Go to previous post:
America.

Go to Electrolite's front page.

Go to next post:
On All Souls’ Eve.

Our Admirable Sponsors

October 29, 2004

Comments turned off. Our apologies. Comments have been disabled while we deal with a massive spam attack.

We have obligations this evening, so it may be a few hours before commenting is enabled again. We’ll update this post when that happens.

UPDATE, 11:29 EST: Comments have been re-enabled. Several hundred spam comments stuffed with what appeared to be pornographic URLs have been deleted.

At one point in the process, it’s possible that some legitimate posts containing the string “men” were deleted as well. If you spot such a deletion, let us know and we’ll do our best to restore the comment.

On a more unhappy note, Jim Macdonald pointed out something very odd about these hundreds of spam comments: every one of the URLs in them led to a 404 message, not to a real site.

In other words, this wasn’t just some nitwit trying to boost their Google pagerank. This was somebody trying to shut us down.

Have a nice weekend, everybody! Here’s a nice new Billmon post to chew over. [08:10 PM]

Welcome to Electrolite's comments section.
Hard-Hitting Moderator: Teresa Nielsen Hayden.

Comments on Comments turned off.:

Stefan Jones ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 12:09 AM:

"This was somebody trying to shut us down."

Or a really, really inept spammer, or one whose pages were shut down with admirable dispatch.

But, yes, I can see how some sorehead nitwit offended by open dialog could decide to run some attack scripts.

Kai Jones ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 12:09 AM:

Sorry somebody is attacking you.

Patrick Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 12:15 AM:

The idea that it was someone "whose pages were shut down with admirable dispatch" founders somewhat on the fact that we're talking about literally hundreds of different URLs, all of which were blatantly pornographic in content and all of which were completely fake.

julia ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 12:55 AM:

How annoying, and yet again, how flattering.

Harriet ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 02:09 AM:

Gotta confess, though, I was perversely amused at the oddly appropriate juxtaposition of spammer-name and thread title for one of the pr0n spams, as it appeared in the "recent comments" column:
"girl scat on newspaper. . ."

Harriet
wondering if trolls can be paper-trained?

Julia Jones ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 02:33 AM:

First thing I thought when I wandered in this evening and found spam all over the place was "DOS attack pretending to be comment spam". There was just too much of it, on too many threads - and on very recent threads, when the spammers usually do their best to hide it on old threads where they hope it won't be noticed.

David B. ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 02:45 AM:

Can you identify the spammer via some IP sleuthing? This kind of DOS attack is a crime now, after all.

Guy Matthews ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 02:55 AM:

"The idea that it was someone "whose pages were shut down with admirable dispatch" founders somewhat on the fact that we're talking about literally hundreds of different URLs, all of which were blatantly pornographic in content and all of which were completely fake."

Depends, what you need to keep in mind that legitimate porn site operators and spammers are two different creatures, though sometimes easy to confuse. Running a porn site is itself not illegal in most places, it's also perfectly possible to run one in an ethical manner without recurring to spamming tactics. This sort of restraint is in fact becoming highly advisable as spam awareness becomes more common, if you want your site to stay alive and provid long term profit, you don't spam. So what's with all the spam then? Simple, different group of people, the porn spammer isn't a typical porn site owner, rather than operating a handful of themed or generic sites he has instead set up anything between dozens and thousands of sites with more or less identical content, the sites gets spammed out on the principle that with this many sites all sending money to one location there'll be a guaranteed income BEFORE the sites get shut down for violating their host's spamming policy. Now if you have a particularly inept spammer it's easy enough for him to make 2 mistakes: 1. severely overspam; 2. set up all the sites through a single provider. The result is that complaints will come in fast n furious in the thousands, the host will note a single customer owns all the sites in question, and pull the plug in one mass termination. Hosts aren't paragons of virtue, but they'll only tolerate spamming and other TOS breaches from a paying customer as long as their own existence isn't threatened, generate enough complaints and even the so called "bullet proof" hosts will dump you like a hot potato or risk getting cut off by their upstream provider. Finally, if a spammer wants to get dumped REALLY quickly, he'll open the accounts using stolen credit cards to begin with. I'll grant it's certainly not impossible you were deliberately targeted, but it's not as likely as you'd think, there are more effective and far more subtle ways to down a site in any case.

Clark E Myers ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 03:29 AM:

I took it as an effort to get the comments filtered - that is blocked for folks at work - certainly never looked like a marketing effort inexpert though I be in those areas

(actually I did follow things a little bit when p0rn was cutting edge in web techniques and development of micropayment by association in various adult chek schemes and clickthrough)

- with a possibility of flagging browser use for abuse of company resources for folks at work when the logs come home to roost.

