Massachusetts legislature finally votes on ballot initiative
Today, January 2, the Massachusetts legislature finally fulfilled its constitutional obligation to vote on a ballot initiative that would ban future same-sex marriages in the state. Under the state constitution, today was the last day to vote. The legislature acted under a lot of pressure, including a lawsuit and widespread criticism in editorials.
For more info, see -- Massachusetts and S. Dakota legislatures violated initiative rules
For more info, see -- Massachusetts and S. Dakota legislatures violated initiative rules
Labels: Voter initiatives
posted by Larry Fafarman | 1/02/2007 06:05:00 PM
26 Comments:
Have you noticed that there are no replies posted in the majority of your recent material? If it weren't for me and your brother the blog would be totally dead.
To what do you credit this?
Voice in the Wilderness said...
>>>>>> Have you noticed that there are no replies posted in the majority of your recent material? If it weren't for me and your brother the blog would be totally dead. <<<<<<
For starters, Fake Dave is not my brother.
I don't need replies to tell me that people are reading my blog. Though my site meter (at the bottom of the left sidebar) tells me that I am getting "only" about 30-60 visits per day (not really a bad number, considering how many other places there are to visit on the Internet), the lengths of visits and the number of page views per visit are astonishing. In one recent "by details" listing of the 100 most recent visits, I counted five visits of over 80 minutes and four visits with 20 or more page views. Also, I get visitors from all over the world, including many non-English-speaking countries.
My blog is not necessarily bad just because most visitors have no comments to make. Also, many of my articles are just non-controversial informative articles -- there are lull periods when there is nothing really controversial to post. Also, I do not bother posting a lot of important material posted in the websites in my link list in the left sidebar because I have nothing to add -- I recommend that visitors to this site also visit those sites (except the Prescribed Evolution sites which I should remove because they have been inactive for some time -- the problem is that I have to republish the whole blog to change my link list and I hate to do that).
> For starters, Fake Dave is not my brother. <
I am sure that you don't realize how much this absurd assertion has cut into the limited credibility you ever had and opened to display your mental problems. If you don't believe this Dave to be your brother, why do you call him and demand that he stop posting? Why do you have your mother call him to get him to stop? So far he has shown the courage to continue to try to reason with you knowing that you are not reasonable. You owe him a great deal.
> I don't need replies to tell me that people are reading my blog. <
You certainly can't find out through a site meter. Site meters show how many times the site has been addressed. Pings from indexing services show up as counts. If you are getting only about 30-60 visits per day, it looks like even some of the indexing services are ignoring you! I have a friend with a sales site who is averaging over 5000 visits a day but has had no orders for months. As for the amount of time, if someone checks into your blog and then goes for lunch without either moving to a new site or shutting down, it will show up as more than an hour visit.
You would make much less of a fool of yourself if you learned something about computers and the Internet.
> I get visitors from all over the world, including many non-English-speaking countries. <
I would imagine that people who do not read or speak English would be those most impressed by your gibberish.
>>>I counted five visits of over 80 minutes and four visits with 20 or more page views.<<<
I would count for three of those, since I leave this site open for weeks on end on three different computers, refreshing when needed. Perhaps even more than that, since I often have multiple windows open to this site on at least one of the computers.
On further review of the linked page, it looks like all of those visits are from somebody at aol.com (none of the 100 most recent visits is me - I've had my links open longer than that). Some also appear to coincide with times Larry posted. Hmmm...
VIW said,
>>>>>If you don't believe this Dave to be your brother, why do you call him and demand that he stop posting? <<<<<<
This is gossip. I have warned that any posts containing gossip about me will be deleted. Take heed. The best way to avoid an argument about Fake Dave is to not mention him.
>>>>>> As for the amount of time, if someone checks into your blog and then goes for lunch without either moving to a new site or shutting down, it will show up as more than an hour visit. <<<<<
Except that the long visits are usually accompanied by high page-view numbers -- sometimes 20, 30, or even more. Also, I have checked the site meters on other blogs and noted much lower frequencies of long visits and high page-view counts per visit.
>>>>>> You would make much less of a fool of yourself if you learned something about computers and the Internet. <<<<<<
You would make much less of a fool of yourself if you had some common sense.
>>>>>> I get visitors from all over the world, including many non-English-speaking countries. <
I would imagine that people who do not read or speak English would be those most impressed by your gibberish. <<<<<<<
People who understand English are often the best-educated people in non-English-speaking countries.
