Panda's Thumb sucks
Panda's Thumb has 26 bloggers (called "contributors" or "crew" members on PT and called "team" members by blogger.com) and might also employ outside blog administrators, but either they are all ignorant about IP addresses or they don't care about the bad consequences of blocking IP addresses.
Rule 6 of the Panda's Thumb Comment Integrity Policy says:
Panda's Thumb of course sometimes uses IP address blocking for other violations of PT's commenting rules.
An article titled "Why IP banning is useless" says:
That's how I was initially banned from PT -- I am an AOL user. The preceding article also says,
The "open" proxies -- e.g., hidemyass.com -- are better known as "anonymous" proxies. Seeing the PT staff's obvious frustration as they continued their futile efforts to block my comments sent through these anonymous proxies was great fun. I think the next thing I'll do is subscribe to an email forwarding service to further hide my identity.
Ed Brayton, who runs his own blog -- "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" -- in addition to being a blogger on Panda's Thumb, has posted this blog article that shows his own ignorance about IP addresses.
No reputable blogger or blog service would block IP addresses. The only practical way to control comment content is to either delay the posting of comments until after inspection (this is called comment "moderation") or delete undesired comments after they are posted.
In addition to blocking IP addresses, the PT bloggers also arbitrarily delete comments and cut off discussions in the middle by closing threads. And PT's infamous "Bathroom Wall", where Panda's Thumb's bloggers dump comments on the pretext that the comments are "off-topic" when the real reason is suppression of ideas that the bloggers don't like, is -- in PT's own words -- "a PT tradition." Comments moved to the Bathroom Wall are generally ignored and moving comments there disrupts discussions. I have never seen any other blog or other Internet forum that has anything like the PT's BW. The BW is just a gimmick that enables the hypocritical PT bloggers to practice censorship while pretending that they don't.
I observed that Panda's Thumb got a 2005 web award from Scientific American magazine, so I once hoped that SA magazine could be persuaded to pressure PT into showing some minimal integrity that would show PT to be deserving of the award. I gave up on that idea when I discovered that the editor-in-chief of SA magazine, John Rennie, is himself a fanatical Darwinist crackpot who tried to persuade university presidents to sign a petition supporting Darwinism.
The irony of all this censorship crap that occurs on the Internet is that it undermines one of the Internet's great advantages -- a tremendous potential enhancement of the free exchange of ideas. It used to be that most of us ordinary citizens got almost no opportunity to publicize our views -- maybe once in a blue moon a newspaper or magazine would publish a brief letter from us or we would get a brief opportunity to comment on a radio talk show. But with the Internet, people are able to -- or would be able to, if it were not for all this drat censorship -- publicize comments of any length at any time.
This blog is well over a month old and now has about 30 articles on controversial subjects, and I am still waiting for the lousy sleazebags at Panda's Thumb to take a potshot at it.
Rule 6 of the Panda's Thumb Comment Integrity Policy says:
6. Posting under multiple identities or falsely posting as someone else may lead to removal of affected comments and blocking of the IP address from which those comments were posted, at the discretion of the management.(emphasis added)
Panda's Thumb of course sometimes uses IP address blocking for other violations of PT's commenting rules.
An article titled "Why IP banning is useless" says:
Many proposals for eliminating comment spam are focused on banning or throttling comments from the IP address of the spammer. This is fundamentally flawed because it assumes IP addresses are both unique and hard to come by.
Banning an IP address can have severe consequences. Many ISPs (including AOL) and companies use a proxy server that makes it appear as if all users are coming from a single (or a handful) of IP addresses. By blocking an IP address, you might be preventing a substantial portion of AOL users from commenting.
That's how I was initially banned from PT -- I am an AOL user. The preceding article also says,
The other problem is that IP addresses are very easy to get or fake for spammers who care about such things. There are hundreds of ("or," not "of" ?) thousands of open proxies that will let anyone direct Web traffic through them. When I’m using an open proxy, my IP address is effectively masked.
The "open" proxies -- e.g., hidemyass.com -- are better known as "anonymous" proxies. Seeing the PT staff's obvious frustration as they continued their futile efforts to block my comments sent through these anonymous proxies was great fun. I think the next thing I'll do is subscribe to an email forwarding service to further hide my identity.