There must be a name for it; not quite a Joe job but quite related?

Feòrag ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 05:50 AM:

I got it as well, but it only took one entry into the blacklist to deal with it. Admittedly, I only noticed this once I'd added about 200 urls to the blacklist...

Yonmei ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 05:55 AM:

Glad you're back up: hope you don't have the same problem again.

*kicks evil spammers*

(notes that the second word is redundant)

Mris ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 08:07 AM:

Harriet, you might want to read Joanna Sinisalo's Troll, since it addresses exactly that question (among other, much larger and more serious ones).

Arlen ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 12:13 PM:

Pot( kettle, Black);

Not to condone the attack in any way, Patrick, but it seems to me you've done something very similar.

You and Kos, with your refusal to do any level of fact-checking, have blatantly wasted my tax dollars. I live in Wisconsin, and you posted phone numbers and addresses of people with the intention that they should spend time in their day, time that my tax dollars are paying for, to defend themselves against criticism for decisions they didn't make. Criticism launched, I might add, by people who are *not* involved in paying for those tax dollars. (It's one thing when the taxpayers themselves call; paying for those calls is justified, if frivolous, so I don't resent that.)

I suppose it's perfectly OK for you to foul our nest; you don't live here after all, so why should you care about who pays for your fun?

I'm sorry you were attacked; it shouldn't have happened. If I can help you find the responsible one or repair the damage, you know you have only to ask.

Patrick Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 12:54 PM:

Oh, right, we're supposed to believe there's something defensible about that Wisconsin school's behavior, since they managed to get on top of the story and start denying to callers that anyone was ever threatened (in contradiction to what school staffers were telling callers earlier). Oh yes, and explaining that they rented the auditorium to the Bush campaign so it's okay that school facilities were used to threaten people who wore Kerry buttons. We weren't fascists, we just rented our auditorium to fascists. Very different, you see.

You must think we'll believe anything. Or, perhaps, that we'll go all trembly because you trot out boilerplate threats about wasting tax dollars and fouling nests. Take your dime-store bluster to somebody who's impressed by it.

Bryant ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 01:25 PM:

Inept spammer, I suspect. I got shut down this morning by what sounds like the same guy.

Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 01:44 PM:

Wasted your tax dollars, Arlen? What small-minded foolishness. Is that the only objection you can make -- that someone, somewhere, may have taken up some of the workday time of an employee whose salary traces back to your mingily sacred tax payments? If the school principal in question is as much of a horse's ass as he sounds, let me assure you that he'll be constantly wasting far more of their time than that.

This principal rented out the school auditorium to the Bush campaign. Doing so will have disturbed and impeded every activity normally engaged in by everyone at that school: by comparison with answering the public's questions, a mighty waste of your much-worried-over tax payments.

I estimate that the fact-checking may in total and at most have cost you a very small fraction of one cent. That's a petty and servile response: to fear the expenditure of a tiny sliver of a copper coin, in defense of some of the most basic principles of the republic.

Glenn Hauman ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 02:19 PM:

This would be the point to say that MT-Blacklist has got their bugs fixed now. I would recommend upgrading to MT 3.0 and MT Blacklist 2.0 ASAP. You'll be much happier.

Arthur D. Hlavaty ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 02:42 PM:

I heard the Huey Long quote as "They'll call it Americanism," which I consider a better line.

Ken MacLeod ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 03:19 PM:

The Billmon post is nice enough, and I'm glad to see him back, but right beside it is this:

Osama's no slouch at information warfare. I'm sure he understands that the impact of a tape like this one on the mass mind is mainly subliminal, if not hormonal. By plastering his face over every TV in America for the next couple of days, he's given Bush a priceless gift -- a boogeyman with which to frighten that last sliver of undecided voters into rejecting change.
With which I want to take issue. Bush, his administration and its supporters have been saying Osama's possible survival and freedom are no big deal since the battle of Tora Bora. Christopher Hitchens has flaunted his hunch that OBL is dead. They have not been scaring people by saying Big Bad Bin Laden is Still Out There. They have been saying he's a distraction from the real (i.e. trumped-up) threat. Kerry has insisted that Osama Bin Laden's escape is a scandal. His remark about outsourcing to warlords drew blood. The reappearance of the man behind the WTC attacks is not going to play well for Bush, and it shouldn't discourage Bush's opponents in the remaining days of the election campaign.

