Often the best defense is a good offense
The Darwinists are already crowing that they have won the court battle against evolution disclaimers in the public schools, but here is all that they have actually achieved:
(1) -- Kitzmiller v. Dover, a badly flawed, unreviewed district-court opinion that is not worth the paper it is printed on. And factors that grievously hurt the Dover defendants -- e.g., the Of People and Pandas book, the religious motivations of the defendants, and the issue of intelligent design -- would not necessarily be present in other evolution-disclaimer cases (particularly not the Pandas book).
(2) -- the Selman v. Cobb County textbook-sticker case, which is back at square one because the appeals court remanded the case to the district court because a petition and a letter that were allegedly given to the school board were missing. In oral hearings in the appeals court, the judges indicated that they were leaning towards reversal for reasons having nothing to do with the missing petition and letter.
(3) -- Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education. The case came within one vote of being granted a rehearing en banc (rehearing by the full appeals court) and within one vote of being granted certiorari by the US Supreme Court. All of the dissenting appeals court justices and two of the three dissenting Supreme Court justices joined in long dissenting opinions that protested the denials of rehearing en banc and certiorari.
So, with the dozens of state legislatures and thousands of school boards across the USA, why have no more of them challenged the Darwinists and the ACLU et al. by enacting evolution disclaimers of their own? If the legislatures and school boards are waiting for the final outcome of Selman, the only one of the above cases still pending, they are going to wait a long time, perhaps forever.
I think that any new evolution disclaimer rule should follow the evolution disclaimer textbook sticker used by Cobb County. This sticker has the best chance of passing the scrutiny of the courts, for the following reasons: (1) this disclaimer does not mention anything religious; (2) this disclaimer does not specifically mention any challenge to Darwinism; and (3) this disclaimer is just a sticker in a textbook, hence students would not be subjected to the possible discomfort or embarrassment of listening to or avoiding oral presentations of an evolution disclaimer.
One of the big fears of school boards and legislatures is the potential liability for a seven-figure award of attorney fees to the plaintiffs if the plaintiffs win (the plaintiffs' attorneys in Kitzmiller initially calculated over $2 million in fees and settled for $1 million). But there are a number of ways to hold these costs down --
(1) Argue that according to the precedent of Edwards v. Aguillard, the court should refuse to hear testimony from expert witnesses who had not participated in the enactment of the evolution disclaimer and who therefore had not influenced the legislature or school board.
(2) If the judge insists on having expert testimony, suggest that the expert testimony in the transcripts of the Kitzmiller trial be used. Indeed, Judge Jones said that one of the purposes of the Kitzmiller trial was to save future court costs in lawsuits addressing many of the same issues. If Cobb-County type textbook stickers are used, a lot of the expert testimony in Kitzmiller -- e.g., the parts dealing with intelligent design and the Of People And Pandas book -- would not be applicable.
(3) Argue against billing for an excessive number of plaintiffs' attorneys. In Kitzmiller, there were 9-10 plaintiffs' attorneys of record and at least 5 of them were in the courtroom on every day of a six-week trial. The law authorizes only "reasonable" attorney fees, and having so many attorneys is not reasonable.
If it becomes apparent early in the litigation that the above strategies are not going to work, then -- under the precedent of Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) -- the legislature or school board can avoid liability for attorney fees by voluntarily repealing the evolution disclaimer. See this article for details.
Also, there is another big reason why the legislators or school board members should not worry about the expense -- it's not their money! And the money should not be a consideration for states and big, rich school districts.
Hopefully, that Congressional bill to bar awards of attorney fees in establishment clause cases will pass and then these fees will no longer be an issue.
The Thomas More Law Center, which represented the Dover defendants for free, should be contacted to ask for help. The TMLC is probably eager to compensate for its loss in the Kitzmiller case -- the TMLC was especially disappointed that Kitzmiller was not appealed.
Finally, if the legislature or school board waits for public pressure before adopting an evolution disclaimer, that will only make matters much worse. An alleged petition and an alleged citizen's letter were the basis for the ruling against the school district in Selman.
(1) -- Kitzmiller v. Dover, a badly flawed, unreviewed district-court opinion that is not worth the paper it is printed on. And factors that grievously hurt the Dover defendants -- e.g., the Of People and Pandas book, the religious motivations of the defendants, and the issue of intelligent design -- would not necessarily be present in other evolution-disclaimer cases (particularly not the Pandas book).
(2) -- the Selman v. Cobb County textbook-sticker case, which is back at square one because the appeals court remanded the case to the district court because a petition and a letter that were allegedly given to the school board were missing. In oral hearings in the appeals court, the judges indicated that they were leaning towards reversal for reasons having nothing to do with the missing petition and letter.
(3) -- Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education. The case came within one vote of being granted a rehearing en banc (rehearing by the full appeals court) and within one vote of being granted certiorari by the US Supreme Court. All of the dissenting appeals court justices and two of the three dissenting Supreme Court justices joined in long dissenting opinions that protested the denials of rehearing en banc and certiorari.
So, with the dozens of state legislatures and thousands of school boards across the USA, why have no more of them challenged the Darwinists and the ACLU et al. by enacting evolution disclaimers of their own? If the legislatures and school boards are waiting for the final outcome of Selman, the only one of the above cases still pending, they are going to wait a long time, perhaps forever.
I think that any new evolution disclaimer rule should follow the evolution disclaimer textbook sticker used by Cobb County. This sticker has the best chance of passing the scrutiny of the courts, for the following reasons: (1) this disclaimer does not mention anything religious; (2) this disclaimer does not specifically mention any challenge to Darwinism; and (3) this disclaimer is just a sticker in a textbook, hence students would not be subjected to the possible discomfort or embarrassment of listening to or avoiding oral presentations of an evolution disclaimer.
One of the big fears of school boards and legislatures is the potential liability for a seven-figure award of attorney fees to the plaintiffs if the plaintiffs win (the plaintiffs' attorneys in Kitzmiller initially calculated over $2 million in fees and settled for $1 million). But there are a number of ways to hold these costs down --
(1) Argue that according to the precedent of Edwards v. Aguillard, the court should refuse to hear testimony from expert witnesses who had not participated in the enactment of the evolution disclaimer and who therefore had not influenced the legislature or school board.
(2) If the judge insists on having expert testimony, suggest that the expert testimony in the transcripts of the Kitzmiller trial be used. Indeed, Judge Jones said that one of the purposes of the Kitzmiller trial was to save future court costs in lawsuits addressing many of the same issues. If Cobb-County type textbook stickers are used, a lot of the expert testimony in Kitzmiller -- e.g., the parts dealing with intelligent design and the Of People And Pandas book -- would not be applicable.
(3) Argue against billing for an excessive number of plaintiffs' attorneys. In Kitzmiller, there were 9-10 plaintiffs' attorneys of record and at least 5 of them were in the courtroom on every day of a six-week trial. The law authorizes only "reasonable" attorney fees, and having so many attorneys is not reasonable.
If it becomes apparent early in the litigation that the above strategies are not going to work, then -- under the precedent of Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) -- the legislature or school board can avoid liability for attorney fees by voluntarily repealing the evolution disclaimer. See this article for details.
Also, there is another big reason why the legislators or school board members should not worry about the expense -- it's not their money! And the money should not be a consideration for states and big, rich school districts.
Hopefully, that Congressional bill to bar awards of attorney fees in establishment clause cases will pass and then these fees will no longer be an issue.
The Thomas More Law Center, which represented the Dover defendants for free, should be contacted to ask for help. The TMLC is probably eager to compensate for its loss in the Kitzmiller case -- the TMLC was especially disappointed that Kitzmiller was not appealed.
Finally, if the legislature or school board waits for public pressure before adopting an evolution disclaimer, that will only make matters much worse. An alleged petition and an alleged citizen's letter were the basis for the ruling against the school district in Selman.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 6/06/2006 10:33:00 PM
40 Comments:
This book contains material on controversial but currently accepted ways of spelling. These practices may not be accepted by all. Intentional different spelling has been used in the past as a sign of rebellion (Payne, T. et. all, 1776), coming from a person who did not believe in Jesus as the son of God or as his messenger. Standardized spelling may be a direct attack on some minorities whose Ebonics are based on different criteria, or others who believe that requiring the use of English is a sign of oppression. Spelling "standards" given here are a convention, not a fact. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
This book contains material on controversial but currently accepted ways of spelling. These practices may not be accepted by all. Intentional different spelling has been used in the past as a sign of rebellion (Payne, T. et. all, 1776), coming from a person who did not believe in Jesus as the son of God or as his messenger. Standardized spelling may be a direct attack on some minorities whose Ebonics are based on different criteria, or others who believe that requiring the use of English is a sign of oppression. Spelling "standards" given here are a convention, not a fact. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
This book contains material on controversial but currently accepted ways of spelling. These practices may not be accepted by all. Intentional different spelling has been used in the past as a sign of rebellion (Payne, T. et. all, 1776), coming from a person who did not believe in Jesus as the son of God or as his messenger. Standardized spelling may be a direct attack on some minorities whose Ebonics are based on different criteria, or others who believe that requiring the use of English is a sign of oppression. Spelling "standards" given here are a convention, not a fact. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
This book contains material on controversial but currently accepted ways of spelling. These practices may not be accepted by all. Intentional different spelling has been used in the past as a sign of rebellion (Payne, T. et. all, 1776), coming from a person who did not believe in Jesus as the son of God or as his messenger. Standardized spelling may be a direct attack on some minorities whose Ebonics are based on different criteria, or others who believe that requiring the use of English is a sign of oppression. Spelling "standards" given here are a convention, not a fact. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
Your site is screwed up. Messages are being posted multiple times. I did not intend for this to happen.
I felt it necessary to point this out as you are too dumb to realize it yourself.
Your site is screwed up. Messages are being posted multiple times. I did not intend for this to happen.
I felt it necessary to point this out as you are too dumb to realize it yourself.
Your site is screwed up. Messages are being posted multiple times. I did not intend for this to happen.
I felt it necessary to point this out as you are too dumb to realize it yourself.
Your site is screwed up. Messages are being posted multiple times. I did not intend for this to happen.
I felt it necessary to point this out as you are too dumb to realize it yourself.
Your site is screwed up. Messages are being posted multiple times. I did not intend for this to happen.
I felt it necessary to point this out as you are too dumb to realize it yourself.
> Whether or not ID has religious connotations is irrelevant so far as its scientific merits are concerned. <
But it has no scientific merits.
> The Darwinists are just taking out their hostilities by attacking the kiddies, who are the victims of the censorship of criticism of Darwinism in the public schools. <
I have seen no evidence of censorship of criticism of Darwinism. If a competing scientific theory were presented, I am sure that Darwinists would not object.
> the Darwinists can now brag that a judge supported the claim that ID is just creationism. <
The judge just stated the obvious.
> the Darwinists have also been insisting that all challenges to evolution are forms of ID <
Not at all. Come up with an alternative challenge to Darwinism that is not ID and we will be happy to hear it.
Hint of the day - nanotechnology.
Voice In The Wilderness said --
>>>>>Your site is screwed up. Messages are being posted multiple times. I did not intend for this to happen.
I felt it necessary to point this out as you are too dumb to realize it yourself.<<<<<<
And you are too dumb to realize that you can clean up your own mess by clicking on the little shitcan icon at the bottom of your comment. This icon appears on the comment entry page and might also appear on the single-article display page.
www.blogger.com has been having severe problems lately and had to shut down completely for a while -- maybe the reason why mulitiple posts appeared.
I could clean up your mess for you, but I want to leave your crap lying around as a reminder to readers that your initial posts are as useless as your duplicate posts.
And Larry is too dumb to realize that that shitcan icon only appears for those people with blogger usernames - which Voice in the Wilderness manifestly does not have.
Anonymous said --
>>>>>And Larry is too dumb to realize that that shitcan icon only appears for those people with blogger usernames - which Voice in the Wilderness manifestly does not have. <<<<<<
Having had a blogger username from the beginning, I had no opportunity to see that those who do not post under usernames do not get to see deletion shitcans under their comments, but now that you point that out, it makes sense.
