Comment moderation enabled because of Anonymous's vandalism
I have temporarily (I hope) enabled comment moderation so that I can ask the following questions of Anonymous:
(1) Do you have nothing better to do with your time than to post gossip here about my private affairs? My private affairs include -- but are not limited to -- any alleged information concerning my relatives or acquaintances. My prohibition of such gossip is not an unreasonable restriction.
(2) Are you trying to show me that my edit warring on Wickedpedia was wrong? Do you show that by showing that you are as bad as or worse than I am?
(3) Are you unhappy with my policy of not moderating comments?
(4) Are you frustrated by your inability to comment on the issues and taking out your frustration by vandalism?
(1) Do you have nothing better to do with your time than to post gossip here about my private affairs? My private affairs include -- but are not limited to -- any alleged information concerning my relatives or acquaintances. My prohibition of such gossip is not an unreasonable restriction.
(2) Are you trying to show me that my edit warring on Wickedpedia was wrong? Do you show that by showing that you are as bad as or worse than I am?
(3) Are you unhappy with my policy of not moderating comments?
(4) Are you frustrated by your inability to comment on the issues and taking out your frustration by vandalism?
posted by Larry Fafarman | 3/21/2008 02:17:00 PM
19 Comments:
Here is the answer that you will be afraid to post:
> 1) Do you have nothing better to do with your time than to post gossip here about my private affairs? My private affairs include -- but are not limited to -- any alleged information concerning my relatives or acquaintances. My prohibition of such gossip is not an unreasonable restriction. <
The post was up long enough for everyone to see that the only "personal" information was that someone claimed to have known you. As for your other "personal affairs" your legal record is public information and you were the one to bring it up.
> (2) Are you trying to show me that my edit warring on Wickedpedia was wrong? <
Of course.
> Do you show that by showing that you are as bad as or worse than I am? <
So you admit that you were bad? We are making progress.
>(3) Are you unhappy with my policy of not moderating comments?<
No. But obviously you were. You have now rejected all of the principles that you claimed to espouse. You have become the laughing stock on other blogs because of your actions.
> (4) Are you frustrated by your inability to comment on the issues and taking out your frustration by vandalism? <
No. I am frustrated by your inability to respond to legitimate questions. You get around this by repeating the same tired material over and over again and pretending questions haven't been asked.
I am sure that nobody could question that I have won this one. Your actions show it.
Nobody doubts that "Anonymous" will answer. What little credibility you have remaining will depend on whether we get to see it.
Obviously you are afraid of something.
Everyone makes a mistake. You make more than usual but at least you recognized yours by posting the reply of "Anonymous". Now do yourself one better by answering the points that he brought up.
1. There was no "personal" information in the post that fired you up. We all saw it.
2. Admit that your edit war on Wikipedia was wrong.
3. Change your headline on the blog to correspond to your actual practices i.e. Constant gratuitous insults and ad hominems, arbitrary censorship and moderating.
4. Try to answer the questions asked of you. Don't just repeat the same tired old crap over and over. If you can't answer a question, don't pretend it wasn't asked.
This would be a good opportunity for you to reform. Otherwise your blog will keep its current reputation.
Anonymous said,
>>>>> The post was up long enough for everyone to see that the only "personal" information was that someone claimed to have known you. <<<<<
I consider any allegations concerning who my relatives are or who my acquaintances are to be private information. I don't necessarily have anything to hide. I am entitled to some privacy here. You won't even give your real name. As I said before, I don't gossip about others' private affairs here, so let's not gossip about mine. This rule does not interfere with visitors' ability to comment on the issues. This rule contrasts with the arbitrary censorship on other blogs and websites -- and let's end this bullshit that this arbitrary censorship does not occur.
>>>>> So you admit that you were bad? We are making progress. <<<<<<
No, I don't admit that I was bad, but you admit that you are a hypocrite -- that is real progress.
Edit warring was not the reason why I was banned from Wickedpedia:
(1) Official Wikipedia policy allows up to three reverts in a 24-hour period. One Wikipedia user made 37 reverts in the Darwin-Lincoln birthdate-coincidence edit war before being blocked.
