PDA

View Full Version : Comment guidelines, cont'd


Pages : [1] 2

Brenda
10-27-2009, 12:31 PM
There's been some grumbling about the arbitrariness of comment-guidelines enforcement, so I want to explain how we're handling this.

When someone reports a post (by clicking on the triangular icon in the upper right corner of any post), an email goes out to several BhTV staffers. We look at the post and, if it violates our guidelines, we delete it.

If we have the time, we look at a few posts surrounding the offending post to see if any of those need to be deleted as well. And once in a while we'll delete an offensive post that we come across in our own forum reading, without waiting for it to be reported. But the basic enforcement model is reactive, to one Reported Post at a time.

This isn't an ideal enforcement mechanism, but it's practical and fair, and the best we can do with our limited resources.

Now, we sometimes get complaints like "You deleted Post X; why didn't you delete Post Y, which was just as bad?" The answer to that should be clear at this point: Post X was reported and Post Y wasn't.

I'm sure you will have your own thoughts about this, which I'm, er, eager to hear.

Whatfur
10-27-2009, 07:48 PM
Hmmm...are you not then rewarding the behavior of those who come running to mommy?

You can call it practical, but it is hardly fair.

If you truly want fairness I think the person who is doing the reporting should be automatically banned for a week. Yeah...a week bannage if you choose to report someone regardless of its merit. What you do with the person reported on is of course up to you...you could choose post/thread removal, you could tell the person to delete their own post or edit it (removing the offensive part), or you could ban them for a week/life too. Might reduce your workload.

kidneystones
10-27-2009, 07:54 PM
Brenda writes...[...]

First, thanks to you and all the bhtv staff for actually listening. The policy is an absolute farce. Bob has two comment nannies who we now learn will not be acting pro-actively. Will they be fired now that their duties have been assigned to nameless staffers?

The comments guidelines identify specific offenses: the use of the quote tag for statements put in the mouth of members, accusations of lying, accusations of racism, personal attacks, etc.

I and others point out that within hours of Bob stating once again, for the record, that offenders will be punished, your ideological pals flip everyone the finger and rip the joint up.

You've laid out the conditions you expect to be met and now refuse to act against those who are clearly violating the standards.

Why?

kidneystones
10-27-2009, 07:59 PM
Much shorter harkin:

Quote:
My Malkin-style preemption having failed, let me now accuse others of shouting, by shouting for an hour and forty-five minutes.

kidneystones
10-27-2009, 08:01 PM
In the same thread Brendan poses his accusation of racism as a question (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=134706#poststop):


Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
... Illegals ... Illegals ...

Illegals ... prison ...

... illegals ...

... illegals ... illegals ...
So ...

Quote:
Who you callin' racist?
Reply With Quote

Brenda
10-27-2009, 08:07 PM
Bob has two comment nannies who we now learn will not be acting pro-actively.

"Comment Nanny" is a concept, not an actual person or persons.

I and others point out that within hours of Bob stating once again, for the record, that offenders will be punished, your ideological pals flip everyone the finger and rip the joint up.

Maybe you missed this above: To report an offensive post, click on the triangular icon in the upper right corner of the post.

You've laid out the conditions you expect to be met and now refuse to act against those who are clearly violating the standards. Why?

Little. Triangle. Click. Report!

kidneystones
10-27-2009, 08:12 PM
Brenda, because you and Bob lack (what, I wonder) the 'ability'(?) to detect any pattern in Brendan's disregard for your 'rules', you dump the responsibility on those Brendan attacks.

And let's not get into the countless individual attacks and name-calling that mark many of Brendan's other comments. He and several others travel in a pack which 'patrols' all the bhtv boards.

I have no difficulty 'turning the other cheek' to individual comments. Others lack my sanguine self-control. Few, I expect, wish to post on a board where the only defense is to run to mommy or engage in feces-hurling competitions.

Both the quote comment and the racism accusations can be seen, in part, as Brendan's reply to you and Bob and the rest of us.

He's telling you he enjoys special status here at bhtv. This is you agreeing.

kidneystones
10-27-2009, 08:24 PM
Brenda writes....

Comment Nanny is a concept? Ah, the curtain parts. Doesn't Bob refer explicitly to 'two comment nannies' in the dv. Sorry for my confusion.

My reading and listening skills are certainly adequate for the task at hand. I've provided two examples of Brendan 'breaking your rules' in addition to his claim that most of my posts were 'outright lies'. All three appeared, funnily enough, after Bob's dv on comments decorum. All three clearly violate your policies and now you want to make enforcement our responsibility.

I've provided three clear-cut examples and now you're telling me they don't exist because I haven't filled out the appropriate form.

Perfect. You're certainly sending a message.

AemJeff
10-27-2009, 08:27 PM
...
My reading and listening skills are certainly adequate for the task at hand. ...

Perfect. You're certainly sending a message.

Yup. I think the message was "Click the little triangle."

Brenda
10-27-2009, 08:37 PM
Doesn't Bob refer explicitly to 'two comment nannies' in the dv.

It seems Bob and I see this differently.

I've provided three clear-cut examples and now you're telling me they don't exist because I haven't filled out the appropriate form.

Aw, give it a try—it's only a couple of clicks. It's easy!

kidneystones
10-27-2009, 08:51 PM
Brenda,

And I'm not surprised in the least that you and Bob disagree over something that would be clear-cut in any rationally run organization.

Why would I waste my time clicking a button to petition the same folks who've been turning a selectively blind-eye to abuses like this over the last year at least. Not playing.

While you and Jeff are preening over this little time-wasting exercise, think on this: bhtv viewers are going to see pretty much the same stream of abuse and verbiage that has won the admiration and participation of so few.

Nice work.

Whatfur
10-27-2009, 08:53 PM
Hmmm...are you not then rewarding the behavior of those who come running to mommy?

You can call it practical, but it is hardly fair.

If you truly want fairness I think the person who is doing the reporting should be automatically banned for a week. Yeah...a week bannage if you choose to report someone regardless of its merit. What you do with the person reported on is of course up to you...you could choose post/thread removal, you could tell the person to delete their own post or edit it (removing the offensive part), or you could ban them for a week/life too. Might reduce your workload.

Ummm....is this chopped liver? Do you wish to know why it cannot be considered fair?

Brenda
10-27-2009, 09:04 PM
Do you wish to know why it cannot be considered fair?

Because the same rules apply to everyone equally?

AemJeff
10-27-2009, 09:48 PM
...
Why would I waste my time clicking a button to petition the same folks who've been turning a selectively blind-eye to abuses like this over the last year at least. Not playing.

...

It's certainly not that I think ks's reading comprehension will suddenly improve. But, for the record, it's not Jeff, Brendan, or Twin who are going to respond if somebody actually does click on the little triangle. That would be an editorial function, reserved for moderators (and administrators) at BhTV - a status we don't enjoy (as has been made clear about a thousand times.)

kidneystones
10-27-2009, 10:09 PM
Jeff, your personal 'Fuck Off' is precisely the kind of insult Bob feels degrades the site. That said, you cross the line occasionally as do we all. You do not systematically flout the rules in the way only one 'special' individual does.

I'd actually have no problem if Bob granted you the authority to enforce the comments policy; as long as you worked alongside someone of a differing ideological disposition, despite your transparent hostility towards me and repeated personal attacks,

Harkin would be my first choice, if he were willing. I credit you both with the ability to set aside your personal prejudices and do the job well and fairly. You might 'serve' for a period of a year; then other worthy candidates could be elected/selected.

The current policy is a complete joke. I'm sure you and Harkin could do much, much better. No doubt, you'll take this as another 'insult'.

graz
10-27-2009, 10:28 PM
You are a real twist my entertaining friend. Continuing to simultaneously post friendly suggestions and how-to advice while claiming that the dear leader, staff and most commenters (including all except you - for the most part) are misguided at best, malevolent at worst - is an admixture of funny, sad, pathetic and surreal.

Keep the hits coming.

bjkeefe
10-27-2009, 10:38 PM
... my sanguine self-control.

Must ... resist ...

kidneystones
10-27-2009, 10:41 PM
Hi Graz,

Actually, the overwhelming majority of board members are clearly reluctant to dip even a toe in the sewage you call discourse.

The most prolific, like you, favor name-calling and invective, as we can see here in your illuminating comment here. Something like a dozen individuals, you among them, produce the bulk of the bhtv comments. Year after year new members sign-up and decide they'd rather not share your/our company.

How much of your hostility towards me is based on the fact that my critiques actually get results? Hard to tell. We'll save that for another time.

I propose comments nannies selected/nominated from the community. You show up to shoot the messenger. Again!

I had no idea the prospect would frighten you so much. Live and learn!

Whatfur
10-27-2009, 10:49 PM
Because the same rules apply to everyone equally?

Is that a question?

Hmmm...do you apply the same logic to Prop. 8 in CA?

A single whitetail deer can generally outrun a wolf, but the odds go down as the number of wolves go up. Yes, they all have the same ability to run.

So it has already been proven statistically that more that 80% of the posts here come from the left side of the aisle.

As of a couple months ago:

Top Ten Posters: 8 libs/2 conservatives (80% lib)
Post Count: 20577 libs/ 2484 conservatives (88% lib)

Top Twenty Posters:
17 libs/3 conservatives (82%lib)
Post Count: 25676 libs/3012 conservatives (88% lib)

I may be wrong, but I would bet a dollar to a donut that close to 100% of the "triangle clicking post reporting" comes from that same leftward direction because those 20% on the right would probably not be here if they were not willing to put up with or fight back against a pretty constant barrage of BS, insults, and piling on.

That seems to ratchet down the fairness a bit. Don't you think?

Again, I truly think there should be a cost for "running to mommy". Otherwise, your rules could be easily abused, right? I mean if someone decided to get you running in circles checking on post reports because they got tired of their own posts coming under scrutiny, what would stop them?

Another factor here are the cliques that have formed here (see wolf analogy). Again most on the right here stand on their own. So I may see someone on the left suggest that someone else on the right has oral sex with goats and will pretty much just shake my head and think "...and so it goes". While on the other hand I may call someone say a "technicolor yawn", then have two of his buddies show up and pile on with insults towards me, and then have a third buddy of the "tossed cookies" report my post resulting in the my whole thread being removed. Here again, does not your methodology then become a catalyst for increased reporting by those who normally might not bother because they tire of not only fighting the piling-on, but also the admin reporting?

I'm just saying. Hardly fair. Mr. Stones has another point here which ties in. The admins here are left-leaning also (yourself included). Whether you wish to admit it or not that really just adds another wolf to the pack.

graz
10-27-2009, 10:56 PM
.

How much of your hostility towards me is based on the fact that my critiques actually get results? Hard to tell. We'll save that for another time.

I propose comments nannies selected/nominated from the community. You show up to shoot the messenger. Again!

I had no idea the prospect would frighten you so much. Live and learn!
No, now is the time. Fear is not in play. I'm suggesting that it's an entertaining waste of time for you to continue to proclaim, declaim and act the part of prophet and fool while pointing to the failure of the founders. Or is it a successful conspiracy on their part? (You have made both cases - at the same time).

graz
10-27-2009, 11:04 PM
shortfurred:

I will work the refs with false humility, failure to acknowledge my history and an unwillingness to agree to not "rat" on posters out of self-respect. Because I'm unable to make my case on merit alone - please provide a handicap.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaa.

kidneystones
10-27-2009, 11:06 PM
Whatfur writes...[...]

Brenda/Brendan are perfectly happy covering for each other. Bob has a pack of attack dogs that trash dissent with impunity and the 'run to mommy' policy is pure CYA. That's not going to change.

All reading is subjective, but the violations I've pointed to are clear-cut. Bob is a professional writer, fer goodness sake, and can't tell whether a made-up quote is banworthy? Posted in the teeth of a dv on adhering to bhtv comments policy? Please.

The right here is window-dressing. Bob fessed-up pretty clearly (just joking!) that he had no problem with Republicans seceding from the US. Our job here, in Bob's view is to act as straight men/women.

We think different. That's a bad, bad thing.

kidneystones
10-27-2009, 11:36 PM
Graz writes....

All this democracy! Scary stuff. Quick, let's change the topic. Let's make it about....kidneystones and his long-term project to wreck bhtv and end civilization as we know it.

The ideological tilt of this site is transparent. Whatfur documents just how bad the tilt is. The abuse of board members by folks like you continues unabated and you're convinced that I'm trying to destroy bhtv by removing the bhtv brand from the worst of the bile.

You don't seem to grasp the concept that something like 50,000,000 Americans voted for the other guy. And that lots of folks, clever and decent, hold opinions diametrically opposite to those you cherish.

Brenda and the other site administrators have your backs; and it isn't hard to see you folks acting in concert to make the bhtv board more of an echo chamber every year.

You think that makes bhtv a better place. I don't. The difference is I don't follow you around attacking you or any others in your little pack. There are other differences, but those will suffice for now.

Hint: I'm not here to agree with you. Get it?

kidneystones
10-27-2009, 11:39 PM
Whatfur writes...

Good to see you back, sorry I didn't say so earlier. I've got real work to do and have wasted enough time here for the moment.

Keep it close. You're on the 'can do no right' side of the line.

Cheers!

graz
10-28-2009, 12:03 AM
You are tone deaf to the fact that the other side, as you call it, also has its gripes with bhtv. And your analogy of a pack is overplayed. We all stand alone, even if aligned by principle on likely occasions.
You've not been silenced or shamed (apparently). If ever the day came that you surmised that the ideological equilibrium of the forum was achieved numerically, what would that allow, that isn't already present? Wouldn't you retreat to claiming a special virtue of civility and inclusiveness on your "side" only? And what is with the sides? It needn't be viewed as binary. My distaste for Sarah Palin is shared by many across a spectrum... not either or.
Personally I'm unfazed by the mud-slinging, insults, etc... by the likes of me, you, whatshisnamefur, and others).
But I'm embarrassed for you, in witnessing your weak and unself-respecting complaints. They entertain but tire. And I would wager that your methods do more to dissuade greater participation in the forum than the false threat of left-leaning bogeymen. Go figure. At least I have enough self-respect to not run to Mommy again and again. And I think that is something to be proud of.

Often overlooked:
Participation here is voluntary, the ignore button works and even the likes of you or me cannot bring the ship down. (2many mcjane dv's might - jk, jk.)

kidneystones
10-28-2009, 12:34 AM
graz dodges and weaves...

You have no argument.

Thousands of members who have registered at bhtv and are unwilling to comment; and thousands of comments by a tiny handful who, contra your claim of occasional ideological allignment, actually belong to a little club (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/group.php?groupid=1).

I belong to and participate in a union, so I suppose we differ: you in the only bhtv club that's ever been in existence, and me as a member of a much larger collective movement.

You, and your fellow bhtv club members, continue to smear anyone who refuses to cleave to your tiny will as racists. The bhtv social club you're part of is responsible for, I'm guessing, something like 90% of all the comments at bhtv. But, according to you, that has no bearing whatsoever on the balance of the board.

The comment nannies who share your ideological prejudices provide cover for even the most egregious attacks including, most recently, fellow club member Brendan's willful violation of three of the clearly stated bhtv comments rule. The judgment? No penalty!

bhtv club member Jeff loses it and tells another member 'fuck off'. The judgment? No penalty! Guess what? All three bhtv thug-moderators (no longer recognized formally as such) are members of the same club. Wow! Unbelievable.

You don't get it, do you?

The vast majority of bhtv members do not belong to your kool kids klavern. Yet, this tiny cabal of smear artists has dominated this board over the last few years, attacking any who disagree with impunity. Why? Because Bob and company share your political biases.

There are no other clubs at bhtv. There's just one with you, the few, striding across the threads drowning out anyone who offers an idea that questions the assumptions you hold dearest. And Brenda and Bob have had your backs the whole way down the line. You've constructed a snake-pit where only the venomous survive.

The good news is that bhtv is small. I've given you more fair-minded attention than your persistent personal attacks merit.

You could resign from bhtv ditto-heads 'r us, but I expect membership means far too much to you. You're like a charter member, right?

bjkeefe
10-28-2009, 01:00 AM
I won't even pretend you didn't know about this already, kidley.

... and thousands of comments by a tiny handful who, contra your claim of occasional ideological allignment, actually belong to a little club (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/group.php?groupid=1).

That "Gang of 12" vBulletin group was started as a joke, in response to a bit of banter between Bob and Mickey, well more than a year ago. I know you have no sense of humor, little kidley, and so do not get jokes as a general rule, but please do not let this shortcoming of yours manifest as yet another attempt on your part to poison things for new visitors to this site.

You are lying about that group, I have corrected you on this before, and you know it. This is just a variation on the same stunt you pulled when you lied, repeatedly, about "the moderators."

Second, to others: anyone who wants to can join that group. It doesn't actually do anything, but if you would like to see your username on that page, just follow the link where I quoted the resident misanthrope, and on the new page, click the "Join Group" link.

So simple, even Site Expert Kidley could figure it out. If he were honest, I mean.

graz
10-28-2009, 01:03 AM
You could resign from bhtv ditto-heads 'r us, but I expect membership means far too much to you. You're like a charter member, right?

No, I'm more like Groucho Marx, in that I want no real membership in a group that would have me as a member. While I was forced to join at gunpoint, the privileges are negligible. Your attempt to smear me is the only one so far.
The reason why I engage you, is that I'm drawn to the creamy center inside the nutty exterior. Our assumptions diverge, but our stated goals are the same: make this a better or more interesting place. The means are unlikely to engender respectful discourse, but that shouldn't preclude the attempt. There is always hope. And change, while unlikely, isn't impossible.
Cheers. Think I take a stroll, you ought to try it sometime... really clears the noggin'.

kidneystones
10-28-2009, 01:13 AM
Point out the lie.

Can't, can you?

You got nothing but your 11nty-billion posts in this poisonous void of zeros and ones bob has here. I do my best trying to avoid you, but you really do chase after me, don't you.

If there were any sober governance on this board, you'd be gone, just for saying 'fuck you' so clearly and so often to Bob. But I see nothing in your posts to suggest that you have anything of value in your life outside of bhtv.

Why don't read a good book or go for a walk?

Anything. No matter what you've done in your past, you have to deserve more than than spending your days patrolling these threads.

The club is the club. It's the only one at bhtv. You're right: it is a joke, except for the fact that it functions as klan central at bhtv.

kidneystones
10-28-2009, 01:21 AM
graz writes from ditto-heads 'r us,

How's it feel to be un-sheeted, homie? How many bhtv members can say they belong to a bhtv club? Just you and your prolific pals. Cause there are no other clubs, just you and the handful 99 billion posts gang-tacklers.

Do you have secret oaths and initiation rites? How about coat-hanger branding etc? How about pm messages of yourselves in your underwear?

Thanks for the tip. I will. Just wanted to stick around a little longer and air out your little klavern and let the bhtv world know a little more about your little gang: the one you claimed didn't exist.

Hugs!

Wonderment
10-28-2009, 01:31 AM
There are no other clubs at bhtv.

No es cierto. (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/group.php?groupid=2)

bjkeefe
10-28-2009, 02:32 AM
Point out the lie.

Re-read my post. It's already there.

As for the rest of your "advice," take it yourself. You're a miserable little sort who does nothing on this site except complain about how bad it is. When you're not flat-out lying about it, I mean.

Ocean
10-28-2009, 07:31 AM
No es cierto. (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/group.php?groupid=2)

Yay!
Viva la paz!

Ocean
10-28-2009, 07:33 AM
How about pm messages of yourselves in your underwear?


Yes, that's the best part. But it depends on the underwear... ;)

Whatfur
10-28-2009, 08:16 AM
...

He's telling you he enjoys special status here at bhtv. This is you agreeing.

Brendan likes to discount his "spambuster" role as something inconsequential while he clings to it like his favorite blankee. Some of us have wondered why....unfortunately, by virtue of my recent banning and earlier suspicions I was able to discover that he has in fact utilized this position in a manner that I feel should instantly disqualify him from that role.

Brendan has used this role to uncover my age which BHtv "contractually" tells me would not be shared unless agreed to...I chose to keep it hidden as birthdates are dangerous things when it comes to identity theft. He has shared it with some of his "club members" and the two of them have both posted derogatory statements about my age.

Secondly, my personal email, also hidden, has also been used by him I believe by sending anonymous, derogatory, and in a couple cases virus-filled derogatory emails. This is conjecture a bit a my part but the latter is against the law. I say it is conjecture only because these emails have been anonymous...but surprisingly seem to always show up on the numerous occasions when I have made him look the fool here. Coincidence...I think not. And it has been admitted to me that the ability to examine emails listed in ones personal information is/was available to the "spambusters". Matter of fact, if anyone else has been witness to similar occurrances I would be interested. I have virus names etc. and if the two could be tied together at least the general source being someone at BHtv could be further legitimized.

Third, when recently banned, I found it interesting that Brendan instantly knew about it. Admin has denied that this information was specially shared with him and later pointed me to the the "Banned" tag on my posts. Admittedly, I did not even notice it there myself but as I have never seen anyone else at BHtv banned I would not be looking for it either. Before me has anyone else been banned?...has anyone ever seen the "Banned" tag utilized before now? Brendan would of had to go back to an already read post of mine almost instantly after the banning and actually noticed that little tag for him to have known so quickly...I still am finding this hard to believe.

However, when I followed up the Admin denials with the question about how did he also suddenly know that my banning was temporary which WASn't tagged.?? I received a "Doh!" and an excuse about an oversight in "spambuster" abilities. One would think Admin might question why Brendan was sniffing around my personal information in order to discover this. Admin? Do you ask yourselves this question?

Mr. Stones here alludes to the FACT that, like myself, Brendan seems to stalk and harrass certain people here. Personally, in an effort to thwart this behavior I started the "Bitch in Heat"/"Obamacare" routine to dissuade him from doing so. (I used "Obamacare" because he once said he would not respond to posts that utilize it...didn't work for me). I later changed it to the BIH, out of courtesy to others, and started utilizing his own quotes against him in what I thought was a humerous fashion. Again, I did so to disuade his harrassment while thinking my constant embarrassment of him might also be a deterrent. (I have since discovered he must like the humiliation.)

