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:
Get him, Amy.
And, again, don't let these little nazis interfere with getting your book done. I'm looking forward to reading it.
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.
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."
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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!)
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?
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.
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.
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'."
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.
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!
Wilson at August 28, 2008 7:40 AM
Yeah, you're an obsessive compulsive pit bull all right. Good work nutbag.
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?
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?
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.
liberalrob at August 28, 2008 8:03 AM
The question still remains, are you a tranny?
Milo Johnson at August 28, 2008 8:04 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?
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.
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!
Your Uncle Bastard at August 28, 2008 8:19 AM
Are you a tranny?
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?
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)
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?
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!
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...
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.
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?
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.
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!"
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.
vlad at August 28, 2008 8:50 AM
Wow. Overreact much?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Toubrouk at August 28, 2008 9:09 AM
Hey Dailey:
Get an iPhone and leave comments during lunch. Problem solved.
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.
Clare at August 28, 2008 9:13 AM
Actually, she doesn't. If you weren't a room-temperature-IQ troll, you would know that.
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.
brian at August 28, 2008 9:16 AM
Call it my former, ruthlessly nietzschean tendencies surfacing again, but I have no pity for people who strike me as pure, unadulterated trolls.
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.
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.
Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 9:22 AM
"RROBRRM!"
That's genuine frontier gibberish!
brian at August 28, 2008 9:28 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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Concernicus at August 28, 2008 9:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html#comment-1585394">comment from Not Finding Me!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.
Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 9:51 AM
Dan:
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.
brian at August 28, 2008 9:54 AM
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.)
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?
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.
Jessica at August 28, 2008 9:56 AM
No. This is out of proportion: Obama campaign wants criminal charges filed against ad producer
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.
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?
Dennis at August 28, 2008 10:06 AM
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.
Mike T at August 28, 2008 10:09 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html#comment-1585404">comment from turnipAdding 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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
vlad at August 28, 2008 10:32 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html#comment-1585417">comment from vlad"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.
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!
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.
vlad at August 28, 2008 10:39 AM
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?
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.
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?
vlad at August 28, 2008 10:49 AM
Well, are you a tranny? you look like one.
Ernest Tee at August 28, 2008 10:51 AM
ET Are you an idiot? Because you write like one.
brian at August 28, 2008 11:10 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.
juliana at August 28, 2008 11:11 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html#comment-1585433">comment from brianET 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Flynne at August 28, 2008 11:31 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html#comment-1585440">comment from ForeignerYou'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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Innocent Bystander at August 28, 2008 11:56 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html#comment-1585457">comment from SparteeThe 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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
Robert at August 28, 2008 12:24 PM
Sadly Pathetic's site is down. Wonder why? Heh.
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.
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.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 28, 2008 12:31 PM
I'm not part of the "Sadly No" gang (don't even know what that is), I've posted here before, I'm using my real name, I'm not much of a liberal, and still, I have to say that tracking down a guy who posted a stupid and mildy insulting crack, trying to get him in trouble (at best) at work, or even fired from his job (at worst), calling him on the phone, and posting some of his personal information here is a bit over the top.
Let the punishment fit the crime, you know?
Larry McKenna at August 28, 2008 12:36 PM
Kevin got on the line, all gulpy...
Astute. Could you expand? I'd like more detail on how someone can sound (or be?) "gulpy". Seriously, its not specific and very subjective.
I certainly could be wrong, but this whole "free speech" phrase has seem to take on a life all its own or has been hijacked by partisans on both sides akin to the past "Hitler" references to everything someone disagreed with.
Can we please have our 1st amendment back and not misuse the phrase "free speech" as a simple rejoinder to advance an agenda? Its really annoying not to mention sophomoric.
IMO, outting people for annoying comments on a public site such as this is never a good idea, regardless of the content. By all means contact them privately, but it seems to me a dangerous thing to do, especially from someone who intentionally puts false data into domain registration with Network Solutions.
Bring it to your readers attention, but outting them is excessive and imo even more childish than the offending comment.
Allosaurus at August 28, 2008 12:38 PM
> especially from someone who
> intentionally puts false
> data into domain registration
Amy didn't do that, the vandal did, right?
> Let the punishment fit the
> crime, you know?
The problem with utilitarian thinking is that it never shows us what to do.
Ok, fine: What punishment fits?
Some people think he should be anonymously ridiculed. Others call for public humiliation. Still others think those who employ him should be told of his hidden character.
Just saying "Amy's gone too far" doesn't mean anything. You ought to express what boundary you think the vandal crossed, and explain how Amy should be compensated.
> outting them is excessive
Why? If she was outting them sexually, I'd agree with you. This is much different. People should be free to be quietly homosexual. I don't think they should freely make anonymous slander.
Again, what would be appropriate for them?
Grown people protect themselves in cases like this by not saying things they don't mean (of even that they do mean) under cover of anonymity.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 28, 2008 12:46 PM
I would like to understand why it's okay for someone to leave a rude, demeaning comment to anyone on the internet, and hide behind a screen name. If you wouldn't say it to someone in person, you probably shouldn't say it on the internet.
The fact that Amy outed him is the consequence he paid. I truly hope he doesn't lose his job for it (really). But, I also hope he learns that the internet is a public place, and the same rules that apply to our personal communication, should apply there as well.
kelly boston at August 28, 2008 12:47 PM
Sadly, SadlyNo is up and running with a new slap at Amy, via a "letter" from a supposedly gay young man:
http://www.sadlyno.com/
Pathetic isn't the word for these assholes.
Flynne at August 28, 2008 12:55 PM
Here's just some of their snarky shit:
Aug
28 Oh Noes!
Posted at 16:01 by D. Aristophanes
Amy Alkon says she has outed some guy who posted a mean comment on her blog.