Blogger usernames here are underlined. When I click on some of these usernames, the blogger profile that comes up has no information, implying that the person never formally registered on the blogger.com website. I think what happens is that blogger.com deposits -- or tries to deposit -- "cookies" (small files from visited websites) on the hard drives of commenters. Then when that commenter posts again under the same name, blogger.com recognizes that commenter's computer by means of the cookie and shows that name as a blogger username and gives the commenter a deletion shitcan -- also, the name must be unique, i.e, not used before by another commenter (no, Anonymous, your name is not unique in this sense ). However, if the person posts under a different name, that commenter is not shown as a blogger username and does not get a shitcan. So I suspect that one or more of the following conditions is true: (1) Voice in the Wilderness is posting under different names, (2) Voice in the Wilderness is not a unique name on the blogger.com system, or (3) Voice in the Wilderness is deleting cookies or blocking blogger.com's access to cookies. I of course get shitcans for all of the comments on this blog, and I would sorely like to use these shitcans sometimes but cannot because of my no-censorship policy.
Well now you have proven that you don't understand cookies.
Blogger.com recognizes a username because someone logs in under that name. The cookies are for a different reason but it would be a waste of time to try to explain it to you.
> So I suspect that one or more of the following conditions is true:
(1) Voice in the Wilderness is posting under different names <
Aren't we all? You have.
>(2) Voice in the Wilderness is not a unique name on the blogger.com system <
The name is not on the blogger.com system.
> (3) Voice in the Wilderness is deleting cookies or blocking blogger.com's access to cookies. <
Not necessary.
> I of course get shitcans for all of the comments on this blog, and I would sorely like to use these shitcans sometimes but cannot because of my no-censorship policy. <
Your no-censorship will eventually go away. You are a hypocrite and can't stick to anything.
A while ago we discussed on this blog who could and who could not delete their comments. Forget already, Larry?
By the way, there are three ways to "Choose an identity" here. First is to click the "Blogger" radio button and enter your username and password. Those that have blogger usernames can choose this option, and they are allowed to delete their posts unless you disable that capability. They also are the ones that have links to profile pages, though many of those are empty because the commenter never filled out a profile.
The second is to click the "Other" radio button and enter your name and web page (optional). This is the option that Voice and I both use, as well as many others. There is no clickable link unless a valid URL is entered in the web page field. We can not delete our comments (the reason being that there is no way to verify that the person deleting is the person who wrote it).
The third option is to click the "Anonymous" radio button. By clicking this button, the commenter posts as Anonymous. That's why you have so many posts from Anonymous. Anonymous posts also can't be deleted except by the admin.
Cookies don't enter the picture, except possibly for autofill for registered blogger names.
W. Kevin Vicklund said ( 6/08/2006 10:03:51 AM ) --
>>>>>A while ago we discussed on this blog who could and who could not delete their comments. Forget already, Larry?<<<<<
I've forgotten. Anyway, we have not yet discussed it at this level of detail, so we can do that now.
>>>>>By the way, there are three ways to "Choose an identity" here. First is to click the "Blogger" radio button and enter your username and password.<<<<<
As I said, I have no experience in commenting on these blogger.com blogs (the domain name of these blogs is blogspot.com) without having a formally registered name, so a lot of what I say is speculation.
As for entering a password, a commenter would have to formally register with blogger.com to have a password. I could have required commenters to register a username before commenting, but I chose not to do that. I don't know why a commenter would want to register without being required to do so, unless that commenter knows that registration is necessary for self-deletion of comments. I thought that perhaps registration is sometimes done automatically by means of a unique username and cookies (those little files that websites place on visitors' computers), but apparently I was wrong.
When I go to the comment entry page, the "Blogger display name" option with my name already entered is usually automatically pre-selected ( except that I sometimes have to re-register for this option to appear pre-selected) -- I do not have to enter a password. This option is automatically pre-selected for me even when I post on other blogger.com blogs. I presume that the only practical way that blogger.com could automatically pre-select this option is by means of cookies. Pre-selecting this option by means of IP addresses would not be dependable because IP addresses can vary.
Also, blogger.com may distinguish between a "Blogger display name" and a "username," which would further add to the confusion.
>>>>>Those that have blogger usernames can choose this option, and they are allowed to delete their posts unless you disable that capability <<<<<<
I am not aware that I have the power to disable that capability, and I have no idea why blogger.com would give me the power to prevent others from withdrawing comments or correcting errors (e.g., duplicate comments).
>>>>>The second is to click the "Other" radio button and enter your name and web page (optional). This is the option that Voice and I both use, as well as many others. There is no clickable link unless a valid URL is entered in the web page field. We can not delete our comments (the reason being that there is no way to verify that the person deleting is the person who wrote it).<<<<<
This was probably the option used by Ed Brayton, because when I clicked on his name I was directed to his "Dispatches" blog rather than a Blogger profile.
As for verifying that the person deleting the comment is the person who wrote it, this could be roughly verified if (1) the username is unique and (2) a cookie shows that this username was used for the first time by the commenter's computer. Of course, this verification is not airtight because different people can share the same computer, but it is a pretty good verification. Also, a password could be used for verification -- you already indicated that a password is sometimes required for the first option. Verification by password would be particularly useful where the commenter uses different computers.
>>>>>The third option is to click the "Anonymous" radio button. By clicking this button, the commenter posts as Anonymous. That's why you have so many posts from Anonymous. Anonymous posts also can't be deleted except by the admin.<<<<<<
I agree.
>>>>Cookies don't enter the picture, except possibly for autofill for registered blogger names.<<<<<
For reasons stated above, I disagree with your statement that cookies don't enter the picture. Also, autofill by using information in cookies might be used, but I doubt it -- it is not necessary and also would not work where the commenter is not using his regular computer. In any case, I presume that blogger.com would not reveal personal information without a person's permission.
Cookies are an important means of Internet user identification and information storage. Most anonymous proxies allow users to turn two different cookies options on or off: (1) No cookies and (2) cookies allowed for this session only (i.e., cookies placed outside the session may not be accessed). Internet Explorer has several levels of Internet security involving cookies options.
Anyway, the important thing is that registered users can delete their own comments -- and you do not need to have an active blog on blogger.com in order to be registered.
---As for entering a password, a commenter would have to formally register with blogger.com to have a password.---
Yes, precisely.
---I could have required commenters to register a username before commenting, but I chose not to do that. I don't know why a commenter would want to register without being required to do so, unless that commenter knows that registration is necessary for self-deletion of comments. I thought that perhaps registration is sometimes done automatically by means of a unique username and cookies (those little files that websites place on visitors' computers), but apparently I was wrong.---
Yes, you were wrong. BTW, the main reason for registering, aside from the ability to edit or delete one's own comments, is to prevent other people from pretending to be you. It's a form of comment integrity. You might want to look up the meaning of integrity - you seem to lack it.
---When I go to the comment entry page, the "Blogger display name" option with my name already entered is usually automatically pre-selected ( except that I sometimes have to re-register for this option to appear pre-selected) -- I do not have to enter a password. This option is automatically pre-selected for me even when I post on other blogger.com blogs. I presume that the only practical way that blogger.com could automatically pre-select this option is by means of cookies. Pre-selecting this option by means of IP addresses would not be dependable because IP addresses can vary.---
This is called autofill. Many web-browsers, such as IE and Netscape, also do this.
---Also, blogger.com may distinguish between a "Blogger display name" and a "username," which would further add to the confusion.---
They are unique and part of the same record in the blogger database. You login with your username and password, and your comments are prefaced with your display name. Certain characters are not permitted for usernames that are permitted for display names. There are technical reasons for this, but they're not really important at this level of abstraction.
------Those that have blogger usernames can choose this option, and they are allowed to delete their posts unless you disable that capability ------
---I am not aware that I have the power to disable that capability, and I have no idea why blogger.com would give me the power to prevent others from withdrawing comments or correcting errors (e.g., duplicate comments).---
Again, this revolves around comment integrity. There are a lot of people out there that love to post inflammatory comments, let people respond, and then edit or delete their own comments to make the other people look bad.
------The second is to click the "Other" radio button and enter your name and web page (optional). This is the option that Voice and I both use, as well as many others. There is no clickable link unless a valid URL is entered in the web page field. We can not delete our comments (the reason being that there is no way to verify that the person deleting is the person who wrote it).------
---This was probably the option used by Ed Brayton, because when I clicked on his name I was directed to his "Dispatches" blog rather than a Blogger profile.---
Or it might come from a cross-link. Some of the advanced registration options allow for this.
---As for verifying that the person deleting the comment is the person who wrote it, this could be roughly verified if (1) the username is unique and (2) a cookie shows that this username was used for the first time by the commenter's computer. Of course, this verification is not airtight because different people can share the same computer, but it is a pretty good verification. Also, a password could be used for verification -- you already indicated that a password is sometimes required for the first option. Verification by password would be particularly useful where the commenter uses different computers.---
While certainly possible to do this from a technological standpoint, blogger has not implemented this capability. You want to edit or delete, blogger requires you to register. This is for security and comment integrity. BTW, a password is always required for the first option.
------Cookies don't enter the picture, except possibly for autofill for registered blogger names.------
---For reasons stated above, I disagree with your statement that cookies don't enter the picture. Also, autofill by using information in cookies might be used, but I doubt it -- it is not necessary and also would not work where the commenter is not using his regular computer. In any case, I presume that blogger.com would not reveal personal information without a person's permission.---
You obviously have no idea what autofill is. Reprising what you said earlier - When I go to the comment entry page, the "Blogger display name" option with my name already entered is usually automatically pre-selected ( except that I sometimes have to re-register for this option to appear pre-selected) -- I do not have to enter a password. This option is automatically pre-selected for me even when I post on other blogger.com blogs. I presume that the only practical way that blogger.com could automatically pre-select this option is by means of cookies. This is autofill. You are contradicting yourself within the same post!
---Cookies are an important means of Internet user identification and information storage. Most anonymous proxies allow users to turn two different cookies options on or off: (1) No cookies and (2) cookies allowed for this session only (i.e., cookies placed outside the session may not be accessed). Internet Explorer has several levels of Internet security involving cookies options.---
That’s nice. Here's a gold star.
---Anyway, the important thing is that registered users can delete their own comments -- and you do not need to have an active blog on blogger.com in order to be registered.---
And the original point was that you attacked Voice because he didn't do something he couldn't do.
W. Kevin Vicklund said ( 6/09/2006 05:28:24 AM ) --
>>>>>> the main reason for registering, aside from the ability to edit or delete one's own comments, is to prevent other people from pretending to be you. It's a form of comment integrity.<<<<<
Apparently blogger.com's anti-impersonation features -- if there are any -- are not working very well, because there have been a lot of impersonations on this blog.
A password system is probably the best way of preventing impersonation. Passwords, unlike cookies, are portable and cannot be erased.
>>>>>>You might want to look up the meaning of integrity - you seem to lack it.<<<<<
The pot's calling the kettle black. After I was banned by Panda's Thumb for no reason and then tried to come back under different names, you were the rat fink who kept saying, "hey, it's Larry again -- he's supposed to be banned."
>>>>>---Also, blogger.com may distinguish between a "Blogger display name" and a "username," which would further add to the confusion.---
They are unique and part of the same record in the blogger database. You login with your username and password, and your comments are prefaced with your display name. <<<<<
Wrong. Normally, I do not have to log in or use a password. Blogger.com apparently recognizes me by means of a cookie (small files websites deposit on visitors' hard drives). Occasionally I have to re-register.
<<<<< Certain characters are not permitted for usernames that are permitted for display names. There are technical reasons for this, but they're not really important at this level of abstraction.<<<<<<
How do you know all this? You are not even a blogger on Blogger.com, and this information is either unavailable or hard to find on Blogger Help.
>>>>>---I am not aware that I have the power to disable that capability, and I have no idea why blogger.com would give me the power to prevent others from withdrawing comments or correcting errors (e.g., duplicate comments).---
Again, this revolves around comment integrity. There are a lot of people out there that love to post inflammatory comments, let people respond, and then edit or delete their own comments to make the other people look bad.<<<<<<
Blogger Help says nothing about this supposed ability to prevent others from deleting their comments. Here is what Blogger Help says --
"You can delete any comment that you create on anyone else's blog, as long as you left the comment as a registered Blogger user. You can also delete any comments (registered or anonymous) that are left on your own blog, or on another blog for which you have admin privileges."