Instead, what happens??? I am reported to Admin and Admin tells ME to knock it off while it creates a new policy about the use of quotes. Go figure. I hope some can see that this certainly,obviously legitimizes Mr. Stone's theories.

Although, I have been assured now that the holes reported above have been filled, it is obvious that Brendan has misused his abilities there and has abused the public trust in a way that most certainly warrants his removal as a "spambuster" if not from BHtv entirely.

There's more, but some cards need to be held close to the vest here. I will be hitting the little triangle after I submit this to make sure it is a post that is not ignored by Admin as we now have been told that that is what needs to be done to be heard.

kidneystones
10-28-2009, 09:35 AM
Whatfur writes...

Brendan has used this role to uncover my age which BHtv "contractually" tells me would not be shared unless agreed to...I chose to keep it hidden as birthdates are dangerous things when it comes to identity theft. He has shared it with some of his "club members" and the two of them have both posted derogatory statements about my age.

Is this true? Is the Carnegie Foundation aware that they're funding this kind of Mickey Mouse operation? How on earth could something like this take place on a site ostensibly run by adults?

Oh wait, I forgot, this is bhtv. If there's any shred of truth to your accusations, I expect nothing but denials and cover-ups. Bob doesn't do accountability very well. Actually, he's not bad once he actually realized how bad he's messed-up. Will he here?

When did Brenda and Bob know that member confidentiality had been breached and what steps have been taken to punish the offenders?

If there's no substance to the charge, I have to say I'm not going to find any further reasons to support you here. If, however, there's any substantiation to any of your charges then I agree: all three spambusters should be axed and the offending parties banned for life.

Color me gone until further notice. This is just too much. I'll be clicking that little do-hickey triangle thing, too.

Hey Bob, see your perusing. You sure know how to pick'em. Good luck with this.

Brenda
10-28-2009, 10:30 AM
Brendan has used this role to uncover my age which BHtv "contractually" tells me would not be shared unless agreed to...I chose to keep it hidden as birthdates are dangerous things when it comes to identity theft. He has shared it with some of his "club members" and the two of them have both posted derogatory statements about my age. Secondly, my personal email, also hidden, has also been used by him I believe by sending anonymous, derogatory, and in a couple cases virus-filled derogatory emails.

Whatfur made similar allegations about Brendan in an email to me. But when I asked for details so I could bring the matter up with Brendan, Whatfur said he didn't want me to talk to Brendan about him. Since Whatfur's charges were vague and unsubstantiated and he wasn't willing to go on the record, I let it drop.

I will be hitting the little triangle after I submit this to make sure it is a post that is not ignored by Admin as we now have been told that that is what needs to be done to be heard.

For the record: The Report Post button should be used only for posts you want deleted. If you want to bring one of your own posts to my attention, send it to me by email or private message.

Brenda
10-28-2009, 10:56 AM
There've been a number of Reported Posts from this thread, from both "sides" of the arguments, but I'm going to let all the comments here so far stand.

(Someone attempted to report a post from another thread by reporting a post in this thread that mentioned the original post. If you want to report the original post, go to the original post and report it.)

kidneystones
10-28-2009, 10:59 AM
Whatfur...

Brenda has put the ball squarely in your court. You can't level this kind of charge without being willing to back it up. I frankly understand your reservations about dealing with Brenda: her bias in favor of Brendan is a matter of record.

Email Bob and give him the whole story with dates and links and let him pass it on to the tech people who can establish the veracity of your accusations.

Given the spleen on display and his immense investment in 'winning', I'm unfortunately willing to believe Brendan is quite capable of this sort of juvenile invasion. That said, the onus is on you to provide all relevant details to Bob so that he can take the actions he deems appropriate.

Brenda's sarcasm and transparent biases suggest she's the last person to be trusted with getting to the bottom of anything. She's risen to the occasion in the past, but her tone on this thread and CYA comment make it impossible to believe she's making any vigorous independent inquiries of her own.

Try to find some balance and impartial adjudicators at some point, Bob, please. Good luck with all this. What a mess.

kidneystones
10-28-2009, 11:12 AM
Brenda is going to let the comments 'stand'.

Court is in session: Judge Brendon/Brenda presiding.

No wonder whatfur is reluctant to discuss his case with Brenda.

Whatfur
10-28-2009, 11:47 AM
Whatfur made similar allegations about Brendan in an email to me. But when I asked for details so I could bring the matter up with Brendan, Whatfur said he didn't want me to talk to Brendan about him. Since Whatfur's charges were vague and unsubstantiated and he wasn't willing to go on the record, I let it drop.



For the record: The Report Post button should be used only for posts you want deleted. If you want to bring one of your own posts to my attention, send it to me by email or private message.

Not similar allegations. The same allegations. There were at least three times recently where Brendan and graz made references to my age...as I am unable to look up the word "old" the only one off the top of my head I can point you too is here where graz links to Neil Youngs "Old Man". (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=132910#poststop)

I am working so, when I have time I WILL find the others.

[added] I also suggest admin watch for the destruction of evidence in the mean time. Are deletes actually deleted? Is there record of them? I am sure Brendan will be looking to remove the evidence faster than I will be finding the references.

Oh and how about asking Brendan and Graz where they all of a sudden discovered my age?

kidneystones
10-28-2009, 12:36 PM
Whatfur writes...[...]

I clicked the link. You're right. The fact that Graz feels comfortable enough identifying you specifically as 'old' suggests he is aware of your age.

It shouldn't be too difficult to confirm when your file has been accessed. Then it's a matter of tracking down who was logged on at these times and identifying individual user activity.

Brenda is clearly un-interested in using any initiative of her own to resolve the question. There's clearly enough here to warrant an inquiry into whether your files have been accessed.

Why hasn't Brenda and the bhtv administration already acted? Not enough detail? I don't know what kind of software they're using but I don't see why this can't be resolved by conducting a couple of relatively simple searches.

What are the bhtv admins doing right now to address the accusation?

Nothing?

graz
10-28-2009, 12:40 PM
In speaking for myself at least, I can attest to referring to you as an old man on general principles. The genesis of the age reference includes determining by default that your childish posting might very well have been offered by a someone of a child's age. Alas, in one of your more vociferous rants (unsubstantiatedly related to truth serum or excessive alcohol, you let all manner of personal info make its way to your posts). For instance; You let all of us know that you live in the Dakota's, enjoy Nueske's sausage, begrudgingly allow your in-laws to reside on your property (missed rental opportunity) and that you have a son that you transported to college (easy enough to do the math and configure your age - wouldn't you say Einstein? Or, as you are a Math major as you have said, shall I call you Nash, as you are both math literate and paranoid to boot? A beautiful mind indeed).
I hope your having a good laugh at the expense of Brenda. As you have so mockingly put it before: U funny!

Whatfur
10-28-2009, 12:55 PM
In speaking for myself at least, I can attest to referring to you as an old man on general principles. The genesis of the age reference includes determining by default that your childish posting might very well have been offered by a someone of a child's age. Alas, in one of your more vociferous rants (unsubstantiatedly related to truth serum or excessive alcohol, you let all manner of personal info make its way to your posts). For instance; You let all of us know that you live in the Dakota's, enjoy Nueske's sausage, begrudgingly allow your in-laws to reside on your property (missed rental opportunity) and that you have a son that you transported to college (easy enough to do the math and configure your age - wouldn't you say Einstein? Or, as you are a Math major as you have said, shall I call you Nash, as you are both math literate and paranoid to boot? A beautiful mind indeed).
I hope your having a good laugh at the expense of Brenda. As you have so mockingly put it before: U funny!

Your right...it doesn't take Einstein to come up with a guess and cover up your tracks. I do not live in the Dakota's btw. My in-laws moved in over a decade ago. My son is a child prodigy and got his EE at age 17. The age thing came up out of no where and like it had a specific source which started the suspicion. You will be busted. You know your are lying and I know your are lying.

graz
10-28-2009, 01:09 PM
P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C

Apologies Bob, for feeding the troll.

But my honor is at stake (ha), as is the integrity of bhtv which has been falsely accused by the likes of kidney and friend. Just remember:

Santayana says otherwise (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/23253?in=21:27.5&out=21:32)

Apologies to anyone not having at least half the fun I'm having in this thread.

Bobby G
10-28-2009, 01:53 PM
Whatfur, if I made all these allegations against you--that you had pried into my personal details using BH.tv, etc.--and it had turned out that my allegations were either (1) clearly made up or (2) not made up, but reflective of paranoia, such that there was only very ambiguous evidence in favor of what I said; if (1) had been true, what do you think the consequences should be for me? If (2) had been true, what do you think the consequences should be for me?

EDIT: by the way, the answer I have for (1) is that if you clearly make up something about someone you should be banned; if (2) you're paranoid and say discrediting things about someone, things that aren't true, I don't think you should suffer consequences.

Starwatcher162536
10-28-2009, 02:17 PM
Was he allowed to take his FE? I once heard that you were not able to take it, regardless of your academic status, until you were 18. I remember looking at the NCEES website and not seeing anything about age requirements, so it is possible the whole thing is just an urban legend.

Kind of makes me wonder if any super genius somewhere has ever received there PE when under the age of 18. Kind of an interesting legal problem, by all accounts anyone with that kind of brains should have the requisite abilities for us to trust him/her to sign off on drawings, but would said person be allowed to, as signing off on a drawing takes a measure of legal responsibility onto one self.

bjkeefe
10-28-2009, 03:35 PM
Ahhhh, this isn't going to work as far as calming 'fur (and ks) down goes, but for the rest of you and for the record, here are my responses to the somewhat fact-based segments of 'fur's latest hysteria.

Brendan likes to discount his "spambuster" role as something inconsequential while he clings to it like his favorite blankee.

Wrong. I thought about asking to be removed from this group long ago, the seventeenth or forty-third time ks, 'fur, and maybe one or two others picked up ks's rumor-mongering about our imaginary powers and secret connections, but then I decided giving into bullying only encourages the bullies.

Some of us have wondered why....unfortunately, by virtue of my recent banning and earlier suspicions I was able to discover that he has in fact utilized this position in a manner that I feel should instantly disqualify him from that role.

Brendan has used this role to uncover my age which BHtv "contractually" tells me would not be shared unless agreed to...I chose to keep it hidden as birthdates are dangerous things when it comes to identity theft. He has shared it with some of his "club members" and the two of them have both posted derogatory statements about my age.

Wrong. I know 'fur's approximate age from (1) Googling "Whatfur" some time ago and coming across a YouTube user page (http://www.youtube.com/user/whatfur) (which used to list the user's age but no longer does), (2) integrating hints from various things 'fur has said about his life and work experience in his own comments posted here on the forums (see also (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=134951#post134951)), and (3) his implicit confirmation when I used the guess from (1) and (2) to ask, rhetorically, why someone of his age acted like such a grade-schooler, to which he replied, essentially, "Why do you keep making such a big deal about my age?"

The worry about "identity theft" is ludicrous. I don't know his age to anything more than an educated guess about which decade he's in, and I certainly don't know (or care to know) his birth date.

Secondly, my personal email, also hidden, has also been used by him I believe by sending anonymous, derogatory, and in a couple cases virus-filled derogatory emails. This is conjecture a bit a my part but the latter is against the law. I say it is conjecture only because these emails have been anonymous...but surprisingly seem to always show up on the numerous occasions when I have made him look the fool here. Coincidence...I think not. And it has been admitted to me that the ability to examine emails listed in ones personal information is/was available to the "spambusters". Matter of fact, if anyone else has been witness to similar occurrances I would be interested. I have virus names etc. and if the two could be tied together at least the general source being someone at BHtv could be further legitimized.

This is truly insane, but I guess some points to 'fur for admitting it's "conjecture."

As it happens, I sent 'fur one email, more than a year ago, in response to the second personal threat he had made to me. He had sent the first one via PM and the second one via the "Email this user" vBulletin function. He apparently did not realize his email address would be displayed in the second instance. (As it happened, this was before the spam-buster thing was developed; i.e., there was no special privilege involved, but just the nature of how the vBulletin "Email this user" function works.)

At any rate, I said in that one email that I sent to him that I would publish in the forums any further threats he sent me. He did not respond, so our email exchange ended there. (Shortly after, he went on hiatus from the board and in light of that plus no further threats from him, I deleted what he had sent me.)

Since then, I have not sent him any email. I certainly would not send him anything in the way of anonymous, threatening, or infected email. I do not take this bickering anywhere near as seriously as he apparently does, and as should be obvious, I prefer to sign my name to what I write.

Perhaps 'fur is projecting here? Note the comments signed "Your Mother" and "YourMother" posted on my blog here (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/10/already-in-bargain-bin.html) and here (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-ad-campaign.html). Sound like anyone you know?

Third, when recently banned, I found it interesting that Brendan instantly knew about it.

As 'fur grudgingly goes on to admit, seeing that a user is "banned" is just a matter of looking at a post put up by that user -- the word "Banned" appears right under the user's name. That's how someone else noticed, who asked by PM if I knew what was going on. That is how I found out 'fur had been "banned."

Before me has anyone else been banned?...

Yes, and not even counting those who post spam. I won't name the one name that immediately comes to mind, since there's no need to drag that user into something irrelevant to him or her, but 'fur is not the first one to be given a time out. (Interestingly enough, that earlier user is clearly liberal.)

However, when I followed up the Admin denials with the question about how did he also suddenly know that my banning was temporary which WASn't tagged.?? I received a "Doh!" and an excuse about an oversight in "spambuster" abilities.

As part of the spam-busting, yes, I can see a list of banned users. Sorry if it seems like such a horrible thing for me to have assured kidneystones not to worry, but that his friend's ban was only temporary.

And now, one truly trivial detail, but what the hell, as long as I'm here ...

Instead, what happens??? I am reported to Admin and Admin tells ME to knock it off while it creates a new policy about the use of quotes.

Not that it matters much to me, but there is a difference between making it look like someone has actually posted something by using the "Quote" mechanism to reply to a post (as with the excerpts from 'fur's post above) and using the quote button while editing to serve as an indenting mechanism

like this

as I do, say, when doing a "Shorter." In such a case, it does not include an "Originally Posted by [name]" heading, and it is in any case obvious from context that it is a parody.

More to the point, this "rules about quoting" hysteria has nothing to do with me. The only thing I've ever said that's related was one time in a posted reply to 'fur, a while back, along the lines of "I see you're attributing to me words I did not say," when he used the "Quote" mechanism to produce something like this:

something I did not say

It doesn't bother me when 'fur monkeys around with the "Quote" mechanism -- it's obvious to anyone who clicks the link whether I said what he's attributing to me or not -- but evidently, the site admins feel differently.

As the rest of 'fur's post comes purely from his imagination, I'm going to leave the rest of it alone. I think it's clear what's going on here -- it's another round of working the refs from a couple of people who aren't happy about being stood up to, for what they post in a public forum.

I will remind everyone that there is no need to read the posts of someone whose comments are not to your taste. The "Ignore List" works for everyone now, so any further complaint by ks, 'fur, etc., about what I or anyone else writes really has to be seen as nothing more than an effort on their part to stoke their resentments.

graz
10-28-2009, 03:55 PM
You know your are lying and I know your are lying.

http://cinie.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/franken_lying_liars.jpg

SkepticDoc
10-28-2009, 03:58 PM
No es cierto. (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/group.php?groupid=2)

¿Porque no invitas de nuevo a todos los hispano-parlantes?

PreppyMcPrepperson
10-28-2009, 04:01 PM
I'd actually have no problem if Bob granted you the authority to enforce the comments policy; as long as you worked alongside someone of a differing ideological disposition, despite your transparent hostility towards me and repeated personal attacks,

Harkin would be my first choice, if he were willing. I credit you both with the ability to set aside your personal prejudices and do the job well and fairly. You might 'serve' for a period of a year; then other worthy candidates could be elected/selected.

This is really not a bad idea--it seems the whole moderator issue is a major cause of the general vitriol on this forum. Adding just one conservative moderator would be an improvement, and, to be honest, 3:1 is probably about the ideological ratio of liberals to conservatives among the commenters anyway. Brenda, Bob and team should take this up.

Also, Brenda, if you are in fact reading this, I recommend you not adopt a sarcastic tone in your own comments. As a staffer charged with overseeing the dialogue among commenters and moderating, among other things, the TONE of that dialogue, it's probably best that your own tone remain detached and formal. Just a tip.

AemJeff
10-28-2009, 04:09 PM
...

Do you have secret oaths and initiation rites? How about coat-hanger branding etc? How about pm messages of yourselves in your underwear?
...



We have a logo!
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/picture.php?groupid=1&pictureid=1

And rites (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=103121#poststop)! I almost forgot the rites!

Wonderment
10-28-2009, 04:19 PM
¿Porque no invitas de nuevo a todos los hispano-parlantes?

Que yo sepa somos tres, mano.

bjkeefe
10-28-2009, 04:29 PM
This is really not a bad idea--it seems the whole moderator issue is a major cause of the general vitriol on this forum. Adding just one conservative moderator would be an improvement, and, to be honest, 3:1 is probably about the ideological ratio of liberals to conservatives among the commenters anyway. Brenda, Bob and team should take this up.

Also, Brenda, if you are in fact reading this, I recommend you not adopt a sarcastic tone in your own comments. As a staffer charged with overseeing the dialogue among commenters and moderating, among other things, the TONE of that dialogue, it's probably best that your own tone remain detached and formal. Just a tip.

All I can say, PMP, is that you have a lot to learn about (a) the history of the complaining parties, and (b) the concept of "working the refs" in general.

No, one more thing. Since those of us authorized to delete spam are doing nothing but deleting spam, left/right leanings do not matter. Bear in mind that we are not content-moderators by any stretch.

Your instinct to appease to the chronic whiners may be well-intentioned, but it really would be the wrong thing to do, in the context of crumbling before their nonsensical howling and kitchen sink mentality.

graz
10-28-2009, 04:31 PM
Also, Brenda, if you are in fact reading this, I recommend you not adopt a sarcastic tone in your own comments. As a staffer charged with overseeing the dialogue among commenters and moderating, among other things, the TONE of that dialogue, it's probably best that your own tone remain detached and formal. Just a tip.

This is really not a bad idea--it seems the whole moderator issue is a major cause of the general vitriol on this forum. Adding just one conservative moderator would be an improvement, and, to be honest, 3:1 is probably about the ideological ratio of liberals to conservatives among the commenters anyway. Brenda, Bob and team should take this up.

For the (x)th time... there are no moderators among the commenters, they are spam busters. Why don't you read into the backstory if you wish to delve in and address the so called issue (just a tip). If you're in agreement with ks, what he is proposing is extending moderator functions to forum participants. This would be new policy and in my estimation a likely escalation of the problem... not a solution.

Brenda's sarcasm is warranted and welcome in light of the history (there we go again with that concept) to date. Unless of course, you want the terrorists to win :)

SkepticDoc
10-28-2009, 04:32 PM
Que yo sepa somos tres, mano.

Somebody lived in Barcelona for 13 years, I am not sure he shares most of our views (I can't recall the forum member's name!)

AemJeff
10-28-2009, 04:36 PM
... If you're in agreement with ks, what he is proposing is extending moderator functions to forum participants. This would be new policy and in my estimation a likely escalation of the problem... not a solution.
...

My understanding is that that would be a violation of current policy. They want employees, people with a real responsibility to BhTV, to perform that function.

PreppyMcPrepperson
10-28-2009, 04:41 PM
I am well aware that the moderators don't have any powers except to delete spam. But I think since their critics largely assume they have more subjective powers and continue to make noise about it, we should appoint one right-wing moderator too. If the powers involved are so innocuous, what's the harm in appointing a harkin or someone to exercise them too? If it will end the ranting on the boards about the spam-busters' alleged biases, then I'm for it.

Secondly, EVEN IF the sarcasm from Brenda is responding to obnoxious comments from others, I simply feel that a BHTV staffer should be more formal in her tone than the rest of us. To the extent that Brenda posts on behalf of BHTV and not on behalf of Brenda, I'd prefer it if she sounded like a company spokesperson and not like a lay participant in the forum.

graz
10-28-2009, 04:45 PM
My understanding is that that would be a violation of current policy. They want employees, people with a real responsibility to BhTV, to perform that function.

That might be Jeff, but ks knows better. Just disregard the part where he managed to highlight your crimes and misdemeanors again.
Respectfully,
Monkey # 6

graz
10-28-2009, 04:51 PM
I am well aware that the moderators don't have any powers except to delete spam. But I think since their critics largely assume they have more subjective powers and continue to make noise about it, we should appoint one right-wing moderator too. If the powers involved are so innocuous, what's the harm in appointing a harkin or someone to exercise them too? If it will end the ranting on the boards about the spam-busters' alleged biases, then I'm for it.

Ha and ha again to the bolded part. Perhaps you don't have the time or inclination to do the research (It's all there in the forum archives), but your hope that it would end the rants is ill-founded or wishful thinking.


Secondly, EVEN IF the sarcasm from Brenda is responding to obnoxious comments from others, I simply feel that a BHTV staffer should be more formal in her tone than the rest of us. To the extent that Brenda posts on behalf of BHTV and not on behalf of Brenda, I'd prefer it if she sounded like a company spokesperson and not like a lay participant in the forum.


Ideally, you are making a good point.

Brenda
10-28-2009, 04:55 PM
Adding just one conservative moderator would be an improvement

My inbox is not exactly overflowing with applications for the spambuster position. The pay is terrible and the hours are worse.

AemJeff
10-28-2009, 05:02 PM
I am well aware that the moderators don't have any powers except to delete spam. But I think since their critics largely assume they have more subjective powers and continue to make noise about it, we should appoint one right-wing moderator too. If the powers involved are so innocuous, what's the harm in appointing a harkin or someone to exercise them too? If it will end the ranting on the boards about the spam-busters' alleged biases, then I'm for it.

Secondly, EVEN IF the sarcasm from Brenda is responding to obnoxious comments from others, I simply feel that a BHTV staffer should be more formal in her tone than the rest of us. To the extent that Brenda posts on behalf of BHTV and not on behalf of Brenda, I'd prefer it if she sounded like a company spokesperson and not like a lay participant in the forum.