Clark E Myers ::: (view all by) ::: October 30, 2004, 06:30 PM:

As noted I take the said attack as a denial of use attack - on readers - rather than a denial of service attack. Be that as it may, I certainly have no problem with pointing people at an issue as this site does so well.

Of course as a free speech absolutist I'd have to support that side in each case - here and in the school auditorium. I'd expect you all to agree - perhaps for some people on the even a blind hog can find an occasional acorn - with even such as Mr. du Toit that the whole of this country is by rights a free speech zone. Perhaps not, I've seen some indication that some folks here would deny that right to LGF and such.

On the other hand, just possibly, the principal acted in the community interest and followed a standing policy of making publicly paid for community facilities available for events of community interest. As I think he should (in the small town community center circumstances here described) - even for rallies attended by some controversy - almost without limits (see above on free speech to include a right to a forum beyond a soap box in Hyde Park).

I'll never know but I'll also never believe (short of maybe video tape or a full adversarial hearing or.....) the school administration ever intended to or did in fact act contrary to the various controlling (controlling isn't always bad?) holdings especially the clear statements of Tinker.

However I also suggest in the circumstances here described that finding a small town school administrator - or a state official - to be fascist is equally permissable and about as hard for me to believe.

Such an identification sounds to me more like a personal attack on the hotel front desk clerk for management miscues.

Rather than pester folks in Wisconsin I'll take my lead from Dr. Pournelle when he says:....Now, while you are thinking about it. Google NRCC[Republican National Campaign Committee], go to Contact Us, and tell them they have been worse than foolish. This is a dangerous game, and the people who thought of trying it ought to be invited to leave political employment forever.

I also suggest that the NRCC begin sensitivity classes for its staff: sensitivity to the Bill of Rights, and particularly to the provision about Congress making no law abridging the freedom of speech.

Of course I also agree with the NRA and others that any reform that deprives any group of a voice is no reform.

Arlen ::: (view all by) ::: October 31, 2004, 12:20 AM:

Patrick: I'm sure your information is so much better than someone who actually lives there and knows the folks. And, since a fair amount of ad hominem seems to be following this discussion, I should probably point out that my confirmation comes from someone who's been a registered democrat longer than you've been alive, so that "bias" dog won't hunt.

Teresa: Yes, if the fact-checking was done beforehand, like it should have been done, I'm sure it would only have cost a few cents at most. But it wasn't. As several noted, the school officials sounded as if they had been asked the question a lot. So there wasn't just one or two calls, just a few cents. If it didn't compound the waste I'd ask how long they spent telling folks from out of state what happened. And as long as we're saddled with crap like No Lobbiest Left Behind, school districts here find even small amounts of money hard to come by.

OK, since the rental seems to have stuck in both your craws, tell me, what's the problem with giving the kids a day off school? It's a rather ordinary event out here to close down for a day, and doesn't impede anyone doing anything; every school year has extra days built into it, which gives the school system the flexibility to close when they need to. And the money raised from the rental means a net plus for the district.

It's hardly like it's an unusual happening, even for political events. Back during the first Earth Day (yes, alas, I *do* go back that far) we shut down the entire HS for what could easily be described as political uses: We spent the day trying to get people concerned about environmental issues, we ran an environmental lobbying campaign out of the high school. Was that something we should be ashamed of?

Or is it just that it was rented to the Shrub? Had the Kerry campaign asked to rent the place, they would have gotten the same treatment (and the kids would have been asked to leave the Bush props at home). Of course, given the nature of the town, the Kerry campaign would have probably only need a classroom, alas. Not that they're completely without supporters there. I know a dyed-in-the-wool republican of several decades standing who's got a big Kerry sign on his garage door.

Oh, and Patrick? What it is that makes you go "all trembly" is your own business, and was certainly not the reaction I was after. I was pointing out that you were at the very least aiding and abetting, if not completely supporting, people doing to the Richland Center School District what happened to your blog. Really, isn't it wrong to do either?

James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: October 31, 2004, 01:21 AM:

I was pointing out that you were at the very least aiding and abetting, if not completely supporting, people doing to the Richland Center School District what happened to your blog. Really, isn't it wrong to do either?

This is complete nonsense. Surely you know better, Arlen?

Kip W ::: (view all by) ::: October 31, 2004, 12:28 PM:

It was just a commercial proposition. We rented our souls to the RNC for the duration. Of course, while they were 'in the house,' we had to enforce their rules: loyalty oaths, clothing checks, a couple other things like that. So you see, we had to drag those people out and chasten them. It was in the contract. Same sort of thing applies when we rent ourselves to racists and crazy militia groups.