Anyway, trying to prevent inflammatory posts by preventing commenters from deleting their own posts would not work when the commenters do not know in advance that you are preventing them from deleting their posts.
>>>>>---As for verifying that the person deleting the comment is the person who wrote it, this could be roughly verified if (1) the username is unique and (2) a cookie shows that this username was used for the first time by the commenter's computer. Of course, this verification is not airtight because different people can share the same computer, but it is a pretty good verification. Also, a password could be used for verification -- you already indicated that a password is sometimes required for the first option. Verification by password would be particularly useful where the commenter uses different computers.---
While certainly possible to do this from a technological standpoint, blogger has not implemented this capability. You want to edit or delete, blogger requires you to register. This is for security and comment integrity. BTW, a password is always required for the first option.<<<<<<<
Your last statement is wrong -- as I said, as a user with a blogger display name, I normally do not have to enter a password (actually, I never have to enter an old password, because when I have to re-register, I do not have to enter my old password). I have no idea what those without blogger display names have to do, because I have never been in that position. Also, no one can edit a comment, but blog administrators and team members can edit articles (opening posts). Your statements are so full of errors that you have no credibility.
>>>>>>You obviously have no idea what autofill is.<<<<<
I couldn't find "autofill" in any Internet dictionary -- it is not even a buzzword! From the sense in which you used it here, I thought you meant retrieving data that was stored in cookies.
>>>>>And the original point was that you attacked Voice because he didn't do something he couldn't do.<<<<<<<
He attacked me first -- he said I was too dumb to see that there were multiple posts. It is quite clear who started the name-calling here.
> there have been a lot of impersonations on this blog. <
With Larry Fafarman being the first with his impersonation of his brother Dave.
> A password system is probably the best way of preventing impersonation. <
If it didn't stop you, why would it stop people with higher intelligence?
there have been a lot of impersonations on this blog.
> A password system is probably the best way of preventing impersonation. <
Perhaps a course in reading comprehension would help. What I was saying was that you are too dumb to realize that the multiple posts are caused by a faulty system rather than the intention of the one posting.
W. Kevin Vicklund said ( 6/09/2006 05:28:24 AM ) --
>> >>>>>> the main reason for registering, aside from the ability to edit or delete one's own comments, is to prevent other people from pretending to be you. It's a form of comment integrity.<<<<< <<
>> Apparently blogger.com's anti-impersonation features -- if there are any -- are not working very well, because there have been a lot of impersonations on this blog. <<
Actually Bogger's anti-impersonation features seem to be working adequately. If you actually pay attention, you can tell what's been sent via an impersonated identity (there are clues beyond writing style).
>> A password system is probably the best way of preventing impersonation. Passwords, unlike cookies, are portable and cannot be erased. <<
Blogger uses a password system. Cookies used by blogger seem to be there mostly for the purposes of keeping sessions alive.
>> >>>>>>You might want to look up the meaning of integrity - you seem to lack it.<<<<< <<
>> The pot's calling the kettle black. After I was banned by Panda's Thumb for no reason and then tried to come back under different names, you were the rat fink who kept saying, "hey, it's Larry again -- he's supposed to be banned." <<
Ahhh, another game with Little Larry Notmyfault. You got yourself banned. Why should others look the other way when you try to crash back in?
>> >>>>>---Also, blogger.com may distinguish between a "Blogger display name" and a "username," which would further add to the confusion.---
They are unique and part of the same record in the blogger database. You login with your username and password, and your comments are prefaced with your display name. <<<<< <<
>> Wrong. Normally, I do not have to log in or use a password. Blogger.com apparently recognizes me by means of a cookie (small files websites deposit on visitors' hard drives). Occasionally I have to re-register. <<
Ah yes, the voice of ignorance speaks again. The cookies identify the session which you initiated when you logged. The session cookies remain set until the end of the session, which is normally when you close the browser or logoff from the site. The content of the session cookie is simply an identifier for the session (a necessity since http doesn't have a session concept on its own). It allows you to login once and do your work without having the login everytime you want to do something new. Everytime you need to do something, blogger pulls up the session cookie and pulls the session information, which most likely resides on THEIR computers, and uses THAT. THAT's why you don't always have to login, not because they're storing your password in a client-side (your computer) cookie. By the way, your so-called re-registering is actually the system telling you that your cookie has expired, so you need to LOGIN again.
>> <<<<< Certain characters are not permitted for usernames that are permitted for display names. There are technical reasons for this, but they're not really important at this level of abstraction.<<<<<< <<
>> How do you know all this? You are not even a blogger on Blogger.com, and this information is either unavailable or hard to find on Blogger Help. <<
If you had had any experience whatsoever working on web application or website, you wouldn't need to ask this question. You seem to have this problem with the concept that, just because YOU don't know something doesn't mean no one knows it.
>> >>>>>---I am not aware that I have the power to disable that capability, and I have no idea why blogger.com would give me the power to prevent others from withdrawing comments or correcting errors (e.g., duplicate comments).---
Again, this revolves around comment integrity. There are a lot of people out there that love to post inflammatory comments, let people respond, and then edit or delete their own comments to make the other people look bad.<<<<<< <<
>> Blogger Help says nothing about this supposed ability to prevent others from deleting their comments. Here is what Blogger Help says --
"You can delete any comment that you create on anyone else's blog, as long as you left the comment as a registered Blogger user. You can also delete any comments (registered or anonymous) that are left on your own blog, or on another blog for which you have admin privileges." <<
I think I see a simple way to prevent comment deletion, and it's even in the Blogger documentation. I'll leave it for you to find though.
>> Anyway, trying to prevent inflammatory posts by preventing commenters from deleting their own posts would not work when the commenters do not know in advance that you are preventing them from deleting their posts. <<
It does if you say that deletions of comments are not allowed.
>> >>>>>---As for verifying that the person deleting the comment is the person who wrote it, this could be roughly verified if (1) the username is unique and (2) a cookie shows that this username was used for the first time by the commenter's computer. Of course, this verification is not airtight because different people can share the same computer, but it is a pretty good verification. Also, a password could be used for verification -- you already indicated that a password is sometimes required for the first option. Verification by password would be particularly useful where the commenter uses different computers.---
While certainly possible to do this from a technological standpoint, blogger has not implemented this capability. You want to edit or delete, blogger requires you to register. This is for security and comment integrity. BTW, a password is always required for the first option.<<<<<<< <<
>> Your last statement is wrong -- as I said, as a user with a blogger display name, I normally do not have to enter a password (actually, I never have to enter an old password, because when I have to re-register, I do not have to enter my old password). I have no idea what those without blogger display names have to do, because I have never been in that position. Also, no one can edit a comment, but blog administrators and team members can edit articles (opening posts). Your statements are so full of errors that you have no credibility. <<
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Larry, you should have learned by now the danger of confusing your assumptions with reality. Again, your "re-registration" is just what happens when your session expires when you have "Remember Me" checked (after about 2 week according to the docs), where it wants you to re-enter your information. But all your doing is logging in. It's just beyond funny to watch you try to claim technical expertise you don't have based on your assumptions, based on not even the slightest shred of knowledge or experience, about how things work.
Some blogs allow editing of posts after publication. Since Mr. Vicklund is speaking in general terms, it does nothing to his credibility to mention editing. The only one without credibility here, is you.
>> >>>>>>You obviously have no idea what autofill is.<<<<< <<
>> I couldn't find "autofill" in any Internet dictionary -- it is not even a buzzword! From the sense in which you used it here, I thought you meant retrieving data that was stored in cookies. <<
Once again, your inability to use even a basic Google search is your undoing, Larry. Autofill is a browser feature, which doesn't involve cookies in any way and isn't even related to the cookie concept, whereby the browser remembers information you enter in web forms so that the browser can automatically fill the necessary information (username and password, for instance) when it is asked later. Most browsers keep this information separated by site so you can have a different username and password for each site, while some browsers simply allow you to pull up a drop-down menu of the various choices.
Remember, Larry, not everything you don't understand has to relate to the latest buzzword that you happen to have latched onto in your neverending quest to seem knowledgeable.
>> >>>>>And the original point was that you attacked Voice because he didn't do something he couldn't do.<<<<<<< <<
>> He attacked me first -- he said I was too dumb to see that there were multiple posts. It is quite clear who started the name-calling here. <<
You created the atmosphere here, Larry. You began the track record of descending to insults the second you realized you didn't actually have a case to make. You really can't fault others for adapting to the climate you've created with your dislike of logic and facts and your propensity for name-calling. Again, stop trying to play Poor Me. Nobodies buying it.
Friday, June 09, 2006 7:48:54 PM
Rob Serrano said ( 6/09/2006 09:26:41 PM ) --
>>>>>Actually Bogger's anti-impersonation features seem to be working adequately. If you actually pay attention, you can tell what's been sent via an impersonated identity (there are clues beyond writing style).<<<<<
Well, instead of just pretending that I am ignorant, why don't you name some clues?
Sometimes the only clue is that a username or blogger display name that is normally underlined appears without an underline. Changes in spelling or capitalization can also be a clue. As for writing style, this is useless for identification purposes unless a person's writing style is so extreme as to be ungrammatical.
>>>>>Blogger uses a password system.<<<<<
Wrong. As I said, as a registered blogger with a display name, I am generally not asked to enter a password when I post ordinary comments, post new articles (called "posts" on blogger.com), or make other additions or changes to my blog. And when I am required to re-register, my old password is not accepted and my display name is not recognized! I have to tell blogger.com that I forgot my display name and my password, and then I am permitted to enter a new password (I don't know what it is good for).
>>>>> Cookies used by blogger seem to be there mostly for the purposes of keeping sessions alive.<<<<<
Wrong -- the cookies remember me from one session to the next.
>>>>You got yourself banned.<<<<<<
You are full of shit.
>>>>>> Why should others look the other way when you try to crash back in?<<<<<
Because it's none of their damned business, that's why.
>>>>>>Ah yes, the voice of ignorance speaks again. The cookies identify the session which you initiated when you logged. The session cookies remain set until the end of the session, which is normally when you close the browser or logoff from the site.<<<<<
I wonder what is wrong with people who cannot discuss something without putting someone down.
The Webopedia Computer Dictionary defines two kinds of cookies, "session" cookies and "persistent" cookies:
Session cookie: Also called a transient cookie, a cookie that is erased when the user closes the Web browser. The session cookie is stored in temporary memory and is not retained after the browser is closed. Session cookies do not collect information from the user’s computer. They typically will store information in the form of a session identification that does not personally identify the user.
Persistent cookie: Also called a permanent cookie, or a stored cookie, a cookie that is stored on a user’s hard drive until it expires (persistent cookies are set with expiration dates) or until the user deletes the cookie. Persistent cookies are used to collect identifying information about the user, such as Web surfing behavior or user preferences for a specific Web site. -- from http://www.webopedia.com/
Blogger.com remembers me from one session to the next, because my name automatically appears in the comment entry window. So contrary to what you said, blogger.com must be using persistent cookies and not just session cookies.
BTW, on most or many anonymous proxies, the user can turn on or off the following two separate options: (1) "accept HTTP cookies" and (2) "store cookies for this session only." The first option must refer just to persistent cookies, because rejection of this option logically should not affect the session cookies option.
>>>>>>>(to Kevin Vicklund) How do you know all this? You are not even a blogger on Blogger.com, and this information is either unavailable or hard to find on Blogger Help. <<
If you had had any experience whatsoever working on web application or website, you wouldn't need to ask this question. You seem to have this problem with the concept that, just because YOU don't know something doesn't mean no one knows it. <<<<<
You are full of shit, Rob. Different blog services have different ways of operating. So I wondered how Kevin Vicklund knew so much about Blogger.com's operations when he is not even a blogger here.
>>>>>I think I see a simple way to prevent comment deletion, and it's even in the Blogger documentation. I'll leave it for you to find though.<<<<<<
If a commenter gets shitcans under his comments on his computer screen, there is no way to prevent him from deleting his comments. You could copy the comment and post it yourself, but that would often be too obvious, because the comment may appear out of order.