Ed Brayton, who runs his own blog -- "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" -- in addition to being a blogger on Panda's Thumb, has posted this blog article that shows his own ignorance about IP addresses.
No reputable blogger or blog service would block IP addresses. The only practical way to control comment content is to either delay the posting of comments until after inspection (this is called comment "moderation") or delete undesired comments after they are posted.
In addition to blocking IP addresses, the PT bloggers also arbitrarily delete comments and cut off discussions in the middle by closing threads. And PT's infamous "Bathroom Wall", where Panda's Thumb's bloggers dump comments on the pretext that the comments are "off-topic" when the real reason is suppression of ideas that the bloggers don't like, is -- in PT's own words -- "a PT tradition." Comments moved to the Bathroom Wall are generally ignored and moving comments there disrupts discussions. I have never seen any other blog or other Internet forum that has anything like the PT's BW. The BW is just a gimmick that enables the hypocritical PT bloggers to practice censorship while pretending that they don't.
I observed that Panda's Thumb got a 2005 web award from Scientific American magazine, so I once hoped that SA magazine could be persuaded to pressure PT into showing some minimal integrity that would show PT to be deserving of the award. I gave up on that idea when I discovered that the editor-in-chief of SA magazine, John Rennie, is himself a fanatical Darwinist crackpot who tried to persuade university presidents to sign a petition supporting Darwinism.
The irony of all this censorship crap that occurs on the Internet is that it undermines one of the Internet's great advantages -- a tremendous potential enhancement of the free exchange of ideas. It used to be that most of us ordinary citizens got almost no opportunity to publicize our views -- maybe once in a blue moon a newspaper or magazine would publish a brief letter from us or we would get a brief opportunity to comment on a radio talk show. But with the Internet, people are able to -- or would be able to, if it were not for all this drat censorship -- publicize comments of any length at any time.
This blog is well over a month old and now has about 30 articles on controversial subjects, and I am still waiting for the lousy sleazebags at Panda's Thumb to take a potshot at it.
Labels: Internet censorship (1 of 2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 5/28/2006 07:32:00 PM
28 Comments:
You can wait a long time. They don't care about you.
I'm reminded of an old semi-horror flick Creepshow. The evil man gets buried up to his neck in the intertidal zone as the water begins to rise. He yells out to the two zombies he created that "I can hold my breath a long long time!"
Ok comment-
PT sucks? Seriously? Larry, how old is the earth? Who are the bad guys? Why is the maytag repairman the lonliest guy in town?
VoiceInWilderness said...
>>>>>You can wait a long time. They don't care about you.<<<<<
Well, I wish those goddamsonuvabitchhell bastards had taken that attitude when I was commenting on Panda's Thumb. Instead they did everything in their power to get rid of me.
Anyway, it is fun making them look like a bunch of monkeys.
"This blog is well over a month old and now has about 30 articles on controversial subjects, and I am still waiting for the lousy sleazebags at Panda's Thumb to take a potshot at it."
Panda's Thumb tends to discuss people who make a difference. Not people like you.
Anonymous said --
>>>>>"This blog is well over a month old and now has about 30 articles on controversial subjects, and I am still waiting for the lousy sleazebags at Panda's Thumb to take a potshot at it."
Panda's Thumb tends to discuss people who make a difference. Not people like you.<<<<<
The PT staff thought that I made a BIG difference when I was commenting there. That is why they banned me.
And why wouldn't PT take a potshot now at their favorite troll, just for old time's sake?
And not only do you not make a difference, you choose to be a nonperson -- Anonymous.
You made a big difference in terms of crazy disruptions of threads, not a big difference in terms of the ID Creationism movement.
Anonymous said --
>>>>You made a big difference in terms of crazy disruptions of threads, not a big difference in terms of the ID Creationism movement. <<<<
It is not possible for a single commenter to single-handedly disrupt, "derail," or "hijack" a thread. If a commenter posts a comment that other commenters regard as completely off-the-wall or grossly off-topic, the other commenters can just ignore the comment or let one negative response speak for them. Instead, my comments on PT were often followed by several negative responses containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks.
