August 28, 2008
Sadly, On The Taxpayer Dime
Last night I got a few comments on my website that pretty obviously were from the self-described "progressives" I call the Sadly Pathetics, who decided to attack my website with spam and a flurry of nonsense comments after I spoke out in a way unapproved by "progressives."
Last night, one of these tiny little thugs left a comment on my entry Barkleying Up The Wrong Tree...that traced back to...a government IP address! The NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States Department of Commerce.
So...get this...the commenter is apparently trying to punish me for my free speech...on the government dime. Wait...I pay for the government with my tax dollars! On my dime!
Here's a screenshot of that comment:
Here's a comment from the Sadly Pathetic site from somebody who calls himself dailey:
Well, kitten, you're about to find out. I did me a little lookie-see on the Internets, and came up with this:
And this: 
And then, from the staff search at the NOAA, this:
In case that's too small for you to read, it's:
Dailey, Kevin Andrew
301-817-4197
kevin.dailey@noaa.gov
NESDIS
Control Branch
Physical Science Technician
In between digging this stuff up, I dropped an e-mail to one of the media dudes at the NOAA, Scott Smullen, the deputy director in their Office of Communications:
Dear Scott, I've recently had my website attacked by a bunch of commenters from a site called SadlyNo -- SadlyNo.com -- who go after people they believe to be conservatives who speak freely, and who have a viewpoint different from these so-called "progressives."
I continued with the IP address and other details.
Meanwhile, as long as I had Kevin's number, hell, why not call it?!
It was the wee hours of the morning, but something told me he was on the job. And, whaddya know, I was right.
His colleague answered the phone and ran to get him. Kevin got on the line, all gulpy, and pretended he didn't know what I was talking about. He insisted it wasn't him. I read back his personal e-mail address, and said, so, then, he was telling me somebody was posting from this government IP, using his e-mail address...etc, etc.?
Not surprisingly, the chickenshit hung up on me.
As you can imagine, that dissuaded me!
I called back. Click.
I called back again. He got on the phone and said, in a hard whisper, I couldn't be calling him -- he worked for THE GOVERNMENT!
Yeah, no kidding...on my dime.
Meanwhile, he's still pretending he doesn't know what I'm taking about. We go through this bullshit for a while. He knows I've got him and I know I've got him, and he's going to have to admit it.
We do a little dance for a while to get to that point. I read him the comment, per his request. Hilarious. I figure he's buying time, trying to figure a way out of this.
And then I say, "And you post on Sadly No, of course. And you posted this on my site, from the government IP where you are right now." The bullshit about it not being him continues for a while more. It's really late -- maybe 3 a.m.-ish. I need to go to bed. I tell him he'd better start talking. Finally, he realizes further resistance is futile.
So...Kevin Andrew Dailey, whose salary is paid for by you and me while he's posting on my site...Kevin Andrew Dailey, who posted the above "tranny" comment on my site, per the marching orders published at Sadly Pathetic -- "Hey, kids, let's go poke Albert "Amy" Alkon with a stick and have some fun, mkay?" -- explains with the following steaming load.
"The pictures I saw from the Sadly No website made me think I didn't know if you were a male or a female."
"Which picture is it that made you think that?" I ask.
The loser still doesn't man up. "I don't know," he says.
"Why would you be interested in such a thing?," I ask him.
"I don't know," he says again.
"You're not just trying to harass me, are you?" I say, "When you're posting, 'Are you a tranny?' you think this is appropriate, from a government website, from your government job, and post this on my site."
I continue. "Now these people have said on that site, they said, 'Go over there and bother her.'"
Not surprisingly, the tiny little thug doesn't have the balls to own up that he posted to try to punish me for speaking in a manner unapproved by the tiny little mob of "progressives."
No, instead, he keep pretending that he has serious reason to believe I'm transgendered! As if this is a serious concern by anyone.
I press him to tell me which picture. He says he doesn't remember, and then he says, "It was a facial picture."
I squeeze him further. He professes not to know which one. (Meanwhile, there were four. I've collected them here -- see for yourself if you think he's telling the truth.)
He admits to posting on Sadly Pathetic.
I ask him if he seriously thinks I'm transgendered.
"No I don't," he says. "That's why I asked."
Oh, please. Pussyman keeps stonewalling, so I shift my line of questioning, ask him what he does.
Get this, he says he's a satellite controller!
So, I say, "You're supposed to be controlling satellites, but instead you're posting on my site, am I a tranny?"
I say it again, so I can be sure it sinks in: "I'm paying you...out of my tax dollars, and you're posting on my site, am I a tranny?"
"I was curious," he says. Right.
"Do you walk up to women in the supermarket and ask them if they're trannies?" I ask him.
He says he doesn't.
"Then why would you do it online?" I ask.
"Because it's different."
"Ohhhh!" I say, "So I'm not really a person. Do you think maybe it would hurt a woman's feelings if you ask her if she's really a man?"
"If I did, I am sorry," he says. "It wasn't my intention."
"What was your intention?" I ask.
"I was curious," he says.
"You were curious. You're curious on your government time," I say. "Why was it important to you to know if I was a tranny."
"It wasn't important," he says.
"You do things all the time that are totally unimportant, right?" I ask. "So...you wouldn't go up to a woman in public and ask her if she's a tranny, but I'm such a non-person, because of what, because that's what the Sadly Nos made me out to be, because I spoke in a way they didn't like?"
He's just hummina-hummina at this point, so I say this: "I suggest you write me a little explanation about what you've done. And e-mail it out of your personal e-mail address."
He said he'd be there for another hour.
I told him not to e-mail me on the taxpayer dime, to do it when he got home. I gave him my e-mail address, and ordered him, "You send that to me right away. I want it when I wake up!"
It's 4:25 a.m., I have yet to receive Kevin Andrew Pussyman's e-mail, and I'm going to bed. In between trying to expose Bank of America and tracking down tiny little thugs using their taxpayer funded work time to try to punish people for speech unapproved by the "progressives," I actually have a book to write.
But first, let's review: We've got these "progressives" who have decided I'm racist, ignoring all the facts presented to them to the contrary, simply because I don't speak the approved progressive-speak.
Most amazingly, they've decided to try to denigrate me by calling me a male-to-female transsexual. For the record, I don't think ill of transsexuals -- calling me one is simply incorrect.
But, I recognize their intent in calling me this. And it's especially amazing coming from this group. I mean, of all the people in the world who have it hard, people who are born one sex and feel strongly that they are another, are right around the top of the list. But, never mind that, perfect weapon for the "progressives."
Oh, and one last thing:
Hey, Dailey, you fucked with the wrong "tranny," huh?
A hint for the future: Never go after a woman who has bigger balls than you do, even if they are only metaphorical.
UPDATE:
It's 5 a.m., Pacific Time. Kevin just e-mailed me. His effort is, well, sadly pathetic. See for yourself: 
Comments
Get him, Amy.
And, again, don't let these little nazis interfere with getting your book done. I'm looking forward to reading it.
Posted by: T's Grammy at August 28, 2008 4:54 AM
Thanks -- going back to bed now!
P.S. Writing the Bank of America chapter this week.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 4:59 AM
Hey Mr. Dailey, if you haven't figured it out by now, Amy's not a tranny. But she IS a pit bull with a death grip if you're ever stupid enough to insult her.....
Sadly Pathetic's next attack? Amy's a mean bitch for flogging poor Dailey for merely using his free speech. Free speech doesn't include slander and libel though. And I believe calling someone a tranny and harassing them online is a hate crime, no?
"Hate crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.[1]
Hate crime can take many forms. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters."
Posted by: juliana at August 28, 2008 5:00 AM
Oh, and there's another little weenie who wasn't answering his phone at work the other day. These tiny turds are just lucky I've been so busy trying to get my book done!
Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 5:03 AM
Gee, a lefty dickhead who works for the government and is a sniveling turd when called to the mat by someone he has harassed. BIG surprise all the way around.