>>>>>> HAHAHAHAHAHA. Larry, you should have learned by now the danger of confusing your assumptions with reality. Again, your "re-registration" is just what happens when your session expires when you have "Remember Me" checked (after about 2 week according to the docs), where it wants you to re-enter your information. But all your doing is logging in. It's just beyond funny to watch you try to claim technical expertise you don't have based on your assumptions, based on not even the slightest shred of knowledge or experience, about how things work.
<<<<<<
You stupid, fatheaded, birdbrained, disgusting shithead, I just happened to note offhand that I sometimes have to re-register -- I didn't say that this is a mystery. But re-registration on blogger.com is not just like logging in. When I try to enter my old password, I am told that it is not valid. When I try to enter my blogger display name, I am told that it is not valid. So I have to pretend that I have forgotten both my password and my blogger display name, and then blogger.com will email me a notice that I can log in again, and then asks me for a new password. The system is badly screwed up.
>>>>Some blogs allow editing of posts after publication. Since Mr. Vicklund is speaking in general terms, it does nothing to his credibility to mention editing. The only one without credibility here, is you.<<<<<
Yes, Blogger.com allows editing of "posts" (articles) after publication, but not comments. Also, only blog administrators or team members may edit the "posts." We were talking about comments placed by outside commenters.
>>>>>You created the atmosphere here, Larry. You began the track record of descending to insults the second you realized you didn't actually have a case to make<<<<<<
Again, you are full of shit. You have addressed very little of the issues here.
As for Voice In the Wilderness, instead of just telling me that the multiple posting was unintentional, he went into a big uncalled-for spiel about my being too dumb to see that there were multiple posts.
>> >>>>>Actually Bogger's anti-impersonation features seem to be working adequately. If you actually pay attention, you can tell what's been sent via an impersonated identity (there are clues beyond writing style).<<<<< <<
>> Well, instead of just pretending that I am ignorant, why don't you name some clues? <<
It's not necessary to pretend that you are ignorant, Larry. I just feel like pointing your ignorance out.
>> Sometimes the only clue is that a username or blogger display name that is normally underlined appears without an underline. Changes in spelling or capitalization can also be a clue. As for writing style, this is useless for identification purposes unless a person's writing style is so extreme as to be ungrammatical. <<
So you admit that there are clues. There are other tell-tales of impersonation. I'll leave it to you figure them out, though many of them should be painfully obvious, even to you.
>> >>>>>Blogger uses a password system.<<<<< <<
>> Wrong. As I said, as a registered blogger with a display name, I am generally not asked to enter a password when I post ordinary comments, post new articles (called "posts" on blogger.com), or make other additions or changes to my blog. And when I am required to re-register, my old password is not accepted and my display name is not recognized! I have to tell blogger.com that I forgot my display name and my password, and then I am permitted to enter a new password (I don't know what it is good for). <<
That's it, Larry, just PROVE that you're an idiot. For the record, I'm also a registered blogger user, and when I close my browser and return to blogger, I am asked to log in again. This is because I don't like features such as "Remember Me." And you don't log in with your display name, nit, you log in with your blogger usename. If you're trying to log in with your display name, of which I have no doubt given your history, of course blogger's not going to recognize you. The display name is not for the system, it is for other people. Once again, your ignorant assumptions make a fool of you. But please, do continue to make a fool of yourself.
>> >>>>> Cookies used by blogger seem to be there mostly for the purposes of keeping sessions alive.<<<<< <<
>> Wrong -- the cookies remember me from one session to the next. <<
Probably because you've selected "Remember Me" from the blogger dashboard.
>> >>>>You got yourself banned.<<<<<< <<
>> You are full of shit. <<
I also happen to be right, which is more than can be said of you.
>> >>>>>> Why should others look the other way when you try to crash back in?<<<<< <<
>> Because it's none of their damned business, that's why. <<
Panda's Thumb is a community. They tried to protect their community against your continued trangressions. You forced their hand, they slapped you down. Get over it.
>> >>>>>>Ah yes, the voice of ignorance speaks again. The cookies identify the session which you initiated when you logged. The session cookies remain set until the end of the session, which is normally when you close the browser or logoff from the site.<<<<< <<
>> I wonder what is wrong with people who cannot discuss something without putting someone down. <<
You set the tone, you live with the results of that decision. You're the one who first resorts to insults. Don't deal it if you're not willing to take it.
>> The Webopedia Computer Dictionary defines two kinds of cookies, "session" cookies and "persistent" cookies:
Session cookie: Also called a transient cookie, a cookie that is erased when the user closes the Web browser. The session cookie is stored in temporary memory and is not retained after the browser is closed. Session cookies do not collect information from the user’s computer. They typically will store information in the form of a session identification that does not personally identify the user.
Persistent cookie: Also called a permanent cookie, or a stored cookie, a cookie that is stored on a user’s hard drive until it expires (persistent cookies are set with expiration dates) or until the user deletes the cookie. Persistent cookies are used to collect identifying information about the user, such as Web surfing behavior or user preferences for a specific Web site. -- from http://www.webopedia.com/ <<
And you're point is? Once again, you try to throw references that you do not understand. If you're really curious, why don't you take the step and examine the cookies blogger sets? Or is that too big of a challenge for you?
>> Blogger.com remembers me from one session to the next, because my name automatically appears in the comment entry window. So contrary to what you said, blogger.com must be using persistent cookies and not just session cookies. <<
Not necessarily. Sorry to break up your little game of "this must be because that's what I think it is." My name appears in the comment area regardless of whether or not I'm logged into blogger and I do not have any persistent cookies on my system.
>> BTW, on most or many anonymous proxies, the user can turn on or off the following two separate options: (1) "accept HTTP cookies" and (2) "store cookies for this session only." The first option must refer just to persistent cookies, because rejection of this option logically should not affect the session cookies option. <<
BZZT, WRONG! Thanks for playing but your lack of knowledge is almost painful. The first option says whether cookies (any type of cookies) are allowed onto your machine AT ALL. It also efects session cookies.
>> >>>>>>>(to Kevin Vicklund) How do you know all this? You are not even a blogger on Blogger.com, and this information is either unavailable or hard to find on Blogger Help. <<
If you had had any experience whatsoever working on web application or website, you wouldn't need to ask this question. You seem to have this problem with the concept that, just because YOU don't know something doesn't mean no one knows it. <<<<< <<
>> You are full of shit, Rob. Different blog services have different ways of operating. So I wondered how Kevin Vicklund knew so much about Blogger.com's operations when he is not even a blogger here. <<
Wow, two independent "full of shits" so far in this comment. What's the matter, Larry, running out of things you think are going to work at insulting me?
You're a blogger here and you know less than nothing about how things work here. The answer again is that, by drawing on one's relevant past experience it is possible to make reasoned inferences about how similar things operate.
>> >>>>>I think I see a simple way to prevent comment deletion, and it's even in the Blogger documentation. I'll leave it for you to find though.<<<<<< <<
>> If a commenter gets shitcans under his comments on his computer screen, there is no way to prevent him from deleting his comments. You could copy the comment and post it yourself, but that would often be too obvious, because the comment may appear out of order. <<
There does appear to be a way to remove the trashcan icon. Look it up.
>> >>>>>> HAHAHAHAHAHA. Larry, you should have learned by now the danger of confusing your assumptions with reality. Again, your "re-registration" is just what happens when your session expires when you have "Remember Me" checked (after about 2 week according to the docs), where it wants you to re-enter your information. But all your doing is logging in. It's just beyond funny to watch you try to claim technical expertise you don't have based on your assumptions, based on not even the slightest shred of knowledge or experience, about how things work.
<<<<<< <<
>> You stupid, fatheaded, birdbrained, disgusting shithead, I just happened to note offhand that I sometimes have to re-register -- I didn't say that this is a mystery. But re-registration on blogger.com is not just like logging in. When I try to enter my old password, I am told that it is not valid. When I try to enter my blogger display name, I am told that it is not valid. So I have to pretend that I have forgotten both my password and my blogger display name, and then blogger.com will email me a notice that I can log in again, and then asks me for a new password. The system is badly screwed up. <<
You poor little pissant of a would-be bully-boy. I would pretend to be hurt, but I'm not, since that would require that I, for some insane reason, have an iota of respect for you and what you have to say. You have utterly failed to earn my respect so HAHAHAHAHA.
You did NOT just mention your need of "re-registration" casually, you built your entire cookie argument on it.
If you are entering your display name, it's no wonder Blogger isn't recognizing it, since it is your username that logs into the system. The blogger system of resetting user passwords seems to strike the proper balance between security and ease of use. They send an email to your registered email address containing a link to a page where you can change your password. That link will contain the encoded information to allow you to change your account's password.
The blogger system works fairly well, it is you who has the problems.
>> >>>>Some blogs allow editing of posts after publication. Since Mr. Vicklund is speaking in general terms, it does nothing to his credibility to mention editing. The only one without credibility here, is you.<<<<< <<
>> Yes, Blogger.com allows editing of "posts" (articles) after publication, but not comments. Also, only blog administrators or team members may edit the "posts." We were talking about comments placed by outside commenters. <<
Earth to Larry, Blogger.com is not the only blog provider or maker of blog software in the world. Different blog software has different policies toward the editing of existing comments.
>> >>>>>You created the atmosphere here, Larry. You began the track record of descending to insults the second you realized you didn't actually have a case to make<<<<<< <<
>> Again, you are full of shit. You have addressed very little of the issues here. <<
Yes, Larry, I'm aware that you have issues, but those are really beyond the scope of one comment. As for any potential issues you may have raise in your post. Suffice it to say that, no matter how hard I try, it's still the same pointless spittle you usually spend your time spewing.
>> As for Voice In the Wilderness, instead of just telling me that the multiple posting was unintentional, he went into a big uncalled-for spiel about my being too dumb to see that there were multiple posts. <<
He wasn't saying that you were too dumb to see that there were multiple posts, he was saying that you were too dumb to realize that the multiple posts were not his fault. And of course you then go on to show that you are too dumb to realize that, since he is not a Blogger user, he cannot delete the multiples, since he doesn't have the trashcan icon attached to his posts.
Rob Serrano said ( 6/10/2006 05:15:44 AM ) --
>>>>>>>So you admit that there are clues. There are other tell-tales of impersonation. I'll leave it to you figure them out, though many of them should be painfully obvious, even to you.<<<<<<
I never said that there are no clues, moron.
If you cannot name other clues, then you are just a bag of hot air with no credibility.
>>>>That's it, Larry, just PROVE that you're an idiot. For the record, I'm also a registered blogger user, and when I close my browser and return to blogger, I am asked to log in again. This is because I don't like features such as "Remember Me." <<<<<<
I described a way that blogger.com operates, and you flatly said no, blogger.com does not operate that way. Now you admit that blogger.com can operate that way. Sorry, bub, it is too late now to make that admission. You have called me ignorant while claiming to be the big, all-knowing, infallible expert.
I don't remember if I am given a "remember me" option when I re-register -- blogger.com might just continue this option from my previous login. Anyway, if I don't want to be remembered, I can erase the blogger.com cookie from my hard drive.
>>>>>And you don't log in with your display name, nit, you log in with your blogger usename. If you're trying to log in with your display name, of which I have no doubt given your history, of course blogger's not going to recognize you. The display name is not for the system, it is for other people.<<<<<
You stupid moron, blogger.com treats my display name and my username as exactly the same. I use the same username and display name, and I don't even remember the option of having a display name that is different from my username. Clicking on my display name at the top of a comment brings up my Blogger profile, just like clicking on a username. When I have to re-register, I have to tell blogger.com that I "forgot" my username and password, blogger.com then sends me an email, and voila, blogger.com magically remembers my username, asks me to enter a new password, and everything returns to normal.
>>>>>>Panda's Thumb is a community. They tried to protect their community against your continued trangressions.<<<<<<
Panda's Thumb is not a community, it's a tyranny. I have been told that Wesley Elsberry "owns" PT -- how can someone "own" a community? And I told about the time that Herr Fuhrer Welsberry (pronounced "Velsberry") banned further discussion of my idea that the Ohio Board of Education should have heard public comments before -- not after -- voting, his reason being that he had not heard of any complaints from the Ohio commenters.
>>>>>And you're point is? Once again, you try to throw references that you do not understand.<<<<<
If you don't like Webopedia's definitions of session cookie and persistent cookie, then: (1) argue with Webopedia and/or (2) present other definitions from other sources.