Anyway, Anonymous, you talk big, but I have not seen you making much of a positive contribution to the discussions on this blog.
Anonymous said --
>>>>I have not seen you making much of a positive contribution to the discussions on this blog. All you do is post stupid uninformed halfwit arguments. <<<<
OK, Anonymous, why don't you pick one of my arguments -- any argument -- and find fault with it.
> OK, Anonymous, why don't you pick one of my arguments -- any argument -- and find fault with it. <
Apparently you can't read. All sorts of people have found all sorts of faults faults with your arguments. You just pretend that they didn't post them and then replay your old tired drivel.
>>>>>You can wait a long time. They don't care about you.<<<<<
Well, I wish those goddamsonuvabitchhell bastards had taken that attitude when I was commenting on Panda's Thumb. Instead they did everything in their power to get rid of me.
Ummm, they don't care about you.
They care about their readers.
Banning you was a blessing for the community.
Anonymous said --
<<<<<
>OK, Anonymous, why don't you pick one of my arguments -- any argument -- and find fault with it.<
All sorts of people have found all sorts of faults faults (sic) with your arguments. <<<<<
Just because those people have made findings of fault does not necessarily mean that those findings are valid. Take, for example, Colin's contention that a claim for nominal damages is alone sufficient to prevent a lawsuit from being declared to be moot. If that were true, all plaintiffs would claim nominal damages and no lawsuit could ever be declared to be moot. Reductio ad absurdum. Q.E.D.
Also, even those who have found fault with some of my arguments have not contended, as you do, that none of my arguments have any validity. They have even conceded a few of my arguments on issues that we have debated -- and have said nothing about my arguments on issues that we have not debated.
Anyway, Anonymous, you are the one who asserted, "all you do is post stupid uninformed halfwit arguments," so I am asking you to personally find fault with even one of my arguments. You are just wasting my time -- put up or shut up.
> The PT staff thought that I made a BIG difference when I was commenting there. That is why they banned me. <
Delusions of Grandeur! They banned you because unlike some of the old theaters, they didn't have a cry room.
> those goddamsonuvabitchhell bastards <
This is a violation of your stated rules. Such "ad-hominem attacks are discouraged".
> Take, for example, Colin's contention that a claim for nominal damages is alone sufficient to prevent a lawsuit from being declared to be moot. If that were true, all plaintiffs would claim nominal damages and no lawsuit could ever be declared to be moot. <
Good Grief! You didn't understand a word he said did you?
> I am asking you to personally find fault with even one of my arguments. <
It seems that he has. This is the characteristic of your posts on PT and CW. You don't understand the arguments against your absurd positions so you pretend that they have not been made.
I see that you are posting almost around the clock. Isn't this an imposition on your mother while you are using her phone for your dialup connection?
Nice posts, Shemp!
Okay Larry. you have a problem. Get help, a life, a hobby, a girl, something..
> either they are all ignorant about IP addresses or they don't care about the bad consequences of blocking IP addresses. <
Ed Brayton obviously knows a lot more about IP addresses than you do. He has successfully kept your phony Dave Fafarman posts off of his site while allowing those of the real Dave Fafarman to get through.
> That's how I was initially banned from PT -- I am an AOL user. <
But other AOL users were getting through.
> I think the next thing I'll do is subscribe to an email forwarding service to further hide my identity. <
It won't do any good. It isn't your IP or your email address that identifies you. It is your characteristic babbling.
> Ed Brayton, who runs his own blog -- "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" -- in addition to being a blogger on Panda's Thumb, has posted this blog article that shows his own ignorance about IP addresses. <
This comment shows your own ignorance. I would recommend that everyone read the post at this link to see how Ed was able to prove that you were posting under your brother's name.
> No reputable blogger or blog service would block IP addresses. <
Wrong. Several do.
> In addition to blocking IP addresses, the PT bloggers also arbitrarily delete comments and cut off discussions in the middle by closing threads. <
What ever happened to your thread "Stop Messing Up My Blog"? It seems to have disappeared.