Amy, you have gotten quite the education about the "tolerance" of "progressives" the past couple of weeks, haven't you? Just imagine how vicious they are to actual conservatives.....
This is all part of the master plan to eliminate any dissent or deviation from liberal doctrine. Campus speech codes, hate speech laws, the "Fairness" doctrine and ad hominen personal attacks on anyone who doesn't follow the sacraments of Liberalism appropriately.
Interestingly, I think we are seeing a "schism" in the Church of Liberalism. Obama vs. Hillary. Racism vs. Sexism. Liberals have been sordid purveyors of identity/victim politics for 40 years and the chickens are coming home to roost. Bra-fucking-Vo!
Posted by: Tom at August 28, 2008 5:38 AM
I wish he'd had the stones to claim his comments. I wonder if Sadly will post about this.
Posted by: Kate at August 28, 2008 5:54 AM
Well what he did was not a hate crime, nor should there even be a hate crime statute but different point. Hate crime statutes are absolute horse shit.
A hate crime requires you to single out a person "because of his or her membership in a certain social group". He found what Amy said offensive, most of us did not but he did. His actions were immature and illegal but not even close to hate crime even conceptually. Your words offended him thus he tried to do the same. Hating someone for what they say is still perfectly legal, stopping them saying it is not. Now the web attack on your site is illegal and should probably be investigated but not under hate crimes.
As far as on gov coin he could be in a similar situation to me. He has stuff he has to set up and then the shit runs itself for several hours. So he's either blogging, playing Halo (depending on his supervisor), or counting the spots on the ceiling for the thousandth time. He could always be reading up on his field but every so often the brain needs a break. Try reading microprocessor manual cover to cover the stuff starts to flow together really fast if you don't stop for a while.
Also posting the guys info on this site sounds like you trying to get him harassed by us, which would be the sadly no crap we all found so stupid. Also the anonymity (illusion of such) of the internet allows for far freer speech than one would find in public. If you are so quick to pop IP I'll be more careful with what I type in the future.
Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2008 5:56 AM
This does not change the fact that he should have had the stones to admit to what he did and why and been unapologetic for it. Yes I disagree with both his stance and more so his action. However calling you a tranny in a private e-mail would only be liable (in spirit) if it caused you great harm or would be believed by the public.
Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2008 6:01 AM
Vlad, I don't think Amy would out you, even if you disagreed with her. The only reason she outed this weenie is because he is continuing the Sadly, Pathetics campaign to try (in their seriously misguided way) to discredit her. I think she has every right to out him.
Posted by: Flynne at August 28, 2008 6:02 AM
I tried to go to the Dailey comments on sadly no. I can't as my company server blocks sadly no as porn.
Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2008 6:03 AM
"The only reason she outed this weenie is because he is continuing the Sadly, Pathetics campaign to try (in their seriously misguided way) to discredit her." I don't see any campaign from him to discredit her. I can't see the comments on Sadly No so I can't check, all I see is one badly written offensive e-mail. This brings into question the literary skill of our civil servants.
Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2008 6:08 AM
I just woke up and this is the first thing I have received from my RSS feed. Talk about good news!
Glad to see that you can reach them in return. It is a real pleasure to see one of them squeal when he realize that he's not invincible in the cyberspace. Just like the beetles who hides under a rock, they will crawl back at the second they will see some sunlight.
I don't know what's annoy me more; self-righteous pricks or spineless thugs. At least the pricks stand for their ideals...
Posted by: Toubrouk at August 28, 2008 6:37 AM
From the CA Assoc. of Human Relations Organizations:
The terms hate violence and hate crimes first appeared in the Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Racial, Ethnic, Religious and Minority Violence issued in April, 1986. It defined hate violence to be:
"Any act of intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force directed against any person, or gamely, or their property or advocate, motivated either in whole or in part by hostility to their real or perceived race, ethnic background, religious belief, sex, age, disability, or sexual orientation, with the intention of causing fear or intimidation, or to deter the free exercise or enjoyment of any rights or privileges secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United State of California whether or not performed under color of law.
"Any act": Dailey qualified for this one by merely asking the question. "Harassment"; got that one too. "Hostility to their REAL OR PERCEIVED....sex or sexual orientation"...Dailey hit that one too. "To deter the free exercise or enjoyment of any rights or privileges secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United State of California": Dailey, and all his peers from Sadly, No! got that one too, intimating that she is a transsexual to discredit and harass her. Don't forget the spamming they've been doing to her website. Putting the tranny comment together with his/their other comments indicates the commission of a hate crime.
Posted by: juliana at August 28, 2008 6:41 AM
Guilty here of merrily reading every word.
I also don't see exposing the real identity of the rude twit as even a covert call for counter-harassing the rude twit.
But I have to agree in the main with vlad. This doesn't feel cool.
Also Amy's mock-heavy phrase here about the phone interrogation: "I squeeze him further. He professes not to know..." reads like something out of the Stasi files!
When the original injured party (Amy) starts to sound like an instrument of the state, something has gone a bit wrong.
(The East German police were notorious for taking stupid sexual cracks about party leaders as evidence of dangerous conspiracy and sedition too!)
Posted by: Jody Tresidder at August 28, 2008 6:53 AM
Wait, if the guy writes for Olbermann Watch, doesn't that mean he's a conservative?
Posted by: TRex at August 28, 2008 7:08 AM
Juliana: This is my fundamental problem with the hate crime statute. If interpreted in such way (harassment is anything you don't like) all men should be suing the shit out of enzite. First these commercials are annoying (just like Dailey calling Amy a tranny; harassment) second they target towards males (gender). So this interpretation could be used to sue all gender or race specific product advertisements. Which on a personal level I'd love since both enzite and feminine product seem to be advertised during dinner time. Ethically it's wrong as per the 1st amendment.
Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2008 7:12 AM
Interesting how ultra-liberals, who claim to be tolerant and loving of transexuals and gay people, will use those terms as insults for anyone to the right of their views. You'd think the hypocrisy would be more obvious to them.
Posted by: Clare at August 28, 2008 7:19 AM
Vlad- I understand your point; My concern is that Mr. Dailey addressed Amy personally in her own electronic home so to speak, while cowardly trying to stay at a safe distant for himself.
As to the Enzyte/ Cyalis/ Levitra and their ilk; this is more the scatterbomb approach. They don't care if they annoy (or worse) 200,000,000 sensible and more modest people if they can still hook 2,000,000 customers. I don't like it either on so many levels... I would like to see a Cyalis ad that instead of asking "When the moment is right, are you right for the moment?", more accurately stating "Cyalis; get ready for 36 hours of 'No'."
Posted by: juliana at August 28, 2008 7:34 AM
I'm a little torn. On one hand, I'm pissed off that this guy is pushing his agenda and harassing a taxpayer on her own dime. On the other, this guy could lose his livelihood over this in a shitty job market and that makes me feel just -- this bad for him.
I suppose that's why you're the 'pit bull' and I'm the admiring reader.
Posted by: Bella Hellfire at August 28, 2008 7:39 AM
Interesting how conservative douchebags who never claim to be tolerant or loving of any transexual or gay people try to take the moral high ground by smearing liberals with one man's actions. Of course, the hypocrisy is obvious, that's how conservative douchebags roll!
Posted by: Wilson at August 28, 2008 7:40 AM
Yeah, you're an obsessive compulsive pit bull all right. Good work nutbag.
Posted by: Gus at August 28, 2008 7:53 AM
Wilson: Are you one more of those jacked up shit heads from Sadly no? Have you read all of the other crap posted by the liberals with spam and HTML attacks?
"Of course, the hypocrisy is obvious" So is the stupid, your point?
Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2008 7:54 AM
"Yeah, you're an obsessive compulsive pit bull all right. Good work nutbag." Can you be more specific?
Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2008 7:56 AM
It never ceases to amaze me, what some people think they need to do to validate themselves.