>>>>>My name appears in the comment area regardless of whether or not I'm logged into blogger and I do not have any persistent cookies on my system.<<<<<
Then how does blogger.com know that it is you (I am assuming that you are in a new session)? And what do you mean by "log in" -- do you have to enter your name and password or just your password? You said above that you have to log in each time.
>>>>>The first option says whether cookies (any type of cookies) are allowed onto your machine AT ALL. It also efects session cookies.<<<<<
For starters, I am not even sure that session cookies are stored on my machine. Webopedia says that session cookies are stored in "temporary memory," but that could possibly mean that they are stored on my ISP rather than on my computer.
Anyway, it is not clear how these two options on anonymous proxies operate. For example, if you say yes to the first option, i.e., allowing cookies, then what is the effect of saying no to the second option, i.e., not allowing session cookies? Does that mean that persistent cookies are allowed but session cookies are not?
>>>>>You're a blogger here and you know less than nothing about how things work here. The answer again is that, by drawing on one's relevant past experience it is possible to make reasoned inferences about how similar things operate<<<<<
There are a lot of features of the system that you cannot test unless you are a blogger or a registered user, and even then you cannot test all of the features, because using one feature may preclude trying another and because some features of the system might remain hidden to the users. As I said, as a registered blogger with a display name, I cannot see the system the same way as it is seen by those who do not have display names.
>>>>>>Earth to Larry, Blogger.com is not the only blog provider or maker of blog software in the world. Different blog software has different policies toward the editing of existing comments.<<<<<<
Exactly! I was pointing out that Kevin's experience with other blogging systems does not necessarily apply to blogger.com.
>>>>>He wasn't saying that you were too dumb to see that there were multiple posts, he was saying that you were too dumb to realize that the multiple posts were not his fault.<<<<<
He could have just told me that the multiple posts were unintentional, and left it at that. I would have believed him even if I did not have my own experience with multiple posting on other forums.
>>>>>And of course you then go on to show that you are too dumb to realize that, since he is not a Blogger user, he cannot delete the multiples, since he doesn't have the trashcan icon attached to his posts.<<<<<<
OK, so I made a mistake. But unlike you, at least I don't go around saying that I am an infallible know-it-all and that others are ignorant, and then make a bunch of mistakes myself. Anyway, he could get the shitcans just by registering on blogger.com.
From blogger's help:
"<$BlogCommentDeleteIcon$> inserts a delete button for each comment, but only if the person viewing it is the comment author or an administrator of the blog. No one else is allowed to delete comments."
Remove that line of code, and the trashcan icon disappears.
How do I know what I know about blogger? RTFM. In this case, the hel file. It's online.
BTW, Larry, your username can not have spaces. If you are trying to login with "Larry Fafarman" and a password, it's not going to let you. "Larry Fafarman" is your blogger display name, NOT your username. My guess is that your username is "larryfafarman" or similar, but that's just a guess. So when you are asked to "re-register" you can't enter "Larry Fafarman" and your password, you must enter "larryfafarman" (or equivalent) and your password.
FWIW, I did use autofill in a more general sense than may be technically accurate. However, I thought you'd be able to figure out what it meant by context and its name. Obviously, I overestimated your intelligence.
As for my integrity, I never asked for you to be banned or censored until after you had been officially banned for impersonating and threatening to impersonate members of PT. If you ban were to be lifted, I would not ask you to be banned or censored. My integrity in the matter is impeccable. Prior to your banning, and prior to the IP ban that you got caught up in, you had violated Rules 1, 2, 4, and 6 of PT's Comment Integrity Policy. You know nothing about integrity. It is amusing to see you attempt to lecture me about it.
W. Kevin Vicklund said ( 6/10/2006 09:27:40 AM ) --
From blogger's help:
>>>>>"<$BlogCommentDeleteIcon$> inserts a delete button for each comment, but only if the person viewing it is the comment author or an administrator of the blog. No one else is allowed to delete comments."
Remove that line of code, and the trashcan icon disappears.<<<<<<
Well, it sounds like removing that line of code not only eliminates the deletion privilege for the commenter but also eliminates that privilege for the blog administrator, unless the blog administrator has that privilege by default.
Could you give a URL link for your quote? Here is what I read on blogger.com's Blogger Help, and nothing is said about how to remove the trashcans:
You can delete any comment that you create on anyone else's blog, as long as you left the comment as a registered Blogger user. You can also delete any comments (registered or anonymous) that are left on your own blog, or on another blog for which you have admin privileges. http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=1081&query=comments&topic=0&type=f
>>>>>How do I know what I know about blogger? RTFM. In this case, the hel file. It's online.<<<<<
Well, it still takes a "hel" of a lot of investigation. And are you sure that blogger.com uses the hel file coding? There are different blogger programming languages.
>>>>>BTW, Larry, your username can not have spaces. If you are trying to login with "Larry Fafarman" and a password, it's not going to let you. "Larry Fafarman" is your blogger display name, NOT your username.<<<<<<
I know that a lot of systems do not allow spaces in usernames, screen names, etc., but there is no absolute reason why that should be so -- a space is an ASCII character just like other ASCII characters. Maybe the reasons are: (1) to prevent the accidental insertion of extra spaces and (2) someone copying the name by hand might fail to notice a space.
Anyway, I don't remember everything I did when I established my blog -- maybe I entered a username that is different from my display name. Anyway, I have never had to use my "username" since, not even when re-registering. I just tell blogger.com that I "forgot" my username, I am then asked for a new password, and everything returns to normal. So I never found out that my display name on blogger.com is different from my username. I know that on some other forums, my username is the same as my display name. On the AOL message boards, my display name is my screen name.
>>>>>FWIW, I did use autofill in a more general sense than may be technically accurate. However, I thought you'd be able to figure out what it meant by context and its name. Obviously, I overestimated your intelligence.<<<<<<
You stupid moron, I did figure out what you meant by context. The context was obviously information retrieval from cookies -- you said, "Cookies don't enter the picture, except possibly for autofill for registered blogger names. "
You know, you, Rob Serrano, and Voice In the Wilderness have wasted a lot of time and space here by starting name-calling exchanges rather than discussing things civilly. You jerks always have to be one-up on someone else.
>>>>>As for my integrity, I never asked for you to be banned or censored until after you had been officially banned for impersonating and threatening to impersonate members of PT.<<<<<
Wrong. I just said I would come back under a different name if I was banned. A PT blogger complained about that and I did not repeat the threat. It was much later, after I was banned for no reason, that I threatened to impersonate other commenters -- the main purpose of such impersonation was to try to prevent deletion of my comments. I also wanted to take revenge on my tormenters, and you would have been among my first impersonations.
>>>>> If you ban were to be lifted, I would not ask you to be banned or censored.<<<<<
You and others like Rilke's Granddaughter had no business pointing fingers at me in the first place. You all acted like goons of the PT staff. There are so few dissenters now on PT that virtually any dissenting opinion is assumed to be mine.
> maybe I entered a username that is different from my display name. < Maybe you used your brothers name, or mine. You have done both.
> You stupid moron <
You are asking an expert to dumb down his answer to the point that you can understand it and you call him a "stupid moron"?
> You know, you, Rob Serrano, and Voice In the Wilderness have wasted a lot of time and space here by starting name-calling exchanges rather than discussing things civilly. <
Look back. You seem to have started it.
> You jerks always have to be one-up on someone else. <
They don't have to be. They just are. Of course most people would be with the level of computer savy that you have shown.
> after I was banned for no reason <
As far as I have seen, you have yet to be banned for no reason from anywhere.
> I also wanted to take revenge on my tormenters, and you would have been among my first impersonations. <
So you approve of impersonations. That opens the gates!
> There are so few dissenters now on PT that virtually any dissenting opinion is assumed to be mine. <
Only those with your characteristic smell.
>> >>>>>>>So you admit that there are clues. There are other tell-tales of impersonation. I'll leave it to you figure them out, though many of them should be painfully obvious, even to you.<<<<<< <<
>> I never said that there are no clues, moron.
If you cannot name other clues, then you are just a bag of hot air with no credibility. <<
As you should have learned by now, simply repeating a claim doesn't make it any more true.
>> >>>>That's it, Larry, just PROVE that you're an idiot. For the record, I'm also a registered blogger user, and when I close my browser and return to blogger, I am asked to log in again. This is because I don't like features such as "Remember Me." <<<<<< <<
>> I described a way that blogger.com operates, and you flatly said no, blogger.com does not operate that way. Now you admit that blogger.com can operate that way. Sorry, bub, it is too late now to make that admission. You have called me ignorant while claiming to be the big, all-knowing, infallible expert. <<
I'm not admitting anything because you are wrong. Your description of the way you think Blogger operates is wrong. Blogger is a password based system, contrary to what you, in your ignorance, said. That they may, for convenience, allow users to setup longer-term (two weeks as opposed to session only) sessions does not make the system any less password based. Your assertion is wrong on the face of it. All blogger would need to do would be to set a different expiration date on the cookie, and then make sure that on their end they save the cookie until the expiration date has passed.
>> I don't remember if I am given a "remember me" option when I re-register -- blogger.com might just continue this option from my previous login. Anyway, if I don't want to be remembered, I can erase the blogger.com cookie from my hard drive. <<
It's a simple checkbox on the Blogger homepage. And yes, you could just delete the cookie, but since you requested it, why would you?
>> >>>>>And you don't log in with your display name, nit, you log in with your blogger usename. If you're trying to log in with your display name, of which I have no doubt given your history, of course blogger's not going to recognize you. The display name is not for the system, it is for other people.<<<<< <<
>> You stupid moron, blogger.com treats my display name and my username as exactly the same. I use the same username and display name, and I don't even remember the option of having a display name that is different from my username. Clicking on my display name at the top of a comment brings up my Blogger profile, just like clicking on a username. When I have to re-register, I have to tell blogger.com that I "forgot" my username and password, blogger.com then sends me an email, and voila, blogger.com magically remembers my username, asks me to enter a new password, and everything returns to normal. <<
Once again, you demonstrate why you should never speak of things about which you have no knowledge. Your username and your screen name are NOT the same thing and they are not treated the same. Try going signing out and signing back in using your display name (Larry Fafarman) and whatever password you use and see if it lets you in. You are asked to create a user account and a display name when you sign up with blogger. When you tell blogger that you've forgotten your password, the link they send you fills in the correct username for you and waits for you to enter a new password.
>> >>>>>>Panda's Thumb is a community. They tried to protect their community against your continued trangressions.<<<<<< <<
>> Panda's Thumb is not a community, it's a tyranny. I have been told that Wesley Elsberry "owns" PT -- how can someone "own" a community? And I told about the time that Herr Fuhrer Welsberry (pronounced "Velsberry") banned further discussion of my idea that the Ohio Board of Education should have heard public comments before -- not after -- voting, his reason being that he had not heard of any complaints from the Ohio commenters. <<
By the way, according to Godwin's Law, you've lost again. Are you trying to lose the argument?
>> >>>>>And you're point is? Once again, you try to throw references that you do not understand.<<<<< <<
>> If you don't like Webopedia's definitions of session cookie and persistent cookie, then: (1) argue with Webopedia and/or (2) present other definitions from other sources. <<
Ah yes, the appeal to authority as if that was going to somehow make your argument meaningful. My argument is not with the webopedia definition. The problem lies in the fact that you don't have any idea how or if they even apply in this case. And you certainly have failed to show how the definitions are relevant to a discussion of your lack of understanding about the nature of what you are speaking.
Or to put it in words that even you might understand: an ignoramus, such as yourself, with a dictionary is just an ignoramus who can incorrectly use big words in an argument.
>> >>>>>My name appears in the comment area regardless of whether or not I'm logged into blogger and I do not have any persistent cookies on my system.<<<<< <<
>> Then how does blogger.com know that it is you (I am assuming that you are in a new session)? And what do you mean by "log in" -- do you have to enter your name and password or just your password? You said above that you have to log in each time. <<
Blogger knows nothing about me until I actually log in. My web browser knows everything about me that I have told it to remember. My web browser remembers these data until I tell it to forget them, and they are not subject to expiration.