So, you've watched this unfold, and your response is to provide explicit support to ks and 'fur, and to chide mgmt here because you don't approve of their tone? This place is to be regarded with such solemnity that even in the face of willful stupidity (read the thread) any hint of a smirk on the face of an administrator here is an affront? I stand convicted, (and rightly so!) so there's every reason to disregard anything I have to say on the topic, but I think you've found a peculiar interpretation of events.

bjkeefe
10-28-2009, 05:09 PM
I am well aware that the moderators don't have any powers except to delete spam. But I think since their critics largely assume they have more subjective powers and continue to make noise about it, we should appoint one right-wing moderator too.

See what you did there? Twin, Jeff, and I are not moderators, yet you're unquestioningly buying into the narrative of two obviously unhinged people to think of us in that way.

If the powers involved are so innocuous, what's the harm in appointing a harkin or someone to exercise them too? If it will end the ranting on the boards about the spam-busters' alleged biases, then I'm for it.

You're new to this board, so either spend some time looking through the archives or take my word for it: ks and 'fur know that what they're saying is not true. They've got a thread of something that has a remote connection to something that is somewhat factual, and from it, they're weaving a whole tapestry of conspiracy, and they're doing this all because they cannot deal with being disagreed with, or ridiculed when they post ridiculous things.

You do not give in to children stamping their feet if you hope to encourage said children to learn how to act like grownups.

Secondly, EVEN IF the sarcasm from Brenda is responding to obnoxious comments from others, I simply feel that a BHTV staffer should be more formal in her tone than the rest of us. To the extent that Brenda posts on behalf of BHTV and not on behalf of Brenda, I'd prefer it if she sounded like a company spokesperson and not like a lay participant in the forum.

Again, you're uninformed about the full extent of this, so I'll just tell you: Brenda has bent over backward to allay concerns in a professional manner, well past where most people would.

There gets to be a point where, after politely and patiently attempting to set someone straight, hearing the same old same old provokes -- and in my view, justifies -- something other than diplomatic courtesy. Kidneystones and Whatfur are just trying to make trouble, and you're grievously mistaken to take what they have to say at face value.

SkepticDoc
10-28-2009, 05:20 PM
http://whatfur.blogtownhall.com/default.aspx

Anyuser
10-28-2009, 05:22 PM
I've been advised directly by Brenda that until recently bjkeefe et alia could access user profiles, and that they still can soft-delete posts and threads, ban users, and receive Reported Post emails that contain the email addresses on file for the sender.

Maybe this is not news to all y'all, but it is to me.

Brenda
10-28-2009, 05:29 PM
I've been advised directly by Brenda that until recently bjkeefe et alia could access user profiles, and that they still can soft-delete posts and threads, ban users, and receive Reported Post emails that contain the email addresses on file for the sender.

Maybe this is not news to all y'all, but it is to me.

Yes, and Anyuser has requested that I deactivate his user account, which I'll now go ahead and do. I just don't want anyone to think it's because of this or any other post.

bjkeefe
10-28-2009, 05:39 PM
I've been advised directly by Brenda that until recently bjkeefe et alia could access user profiles, and that they still can soft-delete posts and threads, ban users, and receive Reported Post emails that contain the email addresses on file for the sender.

Maybe this is not news to all y'all, but it is to me.

Yes, this is (was, in some cases) true.

It is not possible to set vBulletin to allow, for example, me, to delete only spam posts. If you think about it, if such a thing were possible, you would not need people to delete spam posts in the first place -- the software could do so on its own.

So, yes, in principle, I could delete any post put up by anyone, and for that matter, ban any user. That I have not deleted anything written by Anyuser or anyone else, no matter how vile and untruthful the innuendo it contains, should indicate to the sane among you that I do not abuse the authority I have to delete spam. If that does not allay concerns, also note that the banning and deleting actions are "soft," as Anyuser correctly reports; i.e., anything I did, even if I went crazy, could be instantly undone by a site admin.

As to the email addresses being visible in the Reported posts: yes, this correct. I don't know what to say here except two things.

First, I am not going to use or pass along these email addresses for any reason, because I take the concept of privileged information very seriously, and because already there exists a PM function for me to use should I want to send someone who is a member of this community a private communication. [Added: Since it is not within my bailiwick to delete posts that are reported for (possibly) objectionable content, I delete the "Reported Post" notifications I get as they come to me. Thus, I do not have stored any email addresses that came to me through that route.]

Second, as should be apparent to anyone who has spent any time on this board, I would much prefer to say something in public, particularly to someone with whom I might have an ax to grind. If my only aim is to administer a tongue-lashing, then obviously, by my very nature, I am going to (attempt to) augment the effect by letting others see it, too.

So, as to your subject line, Anyuser, I'm sorry you're so upset about this new-to-you information, but truly, this is no reason to leave this site. You have nothing to worry about. I don't care that your sole reason for logging in appears to be to complain about how often I post. I hope that you will take advantage of the Ignore List if I really bother you that much, and that you will find within yourself some reason to make an effort to contribute to the other discussions on this usually fine forum in more substantive ways.

But, if not, see ya.

Whatfur
10-28-2009, 05:47 PM
Yes, and Anyuser has requested that I deactivate his user account, which I'll now go ahead and do. I just don't want anyone to think it's because of this or any other post.

Please share with us the date of "until recently".

Thanks

Brenda
10-28-2009, 05:58 PM
Please share with us the date of "until recently".

Two days ago. Can't wait to see where this is going.

graz
10-28-2009, 06:07 PM
http://whatfur.blogtownhall.com/default.aspx

http://whatfur.blogtownhall.com/2009/06/07/political_beer.thtml

Sorry…part of me wants to play the part of Polo grounds security where I have blimp boy cuffed, face down, next to his beer truck, in some recently dropped pile of horse apples with my knee on his back, and blimpy yelling in a high pitched voice, “Don’t taze me bro…Don’t taze me bro”…but thats just me.

My degree in forensic post reading leads me to believe that whatfur and whatfur are one in the same.

bjkeefe
10-28-2009, 06:10 PM
Two days ago. Can't wait to see where this is going.

Brenda is feeding the trolls. BAN HER.

;^)

Ocean
10-28-2009, 06:56 PM
Que yo sepa somos tres, mano.

Hay unos cuantos escondidos, manito.

handle
10-28-2009, 07:10 PM
http://whatfur.blogtownhall.com/2009/06/07/political_beer.thtml
My degree in forensic post reading leads me to believe that whatfur and whatfur are one in the same.

And as I had suspected, much more angry, paranoid, and whacked than he lets on here.. No wonder he is frustrated when called out for his belligerence.

Rants about beer commercials? I feel like I was picking on the mentally challenged. The guy's a tea-bagger for christsakes! Didn't see that one coming. I thought taxes were necessary to proliferate wars and corporate welfare. Can you say conflict of interest?

Don't worry Fur, I'm sorry and I won't make fun of you anymore... besides I'm way older than you, and I already went through my angry white guy stage. sure it's fun, but bad for your mental and physical health in the long run...
Cheers.

Wonderment
10-28-2009, 08:01 PM
Hay unos cuantos escondidos, manito.

Ché, no te burles de mi mexicanidad, y menos de mis mexicanismos :)

AemJeff
10-28-2009, 08:03 PM
Какого черта вы, ребята, говорите?

kidneystones
10-28-2009, 08:44 PM
Brenda,

bhtv has a policy that is clearly not working, at least in the eyes of some of those on the right. Those on the left have their criticisms, too.

You grant access to our private data to three individuals who are ideologically biased and mistrusted by a meaningful number of board members. You may be fine with that; clearly others aren't.

Comment adjudication is a tricky but fur from impossible task. You've outlined clearly what you expect in comments. I've recommended Jeff and Harkin as two possible choices.

Board members deserve to know that their private data is secure; and that the complaints process is adjudicated fairly.

You've got a diversity problem at bhtv whether you're willing to acknowledge it or not.

Whatfur
10-28-2009, 08:55 PM
Two days ago. Can't wait to see where this is going.

I guess you didn't take Preppy's suggestion to heart.

Pretty funny stuff going on here. All pretty much indicative of exactly the atmosphere we on the right exist in daily here.

I especially enjoy the Mexican hat dance going on on the sidelines. Gives it that carnival atmosphere.

...more soon

bjkeefe
10-28-2009, 08:57 PM
Comment adjudication is a tricky but fur from impossible task.

Freudian slip of the thread! (emph. added)

Ocean
10-28-2009, 08:58 PM
Какого черта вы, ребята, говорите?

Прошу прощения?

AemJeff
10-28-2009, 09:06 PM
разумеется!

Ocean
10-28-2009, 09:10 PM
разумеется!

Спасибо.

AemJeff
10-28-2009, 09:14 PM
Спасибо.

Вы только приветствовать.

Ocean
10-28-2009, 09:16 PM
Вы только приветствовать.

:)

Ocean
10-28-2009, 09:23 PM
Ché, no te burles de mi mexicanidad, y menos de mis mexicanismos :)

Sho no podría burlarme de vos. Captaste mi amigo?

Unit
10-28-2009, 09:30 PM
I've been advised directly by Brenda that until recently bjkeefe et alia could access user profiles, and that they still can soft-delete posts and threads, ban users, and receive Reported Post emails that contain the email addresses on file for the sender.

Maybe this is not news to all y'all, but it is to me.

Giving out our e-mail to other commenters doesn't seem right: depending on the user name it could be Googled etc...

Wonderment
10-28-2009, 11:03 PM
Какого черта вы, ребята, говорите?

How dare you call KidneyStones a narcissistic, paranoic, attention-craving drama queen with delusions of grandeur? Don't think for a moment that you can trick him by speaking Azerbaijani! :)

SkepticDoc
10-28-2009, 11:13 PM
To even the playing field and to hopefully reduce paranoia, Google searches:

"skepticdoc"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=skepticdoc&start=0&sa=N

"bjkeefe"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bjkeefe&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

"You can only keep a secret between 2 persons only when one of them is dead"

Michael Shermer promotes the idea that community cohesion and trust depends on "gossip", people talk about others and at the end of the day, liars and cheaters are unmasked for what they are, and the group members do not trust them.

There are innocent victims of libel and slander that suffer for indeterminate periods of time, eventually they are vindicated...

TwinSwords
10-28-2009, 11:33 PM
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=skepticdoc&start=0&sa=N

"bjkeefe"

Holy shit. Bjkeefe called Joe Lieberman an asshole on his Twitter page! Wait until the New York Times finds out about this! What will the Carnegie Foundation think!

Bob's got some explaining to do!!!!!!1one!1!!!

Heh.

But seriously, great post.

There are innocent victims of libel and slander that suffer for indeterminate periods of time, eventually they are vindicated... .

Nicely put.

Whatfur
10-28-2009, 11:39 PM
Brenda. Are you still eager to hear? ;o)

Preppy. You need to be very very careful here. No matter how inciteful you are if it happens to go against the grain of the gang members here you will immediately begin to be ostrasized and insulted. (I guess you see that...welcome to my world) Most of us came to BHtv with the best of intentions. You obviously have too, but believe me, a few months from now if you keep up this kind of intelligent, spot-on thinking, your name will begin to be linked with horrible characters like myself. I suggest maybe a Sock Puppet for those times you want to speak the truth.

Now let me get back to the original accusations with a couple thoughts.

Does anyone else find it funny that we first hear from graz and he surrounds his rebuttal to my Birthdate accusation with a bunch of superfluous nonsense about bacon brands, possible home states, transportation of kids, and in-law support in his Hamletesc protest while failing to mention that Brendan and he hit upon calling me an "Old Man" the first time within moments of eachother. Hmmm...and no mention of Google or youTube there...guess they did not have time to compare notes?

Does anyone else find it funny that although it has been already discovered and admitted to that Brendan DID have access to my birthdate on the BHtv site, he still feels the need to deflect everyone to youTube where ages also can be hidden or not and tries to explain that that is where he discovered it even though...well...its hidden there also?

Does anyone else find it funny that although Brendan provides links for this and that within his thread, but when he speaks of quoting his "grade-school"/"Old Man" remark he mysteriously fails to include the actual link to the quote but instead tries to paint a scenerio of an adult chastizing a child? Where's the link Brendan?

Does anyone else find it funny that he once again brings up some ficticious email concerning some threat of which we dominated a whole thread (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=120570#poststop)with me begging him to come up with it and share with people only to have him back down and say he didn't have it any longer while catching him in numerous lies throughout?

As far as banning knowledge and the knowledge of the temporary nature well...Brendan certainly could have come across the information as he said but it certainly should not have been his position to broadcast it....and he did.

I could go on and on but you can read Brendan's denial (or graz's) and NO WHERE is there ANY actual proof showing that ANY of my accusations are false. Just a bunch of side-stepping, dancing, or admissions...and calling me a liar.

Go figure.

Brenda

Bottom line is my banning was supposedly based on my jokingly posting that Admin had told me Brendan was the cause of a thread deletion. You claimed to have not gotten the joke...well the joke was that nobody would believe that Admin would share anything like that with me. You told me this was the reason for my banning under the guise of it "sowing discord". How can you possibly think that that one-line, one-post, prank sows any more discord than us now knowing that Brendan (the most derisive, insulting, bully on this site) had/has been granted access to our personal information, and is aligned and being protected by site administrators here. One user just quit because of it. I can guarantee you than many more have come and gone from here because of him that ANYone else. Why you and your bosses continue to stand behind this guy is really amazing. I personally still do not believe his denials, but will be satisified with his removal from the ranks of BHtv. I know he is your Twitter buddy but enough is enough.

Please be sure that Mr. Wright is aware of this thread. He really needs to realize that this cancer is hardly "benign".

PreppyMcPrepperson
10-28-2009, 11:40 PM
I have been reading this site since late 2006, bj, when I was living abroad and relied on it to keep me looped in to US politics. I only started commenting in 2008 when some particular thread so incensed me I felt I had to jump in (or maybe I was just bored; I can't recall).

In any case, I have read enough of the ks/'fur contributions to know that the notion that you are charged to moderate the forums is rubbish. However, while I realize that your designated role is to delete spam, I also understand that technically speaking, you have an ability to delete comments. And while I trust you to use that ability to do your designated role of spam-busting, I think despite that, it was probably foolish to entrust you with this role to begin with. It was bound to create amongst at least some members of the forum the kind of conspiratorial fears ks and 'fur betray. Moreover, the spam-busting authority has also given you/Jeff/Swords access to other data about users that, for reasons which have nothing to do with your ideology, I simply don't believe any user should have. Basically, I don't think we should HAVE spam-busting users at all. If Bob wanted to spam-bust, he should have left the task to his hired employees, like Brenda.

While previously BHTV's staff was concerned only with a technical problem--spam--and entrusted your support to address it, now the staff is concerned with something inherently more subjective: offensive content.

My general feeling is, the people who run this board have the right to delete offensive comments as many websites do, and they should publicize the guidelines for deletion, as as BHTV as done, but there's no need to make the CONSTRUCTION of that policy a matter of such long and protracted forum debate, nor to make the enforcement of that policy so dependent on user activity (ie reporting posts)--that only means that the most active users will be the most active reporters. While it may be that the most active users (who are, in fact, largely liberal) will report honestly on comments that are offensive, it does remain POSSIBLE for them to target their ideological opponents.

In other words, I have a problem with both the spam-busting role you have AND the whole notion of a reporting-based comments policy. Both policies require me to trust other commenters to keep this board fair; I may trust you, I may not, but actually, I want it to be irrelevant whether I trust you or not. This forum is not a social network like FB or MySpace; I didn't choose you all as my friends, so I shouldn't have to pass a judgment on your moral character in order to engage on this page. I want to come here and comment and have to make a choice in doing so to trust BHTV, but not to have to evaluate the trustworthiness of other commenters at all. That's BHTVs job in my view.

That said, I accept this is a losing battle. It seems unlikely that BHTV is going to take away the spam-busting powers and have more direct staff enforcement of the comments guidelines instead of depending on us to report. From what Bob has said in his DVs on this, and what Brenda has posted, I gather that the BHTV staff like the notion of a user-driven site management system, that I don't share, but that I'm trying to work with as a commenter on the site.

Since the spam-busting and comment-moderation protocols are BOTH based on some form of asking users to trust other users, I'm suggesting we make some structural tweaks that would better facilitate that trust: KS' suggestions seemed to me to supply those structural tweaks, even if my reasons for liking his ideas have nothing to do with his reasons for submitting them.

Firstly, if we gave one right-wing commenter the powers you have to spam-bust, that might alleviate the concern some other commenters have about the notion of spam-busting users. Secondly, if all four of you were then promoted to full-on moderators (perhaps asking you to clear deletions of offensive content with the staff first?), that would might create a structure that mimicked the ideological makeup of the commenter-base in a way that was transparent, rather than--in the case of relying on reader reportage--a way that was implicit. Thirdly, if we made these new spambuster-cum-moderator roles rotating and perhaps elected, the power of any individual user in that role would be diminished.

I can only speak for myself, but I can say that I'd be happier with that set-up than with the current one. And I'm suggesting that some of the conspiracy theorists might shut up if we adopted these changes. That's all.

AemJeff
10-28-2009, 11:43 PM
Я не говорю, что это KidneyStones нарциссической, Paranoic, привлекающей внимание жажду Drama Queen с манией величия? Я сказал, что он неискренне, он намеренно сеет раздор, и он покидает тропу уродливых куда он идет, но я принимаю вашу характеристику.

bjkeefe
10-29-2009, 12:27 AM
Brenda. Are you still eager to hear? ;o)

Preppy. You need to be very very careful here. No matter how inciteful you are ...

This has been an excellent thread for Freudian slips. (emph. added)

I trust you do not share in 'fur's perpetual search for grievances, paranoia, and victim mentality, PMP, but just for the record, you obviously have nothing to fear. You'll be judged on the content of your posts, by everybody else, same as everybody else.

Does anyone else find it funny that we first hear from graz and he surrounds his rebuttal to my Birthdate accusation with a bunch of superfluous nonsense about bacon brands, possible home states, transportation of kids, and in-law support in his Hamletesc protest ...

Yeah, I thought that was pretty funny how graz was able to recall so much of the other information that you have posted about yourself.

... while failing to mention that Brendan and he hit upon calling me an "Old Man" the first time within moments of eachother.

Why, if that happened, do you know what that might mean? Graz and I could possibly have read each other's comments!!!

Hmmm...and no mention of Google or youTube there...guess they did not have time to compare notes?

Guess they did not need to. Guess they thought it was such a triviality no one except someone trying to prop up a failed case would still be harping on it.

Does anyone else find it funny that although Brendan provides links for this and that within his thread, but when he speaks of quoting his "grade-school"/"Old Man" remark he mysteriously fails to include the actual link to the quote but instead tries to paint a scenerio of an adult chastizing a child? Where's the link Brendan?

Here's one. (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=120921#post120921)

Does anyone else find it funny that he once again brings up some ficticious email concerning some threat of which we dominated a whole thread (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=120570#poststop)with me begging him to come up with it and share with people only to have him back down and say he didn't have it any longer while catching him in numerous lies throughout?

I'm sure anyone who bothers to read that thread will find it funny how you have characterized it.

As far as banning knowledge and the knowledge of the temporary nature well...Brendan certainly could have come across the information as he said but it certainly should not have been his position to broadcast it....and he did.

I did? Where? Please point to any place where I've posted your email address, date of birth, or anything else in the way of your personal information. Apart from a reference to your approximate age, which I've already explained.

I could go on and on but you can read Brendan's denial (or graz's) and NO WHERE is there ANY actual proof showing that ANY of my accusations are false.

Graz and I have failed to prove non-existence!!!1! Case closed!!!1!

graz
10-29-2009, 12:28 AM
Does anyone else find it funny x4

No, no, no and no old man. Case dismissed.

graz
10-29-2009, 12:43 AM
This has been an excellent thread for Freudian slips. (emph. added)
Yeah, I thought that was pretty funny how graz was able to recall so much of the other information that you have posted about yourself.

I have a pornographic memory.

Why, if that happened, do you know what that might mean? Graz and I could possibly have read each other's comments!!!

Damn, were we extending ourselves an advantage by actually reading the comments and responding in kind?

Graz and I have failed to prove non-existence!!!1!
Speak for yourself, I'm close to proving that if whatfur didn't exist, I would have so few posts that I might not exist.

bjkeefe
10-29-2009, 01:06 AM
I have been reading this site since late 2006, bj, when I was living abroad and relied on it to keep me looped in to US politics. I only started commenting in 2008 when some particular thread so incensed me I felt I had to jump in (or maybe I was just bored; I can't recall).

In any case, I have read enough of the ks/'fur contributions to know that the notion that you are charged to moderate the forums is rubbish.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. I will still say, however, that you evidently have not read carefully enough to realize what ks and 'fur are up to here.

However, while I realize that your designated role is to delete spam, I also understand that technically speaking, you have an ability to delete comments. And while I trust you to use that ability to do your designated role of spam-busting, I think despite that, it was probably foolish to entrust you with this role to begin with. It was bound to create amongst at least some members of the forum the kind of conspiratorial fears ks and 'fur betray.

As you say, "conspiratorial fears." As in, not rational. As in, there's no evidence to support the worry that Jeff, Twin, or I would ever delete any non-spam posts. As in, once you start down the slope, you can add in anything else to the pot that you like, to make it scarier, and the very lack of anything amiss is itself ominous. As in, until ks started harping on this over and over again, no one even ever thought to raise a question about it, and since then, the only people who have complained about it have been people like 'fur and a couple of others, who have grudges against me for other, obvious reasons -- I am stridently liberal, I am snarky, I ridicule people for saying what I consider ridiculous things, and like that.

Now you have come along and tried to make a lunatic case sound reasonable. I'm sorry, it just won't wash. You are failing to consider who is saying what, and acting as though what they are saying can be taken at face value -- you are treating the fear-mongering, distortions, and outright lies coming from 'fur and ks thoroughly uncritically, and in the whole thing about "trust," maybe even allowing your own fears to build upon them.