There are no winners here.
Posted by: liberalrob at August 28, 2008 8:03 AM
The question still remains, are you a tranny?
The question has been answered numerous times in the negative, which begs the question, are you a moron?
Posted by: Flynne at August 28, 2008 8:13 AM
Actually, Wilson, I am more than tolerant of gay and transgendered people, which is why I would never call someone a "tranny" or "queer" as an insult. This implies that being gay or transgendered is a bad thing. Calling someone a "moron," on the other hand, is fair game.
Posted by: Clare at August 28, 2008 8:14 AM
I feel sorry for you, "Ms." Alkon. It's sadly apparent that you simply needed to gin up more traffic to this intellectually-devoid site, hence your foaming at the mouth over a simple comment, which perhaps might not be so offensive to you if it didn't hit so close to home? Clearly, you are a screeching defender of the perfumed vagaries of womanhood. Bravo!
I am sure La Malkin is really, REALLY proud of the work you've done here. Just super. Let me know how that stalking thing works out, you champion-of-the-First-Amendment, you!
Posted by: Your Uncle Bastard at August 28, 2008 8:19 AM
Are you a tranny?
Posted by: ignacio.martinez@the401k.com at August 28, 2008 8:20 AM
Hmm. I dunno about NOAA, but at Savannah River Site, surfing is seen as the easiest and third-fastest way to lose your job. First is assaulting the security force, in which case you also have a good chance of being dead; second is physical assault on another worker, aggravated by the seniority of that worker, and you might get beat up. Theft of government physical property is slower.
This is because all of the Site Web traffic is logged. There's a DOD presence. Hey, we were a nuke weapons plant once...
...and so Wackenhut shows up with your facility manager, who says, "Come with me", and it's out the gate for good.
It's very plainly stated. It's NOT just a question of you wasting your time. It's a question of exposing your system to offsite threats and thereby wasting the time and money of hundreds, even thousands, or others.
If Amy can tell who this guy is at NOAA, doncha think some hood who wants to steal some bandwidth can do the same?
Posted by: Radwaste at August 28, 2008 8:20 AM
Today's winner for the Michelle Malkin Can't Take Criticism Award is .....
(drumroll...)
Amy Alkin!
(golf claps)
Posted by: McE at August 28, 2008 8:20 AM
Wow you try to have an actual intellectual discussion that some might disagree and the single digit IQs start a feeding frenzy.
"It's sadly apparent that you simply needed to gin up more traffic to this intellectually-devoid site" Hey shit for brains wouldn't that include you coming here?
Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2008 8:28 AM
The point, my slow-witted conservative friend, is that it's quite ironic that douchebags like Claire in the above posting try to smear all liberals with attacks against transexuals and homosexuals by the actions of assumed liberal Kevin. Ergo: the hypocrisy and your stupidity.
I am not a Sadly, No "jacked up shit head", but I do find their humor quite amusing. Funny how there are no humerous conservative sites, I wonder why? I do know that Amy Alkon's web site has had a huge surge in visits resulting in increased advertising dollars for her, regardless of what supposed spam, HTML attacks that were launched by, again, assumed liberals. Why don't you support the Free Market, Vlad? Don't hate capitalism, Vlad, embrace it!
Posted by: Wilson at August 28, 2008 8:31 AM
Tell him you'll back off if they promise to name a hurricane after you next year...
Posted by: Eric at August 28, 2008 8:34 AM
"Why don't you support the Free Market, Vlad? Don't hate capitalism, Vlad, embrace it! " Oh you have no idea how much I embrace the free market and capitalism. I bet though you'd be the first screaming bloody murder in the medical industry truly embraced capitalism in the absolute.
"my slow-witted conservative friend," Oh wow your funny.
Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2008 8:38 AM
Wilson: Morbid curiosity if we evil conservative are wrongly labeling liberals as lingual fascists what would your personal stance be?
Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2008 8:42 AM
Lady, what you're doing is called stalking. You need psychiatric help. I ran into another mentally ill person who tried 'tracking me down' because they didn't like something I said on the internet... and in the process, ended up consulting with police, psychiatrists, psychologists and lawyers. You are a sick, sick woman. Your commentator should get a court order to keep you away. Or a gun (as I was advised by one professional). Or -- as I decided to do -- use my full name and let people realize I'm dealing with a full deck, and my stalker ain't.
Posted by: Richard Grabman at August 28, 2008 8:44 AM
RG -
Hey, douchebag - in case you are too stupid to follow a timetable, THE FUCKNOZZLE WHO POSTED THE QUESTION STARTED IT.
You want liberal humor? Here's your typical progg humor:
"How many Obama supporters does it take to change a lightbulb?"
"RACIST!"
Posted by: brian at August 28, 2008 8:49 AM
"use my full name and let people realize I'm dealing with a full deck, and my stalker ain't. " Um she does use her full name.
Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2008 8:50 AM
Wow. Overreact much?
Posted by: Dave at August 28, 2008 8:52 AM
Seriously, lady - you have something of a problem. This guy left a snide comment on your blog, and you "retaliated" by possibly getting him fired.
Way to go. Ooooh, you so cool. He didn't do didlly to your "free speech". He made a snide remark - just like I'll do if I ever see you around L.A. Compared the hundreds of gigabytes we ship to and from the government facility I work at, his comment was what we at the US gov't call a "minimal distraction of resources".
Hope you feel better.
Posted by: Pathetic Obsessive Disorder at August 28, 2008 9:01 AM
Normally I would disagree with your response, but he was a blatant, nasty troll. Good for you.
If he keeps this up, and they take no action against him, I would consider reporting him to DoC's Office of the Inspector General for time card fraud and political activity carried out on the public dime. IIRC, he can get in SERIOUS trouble for that.
Posted by: Mike T at August 28, 2008 9:02 AM
Hey Brian, better watch out - Amy deletes comments with gratuitous profanity.
Oh, wait, you agree with her. You won't get deleted.
Posted by: Pathetic Obsessive Disorder at August 28, 2008 9:02 AM
Mike T - good luck with that. He wasn't promoting or suggesting a political candidate, party, or activity. The IG will laugh your complaint out of the office after sending his boss an action notice.
aqmy writes: "These tiny turds are just lucky I've been so busy trying to get my book done!"
Just get some kids to come in with a box of crayons - you'll be done by the end of the day!
Posted by: Pathetic Obsessive Disorder at August 28, 2008 9:05 AM
I'm so afraid for my job. Amy knows how to use teh Google!
All you Alkonholics sure are selective about your outrage. I thought Republitarians were against interference with free speech?
"Normally you'd disagree?" What's so abnormal about this case? Please explain and use small words - I'm a liberal, after all. Amy's post was less about why this was so wrong than about her vindictive nature and her sooperslooth skillz.
Posted by: Amy's got a Mean Streak! at August 28, 2008 9:09 AM
Lady, what you're doing is called stalking. You need psychiatric help.
That's a funny one! The moron started posting slander here under an alias and it wouldn't be proper to answer back? Guess what Richard; a dialogue is a two-way street. I find Amy's attitude quite progressive. Unlike other dictatorial forces, she's allowing an exchange of ideas here and a debate over the personal use of Internet while working for the government.
On the other side, admit it, you would be cheering if "Dailey" was a born-again christian.
Posted by: Toubrouk at August 28, 2008 9:09 AM
Hey Dailey:
Get an iPhone and leave comments during lunch. Problem solved.
Posted by: Always Annoying Amy Alkonholics! at August 28, 2008 9:13 AM
Wilson: it may be an exercise in futility to reason with you, but here we go. I am not painting all liberals with that brush. I assumed it was clear that I was referring to the many (not just this troll) liberals who will accuse prominent conservatives of being gay (or "trannies") in an effort to insult them or damage their careers. It happens quite often - just read the newspapers. I'm not saying all liberals, or even the majority of liberals, do this.