Kevin Vicklund said,
>>>I counted five visits of over 80 minutes and four visits with 20 or more page views.<
I would count for three of those, since I leave this site open for weeks on end on three different computers, refreshing when needed. <<<<<<
Why would you refresh over 20 times in the space of 1-2 hours? Also, I don't know if refreshes are counted as separate page views -- I don't know how the site meter is set up.
>>>>> Some also appear to coincide with times Larry posted. Hmmm... <<<<<<
I have the site meter set so that my own visits are ignored.
According to the FAQ it looks like I account for a number of the listed visits after all, by their definition of visit (10%, in fact). A visit is defined as at least one page view with no more than 30 minutes between page views. Refreshing should count as a page view by their definition. Viewing a page with several objects can count for several page views, interestingly enough. Time of visit is the time elapsed between the first page view and the last - if only one page is viewed, time is 0:00.
As for why someone might refresh 20 times in the space of a couple hours, it could be checking every 5-10 minutes to see if anyone has posted.
Larry, you might no longer be ignoring your own visits, if you have drifted to a different AOL IP address than the one used when you first signed up for sitemeter.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
VIW's last comment has been deleted for violating my rule against posting gossip about me on this blog.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I mean business. Gossip about me is taboo here.
How very interesting. Larry is in fact removing posts without leaving the "comment deleted" message. My previous post had showed up and then disappeared. I thought Voice was either exaggerating or not realizing how sometimes posts appear on the orange comment page without appearing on the brown comment page. But the comment count on the orange page has started dropping.
W. Kevin VIcklund said...
>>>>> How very interesting. Larry is in fact removing posts without leaving the "comment deleted" message. <<<<<<<
I left enough "comment deleted" messages to make my point.
W. Kevin Vicklund said (1-03-07 @ 1:35:11 PM ) --
>>>>>According to the FAQ it looks like I account for a number of the listed visits after all, by their definition of visit (10%, in fact). <<<<<<<
The FAQ are listed under "Help" on the Site Meter webpage.
One way to find the visits that are likely yours is to go to the "location" listing. However, there are many visits that do not list a location. BTW, it is apparent that many of my visits are repeat visits on the same day.
>>>>>> Refreshing should count as a page view by their definition. <<<<<<
Maybe. Also, I don't know if visits to off-site links count as page views.
>>>>>>Viewing a page with several objects can count for several page views, <<<<<<
My pages are single objects -- that's why all of the visits of 0.00 length are listed as having just one page view.
>>>>> As for why someone might refresh 20 times in the space of a couple hours, it could be checking every 5-10 minutes to see if anyone has posted. <<<<<<
Can you find another blog with site meter statistics that show this kind of behavior?
>>>>>> Larry, you might no longer be ignoring your own visits, if you have drifted to a different AOL IP address than the one used when you first signed up for sitemeter. <<<<<<
No -- I frequently check the site meter for new visits and it shows me that my own visits are not recorded.
Also, I presume that the site meter identifies me by cookies and not by IP address. The IP address is too crude a method of identification for this purpose -- the IP address of my AOL proxy is shared by many other AOL members.
I think that my blog might be better known and more popular by now if it were not for my holocaust revisionism. Someone said that he and others liked my articles on the evolution controversy but did not want to cite my blog because of fear of being associated with a holocaust revisionist. The price of bearing witness to the truth is sometimes very high.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sherry D. said,
>>>>>> It looks like you are redefining the word "Gossip". <<<<<
Gossip is any discussion about my private life. That is off limits here. Some commenters have a hard time getting that through their thick skulls.
Anonymous said,
>>>>>> I don't think that Voice considers having his posts censored is that high a price for telling the truth. He is making his point by your deletions. <<<<<<
So you are asserting that when I sued California over the smog impact fee in federal court, I won my point that the state had "left the sphere that is exclusively its own" (in the words of the Supreme Court) by basing a tax entirely on the state's special status under federal emissions laws & regulations and that the state had therefore lost its immunity from a tax suit in federal district courts, the reason why I won being that neither the state nor the judge attempted to answer that point. Thank you.
> Sherry D. said (...censored and then quoted out of context.)
> Anonymous said (...censored and then quoted out of context.)
And Larry(?) complains about Ed Brayton's censorship! Hilarious! This is getting more fun by the minute watching the troll self-destruct.