I'm pleased to hear that registered Democrats can't have any bias, however. Makes me feel so proud to be one.

Avram ::: (view all by) ::: October 31, 2004, 12:46 PM:

Arlen, even if what you’re saying is 100% true, then the very worst that Kos and Patrick have done is make a mistake.

That is in no way even remotely similar to a deliberate mass spam attack. Unless you think somebody accidentally fired off a spambot?

tonecluster ::: (view all by) ::: October 31, 2004, 01:48 PM:

based on the amount of spam I get that results in a 404, I'd bet on an inept spammer or an old spam server linking to a site that's since been shut-down or taken offline.

Mitch Wagner ::: (view all by) ::: October 31, 2004, 04:26 PM:

Second the endorsement of MT 3.1x/MT Blacklist 2.x. I installed it a week ago. Since then: no spam whatsoever.

Eventually, I expect we'll all have to require users to register before posting comments. I hope I'm wrong about that.

Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: October 31, 2004, 06:38 PM:

Arlen, you misunderstand. I was saying that the issue you raised was trivial; that your identification of the recent queries as a singular and outstanding waste of the local employees' time was undoubtedly in error (I don't think you know very much about public school administration); and that your overwhelming concern for this infinitesimal fraction of your tax dollars, as opposed to (say) the health of our democratic institutions, is small-minded and servile.

As for "giving the kids a day off from school," etc., spare me. You're the one who thought the most important thing about this episode was that some school employees had to spend some time fielding phone calls. My actual point -- really, you should read more carefully -- was that the amount of school employees' time that will have been taken up by arrangements for the Bush rally will have utterly dwarfed the time a few of them have spent answering questions.

You have mistaken the point. Unfortunately for you, it was your point to start with. To steal a line from Mike Ford, someone here is being stupid, and I don't think it's me.

Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: November 01, 2004, 11:27 AM:

your refusal to do any level of fact-checking, have blatantly wasted my tax dollars.

fact-checking would require a phone call. And apparently, the cost of answering a phone by staff already employed to do so has skyrocketed in Wisconsin. so, it seems we're damned if we do or damned if we don't.

I called the school. Spent 1.5 minutes on the phone. I didn't get any facts. I got one side of teh story. The principle said they rented the gym and no student was ever threatened with expulsion.

If you are so blind that you can't tell the difference between a "fact" and someone's side of a story when they obviously have a vested interest in how things turn out, then you are a bigger fool than your previous arguments let on.

If the school did threaten a student, if the rental of a school gym during a school day constituted an improper use of facilities, then the school could be in trouble legally. If they can simply deny any wrong-doing because there is no solid evidence to the contrary, they'd be fools not to. It is highly unlikely that the student who claims he was threatened was wearing a recording device at the time, so this is something we may never know the truth about. All we might be able to do is check some facts and get everyone's side fo the story.

But, you don't want "fact-checking", you want to believe one side of the story as the truth and you want to stifle any real fact checking.

Mitch Wagner ::: (view all by) ::: November 01, 2004, 12:12 PM:

Greg, reading a single blog as a source of news is a bad idea. It's true that Patrick did report that students were threatened with explusion, and left it at that.

However, Boing Boing followed up the report on another day with the principal's denial, along with a skeptical opinion, noting that the wearing if Kerry campaign paraphernalia was forbidden, and that, generally, students are generally threatened with some fashion of punishment for doing that which is forbidden.

You are assuming malice where it's possible what we have is the nature of blogging. It's a hobby for almost all of us. A blogger posts something, life gets busy, and the blogger does not have an opportunity to follow up.

Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: November 01, 2004, 01:34 PM:

You are assuming malice

On who's part am I assuming malice?

I read Patrick's post about the expulsion threat. My standard reaction to almost any report is to google for "hoax" followed by keywords from the report in question. If something comes up, I flag it. Nothing came up. So then I call the school to get their side fo the story. They said the gym was rented and no one was threatened. Some fo their story fits with the evidence (it's a small town, it is the only large place you can have a rally) and some of the evidence is purely based on word. At that point, it is the word fo the school against the word of the student, and remains a legitimate issue to post about.

So I dont see any malice in raising the issue.

If you mean malice from Arlen, I don't see that either. I simply see someone who defines "fact-checking" as whatever is beneficial to them. And in this case, she simply wants poeple to stop bringing up the allegations, stop calling the school and checking facts, and sweep the whole thing under the carpet.