Again, there is no evidence that Jeff, Twin, or I have ever abused the positions we're in, whether it has to do with deleting what we're not supposed to, or accessing/distributing/whatever users' private data. I simply do not have any interest in knowing that your email address is whatever@wherever.com or that you were born on the 31st of February. Sic.

Brenda has stated that she's closed off whatever access we were supposed to have had in the past. Either believe that or don't, and either believe me or don't when I tell you that I don't snoop, but that's the way it is.

Your "solution" -- to provide "balance" in the roster of those authorized to delete spam -- is, as I said before, meaningless, because there is nothing ideological about deleting spam. There doesn't need to be "balance" or "representation of other views" because we are not moderators. We have nothing to do with content of non-spam comments. What you are proposing is almost certainly well-intentioned, but you are ignoring the reality of what it means when wingnuts try to work the refs.

Note also that Brenda has said that there has not exactly been a rush of avowed conservatives in the past year asking to help delete spam. To appoint one now just to quiet the noise is caving in to bullying, and it will only lead to some other equally ludicrous complaint down the road, where once again ks or 'fur or someone like them will make a big whoop-dee-do about nothing at all, and then someone like you will come along and say, "Maybe if we just give them this, ..."

Now, as far as what you go on to say about comment moderation by the site admins goes, I agree that it's been a mistake to have made this into an open-ended discussion. Bob should have just read Scalzi (http://whatever.scalzi.com/about/site-disclaimer-and-comment-policy/). But it's clear from what Bob has said, over and over again, that he wants to have a very light hand in this regard -- ideally, he would prefer not to have to delete anything, and nearly ideally, he would only want to prevent something potentially objectionable from appearing as one of the early comments on the video page. Apart from that, he doesn't want to have to pay someone to spend time playing nursemaid in the forums, and he doesn't want non-employees doing comment moderation.

There is a function to report posts if one finds them objectionable, and I am guessing that Bob thinks that (along with the Ignore List) ought to be enough to cover the few exceptions to the general trust he has that the forum is generally reasonably well-behaved. All Brenda has been doing here is reminding people that such a thing exists. (This, it is clear, was a vain attempt to quell the howling from two commenters who do not actually care about what they pretend to be caring about.)

On a personal note: I have never used the "Report Post" button, except long ago, when I used to use it all the time to report spam. I don't care if someone spends a significant fraction of his life calling me Perez Hilton or a bitch in heat or accusing me of being a paid operative for Obama or a member of some secret organization or whatever, as long as I can post a response to said smears, in the same place, if I choose. Since I have that ability, I'm happy. I can fight my own battles. This, in the end, is what is driving ks and 'fur -- they evidently feel they cannot, so they are looking for another way to get at someone that for some deranged reason they have identified as Enemy.

Lyle
10-29-2009, 01:08 AM
I second this.

bjkeefe
10-29-2009, 01:36 AM
[...]

Here's an afterthought, PMP.

On the issue of "trust" or privacy concerns as they pertain to you personally, allow me to observe that you have done an Apollo diavlog. If memory serves, that led to at least your real name, your gender, a photograph of you, your alma mater, your (approximate?) year of graduation, and hence your approximate age all being conveyed to anyone who looked at the associated thread and followed links therein. (This is in addition to whatever else you might have said about yourself in the diavlog itself.)

Now, I'm not exactly going to say that you're being a concern troll here, but when you talk about what you imagine "other people" or "some people" might worry about when you evidently do not hold those thoughts yourself, it gets a little iffy. Let those who have concerns state them for themselves. All you're doing by trying to speak on their behalf, about imagined fears for which there is no evidence, is lending credibility to a couple of FUD-mongers who do not deserve it. I am not saying that this is your intention, but I am saying that this is the effect.

uncle ebeneezer
10-29-2009, 01:51 AM
Firstly, if we gave one right-wing commenter the powers you have to spam-bust, that might alleviate the concern some other commenters have about the notion of spam-busting users.

Sounds like the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!!1! to me. Sorry I couldn't resist. Actually not a bad idea (IN PRINCIPLE, I meant to add, that unfortunately won't work in the real world, IMO) though I hate the idea of irrational wolf-crying being rewarded.

kidneystones
10-29-2009, 01:56 AM
Preppy writes...[...]

Worthy suggestions, all. I've thought at several times during the evolution of this thread that the entire discussion is a complete waste of time. However, reading your comments and those of Lyle, Anyuser and Unit, I realize the discussion has in fact been both fruitful and informative.

I agree completely with you on most points, except one. This entire problem arose out of Rupert Murdoch Wright's love of cheap labor. Were Bob willing to guarantee that bhtv will no longer function as an arm of the Democratic party and a platform for pro-government propaganda, fund-raising and networking, I'd happily cut Bob a check. So far he refuses.

David Corn, Pinch, and Peretz all get my money and they're not the only ones. I've got no problem with subscriber-limited comments and I'd actually introduce a $5.00 per comment policy to try to improve the quality of the contributions and cut down on the verbiage.

That may yet happen. Bhtv is a work in progress. Under no circumstances should Bob be secretly allowing some board members access to anyone's private data. Where is the bold-face description alerting new members to the fact that signing up means those wacky, wonderful posters: bj, twin, and jeff get to access to their user information.

Cue: twin: 'I have sworn to use my mighty magical moderator powers for the forces of good'. Well, that's now. What happens if brendan, jeff, or twin have a beef with bhtv management? (Could never happen!! Not under the current regime, that's fur sure.)

Point is you're right, Preppy. New users shouldn't be asked to extend trust on this level. And if they are, they should be told so, up front. Spambusters work for bhtv. The position should a paid one. Alternatively, there could be some form of internship with legally-binding confidentially agreements. Either way, the process could use some organization and some transparency.

Who did Rupert Wright and his 'scab' minions support in the last election? Oh yeah: Acorn. Protect user privacy, Bob, and start paying your workers a decent wage!

The moment this site gets some organization and balance I'll subscribe for a year. We get what we're paying for and the results are on display. I'd happily pay for something more.

bjkeefe
10-29-2009, 02:25 AM
Alternatively, there could be some form of internship with legally-binding confidentially agreements.

If that's all it would take to allay what you're pretending to have fears about, I would be happy to sign a confidentiality agreement (which is the term I think you were looking for), in return for the great honor and glorious privilege of deleting spam.

However, I know this is not what you're really after. You got one win with your last round of concern-trolling, kid. I doubt anyone is going to fall for the same con twice.

bjkeefe
10-29-2009, 04:03 AM
Is the Carnegie Foundation aware that they're funding this kind of Mickey Mouse operation?

Yeah, is the Carnegie Foundation aware that they're funding this kind of Mickey Kaus operation?

bjkeefe
10-29-2009, 04:06 AM
Holy shit. Bjkeefe called Joe Lieberman an asshole on his Twitter page! Wait until the New York Times finds out about this! What will the Carnegie Foundation think!

Yeah! (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=135138#post135138)

PreppyMcPrepperson
10-29-2009, 04:44 AM
I'm not disputing that ks and 'fur have ludicrous claims and dubious motives. I'm just saying that for entirely separate reasons, I have qualms about the way this site is working at the moment and the solution ks proposes works for me. In other words, I'm just taking a good idea from the other side. You seem to think there's a problem with doing so. I don't.

[That view extends to policy too. I'm quite happy to take policy ideas from the right (welfare reform and free trade, say) and use them to achieve liberal goals (breaking cycles of poverty at home and abroad). That the ideas were developed by people who did not share those goals, and who in fact developed the policies to achieve other goals that I do not share bothers me not in the least.]

Let me explain why I think ks is on to a good idea: I don't think it matters that deleting spam is a non-ideological act. I think it's just not right to have commenters on a website who have the ability to perform any act except comment on that website. But if you're going to do so, I think it makes sense to allot that ability in a way that mirrors the site's demographic.

On trust and privacy: I'm a journalist and a blogger. I thus have a public presence on the interwebs and had one before Apollo. I'm not a privacy hawk, really. I just want control of my data. So if I decide to do an Apollo DV and tell you all manner of personal details, that's my business. When I register as a commenter and tell BHTV my email address, that's my business. If BHTV makes that info available to others without telling me, that's a problem. It has been remedied, as you point out, but it underscores my sense that there's something generally problematic about the whole spam-buster position.

bjkeefe
10-29-2009, 05:03 AM
[...]

Noted. We'll just have to leave it at: we disagree.

Except:

[That view extends to policy too. I'm quite happy to take policy ideas from the right (welfare reform and free trade, say) and use them to achieve liberal goals (breaking cycles of poverty at home and abroad). That the ideas were developed by people who did not share those goals, and who in fact developed the policies to achieve other goals that I do not share bothers me not in the least.]

Though I agree with this general principle -- despite what you seem to believe -- it's irrelevant, because what I am talking about here is individual behavior, not ideological affiliation. You're being fooled by ks and 'fur whining about being "mistreated" because they're conservatives, while ignoring the myriad of other things they have thrown out in this, their latest kitchen sink eruption. That is the furthest thing from the truth -- the site owners like conservative input and do their utmost to encourage it. So do the overwhelming majority of the regular liberal commenters, as long as it's something other than the pure venom these two regularly spew.

Whatfur
10-29-2009, 08:56 AM
I see you were up pretty late. I slept well and now have gotten in a 5 mile run in for myself and my dogs. We are a happy group.

Ha, I didn't actually remember it was in that same thread. Its no wonder you chose to paraphrase and now try to divert people from looking behind the curtain...because if I were you I certainly would not want others again to be reminded how your lies (including your provided quote) were picked apart, how you were forced to backpedal, and how you were shown to be the cad you are.

I have gone there to give people a starting point, but it is a whatfur classic (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=120570#poststop)with many or our favorite characters and all of my entanglements are quite fun. Where it is obviously embarrassing to you, I now can only suggest to all those interested to feel free to concentrate on our exchange but a thorough read of the various battles will provide a few smiles. At least it did me.

But we digress...brass tax... It took some prying but we have have been provided with the specific admission of the specific age reference. Yes, kids I am 49 and although Brendan would like you to believe he found my age on some other site (a site where I also do not display my age), in spite of him having access to that number right here, I can only appeal to your own logic in this.

In any case, NO, a confidentiality agreement will not soften the "discord". Just like Brenda tipping her ideological (left) hand here is not very appealing, Brendan's whole being is an affront to the impartiality that even a "spambuster" of this site needs to have.

BHtv, please remove him, and lets move on.

TwinSwords
10-29-2009, 09:55 AM
It took some prying but we have have been provided with the specific admission of the specific age reference. Yes, kids I am 49
You just revealed your age with greater specificity than anyone else on this forum has, ever.

Let's recall your original charge:

...birthdates are dangerous things when it comes to identity theft. He has shared it with some of his "club members"

This is an allegation with no basis in reality, which is why you are unable to produce a single shred of evidence supporting it. You simply made it up. I.e., you're lying. Calling you old and posting a link to a Neil Young video is a far cry from identity theft, or sharing your birth date with others.

You've been asked to back up your charges, and you can't. The best you can do is point to instances when Brendan said what anyone familiar with your posts already knew: you were an adult male with at least one older child, well over a decade of work experience that followed at least four years of college. I know these details would probably create a blizzard of confusion in your mind, but other people can easily deduce your approximate age from them.

Besides, even if people knew your exact birth date, no one could do a thing with it. As far as I know, no one knows your real name, it's almost certainly not contained in your BHTV profile (I never looked at your profile, but why would you include your real name there?), and it would be impossible to steal your identity or otherwise cause you harm by merely knowing the date of your birth. Again, your hysterical lies are fooling only one other person.

PreppyMcPrepperson
10-29-2009, 10:02 AM
You're being fooled by ks and 'fur whining about being "mistreated" because they're conservatives.

No. I was bringing up the policy example of 'taking an idea from the other side' in case it wasn't clear from what I had written earlier in the post what the general principle was. It seems it WAS clear, so I needn't have included the parenthetical.

In the the ks/'fur business I'm talking about a procedural application of that general principle. I don't think anyone is mistreated on this site because the substance of their arguments is conservative or in support of conservative policies. I DO think there are more individuals who identify as liberals than conservatives on this site, and any duties besides commenting that commenters take on should be apportioned proportional to that breakdown. We've agreed to disagree about the procedure, but rest assured, I wasn't trying to bring policy into it.

Brenda
10-29-2009, 10:09 AM
Preppy, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I appreciate your taking the time to lay out your views.

If BhTV were rolling in dough, we might hire several workers to do nothing but patrol the forum, deleting spam and moderating comments. We're working with the resources we have.

The spambusting volunteers have been extremely helpful in keeping the forum litter-free. They tend to hang around after the paid staff have gone to bed. When a pornographic website posts a juicy link or photo in the middle of the night, I'm happy the spambusters are there to zap it pronto.

For the same resource-conservation reason, enforcement of the comment guidelines is heavily reliant on user-reporting. But that doesn't mean the ultimate authority is in the users' hands. We aren't reflexively deleting every reported post (see here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=134935#post134935), for example); each post is individually evaluated by a BhTV staff person.

Likewise, I don't see trust as an issue for spambusting. I trust our spambusters, but there's no reason why you need to. The only piece of personal info they have access to is your email address (and then only if you report a post). If that's truly a concern for you or for anyone else, I suggest using a noncritical email address for your BhTV user account. (Click: User CP, Edit Your Details).

As to your specific suggestions:

Giving one right-wing commenter spambusting power. No one* has ever volunteered for the role except for the three current office-holders.

Promote the spambusters to real moderator status; elect and rotate the moderators. In my opinion this would create far, far more problems than it would solve, even if we made superhuman efforts to balance the moderators' ideologies and political leanings.

Looking forward to hearing your further thoughts.

__________
*Well, one, just recently. I'll address this in another post if that person wants me to disclose his/her identity.

bjkeefe
10-29-2009, 10:12 AM
I see you were up pretty late. I slept well and now have gotten in a 5 mile run in for myself and my dogs. We are a happy group.

I believe that about your dogs.

Ha, I didn't actually remember it was in that same thread. Its no wonder you chose to paraphrase and now try to divert people from looking behind the curtain...because if I were you I certainly would not want others again to be reminded how your lies (including your provided quote) were picked apart, how you were forced to backpedal, and how you were shown to be the cad you are.

Sounds like another instance where you're projecting your paranoid worldview onto others. Or your guilty conscience. Or something. I do not have any concerns about how I come off in the eyes of anyone else who reads an exchange between us. I'll stand on whatever reputation I have built here and elsewhere, and trust to the good judgment of the sane people on this board.

The truth is, when I tried to think of something distinctive to Google ("old" being a little non-specific, as you yourself acknowledged, amirite?), this is the next phrase I thought of (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Abloggingheads.tv+%22almost+fifty+y ears%22).

Looks like the rest of your post is just you regurgitating your own bile, so I'll not bother responding to it further.

bjkeefe
10-29-2009, 10:21 AM
[...]

Noted. Thanks for the follow-up.

Unit
10-29-2009, 10:50 AM
The only piece of personal info they have access to is your email address (and then only if you report a post). If that's truly a concern for you or for anyone else, I suggest using a noncritical email address for your BhTV user account. (Click: User CP, Edit Your Details).


This is a big problem. You must mention this to people when they sign up. It's a bit too late now.

TwinSwords
10-29-2009, 10:51 AM
Yeah! (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=135138#post135138)

ROFL.

I have to admit, I loved the whole "Bobz in trouble with the whole internetzzz!!!" angle that KS provided.

Now that you were snarky, perhaps Bob's book will be recalled.

Oh, and did you see the one where the fact that we delete spam for free means Bob is against human rights (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=134698&highlight=human+rights#post134698)?



.

graz
10-29-2009, 11:05 AM
Allow me to speculate. I have in you a good role model. But my conjecture is based on my recollection of the things you've said, not what I merely wish to attribute to you.

So in your mind you have succeeded. By attempting to poison and derail the forum, you likely believe that you've provided a public service for your "side."

Guess what? You have garnered much attention, destroyed nothing and convinced few, if any. Here is a time tested example of your self-regard:
I have gone there to give people a starting point, but it is a whatfur classic (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=120570#poststop)with many or our favorite characters and all of my entanglements are quite fun.

The entertainment value has varied. As to influencing anyone with an original idea - zero. Personally, I most like it when you fancy yourself a folksy chronicler in the mold of P.J. O'Rourke. Your invective loaded tales with "lefty" caricatures would only please at a partisan site (which sort of makes you a parasite - not that that's a bad thing according to Zimmer).
But at bhtv, it falls rather flat... except in your mind. This project is much bigger than you. And what is most gratifying to me is how it has accepted without needing to embrace the likes of you. I guess our love is here to stay. Perhaps I should consider celibacy.

graz
10-29-2009, 11:10 AM
Brenda, why would anyone else volunteer so long as every indication from you appears to be that you're not interested in implementing Preppy's proposal (which I like, by the way)?


To provide the spambusting. Ideology has nothing to do with it. Did you miss this:
Promote the spambusters to real moderator status; elect and rotate the moderators. In my opinion this would create far, far more problems than it would solve, even if we made superhuman efforts to balance the moderators' ideologies and political leanings.

look
10-29-2009, 11:27 AM
Brenda, why would anyone else volunteer so long as every indication from you appears to be that you're not interested in implementing Preppy's proposal (which I like, by the way)?

Is BhTV open to adding a conservative to the group (assuming, of course, some volunteer), or replacing one of the liberal spambusters with a conservative one?May I suggest, that while balancing demographics in the spambuster pool, that the new one be female, gay, bisexual, homosexual, transgendered, Black, Mexican, Jewish, or non-atheist, etc.?

nikkibong
10-29-2009, 11:37 AM
May I suggest, that while balancing demographics in the spambuster pool, that the new one be female, gay, bisexual, homosexual, transgendered, Black, Mexican, Jewish, or non-atheist, etc.?

You went to Reed College, too?

On a serious note, to everyone freaking out about this: the spam-buster position is roughly the equivalent of being an unpaid janitor.

Calm down.

look
10-29-2009, 11:43 AM
You went to Reed College, too?

On a serious note: the spam-buster position is roughly the equivalent of being an unpaid janitor.

Calm down.No, I went to Screw U and majored in the school of hard knocks. Heh. You don't know me well enough to tell me to calm down, nikki.

And by the way janitors have the capacity to go through your wastebasket.

nikkibong
10-29-2009, 11:45 AM
No, I went to Screw U and majored in the school of hard knocks. Heh. You don't know me well enough to tell me to calm down, nikki.

And by the way janitors have the capacity to go through your wastebasket.

look, i am guilty of a typo. i was addressing the "calm down" to people OTHER than you, a.k.a. those who are taking this stuff way. too. seriously.

TwinSwords
10-29-2009, 11:50 AM
I have been reading this site since late 2006, bj, when I was living abroad and relied on it to keep me looped in to US politics. I only started commenting in 2008 when some particular thread so incensed me I felt I had to jump in (or maybe I was just bored; I can't recall).
I have to admit, Preppy, I was surprised that you entered this dispute on the side of two disturbed and belligerent troublemakers. And I am even more surprised that after you watched KS and WF hurl feces in every direction, leveling abuse at Brenda in post after post, you concluded that it was Brenda who deserved to be chastised. You endorse WF's and KS's vile invective, but condemn Brenda for a single instance of very mild, almost imperceptible snark. Just remarkable.



However, while I realize that your designated role is to delete spam, I also understand that technically speaking, you have an ability to delete comments.
Do you believe it would be possible for him to have one of these abilities without the other?



And while I trust you to use that ability to do your designated role of spam-busting, I think despite that, it was probably foolish to entrust you with this role to begin with.
No, it really wasn't. There are thousands of spams posted to this site, and because of the hours we three collectively keep, and the attention we pay to the board, we are able to keep disreputable marketers from hijacking the site for their own purposes. It would be costly and far less efficient for Brenda to have done it any other way. She should be recognized for making a wise decision that improved the quality of the site for all participants — even the whiny, selfish ones. And Brenda accomplished this at zero cost to BhTV. Sounds like management excellence to me. And good judgement.



It was bound to create amongst at least some members of the forum the kind of conspiratorial fears ks and 'fur betray.
Yeah, but a lot of things are bound to happen. That doesn't mean we curl up in a ball and die. The automobile was bound to lead to traffic accidents. Do you stay home all the time? We shouldn't have to tiptoe around deranged misanthropes. You need to be aware that some people are going to complain no matter what. They will find any excuse to vent their spleens. It's a mistake for your to amplify their manufactured grievances.



Moreover, the spam-busting authority has also given you/Jeff/Swords access to other data about users that, for reasons which have nothing to do with your ideology, I simply don't believe any user should have.
Well, you're going to have to disconnect yourself from the Internet, then. Because every computer system you use is managed by people who have some access to some information. That said, exactly what data do you believe we have access to that is so dangerous? Until Brenda's recent changes, we only had access to the data people fill out about themselves on their user page, and their email address. We now have access to none of that information, unless someone reports a post (in which case we can see the email address they have chosen to use for this purpose). Big deal. You've been sold a bill of good, and are supporting efforts to impugn the integrity of three people who have done nothing wrong.



My general feeling is, the people who run this board have the right to delete offensive comments as many websites do, and they should publicize the guidelines for deletion, as as BHTV as done, but there's no need to make the CONSTRUCTION of that policy a matter of such long and protracted forum debate
I agree with you here. I genuinely respect Brenda's good intentions in letting the community have a say in the formation of policy, but it has done little more than give two angry individuals an opportunity to direct abuse at BhTV and the majority of forum members.



there's no need to make ... the enforcement of that policy so dependent on user activity (ie reporting posts)
How about "saving a lot of money." Is that a need? How about "focusing on things that are more important, like arranging diavlogs, managing staff and resources, and solving technical issues, because I don't have to spend my time patroling the site day and night?" Is that a need? How about recognizing that it works pretty darn well as it is, and has for a very long time? (The only complainers are two chronic malcontents who complain endlessly about everything and are motivated by ideology, rather than legitimate concerns.)