(2) The pages I was editing were eventually locked up anyway so that I could not change anything.
(3) I was blocked from commenting on the discusssion pages as well as being blocked from editing the articles.
(4) Wickedpedian control-freak administrators were engaging in tag-team edit warring against me, so it was only fair for me to call for volunteers.
(5) Wickedpedia's blocking method -- blocking by IP address -- is particularly disreputable. It is often ineffective and often blocks a lot of people unintentionally.
(6) I wasn't gossiping about the private affairs of others.
>>>>> You have now rejected all of the principles that you claimed to espouse. <<<<<<
Wrong -- I still allow opening commenting on the issues. Remember -- Fatheaded Ed Brayton permanently banned me from his blog because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule, and I have proof of that.
>>>>>> I am frustrated by your inability to respond to legitimate questions. You get around this by repeating the same tired material over and over again and pretending questions haven't been asked. <<<<<<
Wrong. I participate in the discussions a lot more than most bloggers. A lot of my responses are very detailed. I am often forced to repeat myself because my previous rebuttals are often completely ignored. A lot of the questions or issues raised by commenters are too asinine to answer or be worth answering.
> This rule contrasts with the arbitrary censorship on other blogs and websites -- and let's end this bullshit that this arbitrary censorship does not occur. <
Lets cut the bullshit. Sure it occurs on other blogs, as it does on this one, but you have never been able to give an example and you have been challenged repeatedly. You were banned for cause. There was nothing arbitrary about it.
> No, I don't admit that I was bad, but you admit that you are a hypocrite <
As usual your reading comprehension problem appears again. Unlike you I did nothing hypocritical. If you don't think that you were, you are every bit as dense as your reputation makes you.
> Edit warring was not the reason why I was banned from Wickedpedia: <
Of course it was.
> One Wikipedia user made 37 reverts in the Darwin-Lincoln birthdate-coincidence edit war before being blocked. <
This shows how patient they are.
> (2) The pages I was editing were eventually locked up anyway so that I could not change anything.<
Duh! Why do you think that was.
> (3) I was blocked from commenting on the discusssion pages as well as being blocked from editing the articles. <
Much of your comments consisted of gratuitous insults and ad hominems, as most of your posts here. They didn't want Wikipedia to become crappy like this blog.
> (4) Wickedpedian control-freak administrators were engaging in tag-team edit warring against me <
You have shown no evidence of this.
> (5) Wickedpedia's blocking method -- blocking by IP address -- is particularly disreputable. <
It bothered you because of the large number of sock puppets you use.
> (6) I wasn't gossiping about the private affairs of others. <
Your being insane is not private. It is public knowledge. On the other had you once censored a post because it told which way you would have to look to see Baldwin Hills when you walked out your front door. Your real reason for censoring that post was that you were trying to pretend that the person posting did not know you. He obviously did.
>>>>> You have now rejected all of the principles that you claimed to espouse. <<<<<<
> Wrong -- I still allow opening commenting on the issues. <
O.K. All but one.
> Remember -- Fatheaded Ed Brayton permanently banned me from his blog because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule, and I have proof of that. <
If you have proof, why are you keeping it to yourself? You have been challenged on this point many times. Show the proof or admit that you don't have it. Your lies are too transparent.
>>>>>> I am frustrated by your inability to respond to legitimate questions. You get around this by repeating the same tired material over and over again and pretending questions haven't been asked. <<<<<<
> Wrong. I participate in the discussions a lot more than most bloggers. <
Your participation consists of name calling and repetition.
> I am often forced to repeat myself because my previous rebuttals are often completely ignored. <
No. You repeat yourself because your statements have been disproved and you believe that repeating them constitutes a new argument.
> A lot of the questions or issues raised by commenters are too asinine to answer or be worth answering. <
I haven't seen that. I have only seen your asinine comments.
Anonymous driveled,
>>>>>> Sure it occurs on other blogs, as it does on this one, but you have never been able to give an example and you have been challenged repeatedly. <<<<<<<
And I have given this example repeatedly. Anyway, since you concede that arbitrary censorship of comments occurs on other blogs, why do you need an example?