And speaking of making assumptions that the "are you a tranny?" comment is from a liberal, you also made an assumption that I'm conservative. I'm a moderate on most issues who is liberal on gay rights. I just call 'em like I see 'em.
Posted by: Clare at August 28, 2008 9:13 AM
Hey Brian, better watch out - Amy deletes comments with gratuitous profanity.Oh, wait, you agree with her. You won't get deleted.
Actually, she doesn't. If you weren't a room-temperature-IQ troll, you would know that.
All you Alkonholics sure are selective about your outrage. I thought Republitarians were against interference with free speech?
Slander is not free speech.
But then again, if you had the intellectual firepower required to light a match, you'd understand that.
Then again, you're so stupid that you find S,N! funny. You probably also think that the ABC producer that got arrested in Denver had it coming.
Posted by: brian at August 28, 2008 9:16 AM
"Normally you'd disagree?" What's so abnormal about this case? Please explain and use small words - I'm a liberal, after all. Amy's post was less about why this was so wrong than about her vindictive nature and her sooperslooth skillz.
Call it my former, ruthlessly nietzschean tendencies surfacing again, but I have no pity for people who strike me as pure, unadulterated trolls.
Posted by: Mike T at August 28, 2008 9:18 AM
It's interesting that you consider commenting on your blog, which you open to comments, as an attack on your website. Though, I must admit, that assertion is only slightly less demented than the one that insists that negative responses are an attempt to deprive you of your right to free speech.
The deal is pretty simple, really. Responding to your ridiculous posts, which you have every right to excrete, is our excercise of free speech rather than an attempt to deny you yours. You banning posters, and deleting comments, on the other hand, would be a denial of our free speech. You follow? Not to worry, I'm sure one of your brain trust can explain it to you.
Posted by: officious_pedant at August 28, 2008 9:21 AM
If you are so quick to pop IP I'll be more careful with what I type in the future.
There was a concerted effort by a mob at Sadly Pathetic to punish me for my speech. To suck my time and intimidate me for speaking in a way unapproved by progressives. To turn my comments section into something unreadable, with postings, by many people, under some seventh-grade in-joke name. And then there were the 30-page posts of spam, messages about communism, etc., and many comments that were made in my name and those of other commeners. These include a comment in the name of a regular commenter, not made by him, which included the word "nigger." He did not post this, but because he, unlike these cowards, posts in his own name (a shortened version of it, but will tell you his name if you ask and can be Googled in a second) this was out-and-out defamation. I was forced to not only delete the comment but send a number of e-mails about this (to another commenter) to make sure he didn't believe the word was actually posted by the guy whose name it was posted under.
Furthermore, it became even more clear to me that these people were not interested in honest debate when, for example, they criticized me for use of the word "litter" as "dehumanizing" to black people and racist. Just one of many examples where I said, "Here, I'll show you why it's not, and proceeded to link to blog items where I'd referred to Catholics who have lots of children, rich white women who have lots of children, and Muslims who have lots of children, as people who have litters.
Hilariously, until two weeks ago, I had banned only about four people from my site in all the years I've been blogging. This is a free speech site, and I don't list IPs merely of people who disagree with me. I will not, however, be a party to people who try to silence others.
These tiny little thugs continue above, proudly, in asking whether I'm really a man. And most disingenuously, the little mobsters come around to post crap like this:
Hey Brian, better watch out - Amy deletes comments with gratuitous profanity. Oh, wait, you agree with her. You won't get deleted.
These people either pretend to be butt dumb or are as a way to disrupt my site.
Your right to free speech does not mean you have a right to disrupt the discussion on my site. You do not have a right to bandwidth I pay for. You have a right to start a blog of your own and criticize me on it, and I will defend that right no matter what you write, as long as it is true and not libelous.
What Dailey did, let's be clear, is post a remark intended to show me how I'm not allowed to speak in a way that is not approved by progressives. This is reprehensible, even when you aren't doing it on the taxpayer dime. Those who do not wish to be fired from their government jobs should not use those jobs as a platform to go against the Constitution this country was founded upon.
Oh, and I'll be around to ban all you tiny trolls above. Anybody who's not here as part of the mob is free to stay. And no, I don't normally reveal IPs. But if you're a car thief, a hit-and-run driver, a telemarketer, or part of a mob determined to punish people for their free speech, I'll nail you to the wall if it's in my power.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 9:22 AM
Amy,
Do you understand the difference between "punish[ing you] for [your] speech" and mocking you?
You said something that is racist (calling black babies a litter). Instead of simply saying "while that was not my intention, I can see how using that phrasing with the history of dehumanizing black people could be racist" and apologizing, you went off being all self justifying. So you got mocked on the internet. Instead of ignoring, laughing at it, or mocking back, you decided to track someone down at work and bully them.
That really isn't a decent thing to do.
Posted by: Dan at August 28, 2008 9:30 AM
These comments above, from:
Pathetic Obsessive Disord...
Always Annoying Amy Alkon...
Amy's got a Mean Streak!
Pathetic Obsessive Disord...
Pathetic Obsessive Disord...
And two from yesterday:
Is this thing on? -- Tonguejacker-in-Cheef
I don't agree with you. (see if this comment gets deleted.) --Tonguejacker-in-Cheef
Are all from the same IP.
198.243.59.130
They're from here:
IP address [?]: 198.243.59.130 [Whois]
IP address country: ip address flag United States
IP address state: Colorado
IP address city: Snowmass Village
IP postcode: 81615
IP address latitude: 39.193901
IP address longitude: -106.944702
ISP of this IP [?]: Qwest Communications
Organization: TIMBERS CLUB
Host of this IP: [?]: 198-243-59-130.dia.static.qwest.net [Whois]
Local Time of this IP country: 2008-08-28 10:30
Very likely, I banned this thug's home IP and work IP -- unless he works here -- and like the kind of thug who shoves into your home, he pushes back in, determined to disrupt my site.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 9:31 AM
I wish he'd had the stones to claim his comments. I wonder if Sadly will post about this.
None of them do, that's why they post anonomously. They're all wussies (that's "wimps" + "pussies" = "wussies", thank you Mike Damone!)!
I do know that Amy Alkon's web site has had a huge surge in visits resulting in increased advertising dollars for her, regardless of what supposed spam, HTML attacks that were launched by, again, assumed liberals.
Yes, and how ironic is it that it's all the trolls who are the ones contributing the most "increased advertising dollars for her"??
o_O
Posted by: Flynne at August 28, 2008 9:32 AM
Amy, did anyone ever tell you how beautiful you sound when you're angry? So coolly and beautifully commanding, effortlessly full of certain righteousness - and very very frightening? Heh, you took HIS balls right off (never mind what they say about yours ha ha ha!)You go tell all these Progressives that this is what is now going to happen to them if they don't repent (or at least silence) their Progressive ways. So get going with the phone book - all those illegals with foreign names would be a good start - and getting dialling tonite. They must be told and no-one tells it like Amy! Brava! More!
Posted by: BogStandardBrit at August 28, 2008 9:38 AM
Interesting how conservative douchebags who never claim to be tolerant or loving of any transexual or gay people try to take the moral high ground by smearing liberals with one man's actions. Of course, the hypocrisy is obvious, that's how conservative douchebags roll!
I particularly love this comment by Wilson above. You don't know anything about me, you tiny little thug.
Here's a column I wrote to help people have a better understanding of crossdressers (different from transsexuals, FYI, but in a similar neck of the woods):
http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2006/05/who-wears-the-p.html
FYI, I think the guy left negative comments on OlbermannWatch.
And the thing is, I'm not so easy to pigeonhole as a conservative, but the reason these tiny thugs are discussion-ruiners here is that they aren't interested in what I really think, and make that clear by ignoring, for example, when I explained that I don't simply use "litter" in reference to black people but showed how I use it about rich white women and anyone who has lots of children.
