious--you've always been extra careful NOT to claim that status (and it's meaningless, by the way--it only means something to you) and go out of your way to kiss ass.

Remember my line, get your nose out of my ass, Bob?

You're a pest; nothing more. You're a canker sore that won't go away. You're unstable, you have serious fucking mental issues and you inflict this upon us. Why would anyone care whether you live in a halfway house with psychopaths, Bob? That's the kind of thing a normal person would, I dunno, just not talk about on a public blog thread infested with trolls like Charlie.

And that's the take-home lesson of my initial comment to Pale Rider.

Which you haven't learned anything from.

And we're right back to where we were the day you showed up, Bob. I want to go wash my hands every time I deal with you--you're that awful to engage in any kind of discussion.

You're an asshole.

Pale Rider:

> Name names or shut the fuck up. Go ahead. You name who supposedly
> told you this. Name the person or admit that you just lied.

This is awfully Jason-ish, Pale. It's precisely what he
said the night he flew into an apoplectic rage (I was calmly
rebutting the guy) and a mutual friend asked him to lay off --
and he left the blog for awhile, before plotting his revenge
against me by cultivating the Norman persona. Or at least
so he claimed while posting under your handle as Jason.

So I'll say the same thing I said that night. Why would
you think I'd betray the confidence of a friend, Pale?

I will say this, though. This person said they would not betray
confidences. So I don't know for a fact if you and Jason are
the same person or whatall. But I do know there was a deliberate
conspiracy involved. Of how many people? Who are they exactly?
This person doesn't know and I certainly don't, either.

Bob

You really got *that* ticked off because I couldn't believe that Pale Rider could write the Norman posts?

I was laughing too hard to be ticked off.

Sorry, Bob.

I know how you swore you'd never get into another flame war of a negative type and all, and I realize--you're just a pathetic asshole who will continue to attack people because, well, that's what you do--but Sixers/Bulls just came on after an anemic Holy Cross/Duke ballgame and that's just a tad bit more interesting right now.

Had Duke actually been forced to play a real team tonight, I wouldn't have wandered in at all.

Either way, sure, Bob. You win, you scored all the hits, and you're a regular now. Oh, we're not worthy to read you, Bob, and, gosh, I'm so intimidated by your talent and your ability with words Bob.

One thing I know--I can't ever 'troll' you again Bob. Because if there ever was a next time, there actually would be a coup de grace, and I just don't have the interest in it anymore.

Once someone has to give you a pass, it's kinda over at that point. All I have is pity for you.

Is there a Bob McKeown theory, by the way? That somewhere there's an asshole out there with that name who just can't stop crying into his sleeve and acting like a whiny ass titty baby with no milk to suck?

I mean, Jesus, Bob.

Get a life.

Pale:

You also posted as mercuryman242 for a little while, didn't you. Just so you'd have an excuse to email me so you could get my real name.

I'd appreciate it if you don't use it on the blog, thanks.

Bob

PR - "you had to be the stupidest fucking guy on the planet and go, there's no way Pale Rider could do that--he's simply not equipped to do Norman. Guess what asshole? It would appear that I am. And you did this at least ten times. And we were screaming, hysterical with laughter about it."

Wow. You're really creative, Pale Rider. And such a tough guy, making fun of old Bob. Does that go with your wannabe makebelieve "Army" career? Grow up and get a fucking life, you loser.

"trex":

*rolling eyes*

Bob

Pale:

Enjoy the game.

To conclude I'll just say that I didn't attack you, Pale.

I criticized your technique of counter-blogging and you massively overreacted to it.

The criticism, however, still stands on the merits.

Goodnight.

Bob

I'd appreciate it if you don't use it on the blog, thanks.

*shrug*

Stuff happens.

;)

A new record of dimwittedness in nerdistan, this thread. Pale Rider and Bob fighting it out for the title of all-time world record of lame.

A new record of dimwittedness in nerdistan, this thread. Pale Rider and Bob fighting it out for the title of all-time world record of lame.

I actually agree with you there.

Seconded.

Bob

Pale:

You know doing that was totally not cool. It was an invasion of my privacy, by deception.

How you can rationalize stuff like that I truly have no idea. I wouldn't dream of doing something like that to somebody I disagreed with on a blog.

You really need to look deeply into this thing you have for attempting to "annihilate" people in cyberspace, Pale.