> So you are asserting that when I sued California over the smog impact fee in federal court <
Clearly not the issue which is obvious to everyone in spite of your censorship. Anonymous was making the point that your censorship of the truth was not a great loss to me but a very great one to you. Your attempt to mislead the readers as to the nature of the material that you censored is not fooling anyone, nor is your pretense that you actually won a Sureme Court case won by others while yours was laughed out of court.
Stay tuned, folks. The troll is self-destructing.
Voice in the Wilderness said...
>>>>>>> Sherry D. said (...censored and then quoted out of context.)
> Anonymous said (...censored and then quoted out of context.) <<<<<<<
"Quoting out of context" usually means misrepresentation. I did not misrepresent what Sherry D. and Anonymous said.
>>>>>> And Larry(?) complains about Ed Brayton's censorship! Hilarious! <<<<<<
What is hilarious is that you can't see the difference between my "censorship" and Ed's censorship. All I did was delete comments that contained gossip about my private life. Ed's censorship was kicking me off his blog permanently because I argued that FRCP Rule 12 authorizes judges to dismiss lawsuits where the plaintiff refuses an out-of-court settlement that would provide relief equal to or greater than the maximum relief that could be provided by the court. Like a selfish spoiled brat who refuses to let other kids play with his toys, Ed whines that it's his blog and he'll run it the way he wants to. And the reason why Ed won't let me play with his toys is that he has lost his marbles.
>>>>> Your attempt to mislead the readers as to the nature of the material that you censored is not fooling anyone, nor is your pretense that you actually won a Sureme Court case won by others while yours was laughed out of court. <<<<<<<
You stupid, profoundly retarded ignoramus, the smog impact fee case in the state courts never even got to the state supreme court, let alone the US Supreme Court. And I only said that my winning my case is a theory, not a fact.
And by the way, the attorneys who won in the state courts initially sued in a federal court but unlike me could not come up with an argument as to why the federal courts had jurisdiction (as noted above, I argued that the state had lost its tax-suit immunity in federal courts by basing the tax entirely on the state's special status under federal emissions laws and regulations). I know this because I read the federal district court opinion dismissing their case.
And I doubt that Judge TJ "Mad" Hatter "laughed" my case out of court, because it is doubtful that the lousy jerk even read it.
I made a reply which shot down Larry(?)'s ridiculous argument and it said absolutely nothing personal about the pathetic troll. Nevertheless it was censored with no sign of its existence left on the blog. It looks like Larry(?) has now thrown his supposed principles out the window.
Incidentally it looks like my counterpart, VIU, has been banned from this blog. Larry(?) clearly found his arguments too compelling.
Voice in the Wilderness said...
>>>>>>I made a reply which shot down Larry(?)'s ridiculous argument and it said absolutely nothing personal about the pathetic troll. Nevertheless it was censored with no sign of its existence left on the blog. <<<<<
I did not delete any such reply. You are welcome to resubmit it.
>>>>Incidentally it looks like my counterpart, VIU, has been banned from this blog. <<<<<
VIU has not been banned.
> I did not delete any such reply. You are welcome to resubmit it. <
I did and you deleted it. I hope a few people will read this before you delete it so they can see what is happening.
> VIU has not been banned. <
Of course we believe you!
Voice in the Wilderness said...
>>>>>>> I did not delete any such reply. You are welcome to resubmit it. <
I did and you deleted it. I hope a few people will read this before you delete it so they can see what is happening. <<<<<<<<
I did not!
Maybe you are having some kind of software problem -- but if your comment is actually successfully posted, I find it hard to believe that it would just disappear. Or maybe you are making all this up in an attempt to discredit me. I wouldn't put that past you -- you have been trying to sabotage my no-deletions policy by cluttering up my blog with asinine comments that just say that I am wrong or stupid -- or something like that -- without giving reasons.
I suggest that you just keep trying or email the comment to me at LarryFarma@aol.com
> I find it hard to believe that it would just disappear. <
So do I.
> Or maybe you are making all this up in an attempt to discredit me. <
You are discrediting yourself by your own actions.
> you have been trying to sabotage my no-deletions policy by cluttering up my blog with asinine comments that just say that I am wrong or stupid -- or something like that -- without giving reasons. <
I give the reasons. Just because you don't understand them does not mean that they are not there.
> I suggest that you just keep trying or email the comment to me at LarryFarma@aol.com <
So you can get my return email address and spam me?
Post a Comment
<< Home