Somehow this has something to do with us. We gave this person his ‘marching orders’ or something.
My own view is that mockery is lots of lulz, etc. but stupid mockery like asking someone, ‘Are you a tranny?’ is, well, stupid. And offensive. And anti-lulz. I would personally but strongly advise not doing that kind of shit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin adds: I’m reading Alkon’s narrative, where she tracks the poor guy down, calls him at work, and bullies him on the phone, and I have truthfully never seen a more sobering example of batshit-crazy, out-of-all-proportion, obsessive-compulsive meanness.
I think if we take her side, even notionally, we lose a bit of our humanity. She was getting back at us through the guy she tracked down — and it would seem that she did it because the rush of campaign-waging that she so enjoys, the center-of-attention thrill of righteously waving her arms and yelling at someone, had started to fade, since we were no longer despicably assaulting her free speech by making fun of her on the Internet. That is, she needed to start it up again somehow. And voila, as so often happens, someone posted a brief, snarky comment on a blog post, giving her an excuse to go screamingly bonkers.
…Against the world, as it were, as represented by some particular person she can take on and ‘win’ against, through sheer force of attention span.
We told Alkon awhile ago that if she went this route, public opinion would be with the poor slob she ‘outed,’ and not with the public figure who went after him. This is the kind of thing that people notice, far outside the little world of political blogs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clif adds: Welcome to the upside-down world of Amy Alkon. Posting a snarky comment on her site is an attempt to punish her for her free speech but, of course, tracking down the guy who made the comment and trying to get him fired isn’t an attempt to punish him for his free speech. And he’s punishing her by forcing her to take time away from writing her book to track him down at work, call his superiors and scream at him like a deranged homeless person, which, of course, takes only a fraction of the time it does to push the “delete comment” button.
Permalink 137 Comments
Flynne at August 28, 2008 12:58 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html#comment-1585489">comment from AllosaurusBy all means contact them privately, but it seems to me a dangerous thing to do, especially from someone who intentionally puts false data into domain registration with Network Solutions.
Oh, do you mean that I put 999-999-9999 in instead of my home phone number?
My address and e-mail address are listed. I'm quite reachable.
Oh, and in case you're thinking of prank-calling me, search "obscene" on my site, and see how well that worked for the last guy who'd been obscene-calling me, and found out the hard way, when the LAPD detective called him, that I'd put a "trap and trace" on my phone line.
You want to fuck with somebody? Pick somebody who folds when the mob comes after them.
Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 12:58 PM
But no, they didn't encourage ANyone to "poke fun" at Amy. Or did they? To wit:
Aug
24 More Fun With “Amy”
Posted at 0:18 by Clif
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, kids, let’s go poke Albert “Amy” Alkon with a stick and have some fun, mkay?
Although “Amy” is allegedly a libertarian, she’s indignantly snorting and huffing about Obama’s selection of Joe Biden. She’s upset because she thinks Biden is a plagiarist. So why should a “live-and-let-live” libertarian like “Amy” be getting all moralistic and all cranked up about something that doesn’t hurt anybody else? Here’s why:
Maybe it isn’t a big deal to a lot of people, but for me, stealing the words somebody’s sweated onto the page is akin to stealing somebody’s TV, but without all the heavy lifting.
We can debate elsewhere whether this is a good analogy from a libertarian point of view. Right now, let’s just mosey over to another post “Amy” made just before her post dissing Joe Biden for plagiarism. Well, lookey-here, it looks like “Amy” has gone and busted into the Wall Street Journal’s offices and stolen all their teevees! Of the 504 words in the post, 448 words were copied directly from a 732-word WSJ editorial — in other words almost all of her post was nothing but almost all of somebody else’s work product.
Flynne at August 28, 2008 1:01 PM
Amy,
Here are some tactics that you have recently become very familiar with. Obama's campaign is encouraging his followers to flood WGN with calls about a planned appearance by Stanley Kurtz to discuss Obama's long standing relationship with Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-obama-wgn,0,3744149.story
Obama and Ayers have been very close for over a decade and Obama's political career was launched with a party at Mr. Ayer's home in Chicago.
Mr. Ayers' terrorist activities included:
Bombing NYC police headquarters in 1970; the Capitol building in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972.
Instead of rebutting Mr. Kurtz on the air, Obama has decided to try and intimidate WGN into cancelling the interview. It should be noted that Obama and his campaign have an open invitation to appear with Kurtz to "set the record straight". Obama and his handlers have declined the invitation. Gee, I wonder why?
I'm sure 95% of tne idiots that post on SadlyPathetic.com received this email from "Dear Leader" directly.
This type of behavior is an absolute outrage. Obama's interactions with terrorist America hating jerks like Ayers, and racist anti-Ammerican scumbags like Jeremiah Wright, should be discussed openly and thouroughly.
Obama is on the cusp of being the POTUS. His background has been white washed and/or ignored by the liberal dominated MSM. Now they are trying to stop the discussions about Obama's past that should have happened a year ago.
Liberals are all about free speech though.....riiiiigggghhttt. Just like they "support the troops"
Tom at August 28, 2008 1:05 PM
I like that she's sticking up for herself and defending her territory. She's just maintaining her boundaries. The alternatives of crying 'helpless victim' or even doing the 'mature thing' by ignoring it are both terrible and don't improve the situation at all.
Also, something to think about... if Amy was a man who responded as she did by posting that guy's info, the general response would likely have been, "Whoa, this guy is serious. Don't mess around with him."
But as she's a woman, she's getting quite a bit of the "Crazy over-the-top bitch!" cries. (Though there are a few "Go Girl Power!"s thrown in there, too.)