>> >>>>>The first option says whether cookies (any type of cookies) are allowed onto your machine AT ALL. It also efects session cookies.<<<<< <<
>> For starters, I am not even sure that session cookies are stored on my machine. Webopedia says that session cookies are stored in "temporary memory," but that could possibly mean that they are stored on my ISP rather than on my computer. <<
All cookies are stored on your machine, normally on your hard drive. By the way, good to see you admit that you don't actually understand the webopedia entry.
>> Anyway, it is not clear how these two options on anonymous proxies operate. For example, if you say yes to the first option, i.e., allowing cookies, then what is the effect of saying no to the second option, i.e., not allowing session cookies? Does that mean that persistent cookies are allowed but session cookies are not? <<
Oh yes, it's SO difficult to figure how these settings interact. If both are set, you get cookies, but only session-only cookies (some sites may rewrite the cookies so that they all expire at the end of the session). If only the former is selected, all cookies are allowed. If the former is unselected no cookies, session or otherwise, will be accepted.
>> >>>>>You're a blogger here and you know less than nothing about how things work here. The answer again is that, by drawing on one's relevant past experience it is possible to make reasoned inferences about how similar things operate<<<<< <<
>> There are a lot of features of the system that you cannot test unless you are a blogger or a registered user, and even then you cannot test all of the features, because using one feature may preclude trying another and because some features of the system might remain hidden to the users. As I said, as a registered blogger with a display name, I cannot see the system the same way as it is seen by those who do not have display names. <<
You keep asserting these irrelevances like their supposed to be somehow inspiring. Using software does not grant you magical insight into how the software works, and your lack of any real intellectual curiosity doesn't bode well for the possibility that you've spent your time experimenting to find out how things tick.
>> >>>>>>Earth to Larry, Blogger.com is not the only blog provider or maker of blog software in the world. Different blog software has different policies toward the editing of existing comments.<<<<<< <<
>> Exactly! I was pointing out that Kevin's experience with other blogging systems does not necessarily apply to blogger.com. <<
Actually, that's not what happened at all:
[quote]
While certainly possible to do this from a technological standpoint, blogger has not implemented this capability. You want to edit or delete, blogger requires you to register. This is for security and comment integrity. BTW, a password is always required for the first option.<<<<<<< <<
>> Your last statement is wrong -- as I said, as a user with a blogger display name, I normally do not have to enter a password (actually, I never have to enter an old password, because when I have to re-register, I do not have to enter my old password). I have no idea what those without blogger display names have to do, because I have never been in that position. Also, no one can edit a comment, but blog administrators and team members can edit articles (opening posts). Your statements are so full of errors that you have no credibility. <<
[quote]
You attacked Kevin Vicklund's credibility because what he said did not match what you wanted to believe to be true and then you latch onto the word "edit" as if that somehow discredits his points. It didn't and all you've succeeded in doing is making yourself look all the more the fool. But, then, that is to be expected from you.
>> >>>>>He wasn't saying that you were too dumb to see that there were multiple posts, he was saying that you were too dumb to realize that the multiple posts were not his fault.<<<<< <<
>> He could have just told me that the multiple posts were unintentional, and left it at that. I would have believed him even if I did not have my own experience with multiple posting on other forums. <<
Again, you've set the tone here. You need to learn to live with the consequences.
>> >>>>>And of course you then go on to show that you are too dumb to realize that, since he is not a Blogger user, he cannot delete the multiples, since he doesn't have the trashcan icon attached to his posts.<<<<<< <<
>> OK, so I made a mistake. But unlike you, at least I don't go around saying that I am an infallible know-it-all and that others are ignorant, and then make a bunch of mistakes myself. Anyway, he could get the shitcans just by registering on blogger.com. <<
No, you just scream and stamp your feet and call other shitheads, morons, ignoramus, birdbrains, etc. One has to wonder whether you ever actually possessed the ability to engage in rational debate and. Because, looking at things right now, I can only assume that you never had the ability, much less the willingness.
But, then, it's just another day in Larry-Land, isn't it?
>>>>>As for my integrity, I never asked for you to be banned or censored until after you had been officially banned for impersonating and threatening to impersonate members of PT.<<<<<
>>>Wrong. I just said I would come back under a different name if I was banned. A PT blogger complained about that and I did not repeat the threat. It was much later, after I was banned for no reason, that I threatened to impersonate other commenters -- the main purpose of such impersonation was to try to prevent deletion of my comments. I also wanted to take revenge on my tormenters, and you would have been among my first impersonations.<<<
You lie. Prior to the IP address ban in late January - which did not ban you - I did not call for you to be banned or censored. After you started posting under multiple names, you were told at least twice that you had not been banned. You continued to post under multiple names, and I and others continuously warned you for the next month that you could get banned for that. I did everything I could to prevent you from getting banned, and you threw it in my face. As it was, the staff at PT was astonishingly lenient in letting it go on as long as it did. In fact, it wasn't until you used another commenters name that you officially were banned - that, my friend, is a serious violation of comment integrity; indeed, I had been tempted to post under your name to prove to you that you weren't banned, but I knew that it would get me banned. Prior to that, I had never called for you to be banned or censored.
Prior to the events in late January, you violated Rules 1, 2, 4, and 6 of the PT policy. PT would have been fully justified in banning you by that point, but it wasn't until late February that actually did. Your continued posting meant that I would be in jeopardy of violating the policy, so I took the steps necessary to protect my own integrity and my personal ethical system.
Rob Serrano said ( 6/10/2006 02:07:11 PM ) --
>>>>>If you cannot name other clues, then you are just a bag of hot air with no credibility. <<
As you should have learned by now, simply repeating a claim doesn't make it any more true.<<<<<<
Put up or shut up. If you can't name another clue, then just shut up, damn you.
>>>>>I'm not admitting anything because you are wrong. Your description of the way you think Blogger operates is wrong. Blogger is a password based system, contrary to what you, in your ignorance, said.<<<<<
The issue was not whether blogger.com is a password-based system -- the issue was whether blogger.com uses persistent ("permanent") cookies to recognize visitors. I said yes and you originally said no. You were wrong.
>>>>>you could just delete the cookie, but since you requested it, why would you? <<<<
I didn't say that I would want to -- I just said that I have the capability.
>>>>>Your username and your screen name are NOT the same thing and they are not treated the same.<<<<<
I presume you mean "display name," not "screen name" (on AOL, this is the name for the prefix of the email address).
>>>>>When you tell blogger that you've forgotten your password, the link they send you fills in the correct username for you and waits for you to enter a new password.<<<<<
I not only tell blogger.com that I have "forgotten" my password, but I also tell blogger.com that I have forgotten my username. I have never had to fill in my username (assuming that it is different from my display name, as you claim), which is why I am not aware that I have a username that is different from my display name (according to you). Next time I have to re-register, I will more carefully watch what is displayed.
There are no hard rules for how these names are handled. Some forums do not distinguish between usernames and display names. The AOL message boards use the screen name as the display name. Some systems require passwords and others do not. There are all kinds of different systems.
>>>> My argument is not with the webopedia definition. The problem lies in the fact that you don't have any idea how or if they even apply in this case.<<<<<
Moron -- it is obvious that a session cookie cannot be used to remember someone after the session has ended.
<<<<<>> For starters, I am not even sure that session cookies are stored on my machine. Webopedia says that session cookies are stored in "temporary memory," but that could possibly mean that they are stored on my ISP rather than on my computer. <<
All cookies are stored on your machine, normally on your hard drive. By the way, good to see you admit that you don't actually understand the webopedia entry.>>>>>>
The hard drive is not temporary memory, you stupid dummox. You are a total ignoramus who is masquerading as an expert on computers and the Internet.
>>>>>Blogger knows nothing about me until I actually log in. <<<<<
I thought that you told me that Blogger shows your display name before you log in -- even though you do not check the "remember me" box when renewing registration.
>>>>>You keep asserting these irrelevances like their supposed to be somehow inspiring. Using software does not grant you magical insight into how the software works<<<<<<
Wrong, you stupid ignoramus. A lot about the way software actually works is unavailable or hard to find in references, so people commonly test software to see how it actually works.
>>>>>You attacked Kevin Vicklund's credibility because what he said did not match what you wanted to believe to be true and then you latch onto the word "edit" as if that somehow discredits his points.<<<<<<
You stupid fathead, it was not just his erroneous statement that registered users could edit comments -- it was the sum total of all his erroneous statements.
>>>>>>Again, you've set the tone here. You need to learn to live with the consequences.<<<<<<
LOL -- I rarely initiate name-calling -- and someone has to say something pretty bad for me to do so.
W. Kevin Vicklund said ( June 10, 2006 4:34:57 PM ) --
>>>>>After you started posting under multiple names, you were told at least twice that you had not been banned.<<<<<
How many times do I have to keep going over the same ground? I was in fact banned, and was rebanned several times.
>>>>>In fact, it wasn't until you used another commenters name that you officially were banned<<<<<
I was banned long before then. My use of another commenter's name was an experiment to see if that would have any effect on my ability to post comments. I clearly stated in my message that I was not the commenter in the heading. I posted the message on an old inactive thread.
>>>>>I had been tempted to post under your name to prove to you that you weren't banned<<<<<
That would have proved nothing, since PT was using IP address banning and you likely have an IP address different from mine.
>>>>>Your continued posting meant that I would be in jeopardy of violating the policy, so I took the steps necessary to protect my own integrity and my personal ethical system.<<<<<
That's bullshit -- you were never in jeopardy and could not have placed yourself in jeopardy.
Again I ask -- why would I go to great time and trouble to prepare comments and then risk having them banned by using multiple names if I didn't have to?
>>>>>After you started posting under multiple names, you were told at least twice that you had not been banned.<<<<<
>>>How many times do I have to keep going over the same ground? I was in fact banned, and was rebanned several times.<<<
4 different identities posted from a single IP address in a very short period of time. This highly unusual activity prompted an administrative action to prevent abuse of comment integrity. That action was a banning of the IP address. It was not a banning of the individual commenters, assuming they were separate people. Larry Fafarman was not banned at that time. An IP address, which Larry Fafarman happened to be using at the time, along with several other people, was banned. This does not constitute the banning of Larry Fafarman, and Larry Fafarman was told several times as such. It is solely through his own stupidity and conceit that Larry IGNORED the people who told him he was not banned. Sorry to tell you this, Larry, but the world doesn't revolve around you. You were convinced that PT was bound and determined to ban you. You were looking for any excuse to presume you were banned - a fact that you let slip several times prior to late January. It is your own damned fault. I warned you what was going to happen if you kept behaving that way, even gave you additional incentive to stop behaving that way, and you threw it in my face.
>>>>>In fact, it wasn't until you used another commenters name that you officially were banned<<<<<
>>>I was banned long before then. My use of another commenter's name was an experiment to see if that would have any effect on my ability to post comments. I clearly stated in my message that I was not the commenter in the heading. I posted the message on an old inactive thread.<<<
It still doesn't mitigate the fact that you committed a bannable offense. And the fact is, YOU WERE NOT BANNED BEFORE THEN! No matter how much you bitch and moan, you jumped to a conclusion and acted in the one way guaranteed to piss everyone off. In other words, you acted the part of a sociopath.
>>>>>I had been tempted to post under your name to prove to you that you weren't banned<<<<<
>>>That would have proved nothing, since PT was using IP address banning and you likely have an IP address different from mine.<<<
Ah, but you have claimed that you didn't know until after you startd this blog how the ban started. So if your name was used and not blocked or deleted, that would have been evidence that you as a commenter hadn't been banned.
One other telling factor. PvM is a contributor and knew about the IP address ban. He engaged you many times after the IP ban on his own threads, knowing it was you. He had the authority to remove your comments. Other contributors also engaged you, knowing who you were. You were not banned.
>>>>>Your continued posting meant that I would be in jeopardy of violating the policy, so I took the steps necessary to protect my own integrity and my personal ethical system.<<<<<
>>>That's bullshit -- you were never in jeopardy and could not have placed yourself in jeopardy.
Again I ask -- why would I go to great time and trouble to prepare comments and then risk having them banned by using multiple names if I didn't have to?<<<
Why would I go to great time and trouble to prepare comments and then risk having them deleted and getting myself banned for responding to a banned commenter if I didn't have to? I had an ethical way to avoid this conundrum that preserved my integrity and the integrity of Panda's Thumb - point out that you were posting in violation of an official ban. As for your question, the answer is "To try to cast a bad light on Panda's Thumb." A sociopath's reason, but then again, you are a sociopath.