I would also note that things have worked exceptionally well on this forum for a very long time. Until the comments policy discussion was intitiated, the forum remained, with virtually zero moderation, more harmonious and the discourse more rarefied than any other forum I've ever participated in, except those solely devoted to technical subject matter. (People tend not to flame about C# or AJAX.)



that only means that the most active users will be the most active reporters. While it may be that the most active users (who are, in fact, largely liberal) will report honestly on comments that are offensive, it does remain POSSIBLE for them to target their ideological opponents.
This is wholly irrelevant. Regardless of what is reported, it's still up to BhTV's discretion whether to delete the reported post. This is precisely as it would be if they chose your impractical, expensive model and patrolled the forum proactively with paid employees.



there's no need to make ... the enforcement of that policy so dependent on user activity (ie reporting posts) ... I have a problem with ... the whole notion of a reporting-based comments policy. ... That's BHTVs job in my view.You don't understand the computer platform you're using. This is vBulletin, and this is how it works. Note the built in reporting button. Note the Forum rules you were required to consent to when registering. Those rules:

Forum Rules
[...]

Although the administrators and moderators of Bloggingheads Community will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Bloggingheads Community, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.



The owners of Bloggingheads Community reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.
Every vBulletin user is required to agree to these conditions as the terms of use, and the platform provides built-in reporting functionality for users to report posts.



Firstly, if we gave one right-wing commenter the powers you have to spam-bust, that might alleviate the concern some other commenters have about the notion of spam-busting users.
While I can see how this might sound reasonable, think about it. You are proposing establishing a formal connection between ideology and spam busting, when this connection was supposedly (but not really) the basis for the original (manufactured) concerns.

Worse, you propose rewarding bad behavior and encouraging abuse. It would have been one thing if the idea had come up in a context separate from KS's deranged jihad. But, of course, it never has come up in another context; it has only come up in the context of kidneystones' years of abuse and invective, in which he hurls everything he can think of at Brenda, Bob, and BhTV, as well as the spam busters and most of the forum participants. You are mistaken to believe that KS's and WF's supposed concern about spam busting is sincere or legitimate; it's merely one of the many cudgels they swing at people they hate. (You have picked up on the fact that they hate the BhTV staff and almost everyone who participates in the forum, right?)

Your assertion is also false: capitulating to their demands would do nothing to mitigate their problematic, abusive behavior. They would come right back with more bullshit about something else.



Secondly, if all four of you were then promoted to full-on moderators ... that would might create a structure that mimicked the ideological makeup of the commenter-base in a way that was transparent, rather than--in the case of relying on reader reportage--a way that was implicit.
While this is how many forums operate, I think it would be a disaster if applied here, and would just extend indefinitely the current drama. In my opinion, Brenda and her staff should administer the policy as they see fit and not open it up to any discussion. Nothing would be negotiable, or even discussed. If your comment disappeared, you and everyone who noticed would know you crossed a line. If you were suspended or banned, again, everyone would know you screwed up. Brenda and her staff have far more important concerns that mollifying bullies.



I'm suggesting that some of the conspiracy theorists might shut up if we adopted these changes.
Not a chance.


.

look
10-29-2009, 11:55 AM
look, i am guilty of a typo. lol i was addressing the "calm down" to people OTHER than you, a.k.a. those who are taking this stuff way. too. seriously.This is a serious matter to me.

We good?

nikkibong
10-29-2009, 11:58 AM
We good?

Of course. Cheers!

TwinSwords
10-29-2009, 12:04 PM
May I suggest, that while balancing demographics in the spambuster pool, that the new one be female, gay, bisexual, homosexual, transgendered, Black, Mexican, Jewish, or non-atheist, etc.?

Oh, good point. I was also thinking we need an anarchist spambuster. To keep Kidneystones happy. And Whatfur.

And a monarchist. We'll need at least one spambuster who adheres to monarchism.

After all, we already have three Maoists, why not a monarchist, an anarchist ... and a vegetarian! Who's going to delete spam on behalf of the vegetarians!!!111!!!

And the vegans!1! The vegans cannot be asked to sit by and let spam be deleted on their behalf by vegetarians!!!!11! Those people eats eggs for goodness sakes!!!!!!

Wait until the New York Times hears about this.

TwinSwords
10-29-2009, 12:09 PM
I haven't noticed any deep, ongoing tensions among commenters that are related to any of those characteristics. Nor have I noticed BhTV highlighting the special pride it takes in having a comments section that is well-balanced in any of those respects, as it does for the case of (political) ideology. (See the "About" page).

Michael,
This is a little awkward and embarrassing, but can I take an opportunity here to say something? Last year during the heat of the election season, I said some intemperate things to you in a couple of our elections-related exchanges. I have regretted it ever since. I should have done so sooner, but I want to apologize now for any offense. Please be assured that whatever irritation I felt at the time, my remarks did not reflect the genuine respect I have for you as an individual, nor my appreciation for your valuable contributions to this forum. I realized I was in the wrong for being rude last year, and have made a point to treat you with the respect you deserve since, but in the meantime, I should have apolgized sooner.

Cheers,
Jack

popcorn_karate
10-29-2009, 12:15 PM
In any case, I have read enough of the ks/'fur contributions to know that the notion that you are charged to moderate the forums is rubbish. However, while I realize that your designated role is to delete spam, I also understand that technically speaking, you have an ability to delete comments. And while I trust you to use that ability to do your designated role of spam-busting, I think despite that, it was probably foolish to entrust you with this role to begin with. It was bound to create amongst at least some members of the forum the kind of conspiratorial fears ks and 'fur betray.

shall we kill health care reform because it makes tea baggers paranoid too? how far do you have to go to please the pathologically paranoid among us? these people are just making a sport of nit-picking the refs and being intentionally obtuse. bowing to their stupidity would make me lose a lot of respect for Bhtv.

Its really ok to have a spine, even when you identify as liberal.


Moreover, the spam-busting authority has also given you/Jeff/Swords access to other data about users that, for reasons which have nothing to do with your ideology, I simply don't believe any user should have.

whoa! ok. i guess i'll have to do some research but... uh.. this sounds like someone drank a little too much of the Krazy Koolaid.


I'm suggesting that some of the conspiracy theorists might shut up if we adopted these changes. That's all.

HAHAHAHAHHA oh the naivete of youth...

TwinSwords
10-29-2009, 12:16 PM
If it's no big deal (which it isn't), then why not stop resisting so much and instead say something like: "Sure, no problem. If it will make you feel like things are a bit more balanced around here, fine, then let's have a few conservative spambusters too. Any volunteers?" (The effort required is far less than superhuman.)

It's not my decision, of course, but my answer is ... because doing so rewards the most abusive behavior from the most abusive and disruptive forum participants. It would set a bad precendent.

Furthermore,

(1) It would be a mistake to explicitly formalize a relationship between ideology and spambusting, as doing so would make permanent the politicized nature of the role. Let's not forget that the decision to poltiicize the role was kidneystones' and his motivation was to disrupt the forum, not to express legitimate concern. KS is an enemy of the forum; he hates almost everyone who posts here, and especially hates Bob and the BhTV staff. I know you've read enough of his comments to realize how true this is.

(2) Do we really want to compromise the integrity of the system by opening it up to more individuals, especially with fervent and explicit adherence to political ideology as a prerequisite for participation? The three people who were selected were chosen because of their long relationship with the site and their established personal integrity.

Ultimately, it's Brenda's decision (obviously) but there isn't a single soul on this forum who doesn't know it would be a big mistake to reward and encourage abuse and bad behavior.

KS and WF should be banned permanently, not rewarded.

look
10-29-2009, 12:19 PM
I haven't noticed any deep, ongoing tensions among commenters that are related to any of those characteristics.I have, but that's a discussion for another thread. Nor have I noticed BhTV highlighting the special pride it takes in having a comments section that is well-balanced in any of those respects, as it does for the case of (political) ideology. (See the "About" page). Bloggingheads is in some ways a classic expression of the Internet: the ever-dropping cost of information-processing allows people to interact in new ways, and a whole new tribe—the Bloggingheads tribe—is formed. But we hope to be in one sense an unusual expression of the Internet. Almost all blogs have a dominant ideology and a fairly homogeneous comments section to match. We pride ourselves on having a diversity of views in our diavlogs and an accordingly diverse comments section, where thoughtful disagreement is expressed in civil terms. (OK, usually thoughtful, and usually civil.) We thank our commenters—and for that matter our less-vocal viewers, and of course all the bloggingheads—for making this website a place where great minds don't think alike.Michael, I think that as it's stated, there's room to interpret this to include diversity more than on a liberal-conservative continuum.

popcorn_karate
10-29-2009, 12:34 PM
you'll do great in the media industry. you have that whole "fair and balanced" (while completely free of context or points of reference) thing down pat.

< begin dream sequence> preppy reports from an outdoor location on breaking news....

"good evening folks, we're reporting on a hot controversy here at lake Objectivity. Joe says the water here is wet while bill claims it to be the driest water he's ever drank. There's no telling who is right but its certainly going to be a controversy here at lake Objectivity for the foreseeable future as bill and joe are firmly entrenched in their positions. moderates, of course, say that lake Objectivity is merely moist."

TwinSwords
10-29-2009, 12:37 PM
I think since their critics largely assume they have more subjective powers and continue to make noise about it, we should [do something about it]...

You actually just said that despite the lack of substance or merit to their concerns, we should nevertheless capitulate to their demands.

Absolutely stunning.

Brenda
10-29-2009, 12:55 PM
If it's no big deal (which it isn't), then why not stop resisting so much and instead say something like: "Sure, no problem. If it will make you feel like things are a bit more balanced around here, fine, then let's have a few conservative spambusters too. Any volunteers?"

I will tell you exactly why. Because I would just be exchanging one purported optics problem for a different, undoubtedly larger, one.

What if I call for volunteers, and someone like Kidneystones steps forward? I have no problem saying here, for the record, in my full capacity as a spokesperson for BhTV, that I wouldn't trust Kidneystones with my lunch order. It's not because of his political views but because he operates in bad faith.

And if someone I don't trust volunteers, and I don't accept him/her, and he/she complains publicly.... well, you see where that leads.

No, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. So I'll stick with the crew we've got for now, thanks.

PreppyMcPrepperson
10-29-2009, 01:10 PM
The spambusting volunteers have been extremely helpful in keeping the forum litter-free. They tend to hang around after the paid staff have gone to bed. When a pornographic website posts a juicy link or photo in the middle of the night, I'm happy the spambusters are there to zap it pronto.

For the same resource-conservation reason, enforcement of the comment guidelines is heavily reliant on user-reporting. But that doesn't mean the ultimate authority is in the users' hands. We aren't reflexively deleting every reported post (see here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=134935#post134935), for example); each post is individually evaluated by a BhTV staff person.

I'm not sure this is worth the money it saves. I understand that you get to make your own budget choices. I just happen to disagree with them. Thanks for acknowledging my criticism.

Likewise, I don't see trust as an issue for spambusting. I trust our spambusters, but there's no reason why you need to. The only piece of personal info they have access to is your email address (and then only if you report a post). If that's truly a concern for you or for anyone else, I suggest using a noncritical email address for your BhTV user account. (Click: User CP, Edit Your Details).

I do see trust as relevant here. When I post on this site, or anywhere else on the web, I'm implicitly trusting the people who run or maintain that website. Spam-busting is a technical function that is part of site-maintenance and so those who perform it become recipients of my trust. If we're going to rely on the volunteer kindness of forum members to perform that function, then I think it's most conducive to trust to be able to authoritatively say 'spam-busters, they're just like you!' by having the spam-buster positions alloted in a way that matches the makeup of forum.

We clearly have very different views of online privacy because I see this email address business as a HUGE issue. I will probably be changing the email addy tied to my name to a dummy one, but I maintain, I shouldn't have to.

No one* has ever volunteered for the role except for the three current office-holders.

Promote the spambusters to real moderator status; elect and rotate the moderators. In my opinion this would create far, far more problems than it would solve, even if we made superhuman efforts to balance the moderators' ideologies and political leanings.

I think if you put up a new thread saying you were looking to hear from right-leaning commenters interested in this role, you might get some takers. Won't know unless you try. Perhaps elevating them to moderators is a bridge too far. But rotating the volunteers is, I still think, a good idea.

PreppyMcPrepperson
10-29-2009, 01:35 PM
Do you believe it would be possible for him to have one of these abilities without the other?.

No. Which is WHY I'm suggesting the solution I'm suggesting.

Sounds like management excellence to me. And good judgement.

We disagree about this. Plain and simple.

Well, you're going to have to disconnect yourself from the Internet, then. Because every computer system you use is managed by people who have some access to some information. That said, exactly what data do you believe we have access to that is so dangerous? Until Brenda's recent changes, we only had access to the data people fill out about themselves on their user page, and their email address. We now have access to none of that information, unless someone reports a post (in which case we can see the email address they have chosen to use for this purpose). Big deal.

1. I think access to email addys IS dangerous.
2. I understand that you assent to ceding that data when you register for any website, but as I understand it, you only cede that data to the paid staff of the company running the website. I didn't know I was giving that data to you too, and if I had, I think I'd probably have chosen not to join the forum at all.

TwinSwords
10-29-2009, 01:46 PM
No. Which is WHY I'm suggesting the solution I'm suggesting.
Which suggestion? The one that would massively inflate costs while decreasing efficiency? Or the one that would increase the number of people who would have access to "dangerous information," and introduce an explicit ideological litmus test for access to that information?



We disagree about this. Plain and simple.
Yes, exactly. What you have done is stacked the scales with massive tangible benefit to BhTV, the enterprise, and all of it is users on one hand, and conspiratorial, substance-free nonsense peddled by hatemongering idiots, on the other -- and you've decided the latter outweighs the former.



1. I think access to email addys IS dangerous.
So let's extend access to this dangerous information to a larger, less trustworthy group of people, and make political ideology a prerequisite!


2. I understand that you assent to ceding that data when you register for any website, but as I understand it, you only cede that data to the paid staff of the company running the website.
Live and learn. There are tens of thousands of vBulletin forums like this one on the internet and virtually all of them have unpaid moderators/admins/peon underlings who have access to -get this- far more information than me, Jeff and Brendan. Brenda has actually set it up in the most restrictive possible way, dramatically reducing any potential for us to do harm.

PreppyMcPrepperson
10-29-2009, 02:09 PM
Which suggestion? The one that would massively inflate costs while decreasing efficiency?

I accepted that having already appointed you three as spam-busters, we can't go back. That's why I proposed adding one more spam-buster of an opposing ideological color. I've said above in my exchange with bj from earlier today why I think that is a good idea. You disagree, and that is fine--I was just putting the idea out there, not trying to convince you of it--but I'm not going to repeat my explanation.

Live and learn. There are tens of thousands of vBulletin forums like this one on the internet and virtually all of them have unpaid moderators/admins/peon underlings who have access to -get this- far more information than me, Jeff and Brendan. Brenda has actually set it up in the most restrictive possible way, dramatically reducing any potential for us to do harm.

It's all fine to have unpaid volunteers but if those volunteers are also participants in the forum, I think there's an obligation to disclose that info before users sign up. BHTV didn't, and I fault them for that. I similarly fault other websites for these types of things. If that has me finding fault with large chunks of the internet, so be it.

AemJeff
10-29-2009, 02:11 PM
...
2. I understand that you assent to ceding that data when you register for any website, but as I understand it, you only cede that data to the paid staff of the company running the website. I didn't know I was giving that data to you too, and if I had, I think I'd probably have chosen not to join the forum at all.

I don't think that's a safe assumption on most bulletin boards. BhTV takes a relatively conservative view, reserving editorial judgments for paid staff; but moderators, on many sites, are members of the user community.

PreppyMcPrepperson
10-29-2009, 02:14 PM
But they are usually disclosed as such, so at least, they are branded volunteers of the site. Any site where users take on administrative roles that are undisclosed, however, I object to.

Brenda
10-29-2009, 02:24 PM
But they are usually disclosed as such, so at least, they are branded volunteers of the site.

Jeff, pull up your shirt and show her your brand (http://www.cs.washington.edu/images/SpamBuster.png).

AemJeff
10-29-2009, 02:26 PM
Jeff, pull up your shirt and show her your brand.

Careful! It's still healing!

Whatfur
10-29-2009, 02:33 PM
Don't let your dog guard your food.

Bobby G
10-29-2009, 02:36 PM
Hi Brenda,

I may irritate you with this post. I don't mean to.

I'm not sure that your jokey response to Preppy was a good idea. Here's how I interpreted. The idea of being branded occurred to you as you read Preppy's comment, and you found the idea amusing enough to post it. Jeff responded in kind, with some titters.

Now, I doubt you mean to degrade Preppy's comments, but when I first read your response, I had taken it to mean exactly that: Preppy's reached the point where she's no longer to be taken seriously, so let's just joke. Let me reiterate that I think this impression is wrong. But I'm not positive that it's wrong--only about 95% sure.

Focus: I'm just wondering about issues of tone with you as a paid worker for BH.tv (you are paid for this, right?). This was already brought up by Preppy before, but I guess I just want to know some ground rules. At first you seemed completely dispassionate, and that's the impression of you I originally formed. But now you seem to be taking on the attitude of an involved commenter (witness your claim that KS acts in bad faith--it seems true to me, but it seems like now you've pulled off the mask of 'objectivity'). Is that how we should regard you? Or are you supposed to be above the fray but you occasionally have lapses? Or are you and we working it out as you (and we) go along?

Note: I realize how hard your job is, and how hard it is to figure out how to respond to KS and WF. Know, for what it's worth, which I'm told is less than $1, that I appreciate your efforts very much, and I also appreciate how much time you've taken to understand where everyone is coming from. You probably didn't have to do that, and now that you've done this mitzvah you're being rewarded with suspicion and insult. That sucks, and I may be making it worse with this post. I hope I'm not, and if I have, I'm sorry.

PreppyMcPrepperson
10-29-2009, 02:38 PM
This is precisely the tone, Brenda, that I was objecting to yesterday.

graz
10-29-2009, 02:43 PM
Don't let your dog guard your food.


Re: There is an old saying...
From a forty-nine year old man. Does the saying pre-date your birth?
What does old have to do with it?

Brenda
10-29-2009, 02:50 PM
Well, in response to the complaints about my tone, all I can say is that I try to respond appropriately, but there's a limit to my patience. The post of Preppy's that I replied to:

But they are usually disclosed as such, so at least, they are branded volunteers of the site. Any site where users take on administrative roles that are undisclosed, however, I object to.

does not make any sense. Everything has been disclosed. The volunteers have been branded. There are no undisclosed administrative roles. We have been discussing this endlessly. At some point, I have to just throw up my hands.

PreppyMcPrepperson
10-29-2009, 03:09 PM
But the access to data was, until now, undisclosed.

Bobby G
10-29-2009, 03:14 PM
Perhaps I misinterpreted Preppy's post, but what I took her to say is not that it has not been disclosed about who is a moderator, but rather that it was originally undisclosed that the moderators had access to email addresses. Obviously, that ground has already been gone over--it's been disclosed over and over--, and it's too late to change anything now, but I think her post where she mentioned that point was more of an overview post.

Anyway, this is my last post on this topic, as it's not helping anything to continue this whole line about commenting. The policy is the policy, and that's that.

graz
10-29-2009, 03:41 PM
Fresh off the presses for you:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17438

PreppyMcPrepperson
10-29-2009, 03:48 PM
I watched that DV at the time, and read the article at the time, and blogged about it (http://instantcappuccino.blogspot.com/2009/01/end-of-forgetting.html) at the time. But thanks Graz.

graz
10-29-2009, 04:11 PM
Your blog post makes clear how seriously you take the subject.
I often fail to question the tacit release of personal info that underlies many online transactions. It's unfortunate that your concern was linked with the fight against disruption. Perhaps the subject can be aired or presented more exclusively here or in a dv?

PreppyMcPrepperson
10-29-2009, 04:19 PM
I'm fully on board with that idea, Graz. Potential diavloggers with strong views on this?

AemJeff
10-29-2009, 04:56 PM
I'm fully on board with that idea, Graz. Potential diavloggers with strong views on this?

I feel pretty strongly about it, but I'm betting you and I agree pretty closely on the broader issue.

osmium
10-29-2009, 06:21 PM
It's like Lord of the Flies in here.

kidneystones
10-29-2009, 06:28 PM
Wonderfully illuminating stuff.

What have we learned? The comments nanny kangaroo court is run by bhtv staffers who share a common ideology. Any smear against anti-Obama folks is justified because the site is officially pro-Obama. Anyone hoping for impartial enforcement of comments policy will just have to rely on the 'objectivity' of management community that lacks any sympathy or even understanding of opposing views.

The simplest complaints have to be explained ad nauseum; and even then are likely to be construed as 'conspiracy theories', 'working the refs', or 'giving in to terrorists'. Blatant examples of rule violations such as abuse of the quote tag, accusations of lying, and accusations of racism will be ignored if leveled by ideological fellow-travelers.

This site allows a certain level of criticism of management and that's to be commended. Brenda is at least willing to listen to complaints and that, too, is to be commended. Bhtv fails completely, however, to inform new members that their email addresses will be viewed by other comment members.

Clearly, Bob is never going to hire anyone who voted or would vote for Sarah Palin. Which means he really isn't interested in balance or diversity. No liberal could reasonably expect a fair shake from a process run exclusively by folks would never vote for Obama. No conservative can reasonably expect a fair shake from folks who would never vote for Palin. The comments judges here would never vote for Palin. Forget fairness or balance.

Until the comments nanny (not spambuster) positions are staffed by an ideologically neutral or ideologically balanced partnering all claims to balance and objectivity are meaningless.

On the topic of spambusters, I can't imagine why Brendan is so desperate to retain his spambusting role. He'll 'sign any document' to keep the 'position'. This is work that should be done by young people who need work and a chance to get real experience working at bhtv, preferably paid work. Not 'It has to be me!'

Fairly clearly, allowing these three individuals access to our email information is not acceptable to a number of individuals in the community. Trusting twin should not be a condition of posting at bhtv. I agree with Preppy that no commenter can really be trusted in the spambuster role. The spambuster really needs to be some kind of intern; or a regular bhtv employee.