I just feel bad for Mr. Dailey's parents knowing that their son grew up to be such a douche bag.
Lauren at August 28, 2008 1:07 PM
Of course government employees never have breaks during their workday, no lunch, no breaks, no way. But the question the guy posed is an obvious one...from your posted photo you do look like a prototypical tranny, nttawt.
Govt Teat Suckler at August 28, 2008 1:08 PM
Perhaps that's because I have the balls to comment in my own name.
Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 1:12 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html#comment-1585497">comment from Govt Teat SucklerAre you on break from your job at the Department of Transportation?
IP address [?]: 149.136.33.253 [Whois]
IP address country: ip address flag United States
IP address state: California
IP address city: Walnut
IP address latitude: 34.011501
IP address longitude: -117.853500
ISP of this IP [?]: Department of Transportation
Organization: Department of Transportation
Local Time of this IP country: 2008-08-28 13:14
Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 1:14 PM
Trolls and douchebags - can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em. More's the pity.
Flynne at August 28, 2008 1:16 PM
One of these days you will escalate with the wrong person and it will be over before you know it. Terrible example. Terrible advice.
Northern Observer at August 28, 2008 1:18 PM
I'm not sure, Northern Observer, but I think that might qualify as a threat of imminent harm.
Has it crossed your little mind that the "progressives" are the ones who have escalated with the wrong person, and their humiliation is the price they will pay?
Or is it ok for a progg to toss Molotovs at people's houses in the middle of the night for their idoelogical impurity?
brian at August 28, 2008 1:25 PM
you are fucking sad as shit.
heet at August 28, 2008 1:31 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html#comment-1585506">comment from heetyou are fucking sad as shit.
Yes, it's so tragic when a woman refuses to be a victim.
Brian writes: "Has it crossed your little mind that the "progressives" are the ones who have escalated with the wrong person,"
Apparently, they are too dim to figure it out. Talk to my car thief, he'll tell you.
Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 1:38 PM
Dear Ms. Alkon:
I wanted to take a moment out from my busy workday to thank you for all your efforts to instill a sense of decorum here on the intertubes. Your efforts will be rewarded as is deserved, I am sure, perhaps through internet statues.
Also, I just wanted to clarify: Not a tranny?
Sincerely,
Tommmcatt
ps. Shall I list my IP address in the next post or would you like to take care of it yourself?
Tommmcatt at August 28, 2008 1:43 PM
She's not a tranny. Can't you recognize a cross-dresser when you see one?
A serious tranny would have done something about the 5 o'clock shadow.
I like that she refers to the insulting comments as an "attack".
Look at Amy the Victim!
Pope Ratzo at August 28, 2008 1:57 PM
For the life of me, I just can't figure how anyone could think Miss Alkon appears to be a tranny.
Madre de dios....
I've gone from thinking they're malicious...to thinking that they're just blind.
Northern Observer could actually be right, I doubt he intended his remark as a personal threat, though perhaps it could be. *shrug* Depends upon your mindset.
However, the fact of the matter is that if we concern ourselves with what some nut might do if we stand up for ourselves, we're forever at the mercy of nuts because we DON'T stand up for ourselves.
Besides, most of these idiots wouldn't have the bollocks to say what they do if they were sitting at a table with her. Anonymity makes assholes much bigger.
To quote Huckleberry Finn, (the great American novel, screw Moby Dick) "I don't have anything to fear from you cowards, unless we're in the dark or my back is turned."
Robert at August 28, 2008 2:00 PM
Brian,
Appeasement has become the norm in Canada. Northern Observer and most of my fellow Canadians no longer understand the value of standing up for what is right.
Charles at August 28, 2008 2:03 PM
I like that she refers to the insulting comments as an "attack".
Wrong. Insulting comments about me on Sadly Pathetic are no big deal. It would be better if somebody there was actually funny. When one of the Pathetics, a guy named Cain, sent me some story parodying me that was kind of funny, I actually posted it.
The problem is when the comments come here as a way to derail or hijack my comments section as a concerted effort by a mob of weenies.
I actually felt sorry for this Kevin Dailey guy. I get him on the phone, and still he's pretending he didn't post here, and ducking and covering, until he finally knew I wasn't going to go away and he'd have to own up. If that's standard behavior for him, well, it must be hard for him being such a pussy.
Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 2:08 PM
Amy, you are absolutely fabulous!
brenna at August 28, 2008 2:09 PM
The difference between a victim and a victor pope ratzo, is not the last word, but the best word.
And in that, Amy has soundly trounced her oppositions, whose only response is continually to suggest she looks mannish.
Now if she DID look mannish...OK I could see that kind of repeated insult.
But I know all wench when I see it.
Of course, people who've never had a woman before, are probably bitter when they see one out of their league...which is to say "breathing".
And when they see one that won't just roll over and play dead for their snide little comments, that also happens to be pretty cute...well then such insults, "mannish", "tranny" etc. well they make sense.
Its kind of like the guys who get shot down by a pretty wench, and then assume she's a lesbian to salvage their egos.
They couldn't show her as a racist, so now they try to make personal attacks about appearance or sexuality...ironic, since I'd be most of these people at least pretend to be supporters of gay rights.
Robert at August 28, 2008 2:10 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html#comment-1585522">comment from CharlesBrian, Appeasement has become the norm in Canada. Northern Observer and most of my fellow Canadians no longer understand the value of standing up for what is right.
As is evidenced by the Mark Steyn/Maclean's situation.
Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 2:10 PM
I find it telling that sadlyno thinks plagiarism is no big deal at all. Haven't they ever heard the phrase "credit where credit is due."