For the record, I'm fiscally conservative and socially libertarian.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 9:40 AM
Oh, you poor, poor victim - did the big mean ol' lefty say something to hurt your feelings? Since this is the first recorded case of anyone saying anything mean to someone in the history of the internets, so you were right to call some random guy up at work, harass him, and then publicly blog about it and expose all his personal information.
Yes, you're perfectly right to do that, especially since your comment system so clearly warns people who post that you'll go batshit crazy all over their asses. Instead of really being ballsey and just ignoring the haters, you decide the best thing to do is to cowardly print all the guy's personal information in an act of idiotic, pitiful revenge. Wow... you're like, super smart and stuff.
This is the first time I've ever heard of you and probably (hopefully!) the last, but I hope you really aren't as pathetic in real life as you come off in your post.
Posted by: Not Finding Me! at August 28, 2008 9:44 AM
Yes, and how ironic is it that it's all the trolls who are the ones contributing the most "increased advertising dollars for her"??
I doubt that the "Trolling" made by the Sadly progressive forces have really made a dent on her internet bill. This is the annoying part; could a constant attack like this would be revealed to be costly at the end?
On the other side, the whole 600+ comment thread thing could frighten newcomers and affect the publicity in the long time. Regardless of the issues, the whole troll thing is really annoying.
Posted by: Toubrouk at August 28, 2008 9:45 AM
amy,
You keep deleting comments that while snarky, seem to bring up some good points.
Seriously - as a long time reader and first time commenter, I think you're giving these films way too much attention and hurting your own cause by being so outré.
Posted by: concernicus at August 28, 2008 9:45 AM
Amy, did anyone ever tell ...blah blah blah yadda yadda spews more horseshit... They must be told and no-one tells it like Amy! Brava! More!
BogStandardBrit, did anyone ever tell you that you've cornered the market on making an ass of yourself via the Internet? Bravo! More!
Posted by: Flynne at August 28, 2008 9:47 AM
as far as the timbers club goes, I doubt you'll get anything out of them. It's a resort in the elitist liberal enclave of Snowmass-and they're sure as he'll not gonna go overboard on their clients for you.
Posted by: Concernicus at August 28, 2008 9:51 AM
Oh, you poor, poor victim - did the big mean ol' lefty say something to hurt your feelings?
Actually, no. I've been showing friends the sadlyno postings about me -- was actually carrying them around in my purse for a few days, because I think it's hilarious they're actually interested in me.
Read the entry linked at the top of this one and the comment about Amy "Albert" Alkon from Sadly Pathetic within the post. If you come to my site with the intent of disrupting my speech, disrupting my comments section from an intelligent discussion and turning it into a discussion of whether I'm transsexual, and posting vast pieces of spam to suck my time, you will be outed and banned.
To put this as you do above is disingenuous and not surprising. This whole matter has been a real education in what it means to be "progressive." Not that all people on the left are like this, but when those on the right disagree with me, and they do frequently, because I'm not actually a Republican and I'm an atheist and socially libertarian, they post on their blogs about what an idiot I am (which is absolutely fine with me), they do not send the 7,000 dwarves to disrupt my comments section.
Posted by: Amy Alkon 
at August 28, 2008 9:51 AM
Dan:
You said something that is racist (calling black babies a litter). Instead of simply saying "while that was not my intention, I can see how using that phrasing with the history of dehumanizing black people could be racist" and apologizing, you went off being all self justifying. So you got mocked on the internet. Instead of ignoring, laughing at it, or mocking back, you decided to track someone down at work and bully them.
Look, you ignorant cunt, I'm tired of this deliberate attempt by the left to destroy opposing viewpoints by turning intentionalism on its head.
Amy is not responsible for the way that people too ignorant to understand English interpret her writing. There is no reason she should be forced to write at a fourth-grade level just so you nimrods can comprehend things.
You and your progressive brethren spend all your time finding things to be offended about so you have people to attack and shun so you can feel better about your pathetic, empty lives.
Posted by: brian at August 28, 2008 9:54 AM
For the record, I'm fiscally conservative and socially libertarian.
Outing someone for leaving a lame and harmless comment, possibly causing them to lose their job is socially libertarian?
Who knew?
Your response to this is way out of proportion, and says much more about you than the poor sap who asked you a direct question (Which you have never really answered, BTW.)
Posted by: Adam Yoshida at August 28, 2008 9:55 AM
You keep deleting comments that while snarky, seem to bring up some good points.
What are you talking about? Comments above were not deleted. I merely banned people who are here to disrupt the discussion.
Are you really a "longtime reader" or just a tiny little thug trying to stick around to post disruptive remarks?
Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 9:55 AM
Hahahaha! What a douche! Glad you called him on it, Amy.
And Not Finding Me? Just because the Internet provides for nearly anonymous communication does not mean it is your right for that communication to stay that way. People need to start treating the Internet like what it is: a world-wide forum, and if you think you're entitled to post some hateful, unproductive comments online with impunity, think again. Someone, like Amy, can and just might call you on your juvenile AND in this case unprofessional behavior (as he posted from his work). And I believe it's well within her rights to defend herself from harassment, virtual or otherwise.
Posted by: Jessica at August 28, 2008 9:56 AM
Your response to this is way out of proportion, and says much more about you than the poor sap who asked you a direct question (Which you have never really answered, BTW.)
No. This is out of proportion: Obama campaign wants criminal charges filed against ad producer
Posted by: brian at August 28, 2008 9:57 AM
Adding a comment like "are you a tranny" is pure douchebaggery...the kind of thing you'd expect from a 14-year old, not a grown man.
Tracking down said douchebag to his job and harassing him on the phone and trying to get him fired? Whoa. That's getting into stalker-psycho territory. This is a blog...on the internet - the land of juvenile douchebags. If you can't handle asinine comments, maybe you should stick to a newspaper column or something.
Posted by: turnip at August 28, 2008 10:01 AM
Amy, you are the man!!!!! (and I mean that in a good way!!!)
Will you be my bodyguard? Better yet, will be my lawyer?
Posted by: Dennis at August 28, 2008 10:06 AM
You said something that is racist (calling black babies a litter). Instead of simply saying "while that was not my intention, I can see how using that phrasing with the history of dehumanizing black people could be racist" and apologizing, you went off being all self justifying.
Then sign me up as a racist because I would refer to children of any race, born into the environment that that black mother created, as a litter. Hell, I'd use worse language than that to describe the mother's actions that resulted in her brood of bastards.
Posted by: Mike T at August 28, 2008 10:09 AM
Adding a comment like "are you a tranny" is pure douchebaggery...the kind of thing you'd expect from a 14-year old, not a grown man. Tracking down said douchebag to his job and harassing him on the phone and trying to get him fired? Whoa. That's getting into stalker-psycho territory. This is a blog...on the internet - the land of juvenile douchebags. If you can't handle asinine comments, maybe you should stick to a newspaper column or something.
I have, for years, had people post comments like "You look like a man!" I have a long face and strong features. It's bound to happen.
What I haven't had is a mob of people doing it to disturb my site.
Individual douchebags are not tracked down. In fact, until now, they haven't even been deleted.
Again, the disingenuousness of those like you, turnip, posting here, is to be expected. Sad, but to be expected. If anything, this whole encounter with the Sadly Pathetics has given me quite the lesson in liberals. And no, I know not all liberals are like this, but again, when the right-wing disagrees with me (because, say, I was against the Iraq war before I was against it), they disagree in a civilized manner, by posting critical remarks about me on their blogs or by coming over as individuals to tell me why they think I'm wrong. The mob thing is, of course, meant to disrupt my site and quash me from speaking freely in the future, in a way not approved by progressives. Oh, sorry, "progressives."
Posted by: Amy Alkon
at August 28, 2008 10:15 AM
"I can see how using that phrasing with the history of dehumanizing black people could be racist" My aunt could be my uncle if she had balls. Anything could be anything else if you choose to take it that way. That's meaningless statement.
Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2008 10:17 AM
wow. Amy managed to post the IP address of a resort complex with 30 units and an open wireless network. Great work, Amy!
By the way, I alerted the desk staff that there's an obsessed stalker after me. They wanted to call the snowmass villiage p.d.
Would you mind terribly removing their ip address? They were troubled when I showed them your site.
Posted by: haha at August 28, 2008 10:19 AM
Dan,
To clarify: what you said Amy did, you took out of context. You are therefore wrong, because you haven't done the due diligence bit to figure out what Amy was talking about - or how consistent she has actually been in calling people for irresponsibility, regardless of race.
Based on your method - if it were valid (no) - I could claim now that you approve of paying black women to have children by transients on the public dole. But only black women.
Posted by: Radwaste at August 28, 2008 10:19 AM
Wow.
You actually stalked someone who posted a rude comment on your blog.
You're fucking insane.
Posted by: jax_artemis at August 28, 2008 10:20 AM
"Individual douchebags are not tracked down. In fact, until now, they haven't even been deleted. " Um, I believe the Dailey was and still is an individual. Of all the comments made he was the only one you could positivly identify. So kind of bad form on that one.
Now had you just called him and made him feel stupid we'd be all for it but name, phone and employer. Again just my view of this.
Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2008 10:22 AM
I alerted the desk staff that there's an obsessed stalker after me.
I've written about stalking:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2008/06/fear-of-the-dor.html
The U.S. Department of Justice defines stalking as "repeated and unwanted attention, harassment, (or) contact...that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear."
There's no repeated attention, and the attention Dailey and anybody else gets is in response to their actions, and it stems from my refusal to lie down like a nice little victim.
The Sadly Pathetics made it quite clear here that that was why I was a repeated target. Read through the comments on the other entries related to this issue and the Tarika Wilson incident. I have a book to write.
And Vlad, if Dailey weren't part of a mob from Sadly No, I wouldn't care in the least. It's about stopping me from speaking in a way unapproved by "progressives" and punishing me for speech unapproved by "progressives," and as part of a mob bent on doing so. That I'll always go after.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 10:26 AM
"Would you mind terribly removing their ip address? They were troubled when I showed them your site." Actually she doesn't have to do jack shit captain nutless. Posting a persons IP is not illegal or even questionable as they are included with every internet transaction.
Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2008 10:27 AM
"That I'll always go after." I agree but you should then go after the mob not just the slowest and stupidest member.
Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2008 10:30 AM
If the dip shit as Sadly No in any way openly instigated all those ass holes coming here then you can nail Sadly No under certain internet statutes.
Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2008 10:32 AM
"That I'll always go after." I agree but you should then go after the mob not just the slowest and stupidest member.
They're all stupid and irrational, or they would have responded to my clarifications of their initial idiocy by saying, "Oh, we get it." Not continuing the mob attacks on me.
FYI, if they merely put up pictures of me and posted that I'm a huge idiot for X reason, I'd be fine with that. The fact that they're disrupting my site is the issue. And that they're sending people over here to do it.
Posted by: Amy Alkon
at August 28, 2008 10:33 AM
All will please notice the attempt to blame Amy for the actions of others.
You who think that Mr. Dailey is a victim of some kind: do you really mean to tell me (us) that it's perfectly OK for someone to spend your tax money surfing the Web?
If so, say so. Techs at SRS make about $29/hour. Do remember that this sort of things can cause a government Web site to be compromised, and then hundreds of thousands of dollars of your tax money will be gone - a result of activity that you approve!
Do you want me surfing Google Maps (look for the wreck of the American Star - see the coordinates at top right, click, pick, zoom in), or doing my job as an engineering & procedures editor at SRS?
If you want a reason so much of American life is whacko, look in the mirror - for someone who blames police for lawbreaking, and any observer handy for other sorry behavior!
Posted by: Radwaste at August 28, 2008 10:33 AM
"You who think that Mr. Dailey is a victim of some kind: do you really mean to tell me (us) that it's perfectly OK for someone to spend your tax money surfing the Web?" I never said he was a victim, just cause someone did something in poor form does not make you a victim. I explained why some surfing is actually productive, depending on the position he's in.
"And that they're sending people over here to do it." Why not out the creator(s) of sadly no and nail them under the internet statutes.
Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2008 10:39 AM
are you a t*****?
Good lord, I've never seen anything like that on the internet! Don't worry, you're certainly justified in flying off the handle and posting the guy's private information. After all, he gave up his privacy rights when he typed those 14 characters! On your dime! That's the part that really gets me.
Obviously, the real cost to each individual taxpayer is incalculably, ludicrously insignificant, but it's the principle, damn it! If I have to pay months and months of this guy's unemployment to punish him for the 4 seconds of taxpayer-funded time he stole conceiving and posting that comment, so be it!
Still, I don't understand your basis for labling him a progressive. What are you, psychic?
Posted by: tb at August 28, 2008 10:43 AM
If the grocery bagger/ UPS man/ post office clerk/ janitor at school (the list goes on and on) asks me while during the course of his professional day (on the clock) if I'm a transsexual, do you think he deserves to lose his job? He's representing the place of his employment and his employer. This may be a juvenile prank, but his employer is paying him to behave like a mature adult making responsible decisions for the company. If he asked a fellow co-worker the same question, you bet your bippy he'd be standing on the sidewalk with a cardboard box full of personal items.
Posted by: juliana at August 28, 2008 10:45 AM
"If the grocery bagger/ UPS man/ post office clerk/ janitor at school (the list goes on and on) asks me while during the course of his professional day (on the clock) if I'm a transsexual, do you think he deserves to lose his job?" If a total stranger say it to you would that justify you finding out where he works and firing him?
Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2008 10:49 AM
Well, are you a tranny? you look like one.
Posted by: Ernest Tee at August 28, 2008 10:51 AM
Cyberharassment is not profoundly harmful, but no employer wants to have to face litigation. I'm sure there's a hungry lawyer out there that could make something out of this. We see it all the time in our litigious society. Mr. Dailey probably doesn't make enough, but his company would be good for a settlement just to go away. Court costs are expensive, even for a case with no merit. Perhaps Amy did Mr. Dailey's employer a favor by showing a weak spot in their employee pool; they're lucky she's not the type to get a lawyer. Yes, this economy is difficult, it would be horrible to be unemployed right now. Maybe Mr. Dailey should take that into consideration when conducting his affairs at work.
Posted by: juliana at August 28, 2008 11:11 AM
ET Are you an idiot? Because you write like one.
Just Google Ernest Tree and sadlyno and you'll see he's just another one of the mob.
Posted by: Amy Alkon
at August 28, 2008 11:15 AM
> I don't think Amy would out you,
> even if you disagreed with her
Good lord. If Amy was twitchy about this shit, I'd have been thrown to the wolves in 2004.
> interrogation: "I squeeze him
> further. He professes not to
> know..."
That part makes me nervous too. But listen, I still think most of bad comments this month (including the ones in this thread) are from a single guy who's spoofing his IP addresses.
But the value of her forum has been greatly diminished by irresponsible children who abuse the privilege of her hospitality. I'm glad she's still into it enough to cause them some tears rather than just give it up. This blog is a marketing tool for her professional products. Why shouldn't she be personal and vindictive about it?
> reads like something out of
> the Stasi files!
That's silly.
> On the other, this guy could
> lose his livelihood over this
> in a shitty job market
His actions will have consequences... Is that a problem? Was he concerned about the effect his vandalism would have on Amy's career?
> There are no winners here.
You're being short-sighted. I'd say Amy's the winner. Hell, I think Amy's wrong about these things (and many others), but I still think she comes out ahead on the ethical scoreboard for these confrontations.
> Lady, what you're doing
> is called stalking.
Naw... If the person she was chasing down had never been involved in any misconduct, that would be stalking. This is as plain as high noon sunshine. People who can't see that are probably just afraid that some blogger will come after them next.