I'm sure in her mind, she thinks she's doing the right thing.

So, I'm not sure where you think I'm assuming malice.

Harriet ::: (view all by) ::: November 01, 2004, 02:52 PM:

Did I miss something indicating that this Arlen was a she? Because my mental model for assigning gender to the aforementioned poster was formed by my exposure to video clips of Senator Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania, back at the time of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.

Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: November 01, 2004, 03:07 PM:

Big oil for Kerry!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=749&e=1&u=/nm/20041101/bs_nm/markets_oil_dc

LONDON (Reuters) - Oil prices fell sharply on Monday, taking U.S. crude below $50 on speculation that a U.S. election win for Senator John Kerry (news - web sites) could ease the geopolitical friction that helped fuel this year's record-breaking rally.

Mitch Wagner ::: (view all by) ::: November 01, 2004, 03:52 PM:

Greg, if you won't admit you're assuming malice then you're just a jerk and a troll. Go away.

Mark ::: (view all by) ::: November 01, 2004, 04:31 PM:

Mitch, are you saying that Greg is assuming malice on _Patrick's_ part? Because I'm totally not seeing that at all. The post of Greg's that you're taking issue with is a response to _Arlen_, pointing out that Arlen's initial charge is way overblown. Greg, AFAICT, was saying that Arlen was wrong to criticize everybody who called the school to get their side of the story; he was also saying that (since this has turned into he-said/he-said), we don't have any way of figuring out definitively who's telling the truth, given the facts before us. How is that in any way an attack on Patrick?

Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: November 01, 2004, 04:48 PM:

Mitch, I am SO not the troll.

I honestly can't figure out by your post who you think I'm assuming was malicious.

I don't FEEL assuming.

but maybe you see something I don't.

So, when I asked "who am I assuming malice?" I was being serious.

Since I wasn't sure, I assumed you meant Patrick or Arlen, so I attempted to answer either case. But I do have a tendancy to ramble, so here's the short versions:

As for Patrick, I think the student's allegation is something that should be brought to light until the truth can be known, if possible.

As for Arlen, I think she thinks Bush is the right candidate and she is willing to throw logic to the wind in order to silence the claims of expulsion threats.

If I said something that assumed maliciousness, I might have mis-spoke or been misunderstood in my intentions.

if you could point to something specific that I said, I am perfectly fine claiming that I assumed maliciousness if that's the case. I mean, I assume Dick Cheney is one of the most malicious men on the planet, and I'm quite willing to own up to that. I just don't know who exactly you're referring to, or what exactly I said.

Mitch Wagner ::: (view all by) ::: November 01, 2004, 05:33 PM:

Greg London:

If you are so blind that you can't tell the difference between a "fact" and someone's side of a story when they obviously have a vested interest in how things turn out, then you are a bigger fool than your previous arguments let on.

...

But, you don't want "fact-checking", you want to believe one side of the story as the truth and you want to stifle any real fact checking.

If you're going to flame someone, have the gumption to come out and say so, fa' pete's sake. Don't go around calling someone a "fool" and accusing them of wanting to stifle the facts, and then, when called on it, blink disengenuously and say, golly, I didn't mean nuttin insulting by it.

Mark ::: (view all by) ::: November 01, 2004, 06:45 PM:

Mitch, are you accusing Greg of flaming Arlen or of flaming Patrick?

Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: November 01, 2004, 07:13 PM:

If you're going to flame someone

first of all, you never said "flame" before, you accused me of "assuming malice". I assumed no malice. and as far as flaming, if calling Arlen a fool for her behaviour, then I admit I'm the arsonist.

Arlen's Behaviour:
"your refusal to do any level of fact-checking, have blatantly wasted my tax dollars. "

This assumes that the allegations of expulsion threats are untrue. She has no "facts" to prove this other than the word of the principal (who should be considered a hostile witness) and teh word of a single, aged, registered democrat (whose word, for some reason, we should take as all-knowing, wise, and beyond reproach.)

Arlen has insufficient evidence (facts) to prove that the allegations are untrue and therefore that any investigation is wasting her precious tax dollars. By starting with this implied assumption, her arguement essentially assumes the result. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is the common example of this logical falacy.

The FACTS are that the Bush campaign has rallies that require loyalty oaths and protesters have been arrested and hauled off. So, it seems possible that the alegations of threats may have something to merit further investigation.