All three spambusters should be thanked and asked to resign as soon as possible. We need new impartial comments nannies and two or three new spambusters who have the trust of all the members of this community.

handle
10-29-2009, 06:30 PM
OK I'll bite.
Just for the record:
Here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=82440#post82440) is me calling you "old" back in in July '08:

"If you have taken to internet bickering because you can no longer go to the tavern, get drunk, and beat the living shit out of the people you used to call those names, you just might be and old redneck." (my bold)

Way before the spamstorm and the tired moderator flap you and KS fabricated.

How did I Know you were no spring chicken? Well... I killed Kennedy(s), planned Pearl Harbor, 911, and now I want to use your tax dollars to kill your grandma! (smiley winky sarcastic face)

But seriously, you and the painful urinary tract condition fabricated the left vs. right meme in order to be able to claim victory, or victim-hood, or in so many cases, both at the same time (!).

The fact is, that very few of us share any great ideological alignment, much like you and KS. Before you dismiss this, you might want to discuss the merits of Union membership with him.

So if this isn't about ideology, left vs. right, what is it about?
It is about not letting a few fringies (like you two) dominate the conversation just because they only speak bat-shit-lunatic-blowhard-drivel while they refuse to give any ground. Like the first time you jumped in a thread and expressed your giddiness at the DNC's struggle to choose a candidate for POTUS, and implied that I hated my country. No way to treat a stranger, but you made a lifelong friend in me.

The real mystery here is how you can confuse multiple posters responding negatively to your anger-based attempts at "humor"(?), with some kind of conspiracy.
Hint: humor is best when it stems from fact, not fiction, common ground, not crazy town.

TwinSwords
10-29-2009, 06:36 PM
It's like Lord of the Flies in here.

Perfect analogy — assuming people know what the story was actually about.

So let me ask you: Who's Jack and who's Ralph?

Lyle
10-29-2009, 06:53 PM
Yeah, at the very least bjkeefe has got to be removed. He's too fiercely partisan and has lied to people in the forum before.

He also has pretty much never followed the spirit of Bob Wright's comment guidelines.

PreppyMcPrepperson
10-29-2009, 09:36 PM
Still, could be interesting. You just Apollo'ed, and I'm about to record one with another commenter, but in a few weeks (since this issue isn't gonna disappear tomorrow), we should discuss.

AemJeff
10-29-2009, 09:40 PM
Still, could be interesting. You just Apollo'ed, and I'm about to record one with another commenter, but in a few weeks (since this issue isn't gonna disappear tomorrow), we should discuss.

Fair enough.

Whatfur
10-29-2009, 10:07 PM
I will tell you exactly
...
I wouldn't trust Kidneystones with my lunch order. It's not because of his political views but because he operates in bad faith.

.


Is there a report post button that goes past the junior executive level?

And I guess you think the YOU operate in good faith.

kidneystones
10-29-2009, 10:46 PM
Brenda's ridiculous explanation for why there are no conservative spambusters: 'none applied' further underscores the incestuous relations of the 'bhtv' family. At bhtv the comment nannies, the spambusters, the bhtv staff and the most prolific on the board all work(ed) for the same team, literally.

Just as a matter of coincidence I received three emails this morning: two on our union's negotiating strategy and another from a graduate school director advertising intern positions for graduate and undergraduate students.

My guess is that there are literally thousands of journalism grads who'd leap at the chance to intern at bhtv. Part of their work could be spambusting. That would take care of the 'cheap labor' policy. Clearly, other duties and learning tasks would have to be built into the job. I'm sure Preppy or nikki would do an able job, but perhaps their status as commenters and Apollo stars makes them ineligible.

Why not advertise for two or three journalism grads to intern at bhtv? No suitable candidates exist? I bet there are lots.

There's still the question of establishing balance and fairness on the comments review board, but that seems to me an extremely simple problem to solve. I've already nominated Jeff and Harkin. Others could certainly do the job.

Out in the real world folks are working to find real solutions to real problems. Here, Brenda asks Bob who reads Brendan who does his thing and the rest of us act out our tired, unattractive roles.

Advertise. Get some keen journalism grads who take this stuff seriously to do the job right. Might get Bob off his pedestal. Bob might even learn something teaching the youngsters, hard as that may be to imagine.

Whatfur
10-29-2009, 11:09 PM
Tried to deal with this on an PM basis because I just KNEW it would be pointed at as being more rabble rousing...but Brenda chose to sound like Brendan instead in her response. I have emailed Mr. Wright.

My main computer was infected again today and Brenda refuses to answer my question about whether "spambusters" have access to ip addresses of logged in users. I am going to assume that that then is one more piece of information that continues to leak out of this fun factory.

Commenters beware.

The Shield Deluxe 2009 Log File

Product : The Shield Deluxe 2009
Version : The Shield Deluxe 2009 UIScanner v.12
Scanning task : Deep System Scan
Log date : 10/29/2009 9:31:06 PM
Log path : C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\BitDefender\Desktop\Profiles\Logs\deep_scan\1 256869866_1_02.xml
Scan Paths:
Path 0000: C:\
Scan Options:
Scan for viruses : Yes
Scan for adware : Yes
Scan for spyware : Yes
Scan for applications : Yes
Scan for dialers : Yes
Scan for rootkits : Yes
Target Selection Options:
Scan registry keys : Yes
Scan cookies : Yes
Scan boot sectors : Yes
Scan memory processes : Yes
Scan archives : Yes
Scan runtime packers : Yes
Scan emails : No
Scan all files : Yes
Heuristic Scan : Yes
Scanned extensions :
Excluded extensions :
Target Processing:
Default action for infected objects : Disinfect
Default action for suspicious objects : None
Default action for hidden objects : None
Default action for encrypted infected objects : None
Default action for encrypted suspicious objects : None
Default action for password-protected objects : Log as not scanned
Scan engines summary
Number of virus signatures : 4469546
Archive plugins : 44
Email plugins : 6
Scan plugins : 13
System plugins : 5
Unpack plugins : 8
Overall scan summary
Scanned items : 332839
Infected items : 130
Suspicious items : 0
Resolved items : 10
Unresolved items : 135
Password-protected items : 15
Overcompressed items : 0
Individual viruses found : 81
Scanned directories : 8864
Scanned boot sectors : 2
Scanned archives : 7403
Input-output errors : 23
Scan time : 01:28:33
Files per second : 61
Scanned processes summary
Scanned : 49
Infected : 0
Scanned registry keys summary
Scanned : 951
Infected : 1
Scanned cookies summary
Scanned : 4578
Infected : 0
Remaining issues:
Object Name
Threat Name
Final Status
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [184] (memory dump)
Trojan.Vundo.GQP
Delete Failed (file was in an archive)
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [184] (full dump)
Trojan.Vundo.GQP
Delete Failed (file was in an archive)
[System]=]HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\MICROSOFT\WINDOWS\CURR ENTVERSION\RUN\kulenotul=]C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\WUYOHUGU.DLL
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll [908] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
Disinfect Failed (file was in an archive)
[System]=]C:\WINDOWS\system32\bodawusi.dll [968] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
Disinfect Failed (file was in an archive)
[System]=]C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll [1340] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
Disinfect Failed (file was in an archive)
[System]=]C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll [1356] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
Disinfect Failed (file was in an archive)
[System]=]C:\WINDOWS\System32\muhatewu.dll [1436] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
Disinfect Failed (file was in an archive)
[System]=]C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll [1716] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
Disinfect Failed (file was in an archive)
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [184] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
Disinfect Failed (file was in an archive)
[System]=]C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll [184] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [292] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll [504] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll [1660] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll [1936] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [2784] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [2908] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [2920] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [2940] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll [2988] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll [3056] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [3056] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [3080] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [3136] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [3172] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll [3248] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [3248] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [3348] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll [3480] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [3480] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll [3580] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [3580] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [3832] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [3904] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [4024] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [152] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll [3372] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [3372] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll [2540] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
[System]=]c:\windows\system32\wuyohugu.dll [2540] (disk)
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
c:\WINDOWS\system32\wuyohugu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
Move to Quarantine Failed
C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
Move to Quarantine Failed
c:\WINDOWS\system32\wuyohugu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
c:\WINDOWS\system32\wuyohugu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
c:\WINDOWS\system32\wuyohugu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
c:\WINDOWS\system32\wuyohugu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
c:\WINDOWS\system32\wuyohugu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
c:\WINDOWS\system32\wuyohugu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
c:\WINDOWS\system32\wuyohugu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
c:\WINDOWS\system32\wuyohugu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
c:\WINDOWS\system32\wuyohugu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
c:\WINDOWS\system32\wuyohugu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
c:\WINDOWS\system32\wuyohugu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
C:\WINDOWS\system32\muhatewu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
No action was possible
c:\WINDOWS\system32\wuyohugu.dll
Trojan.Vundo.GQS
etc.
...

kidneystones
10-29-2009, 11:29 PM
Is this true, Brenda? The spambusters have access to IP addresses and our email? Or did?

As for you, fur. It does not logically follow that there is any connection between your virus problems and your beefs with folks here.

Your question about what level of security/privacy registered members do/did enjoy is entirely legitimate: stonewalling isn't a response.

In Brenda's defense, my guess is that she's checking. Bob works her to the bone for a pittance. Blame him, not her. She's overtasked.

Recruit some interns, Bob! Pay your staff a decent wage!

uncle ebeneezer
10-29-2009, 11:59 PM
While I can see how this might sound reasonable, think about it. You are proposing establishing a formal connection between ideology and spam busting, when this connection was supposedly (but not really) the basis for the original (manufactured) concerns.

Worse, you propose rewarding bad behavior and encouraging abuse. It would have been one thing if the idea had come up in a context separate from KS's deranged jihad. But, of course, it never has come up in another context; it has only come up in the context of kidneystones' years of abuse and invective, in which he hurls everything he can think of at Brenda, Bob, and BhTV, as well as the spam busters and most of the forum participants. You are mistaken to believe that KS's and WF's supposed concern about spam busting is sincere or legitimate; it's merely one of the many cudgels they swing at people they hate. (You have picked up on the fact that they hate the BhTV staff and almost everyone who participates in the forum, right?)

Your assertion is also false: capitulating to their demands would do nothing to mitigate their problematic, abusive behavior. They would come right back with more bullshit about something else.

Once again Twin said more eloquently, what I meant to say.

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 12:58 AM
Hey Eb,

What took you so long? The two-day hate session is in full swing. Poor old whatfur only gets a bit part in my master-plan for board domination.

This is great, epic stuff: kind of a bhtv Paradise Lost (oops, there I go 'name-dropping' again. Don't worry, won't go all Pilgrim's Progress the Second on you)

Twin is recounting how evil first entered the garden. I prefer the Ricky Gervais version. But this is good.

Part III: in which kidneystones tempts Bob.

Starwatcher162536
10-30-2009, 01:18 AM
Play your cards right and I might let you become a minion. Don't worry, I offer excellent health coverage.

uncle ebeneezer
10-30-2009, 01:26 AM
Hey Eb,

What took you so long?

I generally think it best to ignore desperate cries for attention.

Besides I didn't watch the entire diavlog so I'm not allowed to comment pursuant to the logic of the complaints in the Behe thread.

But please, enjoy this silly spectacle. I'm glad your ongoing persecution fantasies help keep you entertained. Now if only those spooky moderators weren't watching you!!!

Happy Halloween all.

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 01:27 AM
starwrites....[...]

I get it, finally! Your username is actually a secret astrological algorithm, a key that opens the portal through which all evil enters the bhtv garden.

You vie with me for power over Bob's world?

I saw the devil mask first.

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 01:34 AM
In my eye.

Out of love, again!

To think you took the time to single out little old me. Got the boot in, late but good and swift just the same.

You add so much to any discussion.

graz
10-30-2009, 01:38 AM
OK I'll bite.
Just for the record:
Here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=82440#post82440) is me calling you "old" back in in July '08:

Good to hear from you. It's all too infrequent. And thanks for the link to the past. That thread has oldies but goodies, hints of things to come and plenty of the song remains the same:
He makes an interesting case, but I posted it mainly for the flag.
As an offset to the appropriation of symbols and words by a certain subset of the forum citizenry.
Even if my politics line up with Matt's, I don't share his zest for participation in the revelry.
Sure, I like fireworks and I like drinking. But the conflation of the two is too reminiscent of New Years Eve.
In other words for me - something loud but not necessarily unifying.
I don't begrudge anyone celebrating, sober or not. But I align myself with the sentiments of (titbug).
In that I'm certain of my preference and allegiance to this (my) country. I recognize the varied attitudes and applications of this thing called patriotism.
I certainly don't share whatfur's refusal to accept that "different strokes" is inherent to the application of our freedom.
His jingoism needs to be checked. It is our right to counter that mindset.
I wish he would concede that the southpaws and Righties are on the same team.

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 01:50 AM
Twin,

Now, if you have any integrity at all, you'll simply confirm that you hate me and that you've hated me for a long, long time.

Jeff admits to disliking me. And then there's dear Brendan, graz, nikkibong, Wonderment, lesdocs, cragger, brucds, testy, and claymisher who have all decided to swarm around my comments and talk of 'derangement' and my 'hate'. You show this love to whatfur and others, but I know I'm first in your hate. But always, it seems, in half-measures.

That doesn't make you bullies. Doesn't indicate cowardice, fear, or insecurity. You meet here; and bond, sharing your 'love' and 'compassion' for each other by calling me out.

You are each fair-minded and true. So, how about a little truth now.

Show me your hate.

Wonderment
10-30-2009, 04:58 AM
I actually like the action you took, Michael, to change your user name to your real name. I remember you floated that idea a long time ago, and I still think it's a good one.

"Anonymity does make assholes of us all." (I think Hamlet said that).

I realize that some people a) might continue to be obnoxious even using their real names; b) find ways to create phony names; c) be afraid of being stalked by the crazies; d) and be less than candid about their real views for various other reasons.

Still, assuming most people are not blogging from Teheran or Pyongyang, what's the big deal about using your real name? Exceptions could be granted for people with reasonable privacy concerns, but the expectation could be for folks to sign their posts as they would sign a letter to the editor of their newspaper (in the olden days).

I suppose the marketing experts have studied this and found that sites that do require real names get fewer hits, but if you want more civil discourse, maybe you have to be less concerned with hits.

nikkibong
10-30-2009, 07:48 AM
Jeff admits to disliking me. And then there's dear Brendan, graz, nikkibong, Wonderment, lesdocs, cragger, brucds, testy, and claymisher who have all decided to swarm around my comments and talk of 'derangement' and my 'hate'. You show this love to whatfur and others, but I know I'm first in your hate. But always, it seems, in half-measures.
.

You've got the wrong nikkibong! While you're undeniably here to provoke, you do so in interesting and and quite often hilarious ways. (Robert Wright Murdoch - I'm still laughing about that one.) This thread, for example, has provided me with more than its fair share of laughs, many thanks to you.

This message board would be a less entertaining place without you.

Whatfur
10-30-2009, 07:55 AM
Unfortunately it does logically follow. I have had a number of virus attacks over the last 6 months (most thwarted by Kapersky)...many after some of my more heated exchanges here. It IS possible to tap into MS holes utilizing IP addresses. Granted from what I now have read Trojan.Vondo is generally an email based attachment but this is a unique strain.

I guess what isn't logical is that someone would be that blatently stupid as to do it now unless he/she figured that on the other hand this might be the best time...because they already have Brenda believing things I have said have been debunked (this she also fails to qualify) where in reality nothing has and because I know positively that Brendan is lying about his age source my other claims/conjectures hold more weight (at least personally).

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 08:12 AM
First, fur.

Sorry fur. You haven't made the argument that this isn't 'co-linearity'. The bhtv techs, I suspect, could sort it out pretty easily. I sympathize with your problems, however, and hope you get a solution.

mvantony writes...[...] Well, what can I say. I think you know how much I value your comments and your insights. Your support here is very welcome and most appreciated.

fur writes...[...] You could have at least supplied a link to the Brenda complaint about my 'bad faith', whatever that means. I'll go check-it-out.

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 08:40 AM
Brenda,

Thanks for making any complaint you with me public before having the courtesy to send even one email to me ever in my entire time at bhtv, (founding board member, here, folks, run afoul of the powers that be).

And now this? Couldn't find reason or the guts to actually email me about any specific? Ever. Why not? And the first I hear of this public accusation of 'bad faith' is from another board member. Couldn't even smear me to my face? How about some specifics, Brenda? How does a board member mount a defense from a blanket smear like this, one without any supporting evidence?

Well, its a matter of public record now. I've asked for all those who hate me to step forward and hate, and hate, and hate, and hate to your Obama-loving heart's content. Now the bhtv team can go wild. Make it a 'bhtv family hate' session. If you want to know why I'm so unhappy with the way you run this site: look no further than your own comment. Not a shred of evidence. Just smear. And not even to my face; not by email. Nothing.

For the record, by way of response I don't think particularly ill of you. I think you're a well-meaning individual operating with severe ideological blinkers. I've thanked you publicly and repeatedly for your efforts to respond to complaints. You, on the other hand think far, far worse of me. Maybe you owe it to me and the rest of the folks who do or do not support me to justify your attack.

Try to find that part of you capable of telling the truth. It's in there. I suggest you start by describing in detail how much you hate me and why: the rest will come easy after that. I'm sure twin, graz, brendan, wonderment, nikkibong, skepticdoc, testy, eb, and jeff will be happy to help when you get stuck. Please provide examples.

My guess: it is my politics. Let's find out. Pay attention folks, Brenda is going to document my sins.

Go ahead.

Whatfur
10-30-2009, 08:44 AM
First, fur.

Sorry fur. You haven't made the argument that this isn't 'co-linearity'. The bhtv techs, I suspect, could sort it out pretty easily. I sympathize with your problems, however, and hope you get a solution.

mvantony writes...[...] Well, what can I say. I think you know how much I value your comments and your insights. Your support here is very welcome and most appreciated.

fur writes...[...] You could have at least supplied a link to the Brenda complaint about my 'bad faith', whatever that means. I'll go check-it-out.

Link? I was quoting Brenda's post directly above this reference and she, as expected, provided no backup to her insults.

Whatfur
10-30-2009, 08:46 AM
Brenda,

.....My guess: it is my politics. Let's find out. Pay attention folks, Brenda is going to document my sins.

Go ahead.

If I had access to my main computer (virus, you know) I would insert my favorite cricket audio here.

In any case, Brenda? Mr. Stones has given you an open door to spill all the bad faith arguing he has been producing.

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 09:09 AM
fur writes...[...]

Noted. Thanks. Good luck with the virus.

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 09:22 AM
CYA, nikki?

Not part of the lynch mob? You've accused me repeatedly of dishonesty. Most recently you have me 'constantly' attacking Jeff over his health. You're part of the swarm.

But I can't say I blame you trying to laugh it off, now. Happy to let the charges stand against the rest, though, aren't you? Blame them, fine. That's you.

We've nothing more to discuss. Feel free to elaborate on all the ways I'm dishonest.

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 09:25 AM
fur writes...[...]

Thanks for your help. Stay out of this, please.

Still waiting....

Whatfur
10-30-2009, 10:36 AM
A thoughtful post.

Thank you.

nikkibong
10-30-2009, 10:44 AM
CYA, nikki?

Not part of the lynch mob? You've accused me repeatedly of dishonesty. Most recently you have me 'constantly' attacking Jeff over his health. You're part of the swarm.

But I can't say I blame you trying to laugh it off, now. Happy to let the charges stand against the rest, though, aren't you? Blame them, fine. That's you.

We've nothing more to discuss. Feel free to elaborate on all the ways I'm dishonest.

Why would I accuse you of "dishonesty?" I'm sure I haven't -- you seem consistenly and HONESTLY, out to sow discord. You're not hiding anything.

But more importantly, I was making a point regarding the method to your madness. I said, and will say again: you are here to provoke, but you do it in a funny way! Those aren't mutually exclusive properties...

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 11:03 AM
nikki writes...[...]

I offer my views and try to support them as best I can. I certainly don't sing from your choir-book.

Sower of discord. That's good; very biblical.

I'm appreciative of the fact that you've realized you're part of the pack and you might as well start snapping. With luck, the rest of the klavern will smell blood and the hate can properly begin. I thought Twin would make the first slice.

Took courage, but you can do better. Take another stab.

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 11:58 AM
Hi Brenda,

Where are the justifying examples of 'bad faith'? Why wouldn't you trust me with your lunch order?

Because I recommended full moderator privileges be extended to one of my most strident critics: A.E.M. Jeff and to Harkin? Because I recommended you and the other anti-Palin bhtv comment nannies be replaced with at least one person who might have voted for the other candidate? Because I recommended an intern program to help you out and give some enterprising journalism students a break?

You run an ideologically-biased site. You allow like-minded board members any violation of site rules up to and including accusations of racism. You have permitted a small gang of the Obama supporters to use the site to raise money and network. All the while masquerading as a site that promotes and welcomes diversity.

Bob has been on this thread already and it's safe to assume he shares your belief that my criticisms are made in 'bad faith'. Fair enough. You have failed, however, to provide a single piece of evidence. That's pretty much the bhtv way. Smear without substance rather than address concerns that might actually have some merit.

Please do not make any attempts to place a conservative as a comments nanny. Do not hire anyone who thinks Obama a poorer choice than Palin or McCain. Do not enforce comments rules against Obama supporters, no matter how obscene the violation. Bhtv is an arm of the Democratic party. Make that clear so folks can send your cash and checks directly to the DNC.

The kool kids klavern will be happy to provide links.

graz
10-30-2009, 12:09 PM
I've asked for all those who hate me to step forward and hate, and hate, and hate, and hate to your Obama-loving heart's content.

Here is a dose of hate Mr. Martyr:
Your most recent best line of attack is the one that paints Bob as an labor exploiting overlord. Are you and I the only ones who see the Apollo project as the maquiladora that it is? He is mining new talent for the limited overhead of the equipment and postage. Why else would MeganJane or Ann of Ann Arbor appear so often? He needs more people to do it for free. Right? Where is the outrage? I believe he is using the wisdom of evo-psych to allow people to choose freely to participate in what ought to be remunerated. Slick indeed.