> I discovered that the editor-in-chief of SA magazine, John Rennie, is himself a fanatical Darwinist crackpot who tried to persuade university presidents to sign a petition supporting Darwinism. <
No. John Rennie is a scientist who is campaigning against anti-Darwinist crackpots.
> a tremendous potential enhancement of the free exchange of ideas. <
There is plenty of opportunity for the free exchange of ideas on Ed Brayton's blog. He no longer has room for the mindless repetitive ranting of mindless lunatics.
Larry,
I see that three of your last titles have attracted only one post each and another has attracted none after nearly three days while "Panda's Thumb sucks" has drawn 19 and "More shenanigans from Ed Brayton has 45 already. The latter two dwell mostly on your hypocracy, your ignorance of IPs, and attempts by you to impersonate others.
Why not cater to the demands of the audience and open a thread about the deteriorating state of your mental health? It is far more interesting.
More crap from VoiceInWilderness -
-
<<<<<< > The PT staff thought that I made a BIG difference when I was commenting there. That is why they banned me. <
They banned you because unlike some of the old theaters, they didn't have a cry room.<<<<<<
But PT did have a "cry room," you stupid SOB -- it was called the "Bathroom Wall." But even that wasn't enough for the dirtbags over at PT.
I see that the infamous Bathroom Wall has finally been abandoned -- it was too stupid an idea even for those stupid idiots over at PT.
<<<<< > Take, for example, Colin's contention that a claim for nominal damages is alone sufficient to prevent a lawsuit from being declared to be moot. If that were true, all plaintiffs would claim nominal damages and no lawsuit could ever be declared to be moot. <
Good Grief! You didn't understand a word he said did you?<<<<<<
I understood everything he said, but I did not need to understand anything he said, because the idea is absurd on its face.
<<<<<< > those goddamsonuvabitchhell bastards <
This is a violation of your stated rules. Such "ad-hominem attacks are discouraged".<<<<<
Wrong -- I said, "Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged." And I said "discouraged," not "prohibited."
<<<<< > I am asking you to personally find fault with even one of my arguments. <
It seems that he has<<<<<<
It "seems"? You mean that you are not sure?
>>>>>You don't understand the arguments against your absurd positions so you pretend that they have not been made.<<<<<
Name one instance where I have not understood an argument made against my position. Name one instance where I have not answered directly. Provide quotations from the comments here. Put up or shut up.
>>>>>I see that you are posting almost around the clock. Isn't this an imposition on your mother while you are using her phone for your dialup connection? <<<<<
That's a darn sight better than your mother, who sleeps in pay toilets.
You are not only a stupid moron, but you are a rude, gossiping SOB who does not even know how to MYOB.
Pretty soon I will stop responding to you scumbags altogether -- but first I want to show what stupid jerks you are.
> I understood everything he said, <
Your reply indicates the opposite. You clearly have no idea what he meant. Try reading it again and then, if you still don't understand it, find a four year old to explain it to you. It is really quite simple.
> Wrong -- I said, "Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged." And I said "discouraged," not "prohibited." <
You left yourself a loophole.
> Name one instance where I have not understood an argument made against my position. Name one instance where I have not answered directly. <
I just did.
> You are not only a stupid moron, but you are a rude, gossiping SOB who does not even know how to MYOB. <
What gossip? I mearly suggested that you may be imposing on your mother. Try to get a job so that you can afford your own phone.
> first I want to show what stupid jerks you are. <
So far you have only shown yourself to be a mindless asshole. At least you have stopped trying to post on other blogs using your brother's name. (Or possibly the fact that other blog owners know a hell of a lot more about IPs than you do has made this impossible.)
It looks like people have made their choice. If they want to have logical discussions they go to CW or PT. If they just want to see a lunatic self-destruct, they come here. I will keep coming.
Keep it up asshole. This is the best show in town.
VOIW,
Please show a little more sympathy for my brother. He is an exceptional man in many ways. He is the only 60 year old virgin in Los Angeles.