I wonder how many of them would want a lawyer that plagiarized to pass his tests, or a doctor that copied off a neighbor's test...or a teacher instructing their kids whose idea of learning means copying from someone else?
They're not thinking ahead, for themselves or the rest of us.
Robert at August 28, 2008 2:14 PM
Well Advice Demoness...
You certainly crushed this guy.
However, I do have to mention, ummm, you *do* have a feature on your page that starts out saying "unless your ... tranny". You obviously don't have any problem with the use of that vernacular, so I could see why someone might ask that.
Besides, the guy could have been taking a break etc. I am sure *you* don't assume every worker really should, or even does, only use their office computer for work tasks.
Obviously the guy's a total noob, and was probably inappropriate. However did ya really need to go as far as you did? Honestly, it paints you in a bad light, just as much as it paints him as "pussyman".
Anyways, 2c.
BTW, I am one of those people who know there is no such thing as anonymity on the internet (I am an internet technologist) so I don't behave differently on the net than I would in my physical life. So, yes, that's my correct contact info, and you can google me too, and stalk me, if my comment offends you so. I could use a good cackle.
Richard
Richard F. Rebel at August 28, 2008 2:21 PM
What that person wrote to you was moronic ... & you immediately outgunned them in the stupid-Olympics the second you picked up your phone. If you'd reached emotional adulthood, you'd've either laughed it off, e-mailed them back telling them to grow up, or blocked them, & LET IT GO - but you didn't do any of that. You got on your high-horse, & invited further mockery via your self-assigned role as Keeper Of Goodness, sworn to avenge this horrible insult to your honor.
If you say things on a blog that others find idiotic - like, say, ongoing references to non-existant "marching orders" or calling people "little turds" - don't be a drama queen when they call you on it - & don't play martyr when you get insulting e-mails, if you post your bloody e-mail address on said blog. Stop snivelling about paying for the bandwidth while you're at it, unless someone's got a gun to your head to make you do so.
Contacting the person at their place of employment isn't "justice" or "paybacks" - it's flat-out stalking. As is calling someone's residence in the dead of night. Creepy, loathsome & just plain dangerous behaviour, next to which the original tasteless e-mail pales by comparison. Do it to the wrong person & you'll get a real-time crash-course in Reality 101. Some folks aren't real mellow about purity-trolls who threaten to bugger up their lives for the sake of massaging their oh-so-fragile egos.
If you're that thin-skinned, trust me, the Web is DEFINITELY not the place for you. You're not "cleaning it up" or "setting an example" - you're just painting a bullseye on your forehead, over & over again. Don't act outraged when some not-so-nice folks decide to lock & load.
As for hacking/HTML attacks, they're usually from solitary bored dweebs with about as much political consciousness as a Chia Pet, who are just as happy going after hippies as libertarians - they're liberal like I'm a walrus.
jim at August 28, 2008 2:21 PM
Sadly No! gives you free traffic and you complain? Not much of a capitalist, eh?
Honestly Amy, you and your blogzens are indignant people who don't seem to like anyone but themselves. I'm not a trained psychologist, but I would say you and yours have an overactive sense of self importance and that what you say actually matters. It's such a pity too.
Since Ann Coulter is aging rapidly, it's hard to find attractive trannies such as yourself. Too bad.
kindness at August 28, 2008 2:22 PM
Oh god, I can't resist, I really have to ask:
Are you a tranny?
Richard F. Rebel at August 28, 2008 2:23 PM
Heh, something else just occurred to me.
The insults to Miss Alkon here are almost entirely physical...a few are mental, you're psycho etc...(though we could just take that as an expressed opinion about going overboard in reaction, its debatable at least)
But by and large it is all physical.
Now lets think about that for just a moment...lets pretend for a moment that it was a Mr. Alkon we were dealing with here.
Would our resident wingbats be talking about how feminine a male advice columnist looks?
And lets assume for a moment that a hypothetical Mr. was a transexual...would these insults be insulting?
No.
So breaking that process down a little bit:
A. Miss Alkon is obviously every bit female.
B. The chosen form of insult is to assert the obviously false, in such a way that is considered especially hurtful to women in general. (Less than handsome guys worry less than less than pretty girls)
C. The continual repetition of the same insults suggests an inability to think logically about an issue...such a loss of focus is typically a sign of attraction towards a particular woman.
So therefore, we could presume that most of these nut job posters, are actually not only acutely aware of Amy Alkon's femininity, but find her so attractive that it has literally frozen their ability to debate on the points that drew them here in the first place...and so they continue to repeat the same things over and over again just to get her attention.
Logic is fun to abuse. ;)
Robert at August 28, 2008 2:25 PM
Too much to read. Here's one:
Let the punishment fit the crime, you know? -- larry mckenna
Agreed. But Larry, who's punishing? Not Amy. All she has done, at most, is to identify a crime.
Norman at August 28, 2008 2:34 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html#comment-1585537">comment from RobertThe insults to Miss Alkon here are almost entirely physical.
Exactly. These tiny little turds can't debate me on the points, and if one has a successful career as a writer or thinker I'd be shocked.
Instead, one of them has a blog entitled "Fire Meghan McArdle." Crid pointed out that out-writing McArdle would be the thing to do -- if that was possible by one of these tiny little thugs. In lieu of the ability to think and articulate thoughts, they're behaving overgrown seventh-graders. I'd be pretty embarrassed if I behaved like one of them.
Meanwhile, what's also hilarious is that none of these brave souls attacking my looks have posted a link with a picture of them in it. Not that I care what people look like, but when legions of them can only repeat the notion that you are a "tranny" or look like a man, one becomes curious as to the elegant visages and slim, muscular physiques of one's attackers.
Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 2:37 PM
In some ways I would actually agree with you Richard. If some random person just made a random idiot comment, and then vanished like a lone snowflake striking the ground...frankly I think she probably would have just deleted the comment and moved on.
But as you are probably not aware, that is not the case in this instance.
A short while back she wrote something controversial, an extreme left site and its denizens took offense at it. And they then made it their business to spam this site with nonsense commentary, literally, posting nonsense ad nauseum...and when that failed, it proceeded onto these repeated insults and questions about sexuality. Not just one...dozens, you don't see a good many, because they're deleted regularly.
Eventually, obviously, she grew irked, and it just happened to be that particular idiot who tipped the scales. So she did a little detective work, and called him on his childish behavior in such a capacity that he couldn't just hide behind a screen name.
The result: He apologized and promised it would happen again.
Not an explanation or excuse...but there is one person in the world less likely to act like a total ass just because he's not sitting across from the person he's speaking to.
All that cost was a few minutes and 50 cents for a phone call...that is money well spent.
Robert at August 28, 2008 2:55 PM
Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant Amy!!! Yet further proof that so many "progressives" are anything but progressive. They're little cowards who hide behind the anonymous curtain.
But you pulled back this guy's curtain and absolutely cleaned his clock!
Incidentally, he absolutely should be disciplined or fired from his job but I bet that NOTHING will happen to him.
Robert W. at August 28, 2008 3:02 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html#comment-1585545">comment from jimYou got on your high-horse, & invited further mockery via your self-assigned role as Keeper Of Goodness, sworn to avenge this horrible insult to your honor.
I really don't care what people say about me -- providing they aren't disrupting my site. I've made that clear over and over and over again, here and elsewhere on my blog, and even on the blog of those tiny thugs.
I'll say it again since you're either really dumb or a troll who's momentarily civil: I will defend your right to free speech, to start a blog about how you think I'm a complete idiot, complete with parody photos of me.
What I will not do is pay for the bandwidth while you turn my discussion forum into the uninteresting cavalcade of junior-high insult hurling that is Sadly Pathetic.
Got that?
Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 3:14 PM
You want to see more "peaceful progressives" at work: http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html You can fast-forward to 2:40 if you wish.
Have NO DOUBT that it first starts with "little" cyber attacks, then leads to physical threats in public, and then leads to ... you know what.
So be VERY CAREFUL before you dismiss the likes of Kevin Andrew Dailey as "harmless".
Robert W. at August 28, 2008 3:15 PM
Hi Amy
I think that you are a despicable human being. You are a racist. And you look a lot like a transexual.
Get in contact for my phone number. Please phone during the day because I need my sleep. I'll gladly claim my comment and explain to you why you are a sad sad person.
Yours
Sadly Pathetic Zen
Dr Zen at August 28, 2008 3:16 PM
How very not zen.
Robert at August 28, 2008 3:19 PM
How could all these posts not be the work of one guy?
One guy with about three moods... But a consistent level of teenage resentment.
When you follow the links for the ones that have blogs, the blogs are always:
1. Essentianlly inactive; very few postings
2. Anonymous
3. Identically sarcastic
4. Lonely; none of them has any commenters that don't identically match the mood of the blogger
This is one guy, you can *smell* it. Even in this message stack, there's this very precise kind of posting that says "You go, girl!" to Amy... Always from a commenter we've never heard of before and will never hear from again. It's not possible that this is her own private "silent majority."
This scam is one guy, or mostly one guy, who's operating a complete commentary ecosystem of fake identities, with fake blogs and reserve personalities and all the rest.
Cridcrid at g mail at August 28, 2008 3:28 PM
Crid has a point. Now that I think about it, he may very well be right, it could just be one lone nut with nothing better to do.
I think the most telling point would be the timing of the posts, if they all tend to come in clusters at whatever time this fellow has to do it...and then silence until there is more time, that would be rather good evidence.
Robert at August 28, 2008 3:38 PM
Amy - Do you allow for no error, ever? Do you have no sense of proportion? The guy's a nitwit, he wrote a stupid sentence. Does he really deserve to lose his job over it? How exactly did this one item disrupt your blog, or bog it down? Didn't you do that by highlighting it and then daring those Sadly folks to come on over again?
Also, people here post at all hours of the workday. I hope none of you works for a publicly owned company in which I own stock because then, heaven forbid, you are surfing the web on my dime. How dare you!
I like your site. I don't often agree, but I always laugh (in the right way). I also thought you had a more discerning sense of fair play. I'm sorely disappointed to find out otherwise.
JulieA at August 28, 2008 3:39 PM
> I'm sorely disappointed to
> find out otherwise.
I don't recognize your name. Even if you are a genuine commenter and not part of the scam, why on earth should anyone think you're smart or decent enough to cluck about things? Why should you be told to go stuff your disappointment, y'know, up your ass?
In what meaningful way does your opinion matter?
Cridcrid at g mail at August 28, 2008 3:45 PM
JulieA - where is the error here? This guy is blatantly trying to disrupt discussion by posting irrelevant CRAP. Yes he's a nitwit but he's also a minion, someone over here regurgitating on command. Personally, the fact that he's a government employee is only icing on the cake.
I'm glad Amy went after him and I hope he went back to his sadly pathetic buddies and cried about what a royal bitch slapping he got.
Amy haven't read all the comment yet, honestly if Julie's any representation I don't know that I want to. You were dead on in your response to him and the tactics from sad pathetic asshats.
Crid - So is this the "one" the one guy responsible for it all?
Lindsey at August 28, 2008 3:48 PM
Y'see, internet anonymity is a delicate thing. I trust Amy to be a real person who lives as she claims to even though we've never met... (Hell, I trust Obama to be a real person who lives as he claims to even though we've never met.) Same for any number of commenters here, who been post for such a long time, with such rounded personalities, that I trust them to be a real person even if their names (maybe just "Sally" or something) are how they identify themselves.