It is also possible that the threat came from an individual teacher acting on their own, threatening a pro-Kerry student who said they were going to protest. It may not have been enforced by the Bush campaign, but they may have benefitted from it.

The word of teh principal disproves nothing around the allegations of expulsion threats.

Yet, Arlen has decided that there is nothing to any of these allegations based on her own inconclusive, and incomplete checking.

She has taken the word of someone as truth.

Well, isn't that exactly what she is accusing the bloggers of doing? Taking the word of someone as true and not fact checking them?

So, she is a fool. She demands fact checking from people posting this in blogs rather than relying on the word of a student, but then she relies on the word of the principal and some old geezer democrat to "prove" in her mind that all the allegations are concretely proven false and a waste of her tax dollars. For that, I admit I call her foolish.

The facts are inconclusive.

It is impossible at this point in time to declare one way or the other whether the allegations are true. Her demands for fact-checking are pointless, because the facts are inconclusive.

Posting the allegations in a blog puts the spotlight on a possible problem, and perhaps new information would come to light to prove or disprove the allegations. Keeping the allegations alive is not the same as declaring them true.

But accusing someone of not fact-checking when they could not have fact-checked themselves just makes them sound foolish.

There is simply no way to say "this is false" based on any facts at this point in time.

Temperance ::: (view all by) ::: November 01, 2004, 07:15 PM:

Arlen posted: Had the Kerry campaign asked to rent the place, they would have gotten the same treatment (and the kids would have been asked to leave the Bush props at home).

Arlen, I'm just curious as to how you back up this assertion. As far as I can tell, the Kerry people haven't asked any Bush supporters to remove buttons, T-shirts, etc., when they show up at meetings -- although some HAVE subsequently been asked to leave when they started being disruptive. On the other hand, the Bushies have been, well, rabid on keeping out anyone who indicates even indecision on whether to vote for Bush or not. I suggest you go over to www.Billmon.org and read his 10-29 post titled "The Future Belongs To Me."

Mitch Wagner ::: (view all by) ::: November 01, 2004, 07:52 PM:

Greg, I thought your "you" was addressed to Patrick rather than Arlen. I apologize for the error.

Jill Smith ::: (view all by) ::: November 01, 2004, 08:07 PM:

Speaking of denial of service spam attacks, free speech issues, and the Internet, I notice that the domain account for Michael Berube's blog has been suspended.

I'm doing some resentful nutbar conspiracy theorizing right about now.

Larry Brennan ::: (view all by) ::: November 01, 2004, 08:30 PM:

Jill - I noticed that too, but I suspect it's just a routine ISP messup and Prof. B will be back on line lickety-split.

Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: November 01, 2004, 08:31 PM:

Greg, I thought your "you" was addressed to Patrick rather than Arlen. I apologize for the error.

ah, vague pronouns. no need to apologize. if I could only stop rambling and talk on one topic the "you"s and other pronouns would all be so much more clear. for example, I remember the time....

Greg London ::: (view all by) ::: November 01, 2004, 08:40 PM:

John Kerry is going to kick some ass tomorrow, turn his boats into the attack, and chase George Bush off to Texas!

CHip ::: (view all by) ::: November 02, 2004, 12:30 AM:

Arlen: what Temperance said, cubed.

IMO, the Kerry campaign missed a wonderful chance to turn the tables on Shrub a couple of weeks ago; the response to "He can run, but he can't hide" should have been "Why is ]Shrub[ hiding from the American people?" Here's an occupant of the White House who holds press conferences appallingly infrequently and hasn't faced an open meeting in I've-lost-track-of-how-many months (or have you missed all of the stories about protesters being removed, support being required for admission to events, etc.?). Maybe they just decided the info couldn't be folded into a short spot.

Mitch Wagner ::: (view all by) ::: November 02, 2004, 02:53 PM:

BTW, the server farm hosting this blog seems to be partially down. This blog is (of course) accessible, but mine isn't. Also inaccessible: www.hostingmatters.com, the web site for the company that hosts the company that hosts mine and the Nielsen Haydens' blogs.

Could be a coincidence. On the other hand, regular readers of this blog will recall that at least once before when there when there was a serious outage on Hosting Matters, it turned out to be due to a politically motivated denial of service attack from people supporting Islamicist terrorism.

Jill Smith ::: (view all by) ::: November 02, 2004, 10:23 PM:

Larry - I noticed that too, but I suspect it's just a routine ISP messup and Prof. B will be back on line lickety-split.

Eeek. Prof B. still not on. Should I be legitimately paranoid (if that isn't an oxymoron) now?