Endless crap from VoiceInWilderness --
>>>>Larry,
I see that three of your last titles have attracted only one post each and another has attracted none after nearly three days while "Panda's Thumb sucks" has drawn 19 and "More shenanigans from Ed Brayton has 45 already. The latter two dwell mostly on your hypocracy, your ignorance of IPs, and attempts by you to impersonate others.<<<<<
That is more a reflection on the commenters than it is on me. There are lots of worthwhile topics to discuss here -- I have not just stated my own ideas, but have given numerous references as well. If commenters here do not want to discuss my ideas or my interpretations of those references, then those that wish to can just give their own interpretations of those references. But making intelligent comments takes brains, which many of the commenters here obviously lack.
I checked the blog named "Darwinian Fundamentalism" (one of my links), which IMO is an excellent blog, and it is 10 months old but gets only 0-3 comments on most articles. There are lots of blogs out there and so there are many good ones that do not get many comments. My blog is only about a month and a half old, but already I have gotten a lot of serious comments on some of my articles here. I hate to brag, but maybe one of the reasons why I don't get more comments is that my arguments are too good -- people can't think of anything to add or criticize.
And BTW, either learn how to spell hypocrisy or use a spell-checker.
>>>>>Ed Brayton obviously knows a lot more about IP addresses than you do. He has successfully kept your phony Dave Fafarman posts off of his site while allowing those of the real Dave Fafarman to get through.<<<<<
You stupid imbecile -- Ed is obviously not using IP address blocking -- otherwise my brother could never have posted on Ed's blog at all, because my brother has the same AOL proxy IP address that I do. See the "screen captures" at http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/05/the_real_dave_fafarman_reveale.php
Ed's blog service might not even offer IP-address blocking -- no knowledgeable and ethical blog service would offer it. If Ed's blog service is a do-it-yourself blog service like this one, he might be able to add IP-blocking coding.
The cited article in my opening post says that Ed is full of shit about IP addresses. And some commenters on Ed's blog have also told him that he is full of shit about IP addresses. The reason why my brother has stopped posting comments on Ed's blog is that it is not worth posting comments that will be quickly removed.
>>>>>>But other AOL users were getting through.<<<<<
How do you know? And what makes you think that all AOL users have the same AOL proxy?
>>>>> I would recommend that everyone read the post at this link to see how Ed was able to prove that you were posting under your brother's name.<<<<<<
Ed Brayton is a lying scumbag. It's his word against mine -- and he has no credibility because of the gross arbitrary censorship that he practices on his blog.
>>>>>No. John Rennie is a scientist who is campaigning against anti-Darwinist crackpots.<<<<<
Rennie is a stupid jerk for asking university presidents to sign a petition supporting Darwinism. University presidents are supposed to be neutral on such issues in order to maintain an atmosphere of free exchange of ideas in their universities. Also, the university presidents told him that signing the petition could hurt their funding. The state funding of Kansas University was threatened because of disparaging remarks that a KU professor made about "fundies" -- see http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/03/ku_could_face_heat_topeka/?evolution
>>>>>There is plenty of opportunity for the free exchange of ideas on Ed Brayton's blog. He no longer has room for the mindless repetitive ranting of mindless lunatics.<<<<<
Ed Brayton's blog only has room for comments that agree with him. He has no regard for the principle of free exchange of ideas.
VoiceInWilderness said --
>>>>Ed Brayton obviously knows a lot more about IP addresses than you do. He has successfully kept your phony Dave Fafarman posts off of his site while allowing those of the real Dave Fafarman to get through.<<<<<
Well, VIW, my real brother Dave (whom you call phony) just informed me that he posted a comment under his own name on Ed's blog, at --
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/05/the_real_dave_fafarman_reveale.php#comment-97196
Better look at it quickly, though, because Ed is going to delete it as soon as he sees it.
> That is more a reflection on the commenters than it is on me. <
Oh yes. They fail to see your brilliance. They don't appreciate the difficulty of maintaining this fine blog while also serving as the Emperor of France.
> There are lots of worthwhile topics to discuss here <
They are well hidden.
> But making intelligent comments takes brains <
Perhaps that is why your articles lack intelligent comments.
> I have gotten a lot of serious comments on some of my articles here. <
Any yet you have failed to thank me for those comments!