>> >>>>>If you cannot name other clues, then you are just a bag of hot air with no credibility. <<
As you should have learned by now, simply repeating a claim doesn't make it any more true.<<<<<< <<
>> Put up or shut up. If you can't name another clue, then just shut up, damn you. <<
I could name any number of other clues, but you need to learn that little children with vulgar tongues seldom get what they want. Sit and stew, Larry.
>> >>>>>I'm not admitting anything because you are wrong. Your description of the way you think Blogger operates is wrong. Blogger is a password based system, contrary to what you, in your ignorance, said.<<<<< <<
>> The issue was not whether blogger.com is a password-based system -- the issue was whether blogger.com uses persistent ("permanent") cookies to recognize visitors. I said yes and you originally said no. You were wrong. <<
Once again from the Larry archives:
[quote]
>> >>>>>Blogger uses a password system.<<<<< <<
>> Wrong. As I said, as a registered blogger with a display name, I am generally not asked to enter a password when I post ordinary comments, post new articles (called "posts" on blogger.com), or make other additions or changes to my blog. And when I am required to re-register, my old password is not accepted and my display name is not recognized! I have to tell blogger.com that I forgot my display name and my password, and then I am permitted to enter a new password (I don't know what it is good for). <<
[/quote]
Seems fairly obvious to me that you were insisting that Blogger is not a password-based system, so yes, it was the issue. And it still is a great part of the issue. The fact is, that you made many assertions about the inner workings of blogger, based on nothing more than your uneducated guesses. You're wrong and have been shown to be so over and over again. To make this clear, blogger uses session cookies to keep the session alive. Longer-term session cookies are available if particular users request them through the "Remember Me" checkbox, but it is not mandatory, nor is it the default setting. And the Remember Me cookies only allow you to logon to the system automatically from the machine the has them, they are not used to recognize you per se. Blogger haas no idea about who you are until you login, at which point your login name can be associated with your profile. See how that works, Larry?
But please, feel free to continue making your blind assertions.
>> >>>>>you could just delete the cookie, but since you requested it, why would you? <<<< <<
>> I didn't say that I would want to -- I just said that I have the capability. <<
Then why even mention it?
>> >>>>>Your username and your screen name are NOT the same thing and they are not treated the same.<<<<< <<
>> I presume you mean "display name," not "screen name" (on AOL, this is the name for the prefix of the email address). <<
DING-DING-DING. For the first time, Larry, you have actually correctly made an association between two things. Unfortunately, the association disappears into a dark pit of irrelevance as you never actually do anything with it.
>> >>>>>When you tell blogger that you've forgotten your password, the link they send you fills in the correct username for you and waits for you to enter a new password.<<<<< <<
>> I not only tell blogger.com that I have "forgotten" my password, but I also tell blogger.com that I have forgotten my username. I have never had to fill in my username (assuming that it is different from my display name, as you claim), which is why I am not aware that I have a username that is different from my display name (according to you). Next time I have to re-register, I will more carefully watch what is displayed. <<
So you've been making these arguments based on the fact that you hadn't even bothered to pay attention to something? BZZT. Sorry, any intelligence points you may have garnered from the correct association of "screen name" and "display name" is wiped out and you are even further in the negative realm. And you have the gall to try to insult the intelligence of others when you aren't even observant enough to know what you say you have to do on a semi-regular basis? What a maroon.
>> There are no hard rules for how these names are handled. Some forums do not distinguish between usernames and display names. The AOL message boards use the screen name as the display name. Some systems require passwords and others do not. There are all kinds of different systems. <<
Since Blogger asks you for both a username and a display name when you register, your whole statement above is complete irrelevant. At this point, Larry, even the best life-support equipment can't save your credibility, such as it is.
>> >>>> My argument is not with the webopedia definition. The problem lies in the fact that you don't have any idea how or if they even apply in this case.<<<<< <<
>> Moron -- it is obvious that a session cookie cannot be used to remember someone after the session has ended. <<
What is obvious is that you don't have a clue what yo're talking about. But that's okay, I guess, since you don't seem to have much of a clue when you write about anything. So I'll just leave you this to chew on: a cookie is a cookie, whatever name it be called.
>> <<<<<>> For starters, I am not even sure that session cookies are stored on my machine. Webopedia says that session cookies are stored in "temporary memory," but that could possibly mean that they are stored on my ISP rather than on my computer. <<
All cookies are stored on your machine, normally on your hard drive. By the way, good to see you admit that you don't actually understand the webopedia entry.>>>>>> <<
>> The hard drive is not temporary memory, you stupid dummox. You are a total ignoramus who is masquerading as an expert on computers and the Internet. <<
See, Larry, this is where you get into trouble for relying on single reference points for the whole of your claims. A hard drive can be every bit as much a temporary storage device as memory. Ever hear of the temp directory in Windows? Contrary to what your reference says all cookies are treated the same by the browser. They are all stored on disc, whether in their own text files or all together in a single text file. The primary difference between persistent and session cookies is that, after you quit your session (leave the browser, or simply log off), a session cookie has nothing to refer to any more and can be deleted or recycled. You see, Larry, and you wouldn't know this being that you don't have a background in such things, session cookies most often contain nothing more than a number that can be used to refer to cookies on the server side that actually hold the session information. Persisten cookies, since they are persistent and carry over across multiple sessions, are mostly used to store things such as user preferences.
>> >>>>>Blogger knows nothing about me until I actually log in. <<<<< <<
>> I thought that you told me that Blogger shows your display name before you log in -- even though you do not check the "remember me" box when renewing registration. <<
Once again, you demonstrate that you actually don't read much. I said my username and password are always displayed, whether I'm logged in or not. I did NOT say that Blogger shows the information. In fact, I explicitly stated that it is my browser that is filling in the information.
>> >>>>>You keep asserting these irrelevances like their supposed to be somehow inspiring. Using software does not grant you magical insight into how the software works<<<<<< <<
>> Wrong, you stupid ignoramus. A lot about the way software actually works is unavailable or hard to find in references, so people commonly test software to see how it actually works. <<
And yet all of what you claim you have gleaned from your supposed "experimentation" has been wrong. Using software does NOT bestow some magical insight into the workings of the software, period. A Word user may be an expert at navigating the interface and may be able to run a mail merge in under 2 seconds, but they are by NO means experts on the underlying architecture of the program itself. They don't automatically know scripting, OLE/COM, expanding Word with external modules, or anything that goes on behind the scenes. All they know is how to use the interface to the program, which is the part of Word that it's programmers decided to make directly accessible to users. Which is to say, not a whole hell of a lot. And that might be the point at which you find yourself in a year or so. You are still very much a newbie and the gaps in your knowledge indicate that you've barely even scratched the surface of the system. On the other hand, your willingness to actually try to expand your knowledge and learn things is so stiflingly limited, that I doubt that you'll do much experimentation.
>> >>>>>You attacked Kevin Vicklund's credibility because what he said did not match what you wanted to believe to be true and then you latch onto the word "edit" as if that somehow discredits his points.<<<<<< <<
>> You stupid fathead, it was not just his erroneous statement that registered users could edit comments -- it was the sum total of all his erroneous statements. <<
Strange, considering his statements have yet to be proven to be erroneous. The only arguments you've presented are your own faulty assumptions, which aren't really valid argument. Argument by bluster is not a valid argument. Truth by Blatant Assertion is also a long discredited argument tactic which you seem to rely on as your primary modus operandi.
>> >>>>>>Again, you've set the tone here. You need to learn to live with the consequences.<<<<<< <<
>> LOL -- I rarely initiate name-calling -- and someone has to say something pretty bad for me to do so. <<
Hate to tell you this, Larry, but in about 9/10 of the cases, YOU are the one to initiate name-calling. And like most people of your ilk, when you are responded to in kind you immediately start whining about others calling you names. So lump it, Larry, no one is really falling for your "I'm just a poor victim of these meanies," act except the lunatic front at your mother ship, Uncommon Descent.
Nothing agreeing with Larry is posted.
It must be censorship by the blog owner!
Rob Serrano said ( 6/11/2006 12:41:19 AM ) --
>>>>>I could name any number of other clues, but you need to learn that little children with vulgar tongues seldom get what they want. Sit and stew, Larry.<<<<<<
Who is sitting and stewing? When did I say that I even wanted this information for my own use? I just asked you to show some credibility by naming some other clues -- and you have not. So you are just a bag of hot air.
And you still have this contempt for little children. Are you a child abuser, perchance?
>>>>>Seems fairly obvious to me that you were insisting that Blogger is not a password-based system, so yes, it was the issue.<<<<<<
I never insisted that. Blogger has asked me for my password.
>>>>>blogger uses session cookies to keep the session alive. Longer-term session cookies are available if particular users request them through the "Remember Me" checkbox, but it is not mandatory, nor is it the default setting.<<<<<
What you call "longer-term" session cookies are not session cookies at all, but are "persistent" cookies. You are so full of shit it is coming out your ears.
>>>>>A hard drive can be every bit as much a temporary storage device as memory. <<<<
Webopedia did not say "hard drive" so I did not assume hard drive -- particularly in consideration of the fact that Webopedia specifically mentioned the hard drive in discussing persistent cookies. I did some more investigation and it appears that session cookies are stored on hard drives (though I cannot be sure that this is always true), but that is much less important than many of the important things about cookies that you have been missing.
>>>>>Persisten cookies, since they are persistent and carry over across multiple sessions, are mostly used to store things such as user preferences.<<<<<
Websites store all kinds of information in a cookie -- the information is not necessarily "mostly" such things as user preferences.
>>>>>>I said my username and password are always displayed, whether I'm logged in or not. I did NOT say that Blogger shows the information. <<<<<
What is this crap? First you say that Blogger always "displays" the information, then you say that Blogger does not "show" the information. What is the difference between "display" and "show"? And passwords are never displayed -- not even when they are entered. You are so full of crap that it is coming out your ears.
>>>>>Since Blogger asks you for both a username and a display name when you register, your whole statement above is complete irrelevant<<<<<
In learning how to run my blog, I had enough to worry about without noting or remembering a little nitpicking detail like that. As I said, I have never had to enter my username -- not even when re-registering -- so I had no reason to remember my username or even the fact that I ever had one that was different from my display name.
Also, my statement is certainly not irrelevant in regard to those who claim to know everything about the way Blogger operates when they do not even run blogs on the system.
>>>>>You are still very much a newbie and the gaps in your knowledge indicate that you've barely even scratched the surface of the system.<<<<<
I may be a "newbie" to the Internet -- relatively speaking -- because the Internet hardly existed back when I studied computers. I never took a course about the Internet -- I've had to learn by doing. But I do have a certificate in computer science (I took full courses in C, C++, Fortran, various business applications programs, MS-DOS Assembly language, Visual Basic, LAN's, Pagemaker, AutoCAD, CATIA, NC machine tool programming, and what have you) from an accredited community college, so I certainly know enough about computers to know that people often test programs to see how they actually operate, as opposed to just philosophizing or speculating about how they logically should operate.
It is obvious that you are just a troll, and I should have given up on you a long time ago. You say that you know of some additional clues of impersonation, but can't name one. You say that Blogger "displays" information about you but does not "show" information about you. You say that Blogger always displays your password. You call persistent cookies "longer term" session cookies. You are so full of shit it is coming out your ears. I need never answer you again because you have zippo credibility. Goodbye -- or rather, good riddance.
learned anything. Instead of trying to dispute everything that Rod says, why not try to learn from him?
> Also, my statement is certainly not irrelevant <
Much of what you say overall is irrelevant. Most of the rest is false.
> the Internet hardly existed back when I studied computers. <
I remember when you studied computers. The Internet was around then but AOL wasn't so there was no place for the inept to access it. At the time you were studying material that was ten years behind.
> (I took full courses in C, C++, Fortran, various business applications programs, MS-DOS Assembly language, Visual Basic, LAN's, Pagemaker, AutoCAD, CATIA, NC machine tool programming, and what have you) <
C, C++ - You couldn't write a "Hello World" program in C without referring to a manual
Fortran - You didn't take a class in Fortran, which by definition is Fortran 90 or later. You took a class in FORTRAN 77.
various business applications programs - such as Microsoft Notepad.