>>>>>> Unlike you I did nothing hypocritical. <<<<<<
Bullshit. You vandalized this blog.
>>>>>> Edit warring was not the reason why I was banned from Wickedpedia: <
Of course it was. <<<<<<
Wrong. I showed that it wasn't.
>>>>> This shows how patient they are. <<<<<<
They sure weren't patient with me. And they did not deserve any patience from me, though they got a hell of a lot of it. The Wickedpedian control-freak administrators "lawyer you to death" (as radio talk show host Bill Greene aptly put it) with "Find-a-reliable-nonpartisan-source-that-says-that-bears-shit-in-the-woods-and-then-we'll-talk" type of rules. Wickedpedia sucks.
>>>>> Much of your comments consisted of gratuitous insults and ad hominems, as most of your posts here. <<<<<<
And calling this blog "crappy" and calling me "a well-known Internet troll" are not insults, dunghill?
>>>>> It bothered you because of the large number of sock puppets you use. <<<<<<
Wrong. As I said, blocking IP addresses is often ineffective and does a lot of collateral damage.
>>>>>> On the other had you once censored a post because it told which way you would have to look to see Baldwin Hills when you walked out your front door. <<<<<<
That's gossip. How dare you say that that is not gossip when you won't even give your own real name. You obviously want privacy -- I want some too.
>>>>>> Wrong -- I still allow opening commenting on the issues. <
O.K. All but one. <<<<<<<
I am not supposed to be an issue here, dunghill.
>>>>>> Remember -- Fatheaded Ed Brayton permanently banned me from his blog because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule, and I have proof of that. <
If you have proof, why are you keeping it to yourself? <<<<<<
See the above link.
>>>>> Your participation consists of name calling and repetition. <<<<<<
Wrong. My answers to civil, reasonable comments are civil. Repetition is often justified.
>>>>> You repeat yourself because your statements have been disproved and you believe that repeating them constitutes a new argument. <<<<<<
Wrong. I repeat myself because my rebuttals have been ignored or for other appropriate reasons.
>>>>>> A lot of the questions or issues raised by commenters are too asinine to answer or be worth answering. <
I haven't seen that. <<<<<<
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
==============================================
ViU driveled,
>>>>>> The post was up long enough for everyone to see that the only "personal" information was that someone claimed to have known you. <<<<<<<
That's gossip. As I told Anonymous, how dare you say that that is not gossip when you won't even give your own real name.
>>>>> Admit that your edit war on Wikipedia was wrong. <<<<<<
Over my dead body.
I have been sitting back and seeing Larry self-destruct in his foolish effort to pretend that the material he was censoring was "personal gossip". Now he has made himself even more of a laughing stock than he was before. (hard to imagine)
If you want to regain a small part of your now non-existent credibility, I would suggest that you stop banning my counterpart, ViW.
< ... they did not deserve any patience from me, though they got a hell of a lot of it. >
For some reason this brings to mind "Rev." Jeremiah Wright's remark, "Jesus taught me how to love the hell out of my enemies."
Anonymous driveled,
>>>>>> In the example to which you refer, you were banned not because he disagreed with you but because of your mindless repetition and insults <<<<<<
You lying sack of shit, it was a brand new argument and I made no insults. Anyway, Fatheaded Ed won't consider any of my comments for posting, including comments that are not repetitious or insulting.
>>>>> Because it does not occur on the blogs you say have it <<<<<
You didn't answer the question, dunghill. I asked that since you already agree that arbitrary censorship occurs on other blogs, then why do you need examples from me.
>>>>> I only attempted to prove that you were lying about what Bill Carter's post said. <<<<<<
You proved nothing except that you are a lousy hypocrite who practices vandalism while condemning it.
>>>>>> Bill Carter used his real name and you censored him. <<<<<
Because he posted gossip about my private affairs, dunghill.
>>>>> If it is hurting your enemy's cause, why do you care? <<<<<
What? How can blocking IP addresses be hurting my enemy's cause?