> I hate to brag, but maybe one of the reasons why I don't get more comments is that my arguments are too good -- people can't think of anything to add or criticize. <
I had to highlight that just so everyone could get a good laugh. Many ignore your articles and go directly to the comments so they may have missed it.
> my brother could never have posted on Ed's blog at all, because my brother has the same AOL proxy IP address that I do. <
Why? Your brother is on SBC DSL. They do not use AOL proxy IP addresses.
Ed has not deleted your latest crude attempt to impersonate your brother. He welcomes these as they prove his point. Anyone can see the differenct between your brother's well thought out posts and your raving blather.
I see that in your latest "Dave" post your again mention Bill Carter further enhancing his credibility. Come back Bill Carter. I have some questions for you.
> Ed's blog service might not even offer IP-address blocking <
Clearly it does. That is why he was able to expose your obvious fraud.
> no knowledgeable and ethical blog service would offer it. <
Many of them obviously do. Why shouldn't they?
> The reason why my brother has stopped posting comments on Ed's blog <
Your brother seems to have stopped posting for now because he has seen the futility of trying to open rational dialog with you, but Ed has posted your latest impersonation of Dave. It just goes to prove his point.
> And what makes you think that all AOL users have the same AOL proxy? <
I didn't say they did.
> Ed Brayton is a lying scumbag. It's his word against mine <
Should we give equal weight to his scholarly work, or your mindless rants? He has proved his case. Your efforts to impersonate others are so shallow that they can easily be detected regardless of IP address. Ed's work just puts the final nail in the coffin.
> University presidents are supposed to be neutral on such issues in order to maintain an atmosphere of free exchange of ideas in their universities. <
This is not a case of competing scientific theories. It is a case of science versus superstition. University presidents are not required to give wisdom and ignorance equal weight. I am reminded of the line in a '60s song "If you're sick a lunatic's one point of view.
> Also, the university presidents told him that signing the petition could hurt their funding. <
Ignorant people have the right to withhold their contributions. You yourself pointed out the threat by religious fundamentalists to cease their contributions to Kansas University. Contributions have been given to the University of Minnesota contingent on their not making negative comments on the authenticity of the Kensington stone. The Smithsonian only has the Wright Flyer as long as they stay out of controversy about possible earlier manned flights. It had once been the museums position that Samuel Langley had made the first manned flights. I am not trying to open discussion of these subjects. I am trying to show that university presidents must consider the source of their funding. Sometimes the sources may be religious fundamentalist whackos who don't like Darwin. Of course as an unemployed derelict dependant on the charity of your parents, they are not expecting a contribution from you.
> Ed Brayton's blog only has room for comments that agree with him. <
But why then has he allowed so many that do not agree. All you have to do is make an intelligent post. I challenged you to do this. Your brother even repeated my challenge. We are still waiting.
You should forget Ed Brayton. He has completely lost interest in you and he says that he doesn't even read your blog anymore. I, in contrast, read it constantly. You are even more interesting than the rat in maze #4.
P.S. I love your latest post "Judge Jones flunks history and philosophy as well as law and science". Here you have the opportunity to select any parts of it to try to shoot him down. Instead you chose parts that show the wisdom of his position and then clearly demonstrate with your comments that you didn't understand a word he said.
That is why I love your blog!
I apologize to Ed Brayton for calling him names.
(This post is protected by my Freedom of Information Policy.)
Larry,
I am sorry that I have been missing for several days. Unlike you and some of the others on this blog, I have a life.
Perhaps you could expand your blog beyond the current Darwin - ID issue. I would suggest that you bring in some of your other ideas for discussion. How about your theory that the Los Angeles Times is published and distributed with supernatural aid as is the World Almanac? How about your belief that there are not enough factories on earth to supply all of the consumer goods that are found in shops and that therefore they must be being created by extraterrestrials?
In the mean time your could clean up your act.
Stop obsessing about Ed Brayton. He seems to have no interest in your blog. Why worry so much about his?
Stop posting under your brother's name and acknowledge the posts that are actually his. Your impersonations of Dave, or for that matter anyone else, are so obvious that they only make you look sillier than you otherwise would.
Ignore VOIW. He is getting the best of you and he clearly doesn't have your best interests at heart. You might take him up on his challenge however.