The muckraking exhibited lately by you might just cause the board to offer a full disclosure as to its real if unstated - but oh so obvious reason for being. I further want to thank you for allowing me to recognize that the sinking feeling I had when calling you out or piling on with the lovable leftists was at its root - misguided. As Michael (mvantony)said: appearances aside... you really do care and are working to make this a better place. Unfortunately, just like my grandmother said, the reward might not come till heaven. But don't despair, there is much more work to be done, evil to be thwarted, conspiracies to uncover and viruses to be scrubbed.

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 12:22 PM
Graz writes...[...]

Nice try, but there's hardly a hint of real rancor in your tone. I know you can do a lot better. Take a moment and think of all those 'bad faith' suggestions I made, like increasing advertising revenue, improving bhtv products, changing the color scheme and design, and ensuring that there's real diversity on the board. There's a pile of bhtv hate in all those suggestions if you look deep and hard enough.

Thanks for the effort, really. I know your hate for me runs much stronger and deeper than that. But I'm grateful all the same for getting folks thinking the right way.

My suggestion that Bob get real journalism interns; or comments nannies that vote Palin as well as Obama is the surest sign that you've been right all along: I'm secretly bent on destroying bhtv and that's the 'real' reason I'm here. That, and the savaging I get for daring to stand apart from the ditto-heads. I'm waiting for Twin to jump in and detail my sins in much greater detail. I love nothing more than being accused of being a racist. I don't like Obama, so I must be.

You've a good head on your shoulders. I sometimes wonder what you do when you use it. Feel free to really let the hate spew forth next time.

handle
10-30-2009, 04:46 PM
for shits sake furball, calm down. Nobodys out to get you, especially now that it's clear you are just a tool of some Aussie meglomaniac.

Your "antivirus" IS the infection! You must have led a truly charmed life or not let the kids touch your PC to have never had a problem with malware.
My kid is a gamer and his PC is loaded with that crap.
Dig deep and buy the latest Norton 360, and pay for some anti malware sofware, or do what I did, and spring for a mac.

"Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
you've missed the fact that antivirus 2009 is a computer parasite and it is definitely not an antivirus.
try to run avg to remove this infection.
however, you need anti-spyware to remove a threat like antivirus2009
and avg might not work because avg is antivirus.
you can also delete antivirus 2009 infection manually, reinstalling system.
remove fast:" (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091009204201AAyhNKD)


I love that you guys have already lost it one year into this term.
I cant' wait till he gets re-elected... I can speak from direct experience that you are in for a whole new level of pain!!!!

handle
10-30-2009, 05:08 PM
I had good luck with malwarebytes. (http://www.malwarebytes.org/mbam.php)
And try using firefox or safari instead of internet explorer (IE).
Once you have malware, it can be really hard to get it out of IE.

handle
10-30-2009, 05:49 PM
Ahh good times indeed.. remember how arrogant fur and KS were when they thought Bradley was still in effect? How the mighty have fallen... they are reduced to shrill paranoid whining. I like it here, but It's crunch time on several huge prototype projects, so for now...

cragger
10-30-2009, 08:07 PM
Hardly a debutante, never a member of the infamous and sinister Gang of 12, shunned on high school linguistic inadequacy by the exciting upstart, exalted, and as yet publicly unnamed Spanish language cabal (La Reconquista?), I have made the Kidneystones enemies list:

... And then there's dear Brendan, graz, nikkibong, Wonderment, lesdocs, cragger, brucds, testy, and claymisher who have all decided to swarm around my comments and talk of 'derangement' and my 'hate'....

despite not having replied in recent memory to a KS post (somewhere between months, and insofar as my shaky recall encompasses, never). Nonetheless, the warm glow of belonging and fellowship. My humblest thanks to BHTV and everyone responsible for bringing people together.

Ocean
10-30-2009, 08:32 PM
Hardly a debutante, never a member of the infamous and sinister Gang of 12, shunned on high school linguistic inadequacy by the exciting upstart, exalted, and as yet publicly unnamed Spanish language cabal (La Reconquista?), I have made the Kidneystones enemies list:



despite not having replied in recent memory to a KS post (somewhere between months, and insofar as my shaky recall encompasses, never). Nonetheless, the warm glow of belonging and fellowship. My humblest thanks to BHTV and everyone responsible for bringing people together.

The knowledge and thoughtfulness portrayed in your comments revealed your secret affiliation.

As for the Spanish cabal, "Se acabó la rabia", feel free to join in. We'll teach you. :)

Wonderment
10-30-2009, 09:18 PM
I have made the Kidneystones enemies list

Indeed, an honor and privilege. At least, so far. I have a feeling, however, that our elite status will soon be undermined as KS slowly extends the E list to eventually include all sentient beings on the planet.

Click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St-Sebastian-xx-Guido-Reni.JPG) for the last-known photo of KS.

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 09:20 PM
Hi cragger,

You do deserve an explanation and thanks for showing up at the hate! You're really not much of a klavern member. However, your objection to my three 'turds' wrapped in the bhtv brand observation (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=128987#poststop) while cutting the klavern a free pass shows your heart is in the right place. whatfur details the double-standard (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=128987#poststop) you employ.

Here's the original comments draft thread (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=3871&highlight=comments) which seems to have disappeared off all the displayed lists. Can't imagine why. Half the klavern posts, including you.

Ocean is happy to make ha-ha light of the hate. It's been a good long time since Ocean showed up at a hate. Oh, the memories. 9 or 10 on one or two over and over and over again. Well, like cragger, you're here now.

Surprise. You're the victims. Nice!

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 09:27 PM
handle writes....[...]

I'm both pleased and disappointed. Here you are all sheeted-up in front of the burning cross. And that's good: bonding with klavern-member graz with your hate for me. But can't you at least hate me directly, to me face.

Think back to all of my arrogance. There's a deep well of hatred from which to draw on. Let's have some, please. I mean you're here now, I assume, because of the hate. Hate's on the menu.Don't nibble, take a big bite.

Brenda and Bob have your back.

Hate away: you can say anything. Really!

Ocean
10-30-2009, 09:37 PM
Ocean is happy to make ha-ha light of the hate.

Yes, KS. Only ha-ha is possible for this thread. This is not hate. It's pure comedy.

As for your memories, time heals, if you let it.

Cheers!

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 09:38 PM
wonderment smears...[...]

Don't like to be outed as a klavern member much, do you, you big bundle of love?

I'll keep it specific, thanks. And so easy to do when you're forthcoming about your hate for me. You've been busy, have to say that. When you're not excusing anti-white race hatred by any and every demographic, you're demonizing individual members of any ethnic group that doesn't sing from your song book: Harkin is your most recent target. Brendan had the temerity to suggest Harkin is a racist for objecting to illegal immigration. Cute.

Mercifully, there are very few folks as narrow-minded, venal, and aggressive on this board. Bad news is: you've got the full support of Harkin, whatfur and kidneystones haters Brenda and Bob. Bhtv management has your back.

I pointed to Brendan's smear of Harkin as a racist. Explicit violation of site rules. Brenda's judgment: Comment stands.

You, Twin, Brendan are the brown-shirts telling the rest of the community to stay out of the Jew stores. I think you're scum. I can see why you don't like me. Brendan and Twin no longer wear bhtv arm bands while wielding their clubs. But Bob and Brenda are there in spirit for the beatings.

You, too. Hate away!

AemJeff
10-30-2009, 09:43 PM
Is there a point in continuing to feed this conversation? I suggest, to all those open to such a suggestion, that we just leave this where it currently stands.

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 10:04 PM
Jeff, you've been an absolute rock, you and Twin, and Brendan: portraits of self-restraint, all. I know Brendan is on the board right now, working on his hate with nikkibong. Just checked. Where's Twin? He's one the victims, according to him.

I can see why you'd like to shut down this particular hate. There's something un-natural and forced in a formal hate session. You prefer spontaneous hate, the drum beat, the scent of blood, the gathering of your klavern, the cross-burnings. Cue nikkibong!

I'm thinking of offering a prize for the best example of me acting in 'bad faith'. I'm sure you'll be in the running. Tell me: which is more of an insult? Recommending you receive full commenter authority? Recommending you be paid for your work? Recommending that you get away from your computer and get more exercise?

There's clearly an enormous volume of 'hate, dishonesty, derangement, and paranoia' in all three suggestions, not to mention Brenda's favorite: 'bad faith'.

So, which is it? Which suggestions make you hate me the most? You're one of my most vociferous critics, Jeff. I'm counting on you.

Hate away!

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 10:18 PM
Or are you serious? The hateful comments actually amuse you.

If you spoke out even once against the personal attacks on whatfur or me, I might have some measure of respect for you. But now you're here. Not to castigate anybody from your klavern for their attacks on me or whatfur. Not to argue for balance. Not to discuss the merits of any suggestion. But to cover your ass.

No surprise there, so why not put the boot in now that you're here. The 'enemies list' was a nice start. Put your hate to work. handle and wonderment are warming to the spirit of the occasion.

You can hate with the best of them, Ocean. Let the waves of hate flow and flow!

Whatfur
10-30-2009, 10:43 PM
It has been shut down by the inaction of Bob Wright and his telling Brenda to just move on and to just return to spending her time tweeting Joy Behar quotes. I am assuming they are afraid of Brendan for some reason. They are cowards and you can bet that as there have been no denials about IP addresses that that too is another little bit of information they are hiding from commenters here. They will come to regret the current situation and it will continue to be one of the reasons that Bloggingheads has already reached its pinnacle. Brendan Keefe is another reason. Whether you all want to admit it or not it IS an echo chamber you are looking for. You got it...hell you have it in Spanish.

I will leave this thread saying that NOTHING I have described here was fabricated. Don't really give a shit if you believe it. You lefties, in reality are a "interesting" group and continue to remind me of the Ayn Rand book "We the Living". Rand is a matter of taste and objectivism has holes but I would actually buy the book for all of you here. Now I will go watch my buddy Jeff in action.

Side note. After being driven down numerous roads by support people, web sites, a failed, remote attempt by my security software co., and the Geek squad wanting $200. I figuered out my own way of removing the Virus. Thought I was stopped by not being able to delete the .dll files it was utilizing as they were "archived" and not being able to boot up in "Safe Mode"...not to mention my CPU maxing out at mostly 100%. Patience won out. Scan (as you saw) supplied me with the infected registry and files. Chose regedit and after about 1/2 hour it actually came up and I was able to delete the infected registry. Then instead of deleting the files (which it would not let me) I renamed them, rebooted, and then deleted them. Voila!

Ocean
10-30-2009, 10:53 PM
Or are you serious? The hateful comments actually amuse you.

If you spoke out even once against the personal attacks on whatfur or me, I might have some measure of respect for you. But now you're here. Not to castigate anybody from your klavern for their attacks on me or whatfur. Not to argue for balance. Not to discuss the merits of any suggestion. But to cover your ass.

No surprise there, so why not put the boot in now that you're here. The 'enemies list' was a nice start. Put your hate to work. handle and wonderment are warming to the spirit of the occasion.

You can hate with the best of them, Ocean. Let the waves of hate flow and flow!

I'm always very serious. And I have no hate for you today. None. Sorry if I disappoint you... http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/wavey.gif

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 11:05 PM
whatfur writes...[...]

With you on Ayn Rand and have to say I see no evidence that anyone here is 'responsible' for your recent computer problems. I'm pleased, however, that you've fixed the problem.

I agree very much that the question of user privacy has not been adequately addressed. The principal function of the 'hate' is to distract and sidetrack debate.

Suggesting that the lack of ideological diversity among the bhtv makes it impossible to expect understanding, much less fair adjudication of comments policy violations is met with accusations that we're trying to work the refs, all of whom happen to be wearing the same shirts as the vocal few trashing dissent.

I'm grateful you described your exchanges mostly because I learned more about the lack of transparency at bhtv. We know that email addresses were compromised. We still don't have a clear answer about IP addresses. I'll be the opposite of Brenda and extend to her the benefit of the doubt and assume she's acting in 'good faith'.

Preppy has taken her place in the Klavern after receiving a few pointed, comments from the chief brown-shirts, Jeff and Twin, about shopping for ideas at Jew stores. Preppy repeated the 'deranged ks and whatfur' liturgy to a tee: all bile, no specifics, no substance and no evidence. Jeff and Twin, affirmed her credentials in the kool kids klavern.

It's a sick little community Bob has here. Doesn't need to be this way. There could be balance; there could be civility. Enforcing the bhtv comments policy fairly would be one solution. Bob isn't interested. You're right about that, too.

I'd purchase a back-up computer and use a different OS. I'll leave it to you to figure out which. Cheers.

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 11:16 PM
Ocean is my friend,

You're really full of affection. How could I possibly have seen your remark about an 'enemies list' as anything but an expression of love? The little smiley face is the perfect emblem for your sincerity. The mockery was perfect; understated and nice choice of color.

Thanks for acknowledging your past hatred of me. I confess I'd hoped for more of the same.

Ocean
10-30-2009, 11:20 PM
Ocean is my friend,

You're really full of affection. How could I possibly have seen your remark about an 'enemies list' as anything but an expression of love? The little smiley face is the perfect emblem for your sincerity. The mockery was perfect; understated and nice choice of color.

Thanks for acknowledging your past hatred of me. I confess I'd hoped for more of the same.

You're lovable, KS! I didn't acknowledge any past hatred. I'm just leaving the possibility open for the future. Especially if you keep trying this hard. Hey, you never know...

SkepticDoc
10-30-2009, 11:43 PM
You should not feed the trolls...

Ocean
10-30-2009, 11:47 PM
You should not feed the trolls...

You're right but he's irresistible... ;)

kidneystones
10-30-2009, 11:52 PM
All we have to do is peek beneath that: 'I love everyone' veneer to find the love. No protestation of 'how could you possibly place me among this Jeff, Twin, and graz'? No. You found your place and bonded by trashing me exactly as I expected you would, happy to be part of the pack. Now, you're my friend?

nikkibong tried that approach: 'Me? He-he. A brownshirt? Impossible. I got nothing but love in my heart for you'. You took your place in the klavern without missing a beat, although, it's been a while.

You don't call people racists, the way you people do, and have people forget. Brendan and wonderment are at it right now, in 2009, : smearing harkin and popkorn karate, of all people, as bigots and racists. Brenda and Bob's rules about decorum and civility are lining the bhtv bird cage while the bhtv brownshirts trash the place

That's how you do. Maybe you don't throw the first spear, but you show up to cheer the hate on and fan the flames. Your klavern branded a whole lot of people racists as for most of the last year and I most certainly have not forgotten. How could I? The bhtv klavern is still at it. Brendan and wonderment are at still accusing opponents of bigotry and racism right now, this minute, in real time.

Why don't you take your little lecture about that the love you have in your heart and play it for Harkin, Brendan's 'racist'? Or for popkorn karate, wonderment's bigot? They're the ones on receiving the full measure of klavern love today.

Glad you were able to find the hate you have in your heart for me. Thanks.

Why hate tomorrow, when you can hate today?

Unit
10-31-2009, 12:02 AM
whatfur writes...[...]

With you on Ayn Rand and have to say I see no evidence that anyone here is 'responsible' for your recent computer problems. I'm pleased, however, that you've fixed the problem.

I agree very much that the question of user privacy has not been adequately addressed. The principal function of the 'hate' is to distract and sidetrack debate.

Suggesting that the lack of ideological diversity among the bhtv makes it impossible to expect understanding, much less fair adjudication of comments policy violations is met with accusations that we're trying to work the refs, all of whom happen to be wearing the same shirts as the vocal few trashing dissent.

I'm grateful you described your exchanges mostly because I learned more about the lack of transparency at bhtv. We know that email addresses were compromised. We still don't have a clear answer about IP addresses. I'll be the opposite of Brenda and extend to her the benefit of the doubt and assume she's acting in 'good faith'.

Preppy has taken her place in the Klavern after receiving a few pointed, comments from the chief brown-shirts, Jeff and Twin, about shopping for ideas at Jew stores. Preppy repeated the 'deranged ks and whatfur' liturgy to a tee: all bile, no specifics, no substance and no evidence. Jeff and Twin, affirmed her credentials in the kool kids klavern.

It's a sick little community Bob has here. Doesn't need to be this way. There could be balance; there could be civility. Enforcing the bhtv comments policy fairly would be one solution. Bob isn't interested. You're right about that, too.

I'd purchase a back-up computer and use a different OS. I'll leave it to you to figure out which. Cheers.

Well, I was quite surprised at the way this supposed "Administrator", Brenda, acted: totally unprofessional. Especially in light of the major goof about e-mail addresses. I'm contemplating leaving this board, for whatever it's worth. I'm waiting for someone else (other than this Brenda person) to give me some reassurance and to answer some of the questions you've raised.

PS: I don't remember ever reading anything from you (or at least nothing that stuck in my mind as overly egregious). My point from the very first time I joined this board was that, at least here on bhtv, we should try to go past silly partisanship and discuss topics in a more transversal fashion. Not only partisan bickering distracts from other more interesting topics of discussion, but in the end the site could become so politicized (especially if Preppy's suggestion is accepted) that it will become unlivable.

Whatfur
10-31-2009, 12:03 AM
Mr. Stones, First, your Ayn Rand reference is a bit disjointed and I have to also say that when you place the word 'responsible' in quotes generally you should be quoting someone. Short of the current, you have no idea about the number nor the sequence of coincidental virus attacks on my computer and how they have coincided with other discussions here (this has been going on for a few months) and although I would like to agree with you, your opinion in this matter carries no weight. This is because of your lack of the total picture. In reality, it really seems more like a patronizing segue utilized at my expense in an attempt to add credence to the rest of your post. Now...I happen to agree with most the rest of your post, but... well I think you understand.

kidneystones
10-31-2009, 12:12 AM
skeptic doc....

Boy, the good times we had last year. Jacob Weisberg and the bhtv klavern declaring that anyone who didn't support Obama must be racist. You disputing that smear. Oh sorry, you were clapping and whistling.

Those were some good hating times weren't they: you, the holy and self-righteous smearing all opponents as 'racists'.

I got some good news for you. The hate is still on. Really. Brendan and wonderment are accusing Harkin and pk of racism and bigotry right now and you're missing it. That 'racism' charge is a good one, huh. I get to deal with the racism issue on slightly different terms, than you, however. See, where I live, my 'mixed-race' kids get to deal with racism every day. As do I, as one of few people of my skin tone in my neighborhood.

But then, I'm really a 'racist' who hates Obama, right? What other explanation could there be for my antipathy? No? Cause that's the charge that is still being leveled at board members who dissent from klavern group think right now, today on other threads.

But you won't be running over to Brendan and defending Harkin from accusations of racism, will you? Not your cup of tea.

Think popkorn karate is a bigot? No? Oh, I see. Not your job to step-up and 'interfere' when a fellow board member is being smeared in this manner. Heaven knows Bob and Brenda certainly aren't going to step in and stop the hate. Instead, you show up here to try to enforce the shunning.

You're a lovely person. I think you should stop experiencing the hate vicariously and start hating folks much more directly.

Start with me, why don't you?

kidneystones
10-31-2009, 12:29 AM
Unit writes...[...]

Agreed, on all points. And let me say how much I enjoy your cogent, well-argued posts. Your decision to stay or depart is your own. I have taken leaves of absence at different times. I've also removed comments. It's about the only form of protest available.

That said, I'd encourage you to consider carefully a complete departure. As I mentioned to whatfur, the motivation for the 'hate' is distract. You and harkin, particularly, take the time to deconstruct many of the more ludicrous claims. You force the brighter and more thoughtful to more considered refection.

In short, your my own idea of an ideal board member and I'd be sorry to see you go. Either way, thanks for your contributions here and for the kind words now and elsewhere. I'll close, if I may, by nominating you as another excellent candidate for comment adjudication. You'd work well with claymisher, IMHO. Cheers.

look
10-31-2009, 01:21 AM
As to the email addresses being visible in the Reported posts: yes, this correct.
Are you now, or were you in the past, able to see the IP addresses of lurkers?

kidneystones
10-31-2009, 03:22 AM
look writes....[...]

I don't think you're going to get an answer. Here's the vBulletin manual link (http://www.vbulletin.com/docs/html/vb2_manual_cp_usergroups)which indicates that moderators do have access to IP addresses.

Unfortunately, Brenda has decided to be unavailable; but let's show her some 'good faith' and assume she's not just hiding from the questions. Ditto: Brendan. Here's the passage; or click to search the vBulletin manual for yourself.

The IP Addresses section of the admin control panel allows administrators to search for all users that have visited/posted to the bulletin board using a certain IP address (or vice versa). Click on the IP Addresses link (under the Users section), and you'll be presented with the following form:

This form accepts the following parameters:

* IP Address - Type in the IP address (or partial IP address) here... the script will then return all users that have posted/visited the bulletin board with this IP address. An IP address consists of four sets of three numbers, each set seperated with a full stop. (eg. "123.456.789.876"). You can either search for users that exactly match a full IP address, of you can type in a partial IP address (e.g. "123.456") to find all users that access your forum from the same IP address range.
* User Name - If you would prefer to return all IP addresses assigned to a certain user, type in the username that you wish to search for in this field.
* Depth To Search

After pressing the [Find] button, you'll be taken to the search results page. From here, you'll be able to view which users have accessed the forum with the same IP address, and you'll even be click on the Find more IP's by this user link if you wish to narrow down the search to a particular username.

I realize this isn't exactly your question. However, I expect that administrators can view the IP addresses of all lurkers and visitors to the site at any time. I want to stress that I am willing to give all the admins the benefit of the doubt. But fairly clearly there are real privacy and security issues here that are not being addressed by the bhtv staff.

I hope you can detect, too, the hate and paranoia coursing through this comment. Palpable, isn't it?

Cheers.

kidneystones
10-31-2009, 03:36 AM
Hi Unit,

Don't know when you'll be back on this thread. look asked whether or not admins have can view the IP addresses of lurkers. No reply. I searched and I've linked to the vBulletin manual. The answers are quite troubling.

Fairly clearly all the administrators (http://www.vbulletin.com/docs/html/vb2_manual_cp_usergroups) have access to our info and most likely that of lurkers: including IP addresses. This is really disappointing. Brenda is, I agree, a highly suspect source if we're hoping for either informed or unbiased information.