MS-DOS Assembly language - MASM 1.0 at a time that 6.1 was current.
AutoCAD, CATIA, - You couldn't draw a box with either of these programs.
> You say that you know of some additional clues of impersonation, but can't name one. <
I can name one. Your impersonation of your brother Dave on this site.
You are so full of shit it is coming out your ears. Rod's credibility is quite high with the sane. Sorry that doesn't include you.
Bill Carter (?) said...
>>>>>Nothing agreeing with Larry is posted.
It must be censorship by the blog owner!<<<<<<<
A lot of the commenters here just say that they disagree with me without being able to say why, so they might as well have posted nothing at all.
Occasionally, a commenter here will agree with me.
The problem is that most of the commenters here are from Panda's Thumb and Dispatches from the Culture Wars, which are blogs where most of the people disagree with me, and many of these commenters are just hecklers. Most of the people who would agree with me are pre-occupied with reading uncommondescent.com and posting comments there.
Larry Fafarman(?) said ...
> A lot of the commenters here just say that they disagree with me without being able to say why <
I can't find a single case of that. They all seem to say why. If you don't agree with what they say, you pretend that they don't say it.
Bill Carter (?) said ( 6/11/2006 11:09:28 AM ) --
Larry Fafarman( ! ! ! ) said ...
> A lot of the commenters here just say that they disagree with me without being able to say why <
I can't find a single case of that. They all seem to say why. If you don't agree with what they say, you pretend that they don't say it. <<<<<<<
Here is an example from a comment of Rob Serrano, one of the biggest hecklers on this blog, posted under "Judge Jones flunks history and philosophy as well as law and science":
I said ( June 10, 2006 2:46:50 PM ) --
>> It is apparent that Judge Jones' Dover decision was influenced by his views about the issues of the founding fathers' religious beliefs and the establishment clause's original intent, which were not regarded as issues in the case, and I think that it was improper of Judge Jones to consider these issues because they were never debated by the litigants and also because I think that these issues should never be considered in establishment clause cases (so far as establishment clause cases are concerned, who cares about the founding fathers' religious beliefs or their purposes in creating the establishment clause?). Judge Jones should have just stuck to the literal meaning of the establishment clause without adding his own embellishments like his own opinions about the founding fathers' "true religion" and the original intent of the clause. <<
Rob Serrano answered ( 6/11/2006 01:42:59 AM ) --
Truth by Blatant assertion. Once again, Larry, you need to learn that just because you say something, doesn't mean that it is actually true.
There it is -- disagreeing with me without saying why. So there.
I would feel pretty foolish posting a comment saying that I disagree with someone without being able to say why.
>> >>>>>I could name any number of other clues, but you need to learn that little children with vulgar tongues seldom get what they want. Sit and stew, Larry.<<<<<< <<
>> Who is sitting and stewing? When did I say that I even wanted this information for my own use? I just asked you to show some credibility by naming some other clues -- and you have not. So you are just a bag of hot air. <<
Actually, you started demanding that I list these clues. And you used rude language -- which seems to be the only form of language you can muster -- to do so.
>> And you still have this contempt for little children. Are you a child abuser, perchance? <<
Ooh, an attempt at character assassination from the "person" without any character. No, Larry, unlike you, I'm not inclined to hide behind children when I get myself into trouble. You seem to have no problem throwing children into the street to distract from your escape.
>> >>>>>Seems fairly obvious to me that you were insisting that Blogger is not a password-based system, so yes, it was the issue.<<<<<< <<
>> I never insisted that. Blogger has asked me for my password. <<
Yes, you said that. Remember, I said that Blogger is a password-based system and you responded with "Wrong." Your own words condemn you, Larry. But, then, since your positions are indefensible, it should really come as no surprise that you find yourself unable to even make the attempt without playing games.
>> >>>>>blogger uses session cookies to keep the session alive. Longer-term session cookies are available if particular users request them through the "Remember Me" checkbox, but it is not mandatory, nor is it the default setting.<<<<< <<
>> What you call "longer-term" session cookies are not session cookies at all, but are "persistent" cookies. You are so full of shit it is coming out your ears. <<
And the last time you actually did anything with cookies was? Oh that's right, never. Meanwhile, I just develop web-sites as part of my day job, so I wouldn't actually know anything about cookies or how they're used. Stick to your day-yammering, Larry, "Duh, I read somewhere that," doesn't make you an expert, it just makes you a gossip.
Let me clear this up for you, once and for all, Larry. A cookie is a cookie, period. They are set in the same ways, they are stored in the same way, they are retrieved by the remote site in the same way. They are the same. This distinction between session and persistent is artificial and denotes the scope of the cookie, nothing more. A session cookie, even if it didn't expire, would soon become invalid as the server-side session it is a link to gets torn down. I call the Blogger "Remember Me" cookies longer-term session cookies because that is what they are designed to do: they effectively lengthen the term of the session. Since you've not done your homework, you don't know what they contain or how they actually work. But, all that's needed for a longer-term session cookie to work would be for the server to mark the server-side session cookie to expire at some point in the future and prevent the session from being destroyed on disconnect. But this is all moot, since your original assertion was that Blogger doesn't use a password-based system.
>> >>>>>A hard drive can be every bit as much a temporary storage device as memory. <<<< <<
>> Webopedia did not say "hard drive" so I did not assume hard drive -- particularly in consideration of the fact that Webopedia specifically mentioned the hard drive in discussing persistent cookies. I did some more investigation and it appears that session cookies are stored on hard drives (though I cannot be sure that this is always true), but that is much less important than many of the important things about cookies that you have been missing. <<
So, in other words, you're now admitting that you made an ass of yourself simply because you didn't actually bother reading what you were quoting. And cookies are always stored on hard drives. And there are no "important" things about cookies that I've been missing. I've detailed the iformation pertinent to this conversation. I'm not playing a game of "instruct the thick-wit."
>> >>>>>Persisten cookies, since they are persistent and carry over across multiple sessions, are mostly used to store things such as user preferences.<<<<< <<
>> Websites store all kinds of information in a cookie -- the information is not necessarily "mostly" such things as user preferences. <<
Still trying to play the game of "No, I'm the expert," eh, Larry. Persistent cookies primarily are used to maintain user preference information. Have you ever actually tried to read the contents of a cookie? It's not difficult, they are just text files on your hard drive. Doing so may help you stop being such an ignorant nit.
>> >>>>>>I said my username and password are always displayed, whether I'm logged in or not. I did NOT say that Blogger shows the information. <<<<< <<
>> What is this crap? First you say that Blogger always "displays" the information, then you say that Blogger does not "show" the information. What is the difference between "display" and "show"? And passwords are never displayed -- not even when they are entered. You are so full of crap that it is coming out your ears. <<
I never said Blogger displays or shows anything, Larry, that is your inability to actually read talk. Apparently the concept of the browser remember these things and putting the information in the right places is just a little beyond your meager ability to comprehend. The password field is filled in, the contents replaced by asterisks, which should be obvious to anyone without severe comprehension difficulties.
>> >>>>>Since Blogger asks you for both a username and a display name when you register, your whole statement above is complete irrelevant<<<<< <<
>> In learning how to run my blog, I had enough to worry about without noting or remembering a little nitpicking detail like that. As I said, I have never had to enter my username -- not even when re-registering -- so I had no reason to remember my username or even the fact that I ever had one that was different from my display name. <<
Yeah, it's strange how your memory fails at such convenient times, isn't it, Larry. Entering a username was the first thing you had to do when setting up your blog and you forgot that you had to do it.
>> Also, my statement is certainly not irrelevant in regard to those who claim to know everything about the way Blogger operates when they do not even run blogs on the system. <<
It is certainly irrelevant is light of the statement I was responding to:
[quote]
>> There are no hard rules for how these names are handled. Some forums do not distinguish between usernames and display names. The AOL message boards use the screen name as the display name. Some systems require passwords and others do not. There are all kinds of different systems. <<
[/quote]
>> >>>>>You are still very much a newbie and the gaps in your knowledge indicate that you've barely even scratched the surface of the system.<<<<< <<
>> I may be a "newbie" to the Internet -- relatively speaking -- because the Internet hardly existed back when I studied computers. I never took a course about the Internet -- I've had to learn by doing. <<
Apparently you haven't been doing much, since your lack of knowledge of the internet is so great as to be almost awe-inspiring.
>> But I do have a certificate in computer science (I took full courses in C, C++, Fortran, various business applications programs, MS-DOS Assembly language, Visual Basic, LAN's, Pagemaker, AutoCAD, CATIA, NC machine tool programming, and what have you) from an accredited community college, so I certainly know enough about computers to know that people often test programs to see how they actually operate, as opposed to just philosophizing or speculating about how they logically should operate. <<
Yeah, that certificate certainly shows up my insignicant little Degree in Computer Science. So while you were doing the hard word of figuring out how to use Word, I was just wasting my time learning about 3D Interactive Computer Graphics, Ray Tracing, and Radiosity. While you were trying to figure out the arcane nature of the 8088's semi-segmented memory architecture, where you can address one point in memory is several different ways, I was learning VAX and (later) PowerPC Assembly Language. While you say you were learning C/C++, I was learning those languages plus Objective-C and doing some work in the PostScript language as implemented on the NeXT computer line (most features of which have since been incorporated into MacOSX). While you were taking courses in Visual Basic, I was taking courses in User Interface Design. While you were learning Pagemaker, I was learning Framemaker as a tool for Graphical Communication. While you were learning AutoCAD, I was learning Alias. While you were learning Fortran, I was learning languages that have applicability outside of Engineering, such as Scheme, Lisp, ML, PHP, Perl, etc. And, I might add, Larry, unlike what most community colleges teach, I actually learn how to use all of these things, not just how to click on menu items.
>> It is obvious that you are just a troll, and I should have given up on you a long time ago. You say that you know of some additional clues of impersonation, but can't name one. You say that Blogger "displays" information about you but does not "show" information about you. You say that Blogger always displays your password. You call persistent cookies "longer term" session cookies. You are so full of shit it is coming out your ears. I need never answer you again because you have zippo credibility. Goodbye -- or rather, good riddance. <<
It's funny how, when you accuse me of lying you have to resort to lying yourself. All of your claims have been disproven. As far as credibility goes, your blog has no credibility because you, its owner, are a liar and creepy little person who is, even now, bending over for Uncommon Descent and Dembski's sycophants. You have no credibility and you have no integrity, Larry. In fact, you've proven time and time again that you seem to lack even the most rudimentary of redeeming human traits.
>> Larry Fafarman( ! ! ! ) said ...
> A lot of the commenters here just say that they disagree with me without being able to say why <
I can't find a single case of that. They all seem to say why. If you don't agree with what they say, you pretend that they don't say it. <<<<<<<
Here is an example from a comment of Rob Serrano, one of the biggest hecklers on this blog, posted under "Judge Jones flunks history and philosophy as well as law and science":
I said ( June 10, 2006 2:46:50 PM ) --
>> It is apparent that Judge Jones' Dover decision was influenced by his views about the issues of the founding fathers' religious beliefs and the establishment clause's original intent, which were not regarded as issues in the case, and I think that it was improper of Judge Jones to consider these issues because they were never debated by the litigants and also because I think that these issues should never be considered in establishment clause cases (so far as establishment clause cases are concerned, who cares about the founding fathers' religious beliefs or their purposes in creating the establishment clause?). Judge Jones should have just stuck to the literal meaning of the establishment clause without adding his own embellishments like his own opinions about the founding fathers' "true religion" and the original intent of the clause. <<
Rob Serrano answered ( 6/11/2006 01:42:59 AM ) --
Truth by Blatant assertion. Once again, Larry, you need to learn that just because you say something, doesn't mean that it is actually true.
There it is -- disagreeing with me without saying why. So there.
I would feel pretty foolish posting a comment saying that I disagree with someone without being able to say why. <<
I did say why, Larry. You just lack the intellectual capacity to understand the point. Your argument consists of nothing but assertions, which are not to be confused with truth, though you would like them to be.
Post a Comment
<< Home