Dave had the faint hope that you would actually follow some of his good advice and come back to earth. I assured him that you like the color of the sky on your planet and would not be back.
Say hello to Shemp and Curly. I'm sorry I never met them. They seem to be cool guys.
VoicelessInWilderness said --
<<<<< > That is more a reflection on the commenters than it is on me. <
Oh yes. They fail to see your brilliance. >>>>>>
I said, moron, that if readers want to criticize my articles but think that my ideas are too dumb to be worth responding to, then they can comment about my sources. But you are too dumb to make an intelligent comment about anything.
>>>>>Perhaps that is why your articles lack intelligent comments.<<<<<
Wrong. There have been some intelligent comments on this blog besides my own.
>>>>>< I hate to brag, but maybe one of the reasons why I don't get more comments is that my arguments are too good -- people can't think of anything to add or criticize.
I had to highlight that just so everyone could get a good laugh. Many ignore your articles and go directly to the comments so they may have missed it. <<<<<
The laughs on you. What kind of credibility do you have when you condemn my articles without even reading them? You are saving me the trouble of making you look like the STUPID, MORONIC, FEEBLE-MINDED FATHEAD that you are -- your own words condemn you.
>>>>>Your brother is on SBC DSL. They do not use AOL proxy IP addresses.<<<<<
The fake Dave -- if he even exists -- is supposedly on SBC. My real brother Dave is on AOL.
>>>>>Ed has not deleted your latest crude attempt to impersonate your brother. He welcomes these as they prove his point.<<<<<
Wrong. One of my real brother's recently submitted comments to Ed's blog was held up for "moderation" and was never posted. My brother then bypassed Ed's blockage and posted a comment on Ed's blog several hours ago, and I just checked and it's still there.
>>>>>> Ed's blog service might not even offer IP-address blocking <
Clearly it does.<<<<<<
If it does, Ed has not used it yet -- my brother was able to get through without using an anonymous proxy or email forwarding service.
<<<<<<> no knowledgeable and ethical blog service would offer it. <
Many of them obviously do.<<<<<
"Obviously"? Have you done a survey? This blog service (blogger.com), one of the most popular on the Internet, does not offer it as a standard feature -- there is no automatic bannng available here at all. Only comment moderation is available.
>>>>Why shouldn't they?<<<<<
You accuse me of not reading things. Here again is the citation in my opening post --"Many ISPs (including AOL) and companies use a proxy server that makes it appear as if all users are coming from a single (or a handful) of IP addresses. By blocking an IP address, you might be preventing a substantial portion of AOL users from commenting. "
>>>>>The Smithsonian only has the Wright Flyer as long as they stay out of controversy about possible earlier manned flights. It had once been the museums position that Samuel Langley had made the first manned flights.<<<<<<
Wrong. Langley was a Smithsonian employee and the museum never contended that his airplane flew before the Wright Flyer did (the Langley airplane was modified and flew in 1914). There have been other claims that others were the first to fly, but it really does not matter because it is unquestionable that the Wrights were the first in the world to build practical airplanes (as opposed to experimental jobs that flew just a few feet). Many famous pioneers were not the first in their fields -- e.g., Watt (steam engine), Fulton (steamboat), Daguerre (photography), and Winchester (lever-action rifle). I don't even know if anyone really cares today who was actually the first to fly -- the Wright name ceased to be a major name in the aviation industry over fifty years ago, and I doubt that the Wrights' heirs -- if they are still around -- really care, and if they do, they need the Smithsonian more than the Smithsonian needs the Wright flyer -- the Smithsonian has lots of other attractions.
>>>>>> Ed Brayton's blog only has room for comments that agree with him. <
But why then has he allowed so many that do not agree. <<<<<<
He allows posts that disagree with him just so long as they don't sound too persuasive.
Anyway, Ed has simply stopped considering any of my comments for posting. He will not even consider the possibility that even once in a blue moon I might write a comment that he would consider to be worth posting. I even sometimes write a comment that supports my opponents' position. One of my Panda's Thumb comments, based on legal research, actually supported the position of Darwinist crackpot Loony Flake (aka Lenny Flank), and in response he sneered, "when did you become a lawyer, Larry?"