You know how to protect yourself from the Amy Alkon "stalkers" of the world? Don't be a coward when you criticize. If Amy's vandal had identified himself as clearly as you did, Richard, she wouldn't have gone after him. And more to the point, he wouldn't have said the things he did if he'd known he could be identified. Got it? Freedom of speech is not a miraculous playland of irresponsibility has not consequences.
> from the government facility I
> work at, his comment was what
> we at the US gov't call a
> "minimal distraction of
> resources"
Speaking as taxpayers to one of our employees: We'll tell you what's "minimal", buttercup.
> You [Amy] said something
> that is racist
No she didn't. Get over yourself.
PS- If everything's on the up-&-up, I think it would be cool if the guy lost his job.
Posted by: Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 28, 2008 11:17 AM
"That I'll always go after." I agree but you should then go after the mob not just the slowest and stupidest member. -- vlad
I agree with this in principal, but it's often the case that the only way to get people to behave is to start smacking some of the offenders around. Yes, this guy was an idiot to join the other SN idiots in their harassment in a way that was so easily traced. Maybe next time he'll remember that he's not quite as "anonymous" as he thinks and he'll act like an adult and not like a teenager following orders from other people with child-like intellect.
I'll admit, I wouldn't have gone to the lengths that Amy did, but as to feeling sorry for him, I certainly don't. Yes, he may lose his job (although it is very unlikely), but that falls into the category of "taking responsibility for our actions." Even small children know that if you continue to harass someone, eventually they're going to strike back and you better be prepared for the consequences. Trolls all over the internet hide behind fake names and think they're being clever when they throw mud. Maybe it’s about time they started getting treated like the misbehaving children they are acting like.
And to whichever "progressive" was spouting off about Amy taking away your free speech by banning you... I'm quite to the left of most of the people who are on this board, so maybe you'll listen to me when I say:
You are an idiot. Even 5th graders know the difference between free speech and slander/harassment. Perhaps your time would be better spent pursuing an education instead of countless hours in front of the computer coming up with moronic posts.
Posted by: Kristyle at August 28, 2008 11:18 AM
If a total stranger say it to you would that justify you finding out where he works and firing him?
Vlad, this is not a single occurrence but an action taken during a cyber-intimidation attack. This is why I believe you are missing the point on this.
We all know how Amy is. She's posting pictures of people who are rude with her here on a regular basis. It was the choice of "Mr." Dailey to mess with her while at work for the government. He thought he would swim in the shark tank and he got bitten. Since I am not in the business of finding excuses for people, I will find none for him. If his actions will make him lose his work, I couldn't care less. If you shove someone, be prepare to be shoved back. This includes not being at the edge of a cliff.
Posted by: Toubrouk at August 28, 2008 11:18 AM
You're quite the vindictive harridan, aren't you, Amy? Good thing you don't live in my country, where posting private/personal information for malicious purposes is an actionable offence.
Can't wait to update your Wikipedia entry with the details of this incident.
Posted by: Foreigner at August 28, 2008 11:30 AM
You're quite the vindictive harridan, aren't you, Amy? Good thing you don't live in my country, where posting private/personal information for malicious purposes is an actionable offence.
Can't wait to update your Wikipedia entry with the details of this incident.
Now who's being malicious, fucktard?
Posted by: Flynne at August 28, 2008 11:31 AM
You're quite the vindictive harridan, aren't you, Amy? Good thing you don't live in my country, where posting private/personal information for malicious purposes is an actionable offence. Can't wait to update your Wikipedia entry with the details of this incident.
I'm proud to be a really poor victim. Naturally, the Sadly Pathetics don't see this as a virtue.
P.S. A friend of mine who just called said the actions of these losers "sounds like the plot of the movie 'Mean Girls.'" I haven't, in my adult life, experienced anything so junior high school.
Posted by: Amy Alkon
at August 28, 2008 11:32 AM
Why not out the creator(s) of sadly no and nail them under the internet statutes.
Frankly I don't know what the law is, but I would not approve of this. Outing them would be fine, but what sadly no is doing on their own site is free speech and I support their right to do it.
If they were running a real botnet I might feel differently, but they are running a sort of human retard powered botnet. As long as people are making the decisions to post comments from their computers, I don't see what's wrong with holding them accountable for those decisions.
You banning posters, and deleting comments, on the other hand, would be a denial of our free speech.
Free speech is something you do on your own dime. Last time I checked, Amy pays for this site and she can do whatever she wants with it, so long as the content doesn't break any laws.
This is a blog...on the internet - the land of juvenile douchebags.
The blogosphere is big and diverse. Perhaps this is a bit of a surprise to someone who frequents douchebag dense sites, but there are blogs with low percentages of juvenile commenters. This has been one of those blogs. I applaud Amy doing whatever is necessary to keep it that way.
Posted by: Shawn at August 28, 2008 11:34 AM
Free speech is something you do on your own dime.
Exactly. As I've said before, I'll defend your right to free speech even if I disagree with you. I will not, however, buy the bandwidth for you to punish me for mine.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 11:45 AM
The man should have simply said, "Yeah, I wrote that. I concede that it was ill-considered and wrong now that I am speaking to the insulted party. Sorry."
I think that email was essentially that communication. (Although the "I didn't mean to offend you is a lie--he very much wanted to offend the author.) Time to let it go, folks. The guy learned a valuable lesson, I suspect: never say something in email or a blog post that you wouldn't say in a room filled with reporters, friends and enemies.
Posted by: Spartee at August 28, 2008 11:46 AM
What ridiculous people with no life!
We're back to square one in this debate. Will Daily lose his job because he diddled on the internet on the clock or because Amy tracked him down and reported it? Sure he might have been disobeying the rules and then some by posting harrassment too but it's Amy's fault if he gets fired from his job because she dropped the dime on him.
Hope they all get caught for possession and soon. Because, man, they must be on something. This shit they're posting only makes sense to the stoned.
Far out!
Posted by: T's Grammy at August 28, 2008 11:48 AM
Haven't read all the comments yet, just had to say that if he thinks Amy's a man based on one of those pics, it MUST be the chicken suit one! LOL!
Gonna scroll waaay up now and read the rest...
Posted by: Sandy at August 28, 2008 11:51 AM
Chances are awfully good Mr. Dailey has done this before on company time. Wonder if it's in his file? One is rarely caught the very first time an infraction is committed.
Posted by: juliana at August 28, 2008 11:52 AM
Mmmm. Dinner at Ms. Alkon's place: a savory comeuppance followed by a deliciously sweet just desert.
Posted by: Jeff at August 28, 2008 11:53 AM
Good Lord, what a total psychopath. You did all that just because some retarded dude who has apparently read SadlyNo at some point in his life vacuously wondered if you were a transsexual? Please, Amy, take your meds before someone gets hurt. I'm only asking for the good of society.
Posted by: Landa Gentry at August 28, 2008 11:55 AM
Kevin sounds like he's guilty of leaving a dumb comment on your website. Does this really rise to the level of vindictive reaction that you take such great delight in recounting to your fans?
Reading your extreme response in this follow-up, I'm not wondering if you are a tranny (that's between you and your surgeon)...but I do wonder if perhaps you were the inspiration for Glenn Closes' character in Fatal Attraction.
Posted by: Innocent Bystander at August 28, 2008 11:56 AM
The man should have simply said, "Yeah, I wrote that. I concede that it was ill-considered and wrong now that I am speaking to the insulted party. Sorry." I think that email was essentially that communication. (Although the "I didn't mean to offend you is a lie--he very much wanted to offend the author.) Time to let it go, folks. The guy learned a valuable lesson, I suspect: never say something in email or a blog post that you wouldn't say in a room filled with reporters, friends and enemies.