Hope this helps.

SkepticDoc
10-31-2009, 08:33 AM
Do not click if you are paranoid (http://www.moanmyip.com/)

harkin
10-31-2009, 01:05 PM
I got some good news for you. The hate is still on. Really. Brendan and wonderment are accusing Harkin and pk of racism and bigotry right now and you're missing it. That 'racism' charge is a good one, huh. I get to deal with the racism issue on slightly different terms, than you, however. See, where I live, my 'mixed-race' kids get to deal with racism every day. As do I, as one of few people of my skin tone in my neighborhood.

..........But you won't be running over to Brendan and defending Harkin from accusations of racism, will you? Not your cup of tea.



Don't worry about me. These are people who equate the use of the word 'illegal' (for people who have entered the country illegally) with the Nazi's use of the word 'parasites' to describe jews. That this is ludicrous when logic is applied does not matter in the least to them. I suppose in their small minds it's also equal to the Arabs calling Jews 'apes' but hey they forgot that example.....who knows why?

W further uses his illogic to equate the terms

queer, ******, bitch

with 'illegal'. He compounds this foolishness by claiming that the entire latino community is offended by this term. He could not be more wrong. As a member of the latino community i hear this word all the time, I've even heard it from illegals to describe themselves and others.

Furthermore, Barack Obama himself has used the term numerous times to describe people who cross the border illegally. So according to their twisted logic Obama himself is a racist. But you won't hear that because he is not someone whose position is to be marginalized/attacked.

"So everybody who is listening out there, when you start hearing that somehow this is all designed to provide health insurance to illegal immigrants, that is simply not true and has never been the case." - Barack Obama - Aug 2009

In responding to the distortions and false accusations of people like Wonderment, BJKeefe, Aem, Ray etc, I'm not trying to convince them of anything; they've proven to be fairly mindless idealogues who put goals over truth.

It's for the reader/lurker on the side with an open mind who can see for themselves in both the assertions put forth but also in the style presented that these people invalidate their own views. When it gets to the point that my posting of the fact that Wonderment's application of the term 'illegal' for those that benefited from illegal immigration could also be applied to the President because he was lying when he said they would not receive health care, was to Wonderment equivilant to saying he was born in Kenya
then they are really doing the de-bunking work for us.

They have nothing to counter with but silly leaps of fantasy. I pointed this out to Wonderment recently and he actually (and graciously) did a mea culpa. But grace and acknowledgement one yesterday is hate and smear the next.

Anger and ideology together are pretty strong potion to these folks.

Wonderment
10-31-2009, 03:04 PM
Ohmigod! I am never using the Internet again!

Ocean
10-31-2009, 03:10 PM
Ohmigod! I am never using the Internet again!

Ha-ha.

Unit
11-01-2009, 01:13 AM
Hi Unit,

Don't know when you'll be back on this thread. look asked whether or not admins have can view the IP addresses of lurkers. No reply. I searched and I've linked to the vBulletin manual. The answers are quite troubling.

Fairly clearly all the administrators (http://www.vbulletin.com/docs/html/vb2_manual_cp_usergroups) have access to our info and most likely that of lurkers: including IP addresses. This is really disappointing. Brenda is, I agree, a highly suspect source if we're hoping for either informed or unbiased information.

Hope this helps.

Thanks! I'm not much of a computer expert, so for instance I've only a vague idea of what IP address means and how it can be used or misused.

Brenda
11-01-2009, 01:16 PM
FYI to anyone who cares: Kidneystones was banned, at least temporarily, for re-posting a comment that we deleted in the Science Saturday thread.

We deleted the comment because it was an attempt to hijack the Sci Sat thread with a carry-over of this Comments Guidelines thread. (If Kidneystones had posted it here, we wouldn't have deleted it. In fact, his Sci Sat post was a near-duplicate of something he'd already posted (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=135574#post135574) here.)

Several hours later, Kidneystones re-posted the deleted comment in Sci Sat. We deleted the re-post, and banned him.

Brenda
11-01-2009, 01:16 PM
As of today, spambusters do not have access to users' IP addresses. As previously stated in this thread, they also no longer have access to user profiles, which contain birthdates and email addresses. Although we have no reason to think any user data has been misused, we took action to further restrict this information because some forum users expressed concerns about their data security.

Please note that forum administrators (BhTV employees) continue to have access to user profiles.

Also please note that if a user "reports" a post (because it is spam or is otherwise objectionable), his or her email address is sent to all administrators and spambusters. UPDATE: We came up with a workaround so that spambusters do not receive Reported Posts (as of today, Nov. 3).

nikkibong
11-01-2009, 01:23 PM
FYI to anyone who cares: Kidneystones was banned, at least temporarily, for re-posting a comment that we deleted in the Science Saturday thread.

We deleted the comment because it was an attempt to hijack the Sci Sat thread with a carry-over of this Comments Guidelines thread. (If Kidneystones had posted it here, we wouldn't have deleted it. In fact, his Sci Sat post was a near-duplicate of something he'd already posted (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=135574#post135574) here.)

Several hours later, Kidneystones re-posted the deleted comment in Sci Sat. We deleted the re-post, and banned him.

Nowhere in the official comments guidelines (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/faq.php?faq=vb3_board_faq#faq_guidelines)does it say anything about "hijacking" a DV thread.

To wit:


Our guidelines:

#1 No name-calling aimed at fellow commenters or diavloggers.

#2 No gratuitously rude comments about diavloggers’ physical appearance or speaking style.

#3 No fabricated quotes—use the vBulletin quote function only for real quotations.


I saw the deleted post; while it included KS' usual cloying attempt at generating attention, it did seem somewhat related to the content of the DV. Moreover, it broke none of the supposed guidelines.

He was clearly being a nuisance, but I don't think his post violated the guidelines. So I think you were in the wrong when a) deleted his post, in the first place and b) banned him.

Boooo.

Whatfur
11-01-2009, 02:35 PM
A couple things...

First I thought I read somewhere...


There've been a number of Reported Posts from this thread, from both "sides" of the arguments, but I'm going to let all the comments here so far stand.


Assuming that the repeat post was something that was deleted from this thread then you have not only proven once again to be biased as hell but kind of a hypocrite. Kind of like... all commenters are created equal but some are more equal than others. You yourself have made insulting posts here, particularily to Mr. Stones that as an "Admin" should get you demoted to ...well...a spambuster! Freaking ridiculous.

To ban Mr. Stones for something outside of the realm of the current rules is also bullshit. So we are to understand then that the rules YOU came up with are not really the rules at all. Instead you are going to take the "I call them the way I see them and if I don't see them I MAKE THEM UP!" approach. What a JOKE!!

Brenda...there may have been some discord before YOU showed up but if you think you have helped ANYTHING around here, you are mistaken. Your biased, pompous approach "sows discord"! You should step down and let someone less biased be in charge of this area. You have shown to obviously not be able to handle it.

I suggest you go read the 1st Amendment of the Constitution and quit running this like Chairman Mao is your favorite philosopher.

Whatfur
11-01-2009, 02:43 PM
A couple things...

First I thought I read somewhere...



Assuming that the repeat post was something that was deleted from this thread then you have not only proven once again to be biased as hell but kind of a hypocrite. Kind of like... all commenters are created equal but some are more equal than others. You yourself have made insulting posts here, particularily to Mr. Stones that as an "Admin" should get you demoted to ...well...a spambuster! Freaking ridiculous.

To ban Mr. Stones for something outside of the realm of the current rules is also bullshit. So we are to understand then that the rules YOU came up with are not really the rules at all. Instead you are going to take the "I call them the way I see them and if I don't see them I MAKE THEM UP!" approach. What a JOKE!!

Brenda...there may have been some discord before YOU showed up but if you think you have helped ANYTHING around here, you are mistaken. Your biased, pompous approach "sows discord"! You should step down and let someone less biased be in charge of this area. You have shown to obviously not be able to handle it.

I suggest you go read the 1st Amendment of the Constitution and quit running this like Chairman Mao is your favorite philosopher.


Too funny...just tried to send Robert Wright a private message about this only to find that he has removed himself from private message ability. OMG. To quote Monty Python..."Run away...run away!"

SkepticDoc
11-01-2009, 03:10 PM
Brenda and BhTV staff, thank you for your work.

I almost can feel your pain and frustration, it is like herding cats, dealing with adolescent truants, misfits and "borderline personalities"...

BTW, just like I sometimes contribute to NPR and PBS, I would contribute to keep BhTV alive.

Whatfur
11-01-2009, 03:12 PM
Brenda and BhTV staff, thank you for your work.

I almost can feel your pain and frustration, it is like herding cats, dealing with adolescent truants, misfits and "borderline personalities"...

BTW, just like I sometimes contribute to NPR an PBS, I would contribute to keep BhTV alive.

I just threw up a little bit.

Wonderment
11-01-2009, 03:19 PM
Also please note that if a user "reports" a post (because it is spam or is otherwise objectionable), his or her email address is sent to all administrators and spambusters.

Ouch! Even I don't like that feature.

People who are active participants in threads shouldn't be receiving reports about objections to comments they may have made on that thread. It's like filing a police misconduct report to the officer who allegedly committed the misconduct.

I would drop the whole spambuster thing if I were you. It generates too much paranoia. As I first understood it, the busters simply had a delete power over obviously commercial intrusions. Then, in drips and drabs we've learned they had a lot more access. I trust them not to abuse their privileges, but I can completely understand why others are dubious.

So what if some porn or stupid ads stay posted overnight when traffic is low anyway? What's the big deal requiring eternal vigilance?

Whatfur
11-01-2009, 03:22 PM
As of today, spambusters do not have access to users' IP addresses. As previously stated in this thread, they also no longer have access to user profiles, which contain birthdates and email addresses. Although we have no reason to think any user data has been misused, we took action to further restrict this information because some forum users expressed concerns about their data security.

Please note that forum administrators (BhTV employees) continue to have access to user profiles.

Also please note that if a user "reports" a post (because it is spam or is otherwise objectionable), his or her email address is sent to all administrators and spambusters.

You had the opportunity to address the IP question behind the scenes when I initially asked you about it. You chose, like you have done here in a couple places, to insult instead. You also sat on the response here for a couple of days, letting it fester to the point of the recent banning. So we now discover that ONCE again my suspicions are correct and the there actually is an increased possibility that my computer and others have been compromised by "adolescent truants, misfits and "borderline personalities"" that you have chosen to put your trust in...in spite of the fact that they represent some of the most derisive people active here. My my.

But yeah...Nice Job...Way to go...Good Judgement.

Unit
11-01-2009, 03:31 PM
So what if some porn or stupid ads stay posted overnight when traffic is low anyway? What's the big deal requiring eternal vigilance?

Yes, I don't understand why we need spam-busters. Why not use all of our eyes: just put a spam button that any of us can turn on. Then the staff can look at the tagged ones once a day and delete the ones that are truly spam.
However, I have no idea and I'm certainly not an expert.

Whatfur
11-01-2009, 03:36 PM
One more thing that has bothered me....

Do/Did spambusters have access to "private" messages on this site that they are not directly copied on?

Whatfur
11-01-2009, 03:40 PM
And I kind of missed this...

So when Brendan painted a picture in which I looked to kill my in-laws and I retorted with a painted picture about his father the drunk and claymisher jumped in and reported me to Admin and Brenda hopped in and reprimanded me without having the insight to actually look back in the thread...

Brendan was alerted and was privy to all of this!!!

Wonders never cease.

Whatfur
11-01-2009, 03:41 PM
Actually both of you have nailed it...common sense trumps "expert".

look
11-01-2009, 03:51 PM
As of today, spambusters do not have access to users' IP addresses. As previously stated in this thread, they also no longer have access to user profiles, which contain birthdates and email addresses. Although we have no reason to think any user data has been misused, we took action to further restrict this information because some forum users expressed concerns about their data security.

Please note that forum administrators (BhTV employees) continue to have access to user profiles.

Also please note that if a user "reports" a post (because it is spam or is otherwise objectionable), his or her email address is sent to all administrators and spambusters.There is nothing left to you at this moment but to have a good laugh.

TwinSwords
11-01-2009, 04:23 PM
One more thing that has bothered me....

Do/Did spambusters have access to "private" messages on this site that they are not directly copied on?

No. We did not, and do not.

The only information we ever had access to was the contact email that people supply when they sign up, the IP address of the device they are using the connect to the site, and which check boxes they check on their Options page, which can be seen here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/profile.php?do=editoptions). Brenda has now removed access to all of the above except we still see reported posts, which includes the email address you choose to use for that purpose. (Use a made up email address, if you don't want anyone to see your "real" email address.)

Whatfur
11-01-2009, 05:00 PM
No. We did not, and do not.

...

Ahhhhhh! An answer. Wow!!! Thank you. You see everytime I alleged something previously and you all stood mute, I knew the hammer hit the nail. Although it was entertaining watching you all dance around the hammer ...you know...like trying to say knowing an age was the same thing as knowing a birthdate or like depending on some other website that also can display ages that you remember stalking me at.

Glad I could provide you something you didn't have to shy away from and then dance around.

bjkeefe
11-01-2009, 05:52 PM
Ahhhhhh! An answer. Wow!!! Thank you. You see everytime I alleged something previously and you all stood mute, I knew the hammer hit the nail. Although it was entertaining watching you all dance around the hammer ...you know...like trying to say knowing an age was the same thing as knowing a birthdate or like depending on some other website that also can display ages that you remember stalking me at.

Glad I could provide you something you didn't have to shy away from and then dance around.

All right, once more for the record, for the benefit of others.

As a look back up-thread will show, I already addressed (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=134989#post134989) the concerns Whafur expressed that were at least superficially plausible. I have chosen not to respond to him further for two reasons.

First, to anyone even casually aware of the history of this individual and his interactions with Jack, Jeff, and especially me, it is readily apparent that 'fur -- like kidneystones -- is motivated by things quite apart from what he is yammering about in this thread. He has long nurtured grudges due to political differences and personality clashes, and he is evidently unable to resolve them in a manner in which mature people would.

Second, it should be obvious, even just from considering this thread alone, that 'fur -- again, like kidneystones -- is hurling everything he can imagine, including patently absurd accusations like MY COMPUTER WAS HAXXORED BY THE SPAM-BUSTERS!!!1! The best way to deal with such nonsense is to ignore it and to trust in the principle of res ipsa loquitur.

Further, 'fur is in some cases demanding the impossible. For example, I have already explained how I know his approximate age and how anyone else could have, as well. In return, he is demanding that I prove that I do not know his date of birth, which should be immediately obvious to everyone is a demand that cannot be met. It is not possible to prove such a negative.

It is likely that this response will provoke further hysteria from 'fur. So be it. I don't care, although I do apologize to those of you who are put off by my possibly encouraging someone who, it is clear, is interested only in pissing on a community that he finds less than completely to his liking. I am sorry to see that his and kidneystones's endless campaign of FUD-mongering has negatively affected a few other users. Please try not to let them get to you any more than they may already have.

Anyone who has follow-up questions is invited to contact me via PM or email -- just click my username at the top of this post and follow the appropriate link. I won't be commenting in this thread further.

handle
11-01-2009, 06:38 PM
handle writes....[...]

I'm both pleased and disappointed. Here you are all sheeted-up in front of the burning cross. And that's good: bonding with klavern-member graz with your hate for me. But can't you at least hate me directly, to me face.

Think back to all of my arrogance. There's a deep well of hatred from which to draw on. Let's have some, please. I mean you're here now, I assume, because of the hate. Hate's on the menu.Don't nibble, take a big bite.

Brenda and Bob have your back.

Hate away: you can say anything. Really!

I laughed until I cried... "me face"... awesome! (the haters crapped on me face, yo...)
I thought I was an astute patron of the theater of the absurd, and you even had me going for a second...but I gotta hand it to you, you are the KING.
Bob's got my back! You are one sick MF, really great stuff!

I am not worthy, but I would be honored to contribute in some small way...what if I told Whatfur that you were a double agent for the gang o' twelve, and your mission was to gain his trust, and obtain his IP address, email it to our lair, so we could hijack his account for evil purposes.
I know, hardly up to your standards, but maybe you could fix it?

Hate you? I fuckin' love you!
Your humble servant.

Whatfur
11-01-2009, 09:47 PM
Does Brendan think it reflects better on him to say that he discovered my age via stalking me elsewhere (even though, again, my birthdate nor age is displayed there)? Matter of fact, even though that was not the original point here, should that not raise a flag to Admin here that one of their "spambusters" is off stalking other commenters around the internet? Isn't stalking me here on BHtv enough for him? Now, I do understand why he might misrepresent where and how he discovered my age...in most professional organizations when an employee breaches a trust granted to them, that individual would be immediately relieved of their duties. Fortunately for Brendan, BHtv forums is obviously not run like one of those organizations.

However and unfortunately for Brendan, Brenda admitted in an email to me that Brendan had access to my birthdate and then went on to ask how it was used against me. She said she would talk to Brendan about it. I told her I did not want her discussing ANYTHING with Brendan about me as I did not find him to be a stable character. Yes, I still have a copy of the email.

So, here again Brendan is misrepresenting the truth as he again tries to get others to believe that that piece of information was not available to him. It was. Brendan is a liar. Makes one wonder what else he is lying about here. Its regrettable that he has promised to not post in this thread anymore. Somebody PM him for me and tell him thanks for opening his mouth and sticking his foot in it.

Lastly, Brendan feigns the high road by pointing at me as someone who is working off a held grudge while being unable to deal with our personality clashes in a mature manner. I have suggested for a couple months that he abstain from responding to me while at the same time I did just that. Instead he continues to stalk and insult me with most every thread I involve myself in. But yeah, he is the mature one.

bjkeefe
11-01-2009, 11:57 PM
... stalking other commenters around the internet? Isn't stalking me here on BHtv enough for him?

?

Perhaps 'fur is projecting here? Note the comments signed "Your Mother" and "YourMother" posted on my blog here (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/10/already-in-bargain-bin.html) and here (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-ad-campaign.html). Sound like anyone you know?

Whatfur
11-02-2009, 07:48 AM
Just another "Doh!" moment...
Once again Brendan is Busted! Averiar! Aprehender!

For the record please note that Master Brendan has finally dropped his failed and fraudulent attempt at convincing others that he did not have access to my birth date information here.

The truth will set you free...put down your shovel...I have you surrounded.

Concerning the:

?.

Do the initials B I H ring any bells? Now its feigned incredulousness.



Perhaps 'fur is projecting here? Note the comments signed "Your Mother"?
...
Sound like anyone you know?


First, YOU provide your web site information to the general public here on BHtv... it is not something someone has to Google for and wade through 157,000 hits. A bit of false equivalance. Quite the reach but, nice try.

Second, I can see where you might think "Your Mother" was "fur" as she does seem to know you rather well and she is quite witty (I guess that bit skipped a generation). Or did you capture the IP Address of that commenter on your site and compare it to the IP Address you have captured for me here and they matched up???

Maybe instead of continuing to dig your hole you should just apologize to me and we can move one. Its really not that fun any more to humiliate you...the challenge is gone.

bjkeefe
11-02-2009, 02:28 PM
... it is not something someone has to Google for and wade through 157,000 hits.

Wade? (http://www.google.com/search?q=whatfur+-%22what+fur%22)

Whatfur
11-02-2009, 03:08 PM
Wade?

OMG, Brendan...give it up.
Here's a straw for you "|" as you seem to be grasping for one...bonus for you.... it comes with some dignity if you stick it in your pocket and walk away from this.

Whatfur
11-02-2009, 04:03 PM
Flowchart for you. (http://www.missourah.com/2009/09/15/obama-criticism-flow-chart/)

bjkeefe
11-02-2009, 04:16 PM
OMG, Brendan...give it up.
Here's a straw for you "|" as you seem to be grasping for one...bonus for you.... it comes with some dignity if you stick it in your pocket and walk away from this.

How often we give advice we would do well to take for ourselves.

SkepticDoc
11-02-2009, 05:09 PM
Place him on your ignore list, don't feed the trolls...

bjkeefe
11-02-2009, 05:14 PM
Place him on your ignore list, don't feed the trolls...

Okay.

Whatfur
11-02-2009, 05:28 PM
Okay.

Yeahhhh!!!!!!!!!

Thanks Doc!!!

[added] But that would be "dancing" for the trolls...but whatever works.

Brenda
11-03-2009, 10:11 AM
People who are active participants in threads shouldn't be receiving reports about objections to comments they may have made on that thread.

Wonderment, that's a good point, one we hadn't adequately considered before. We've figured out a workaround so that spambusters will no longer receive Reported Posts.

look
11-03-2009, 12:12 PM
Wonderment, that's a good point, one we hadn't adequately considered before. We've figured out a workaround so that spambusters will no longer receive Reported Posts.Maybe while you're at it, you can close the barn door, too.

Whatfur
11-03-2009, 01:15 PM
Maybe while you're at it, you can close the barn door, too.

Now that's funny!

SkepticDoc
11-03-2009, 08:13 PM
wingnut quiz? (http://www.omggopwtf.com/?rc=omg_bftw)

handle
11-03-2009, 08:23 PM
Yeahhhh!!!!!!!!!

Thanks Doc!!!

[added] But that would be "dancing" for the trolls...but whatever works.

I have to disagree with the asssertion that Whatfur is a "troll".
I find the concept of "not feeding" them confusing in it's oversimplification of certain posters intent, and how it is used to readily dismiss them, while leaving their ravings unanswered.

Instead of someone who is trolling for attention, I see him as someone who simply wants to post what he thinks are his "unique" perspectives on wingnut talking points ala Rush, Fox, and Beck, and is irritated when "his" points of view are challenged effectively. His agenda appears to lean more towards jamming the airwaves of the reason-based community, much like the town hall screamers and tea baggers.

I believe he is sincere in wanting to go unchallenged, as his main complaints about the site are usually fraudulent attempts to get posters off his back who consistently humiliate him. (If you are reading this fur, I get that you believe they are legit.. dream on)

I will no longer waste my time, but many thanks to others who have more patience and prowess at suffering fools than I.