>>>>> Why does it scare you? <<<<<<
Why does the idea of posting under your real name scare you?
>>>>> You try to fillibuster any argument to death. <<<<<<
I try to filibuster to death any "bears don't shit in the woods" argument -- like the asinine claim that "Of Pandas and People" is not a banned book.
Anyway, Anonymous, you are just wasting my time. I said that I don't want any comments here from people who claim to be my relatives or who claim to know me personally or who gossip about where I live or how I live or whatever. My no-censorship policy does not extend to gossip about my private affairs -- that is a perfectly reasonable restriction. It is OK to talk about things like my specific court cases because those are in the public record. As Fatheaded Ed said: my home, my blog, my rules, my ass. Call me a hypocrite if you want, but I insist that this rule be followed here. And if you insist on violating this rule by vandalizing this blog, then you are a big hypocrite.
Since Chuckles has thrown in the towel on the last of what were laughingly called his "principles", I would recommend the following modification to the header:
"My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to practice the arbitrary censorship that I like to pretend was practiced against me by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be my standard -- there will be deletion of comments. All comments will be held up for moderation. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are my stock in trade. My non-response to a particular comment should be recognized as an inability to answer."
That's stupid, dunghill. The problem here is that some hypocritical trolls have been vandalizing this blog by posting gossip about me against my wishes.
> The problem here is that some hypocritical trolls have been vandalizing this blog by posting gossip about me against my wishes. <
The problem here is that people have been showing you to be a hypocritical fool arguments against your wishes.
We saw what was posted before you were able to delete it. You are lying, as usual, as to what it contained.
Of course one advantage that you get by moderation is that you always get the last word, no matter how stupid it shows you to be.
>>>>>> Of course one advantage that you get by moderation is that you always get the last word, no matter how stupid it shows you to be. <<<<<<
Wrong, dunghill -- I am censoring only comments that contain gossip about my private affairs, e.g., where I live, how I live, who knows me personally, that sort of thing.
At last Larry is unmasked. We know who and what he is afraid of.
What is unmasked here are the trolls who refuse to respect my right to privacy.
http://www.petoskeynews.com/articles/2008/02/04/opinion/doc47a741320c798218695066.txt#blogcomments
From Ed's blog:
"Larry Fafarman's blog begins with the header:
"My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged."
Of course few of Larry's comments on his own blog differ from the ones that he used to post here. They contain nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks. He began censorship of posts that he couldn't answer very early in the game, always with the excuse that they contained "personal gossip" about him. Often the only personal information posted was to point out that he was a lunatic, a fact that is public information.
A few days ago he completed his hypocrisy by beginning and then continuing to monitor all posts in order to censor what he can't answer and to always have the last word."
In the mean time new posts, (except the homeless sock puppet) have dried up. Expect Larry to begin new sock puppetry to fill the void.
Just look at the lies and invective I get when I make a perfectly reasonable request that the comments here not contain gossip about my private affairs. I have said that such gossip includes any comments from those who claim to know me personally.
Have Sleazy PZ, Fatheaded Ed, Wesley "Ding" Elsberry, etc., posted any blog articles ridiculing my "hypocrisy" of claiming to have a no-censorship policy while prohibiting gossip about my private affairs? Of course not -- that would only make them look hypocritical themselves because of their own arbitrary censorship of comments.
"I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
-- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
> Just look at the lies and invective I get when I make a perfectly reasonable request that the comments here not contain gossip about my private affairs. <
What lies? I can't see any lies here. Perhaps you have censored what you claimed to be lies.
> I have said that such gossip includes any comments from those who claim to know me personally. <
"any comments" So people who know you either have to pretend not to or else they are banned just because of who they are?
> my "hypocrisy" of claiming to have a no-censorship policy while prohibiting gossip about my private affairs? <
You have extended it to prohibiting any kind of post from people who know you.
> Of course not -- that would only make them look hypocritical themselves because of their own arbitrary censorship of comments. <
None of these people has ever been known to have arbitrarily censored comments, despite your lies to the contrary.
They are always kicking your butt -- that's why you don't like them.
Post a Comment
<< Home