I just said something similar (about the guy being accountable) to my boyfriend. I'm always looking to give people the benefit of the doubt. I don't want people to be such assholes. Had the guy owned up, said why he came here, and showed some sort of remorse at being part of some mob determined to intimidate and punish me for my speech...oh, and said he wouldn't do crap like this while he's supposed to, I guess, keep satellites from falling out of the sky...I would still have posted our conversation, and said he had a government job, and at what, but I wouldn't have outed him.
And look at the difference here -- I post in my own full name if I attack somebody's behavior, here or anywhere. I'm not some anonymous coward.
And per what Spartee said above, that keeps me from saying something I wouldn't say straight to your face in the grocery store.
Posted by: Amy Alkon
at August 28, 2008 11:59 AM
Oh sure, better yet, Amy should just roll over and play dead. In the end, Mr. Dailey was an amateur trying to show off for his like minded "tranny" chanters and has instead gotten burned.
Posted by: juliana at August 28, 2008 12:00 PM
Interestingly, the SadlyNo website appears to be down. You don't think they ran for their lives, do you? Perhaps Mr. Dailey was more involved at SadlyNo than first thought?
Posted by: Jeff at August 28, 2008 12:11 PM
I don't see what the big deal is.. if it's, as you claim, not a bad thing to be transsexual, then why is his asking if you are transsexual something so malicious as to require tracking him down and hounding him? If, as you claim, there should be no denigration implied in calling someone transsexual, then his comment would the equivalent to my asking 'how tall are you?' How ridiculous would it be to track someone down for asking such a question? And, yet, this is just what you have done.
Posted by: Tim at August 28, 2008 12:13 PM
Amy, the past couple weeks here has made me think of this sequence from the (surprisingly good) Howard Stern movie:
Researcher: The average radio listener listens for eighteen minutes. The average Howard Stern fan listens for - are you ready for this? - an hour and twenty minutes.
Pig Vomit: How can that be?
Researcher: Answer most commonly given? "I want to see what he'll say next."
Pig Vomit: Okay, fine. But what about the people who hate Stern?
Researcher: Good point. The average Stern hater listens for two and a half hours a day.
Pig Vomit: But... if they hate him, why do they listen?
Researcher: Most common answer? "I want to see what he'll say next."
If you go the Stern route with this, please remember us little people when you're rich.
Also, almost 100% off topic, but this picture made me laugh harder than anything I've seen in quite awhile.
Posted by: Shawn at August 28, 2008 12:14 PM
I don't see what the big deal is...ad nauseum...
Annnnnnnd another one misses the point!! Good job! What the hell are you all smoking?
Posted by: Flynne at August 28, 2008 12:16 PM
That picture is just great. Brilliant move.
And thanks, re: remembering "the little people," but, the way I see it, I'm just a girl from Michigan, and if I can make some serious cash, I'll just be a girl from Michigan who doesn't have to eat cat food when she's 80!
Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 12:18 PM
Tim, intent matters. Dailey's intent, like all of the SadlyNo posters, was clearly malicious. At law and as a matter of ethics, there is a huge difference.
Consider an analogous situation. Suppose I am at Amy's mythical grocery store, and I run into her. I'm 6'04'' and 230 lbs. I bet she'd bounce off of me. Now, if I intended to run into her, it's assault. If it was unintentional, it's just an accident. Intent matters. and we make distinctions of intent all the time.
Posted by: Jeff at August 28, 2008 12:21 PM
Good for you, Amy! Why should she have to stay quiet when someone is coming into her online house and insulting her? I hope he does lose his job (although I doubt he will). Why is it her fault if he does? If his actions are fireable, they're fireable. He did it, he pays. It's not her fault for telling. That's like blaming a rape victim when the rapist goes to prison.
Posted by: momof3 at August 28, 2008 12:23 PM
I love the way the internet turds just jump into the conversation to attack Amy without reading the facts. What I love about it is the humor. I've stated before, these wingnuts think backwards, so it is impossible to argue with them. They come up with a conclusion then argue for that case. For example, they conclude Amy is a tranny. Of course, Amy is not a tranny. And even though they can't argue the case, to them the truth is she is a tranny (remember, facts mean nothing to these delusional turds). So their arguments look ridiculous to anyone with an IQ over 80. That's why they don't get it.
And the fact that suddenly they are the victim? They started it. Reminds me of my ex wife. I'm in the living room, she's in the kitchen. For no reason, she just kicks the shit out of the dog. The dog whines, then goes back to sleep. She does this several times. Finally, after she kicks the dog for the tenth time, the dog bites the shit out of her. The ex then runs into the living room screaming 'THE DOG BIT ME! THE DOG BIT ME!' She fails to mention the fact that she kicked the dog ten times before it finally bit her.
That's the type of people that are coming here from Sadly Pathetic today. They want to be victims. Entertaining they are, but also annoying. I kind of wish they'd go screw themselves.
Posted by: Sterling at August 28, 2008 12:23 PM
She can take criticism just fine.
However that doesn't mean she also HAS to take shit.
Who wouldn't love to track down the jackasses that come online just to call people names like some 8th grade punk on the school yard,
and call them on their bad behavior. Anonymity makes a great many people into assholes, take that away...and they cower.
Now, as far as free speech goes...sure we support it.
HOWEVER: That does not mean one has to put up with harassment, spammers, or bullying behavior.
And that is what we have here. How many times is she supposed to tolerate being asked if she's a tranny by so called "progressives",
before she's permitted to your minds, to take away the anonymity of an asshole and ask him why he thought it was appropriate?
She didn't threaten him, she didn't stop by his house or sort through his mail or set fire to his car. She did something
really very simple. She got his name, and phone number, and called him up and asked him why he thought what he did was OK?
It wouldn't have been socially acceptable in person, it sure as hell isn't socially acceptable just because you aren't face to face.
Oooooh, how dare she call someone on their childish behavior, she's a dangerous stalker!
No...no...no...no...no. She's intolerant of bullshit and bad behavior out of supposed adults. Frankly if more people
called assholes on that kind of behavior, there would be alot less of it.
And Officious pedant...she's not deleting comments that attempt to make actual points. Notice the sort of things that get deleted.
"Are you a transexual" being but one example. She's never had a problem with opposing arguments, going through her blog you'll find
no shortage of disagreement. However she is not obligated to provide a forum for libel or slurs, and if that is all
that someone has to offer to the subject, they are rightly removed.
Note for example, that YOUR post is still present. You disagree, and you are a little pushy...but you haven't cursed,
sworn, or asked about her sexual orientation, so you're still here.
And Dan...I'm curious...whend did she call black babies a "litter"?
Fact of the matter she didn't. A woman who happens to be black, had a bunch of kids. A bunch of kids, regardless of
color, can be called a "litter", and it need have nothing to do with what her color is.
The racist assumption here was that she would ONLY use that term in reference to a minority member.
The fact of the matter is that she's used that term before, with regards to catholic women's large broods.
But not a single one of the little thugs, to borrow her phrase, bothered to check on that.
They made a ludicrous assumption of racism, and then launched a campaign of spam posts to attempt to block discussion
on this site.
The word "litter" has no racist connotations historically or culturally, I've used the term myself to describe myself & my siblings
as "Part of a litter".
Sadly no lept on a word, gave it a racist meaning of their own devising, used that devising to call her a racist...
and then made every effort to discredit, silence, or damage her credibility.
Now if that doesn't call for a response, you tell me what does?
Posted by: Robert at August 28, 2008 12:24 PM
Sadly Pathetic's site is down. Wonder why? Heh.
Posted by: Jeff at August 28, 2008 12:25 PM
What's everybody complaining about? I usually have to pay extra to have a woman treat me with such a firm hand. He forgot to all-lower-cap his email, though.
Posted by: Paul Hrissikopoulos at August 28, 2008 12:26 PM
> Interestingly, the SadlyNo
> website appears to be down.
Good note, Jeff!
Another scalp for Alkon, I'd wager. However many people are involved in this, it appears that she's got 'em on the run.