If you don't recognize a name here, and a pattern of writing and thinking that goes with it, then it's the vandal. NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE SAYING, even if it's "nice"
Cridcrid_at_g_mail at August 28, 2008 3:49 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html#comment-1585556">comment from RobertThe spam posts, like the 30-page treatises on communism, mentioning Crid and Brian, and posted in my name, are the work of one person, I believe.
The rest come from multiple IPs all over the country.
These people, including Keith Ruscitti, a reporter at a paper in New Jersey, who wasn't there when I called him on Thursday to find out why he'd posted what he did on my site, in the commenter name "bayville" -- I tracked him down anyway -- should feel lucky I'm a little busy with my book.
Again, I'll help you slow learners out: Go set up whole sites about what a jerk you think I am. I buy the bandwidth around here, and if you don't meet the minimum intelligence level and show an ability to carry on a discussion that goes beyond asking whether I'm really a man, I will ban you. Boohoo.
And Crid, love your bit about the "smart or decent enough to cluck about things." You and I have our disagreements, but you always crack me up just right, even when you're kicking my ass.
Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 3:51 PM
One little thing:
Slander is spoken. Libel is in print.
Learned that from Spider-man.
Look out! at August 28, 2008 3:52 PM
> from multiple IPs all
> over the country.
What makes you think they're authentic IPs?
Cridcrid at g mail at August 28, 2008 4:06 PM
I think it's a swarm kind of thing. Mailing lists or news groups that spontaneously coordinate attacks. There's a good Rand monograph on the subject. So, one guy or a small group of guys can tip the swarm.
Crid and Amy, it's prolly both.
Jeff at August 28, 2008 4:09 PM
Crap. I forgot to tell you: if you don't want to read the whole thing just read the Lessons from Observing Social Activists and Anarchists section.
Jeff at August 28, 2008 4:11 PM
Actually, there are message boards sending people over here. And the IPs are real -- when they're Comcast or Verizon mobile broadband...I may be wrong, but I think I can tell. If you care to have a list of some of the banned ones from today to check for yourself, let me know and I'll e-mail them to you (if you're a regular commenter I know and trust).
Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 4:12 PM
They're not a swarm... They're not even Zombies! Zombies have individual personalities. Your attacker doesn't... The timbre the attack never changes. It's the same shit day after day. This is one guy. If this was a team of people, eventually one of them would say or do something interesting.
Cridcrid at g mail at August 28, 2008 4:15 PM
Timbre OF the attack etc...
Cridcrid at g mail at August 28, 2008 4:16 PM
Check out Sadly Pathetic. They all sound the same. Perhaps that's a "progressive" thing.
Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 4:18 PM
a different brand of sheeple from the Religious Right?
juliana at August 28, 2008 4:25 PM
I really value Amy's voice. And I think she has handled this flawlessly! People have every right to disagree but calling someone names is not disagreement! Why can't she call them out on it, personally?!
brenna at August 28, 2008 4:26 PM
This guy has so many imaginary friends that having real ones, even if they agree with him all the time, would be more difficult than most trouble computer geeks could manage.
One guy
Cridcrid at g mail at August 28, 2008 4:27 PM
Bravo Amy you handled yourself like a lady, this type of "Progressive" attitude has been prevailant in Canada for ten years. These so called Liberal/Dem progressives are hateful nasty anti-real women. I suggest you do what has been very effective in Canada send all materials and a copy of the evidence to his employer, he's using your tax dollars to harass and degrade you whilst being paid.
Quote: 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
We seasoned vets call this gay bating, they want you to post something hateful about Gays you didn't. They don't like that.
That is a clear example of how much hatred that filthy pig harbours in his heart. Report him to his employer and to the cops. I'd call my lawyer and I'd make sure his access to the internet is limited to Cell ten for internet abusers and stalkers.
Note to Amy, they travel in packs like wolves or coyotes. Nasty stinky hatefilled marxist who wouldn't know what reality is if it bit their hatefilled "Homophobic" hearts if they were smote by a thunder bolt. I always end my debates with "Progressives" with an L to the forehead, it's their secret sign. As losers they need to validate the fact that they are marxist "Losers" L to the forehead. L to the forehead pigs and sensible shoe wearing losers.
Rose at August 28, 2008 5:38 PM
Welcome to the upside-down world of Amy Alkon. Posting a snarky comment on her site is an attempt to punish her for her free speech but, of course, tracking down the guy who made the comment and trying to get him fired isn’t an attempt to punish him for his free speech. And he’s punishing her by forcing her to take time away from writing her book to track him down at work, call his superiors and scream at him like a deranged homeless person, which, of course, takes only a fraction of the time it does to push the “delete comment” button.
LOLWUT at August 28, 2008 5:42 PM
Amy may have had fun, but payback is a bitch. It will be interesting to see when she gets tracked down to her home/job.
She has declared open season on herself. You live by the sword you die by it, toots.
Lisa at August 28, 2008 5:51 PM
Lisa:
You should be very careful when posting comments such as yours. It sounds like a threat. Threats are actionable. Amy seems like the kind of person who doesn't take personal threats lightly. I don't think you want to mess with her.
Amy, you go girl! The Sadly Pathetics want a fight. Give it to 'em.
Keith at August 28, 2008 5:59 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html#comment-1585588">comment from LisaAmy may have had fun, but payback is a bitch. It will be interesting to see when she gets tracked down to her home/job. She has declared open season on herself. You live by the sword you die by it, toots.