It doesn't reflect well on the values you claim to hold.

Bob

Ethics? You want to lecture some other human being about ethics?

Project much?

Pale:

That's correct, Pale. I'm lecturing you about the ethics of using a fake email address to gain the confidence of somebody for the sake of learning stuff about their personal life off the blog.

That you'd even try to return that charge in my direction is what is classical projective identification.

Bob

I'm lecturing you about the ethics of using a fake email address to gain the confidence of somebody for the sake of learning stuff about their personal life off the blog.

Which only happened in your imagination, but hey--since nothing you've said tonight makes any sense, what the hell, Bob?

What else are you going to accuse me of? Oh, that's right--you're just going to project every fuck up you've ever made on to me so that you can get yourself back in the warm, happy place that keeps escaping from you.

What the hell does all this shit have to do with anything? What are throwing around? I mean, what the hell are you talking about?

Freak out much?

You also posted as mercuryman242 for a little while, didn't you. Just so you'd have an excuse to email me so you could get my real name.

What?

No, not me, but ????

Did I kidnap the Lindberg Baby and sink the Lusitania as well?

Pale:

I mean, look. That's the whole crux of the argument. You think counter-blogging is cool. You think learning stuff about who trolls really are is perfectly fair game. I saw you doing this in the flamewar the other day.

I don't. I don't think it's my business who anybody is off the modem unless they care to tell me about it. Now -- I did respond to this mercuryman person and I know full well I have my real name in the field on emails. So I took a chance; I don't know who this guy is.

But you took that information and spilled it out publicly.

I'd never dream of doing anything like that. If I found out somebody's name irl from an email, I don't care how much I disliked this person, I'd keep it to myself.

That's a clear difference of opinion on cyberspace ethics. No projection on my part whatsoever.

Bob

Dude--you're out of your mind.

You worked for Dean and Corzine--you repeatedly put the most obvious and clear details about your identity all over these threads, since day one. Thus, your name is all over the web.

That's Pale Rider 101, dude--associating stated relationships and performing basic relational analysis.

Sorry, don't know what the big deal is, but whatever.

Project much?

Pale:

Okay, fair point. Maybe you didn't spoof that mail.

But I asked you to keep my name off the blog. You apparently got it from somewhere, and didn't deny that charge when you first responded to that post.

Not an unreasonable request, when you think about it. And not an unreasonable assumption to make, given your initial response.

Bob

I'd never dream of doing anything like that. If I found out somebody's name irl from an email, I don't care how much I disliked this person, I'd keep it to myself.

Oh, now that's the line of the night. THAT'S the biggest line of BULLSHIT ever.

You have no qualms whatsoever about spilling lies, bullshit and personal details all over the blog--

Hello? It's why I think you're an asshole.

Pale:

No, my name is not all over the web. Certainly I did nothing in cyberspace for Corzine.

If I somewhere inadverently slipped up and posted my name publicly -- how would you find it without being able to search for it through tons and tons of rmck1 posts?

Still, it's not an unreasonable request. Certainly something I'd honor for you if I happened to "stumble across" your real name.

Bob

Pale:

Personal details? There's one incident which is ambiguous and has since been corrected in email. Apology accepted, case closed.

Lies? Nope. Certainly not deliberate. Bullshit? A matter of interpretation.

Bob

You apparently got it from somewhere, and didn't deny that charge when you first responded to that post.

Four weeks after you started posting, I think.

I want you to understand something--I took the initials "rdw" and the details he freely shared with us on the blog and linked him to the website where Wooten could register as a former crewman on the Navy Supply Ship that he once served on in the early 1970s. I don't know what he did with the info, but it was like, a basic google search and then analyzing the years which he served, the known supply vessels that plied the Atlantic and then the rosters posted on the association web page--vets groups do this all the time to make contact once again that was lost before the advent of the Internet. Wooten and I had a laugh over it and it was no big deal--it was like, cool, he could catch up with some people he served with. It wasn't done out of malice--although I secretly wished to find something that said Wooten was always telling us about the Illuminatti and the scourge of liberalism...

I mean, what the fuck? You think we're all just idiots out here or something?

Who do you think I am? Oh, that's right.

I'm not "talented" enough to write the Norman parodies.

Still the most hilarious goddamned thing ever--seriously, I was never pissed--it's hard to get pissed when you're rolling on the floor laughing.