>>>>>I love your latest post "Judge Jones flunks history and philosophy as well as law and science". Here you have the opportunity to select any parts of it to try to shoot him down. Instead you chose parts that show the wisdom of his position and then clearly demonstrate with your comments that you didn't understand a word he said. <<<<<
Where are your point-by-point rebuttals of what I said? You are just a bag of hot air. Anyway, this is the end. If anyone wants to address the issues here on this blog, your comments are welcome. Otherwise, please -- JUST DROP DEAD AND GO TO HELL. Further bullshit here will be ignored.
> I said, moron, that if readers want to criticize my articles but think that my ideas are too dumb to be worth responding to, then they can comment about my sources. <
There is not much fault with your sources. You consistently demonstrate that you do not understand them.
> There have been some intelligent comments on this blog besides my own. <
Mine of course, and those of Ed Brayton, Bill Carter, the real Dave, and even occasionally, Shemp. Why not join us and make and intelligent comment yourself?
> The fake Dave -- if he even exists -- is supposedly on SBC. My real brother Dave is on AOL. <
Nobody believes this and you only hurt your own credibility by repeating this. The real Dave is on SBC. His SBC address predates your blog.
> One of my real brother's recently submitted comments to Ed's blog was held up for "moderation" and was never posted. <
I know of no post from the real Dave Fafarman which was blocked or "held up for "moderation". They may be blocking your imitations of him but that is a different issue.
> My brother then bypassed Ed's blockage and posted a comment on Ed's blog several hours ago, and I just checked and it's still there. <
Your imitation of your brother has probably been left on Ed's site so we could all have a good laugh. Don't you realize that we can recognize them by the smell?
> "Many ISPs (including AOL) and companies use a proxy server that makes it appear as if all users are coming from a single (or a handful) of IP addresses. By blocking an IP address, you might be preventing a substantial portion of AOL users from commenting. " <
Blocking all AOL addresses will not affect posts from your brother Dave. He is on SBC. Dave Fafarman is a known computer professional. No computer professional uses AOL. They would be laughed out of the business as you have been laughed off of CW.
> Langley was a Smithsonian employee and the museum never contended that his airplane flew before the Wright Flyer <
Good God! So much for your brother's claim as to your historical knowledge. You know even less about history than you do about law. Anyway this is a side issue. If you want to discuss it, you should open a new thread. By the way, Winchester never claimed to have invented any lever-action rifle.
> I doubt that the Wrights' heirs -- if they are still around -- really care <
You guessed wrong as usual. Don't you ever check any of this stuff out before you post?
> He allows posts that disagree with him just so long as they don't sound too persuasive. <
He probably has a problem finding posts that disagree with him and sound persuasive. I haven't seen any myself. You have never posted any.
> He will not even consider the possibility that even once in a blue moon I might write a comment that he would consider to be worth posting. <
As someone already stated "Even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn." Nevertheless you have consistently made only posts that were not worth posting.
> Where are your point-by-point rebuttals of what I said? <
What? Have you censored them off of your blog already?
> Further bullshit here will be ignored. <
I am not ignoring your bullshit. It is quite entertaining.
I am doing all I can to support your blog just to keep your comical responses coming but people seem to be tiring of it anyway.
> The fake Dave -- if he even exists -- is supposedly on SBC. My real brother Dave is on AOL. <
Dave has an established SBC email address. Your email address is larryfarma@aol.com. Perhaps to get by Ed you may have used your alternate address larryfarma@pacbell.net
Of course you can't retaliate by giving my email address. I don't exist.
Come back down, Larry. It is too cold on the moon.
>> That's a darn sight better than your mother, who sleeps in pay toilets. <<
Well, Larry, although I missed this originally, I must say that you have now officially sunk to a level below even that of scum. Insult people all you want, since you seem to have no other weapon in your intellectual arsenal. But when you drag other people's parents into your mud-flinging, that is simply beyond the pale.
Yes, I'm aware that you're going to claim that Voice started it, notice that he didn't talk trash about your mother. You did. More the shame on you, Larry.
Post a Comment
<< Home