Open season on me for what? Refusing to let a mob turn my comments section into a junior high "Kilroy was here?" wall as a way to punish me for speech unapproved by "progressives"? Banning people who only come here to post comments like "You look like a man," or who call me racist for using the term "litter" in conjunction with a post with a black woman, and are totally uninterested in the fact that I used it to describe rich white women with lots of children, Catholics, Muslims...anybody with lots of children.
This is about a gang of bullies who need something to do with their time, and it's me at the moment.
Amy Alkon at August 28, 2008 6:09 PM
Amy... Amy... Amy....
These are all ONE GUY
Wuhhhh-Hun Gaaa--hiiiii
Crid at August 28, 2008 6:38 PM
You are most AWESOME! give them hell!!!
Rich at August 28, 2008 8:14 PM
For the record, I think Amy is gorgeous. That one photo reminded me of Audrey Hepburn. I asked her, joking, if she sold pinups.
Well, I would like one, but in this day and age women of quality don't sell pinups.
irlandes at August 28, 2008 8:29 PM
Crid -
I'm quite real.
Seriously, telling me to stuff it up my ass is your idea of intellectual discourse? (Even my little kids know that bullying insults are usually the result of low self-esteem or lack of an actual argument.)
I don't need to defend my smarts or my integrity or whatever it is you called into question. I believe Amy is better than she behaved in this instance. That's my opinion; sorry you think my right to have one is invalid and that I should be personally attacked as a result.
How does that differ from the behavior of the Sadly No crowd Amy has been complaining about?
JulieA at August 28, 2008 8:45 PM
> your idea of intellectual
> discourse?
Who says we're here for that? I'm all, like, bleccch.
> whatever it is you called
> into question
If you can't tell, relax... No reason to take offense, right?
> I believe Amy is better than
> she behaved in this instance.
And I believe you're an inexplicably condescending fuckwit, but only if you actually exist, which is not probable.
> that I should be personally
> attacked
Well, nobody pissed in your mailbox. There are hundreds of thousands of Julies in the United States: I've got a couple in my own family. No one here has any idea who you are or why we should care about your feelings... So don't pretend you have a lot on the line.
> How does that differ
1. It's defensible.
2. It's righteous and correct.
3. It's real; the judgments that motivated it are based on something demonstrably greater than the seventh-grader's mentality of the internet geek who's despoiled this boutique forum so recklessly in recent weeks.
4. Also, if you do really exist, those pants make your ass look fat. Jus' sayin', Jenny Craig could improve your autumn.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 28, 2008 9:07 PM
Oh Crid, no reason to insult seventh graders by saying you're smarter or wiser or more able to render judgment than them. I've got little kids. I've got no need for a schoolyard spat with a grown man with less mental capabilities -- and manners -- than they have.
JulieA at August 28, 2008 9:52 PM
The "leave a comment" feature makes revoking Amy's free speech rights so convenient! I may never burn another book!
Here we go; Amy, in her virtue, had chosen to offer a part of her website to allow free-speech to flourish. Because of that, she's getting spammed by Nihilists using at her the expense the website against herself.
This is so Atlas Shrugged I can't believe it.
Toubrouk at August 28, 2008 10:07 PM
A Goddess who chooses incarnation as a pitbull will only attract worshippers of the crudest, basest sort.
Posted by: shakti99 at August 28, 2008 7:37 PM
So off-topic, but why would pit bulls only attract crude types? Yes, there is the terrible abomination that is dogfighting, but pits themselves are loyal, sweet, intelligent, beautiful and people-loving animals. It's the people who are nasty, not the dogs.
On-topic, SadlyNo people, you're accomplishing nothing by swarming Amy's page with stupid comments except making yourselves look silly. I'm sure you're full of ideals, so why don't you go out and try to accomplish something? You've wasted so much energy here.
I'm pretty liberal, and I think you're all kooks. I will vote for Obama. I drive a Civic (can't afford a new hybrid). I dry my hands on my jeans to avoid using paper. I buy organic. I foster kittens for the local Humane Society. I support gay rights. When I take those "What party do you belong to?" tests I always score Socialist. I think pot should be legal and the drinking age lowered. I'm liberal, but I'm nothing like you.
I support Amy. I know she's not a racist. And I think she is beautiful.
What are you SadlyNo's progressing toward anyway? It couldn't be GLBT rights, because you're using "tranny" as an insult.
You're being nasty for the sake of being nasty. Real issues abound that you can take umbrage with, why don't you?
Amy does address real issues. She doesn't post about how unattractive people are and spam people she doesn't like. You could learn from her, but you're very narrow-minded. It's funny how sometimes people equate the word liberal with open-mindedness, when they are actually pretty narrow-minded.
You SadlyNos are a bunch of angry, small people who lack an identity. You're trying to find one in a cause, except your cause is stupid. Che Guevara wouldn't have gotten on his keyboard to anonymously type that all his nemeses were trannies. MLK was most certainly above all of this. You're all very cowardly and angry, and if you waste your time being immature shitbags on the internet, you'll never live up to your political idols, whomever they may be.
Please, grow up. Or if you're going to be nasty, little termites, at least find someone who really is a bad, bad person. I'm sure there are many big, bad and terrible bloggers you can infest with your drivel.
Jessica G at August 28, 2008 10:51 PM
Clare,
I hope it is never an "exercise of futility" to have a reasonable discussion with a fellow citizen. But then again, I'm a liberal and we tend to "hope" a lot, so there's that and your illogical statement that I made an assumption about you or the poor slob Kevin. What I'm trying to say is we may be kicking a dead horse, but I'm game.
You are painting "ultra-liberals" as those who insult the right with homosexual slander. What is your definition of "ultra-liberal"? Not the "majority" nor the "most" but "many" liberals are guilty...well that narrows it down. You assume that Kevin was a liberal, you don't know that for a fact...you don't know anything about the man or if in fact Kevin is a tranny in search of other trannies. In which case it was a perfectly innocent question and Amy should prostrate herself in abject humiliation, but I digress. Calling Republicans by homosexual derrogatives may be crass and puerile, but we have hundreds to choose from, who needs to smear the innocent? What innocent heterosexual Republican politican has been called or smeared as a gay? Ever? There are gay Republican politician trading cards for sale for the love of God, they seem to be damaging their careers just fine without any liberals involved. So.......by my reasoning, you ARE painting MANY liberals as attacking the right by homosexual slander when in fact you have nothing factual to support your slander against MANY liberals who have called a hypocritical gay-hating queer a gay-hating queer.
You may be moderate, Clare, but that is a relative term and is only defined by the existing Republican neocon administration and the possible and likely Obama administration. To conciliate between those two extremes is and would be an exercise in futility, so you are either a closet Republican or a Libertarian (pot-smoking Republican)and your parents always voted Republican ticket, every time. You obviously don't identify with the left with your perjorative use of "liberals" in the context of your writing and what independent voter cares about what "prominent conservatives" were allegedly outed in their daily paper as a flaming homosexual. Pick a side, Clare, it's up to you and you alone, but there is too much at stake for you be moderate but liberal for the gays. Besides, there's always those Log Cabin Republican Kamikazi Corps fellows who would love your support in their advancement of martyrdom to desperate new levels.
Till next we meet.
Wilson at August 28, 2008 11:04 PM
Until the vandal arrived, this was a notoriously quiet forum after 6pm pacific.... (And there were never comments from women after that hour.)
Tonight there are about twenty. Discounting mine, Toubrouk's and Amy's, we have a bunch of new faces who've never commented before and will almost certainly never comment again. It just not possible that the internet has delivered that many new friends.
Just one vandal. Many names, many IPs, many sites, one guy.
He went away for a couple days early in the week.
Which was nice.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 28, 2008 11:54 PM
I thought it was so cute that all the Sadly Pathetics were here putting so much effort into these 20 comments, including a piece of spam about the Ohio Liquor Laws. I had a nice evening having drinks with a friend, laughing about all the posts I'd delete when I got home.
Bye-bye!
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 12:34 AM
"A Goddess who chooses incarnation as a pitbull will only attract worshippers of the crudest, basest sort."
Why does everybody blame Amy for the pitbull comment? She never compared herself to a pit bull, I did. And then at least four people that I've counted have given her grief for something she didn't say.
Oh, because nobody really reads these posts for what they actually say, but what they want to infer.
juliana at August 29, 2008 4:12 AM
Egads! These guys are still at it?? It's gone beyond "sadly pathetic" and entered into "morbidly ridiculous"...
Flynne at August 29, 2008 5:43 AM
The quote of the day is:
"Political correctness means never having to admit you're wrong."
Thank you, Wiley. >_O
Flynne at August 29, 2008 5:44 AM
This might be repetitive, but it bears repeating to note that Mr. Dailey's job is his business.
If he wants to STAY in business, it is still his business to comply with NOAA's Internet usage policies.
It is still his duty to behave ethically when at work.
As an aside - I wonder: How many people who would try to excuse his unethical behavior, possibly in violation of NOAA Internet usage policies and most probably putting the NOAA government network at risk, think they are ethically superior to others? How many have mistaken their promotion of anarchy for "tolerance"? How many are Obama supporters?
Are these people really so dense as to not realize that the perpetrators of crime are not the people who point crime out?
Radwaste at August 29, 2008 6:01 AM
"Considering that you do this for a living, it was kind of astonishing how consistently bad it was."
Evidently, you don't like being told to stand up for yourself, it's really up to you and not others to see to your personal security in relationships and on the street, don't sleep around without protection, get a job and don't whine when everything is given to you by government.
Go back to the soup kitchen and let somebody else use the library computer.
Radwaste at August 29, 2008 6:06 AM
Free speech free speech...we keep hearing that.
But here is the bottom line.
The first ammendment protects us from Government interference, but we are not talking about the government here.
What we have here is a website paid and maintained by Amy Alkon for promotion/discussion/advice purposes, it is controlled by her 100%, and the 1st ammendment does not apply.
She is perfectly within her rights to delete or ban as she so chooses, without abridging anyone's first ammendment protected speech, because she is not obligated to provide opposition with a forum.
However having disagreed with her vociferously in the past, I can say with confidence that she is broadly speaking, NOT one to favor censorship or banning people merely for the sin of disagreeing.
What she IS not going to tolerate, and what we have here, is a blatant case of a group of people attempting to humiliate, discredit, and silence via spam, a dissenting viewpoint. Her removal of their juvenile posts, her banning their access, does not violate their free speech, because they can still say whatever they want on their site. She didn't call the ISP and try to get the site taken down, she didn't file a legal injunction to prevent its operation, and she didn't try to get a court order to have the computers removed from these people's homes.
In short, she didn't do anything to prevent the free exercise of their speech...she DID however, protect her ability to speak and write as she wished within her own site, by removing people whose sole purpose in visiting was to cause disruption.
Her reaction then, was to talk to one of them that she caught up with. Whatever bollocks he had on the internet...shrivelled smaller than a raisan when he had to actually speak to a real person, and all he could manage was an apology for his boorish behavior, and a promise not to do it again.
And y'all say she went to far?
Maybe if she'd spent weeks tracking this one guy down for a lone post and an isolated incident.
But as part of a concerted pattern, why NOT track one down and ask what the hell? Especially if it costs so little time and effort on her part. Its certainly not stalking, hell if that was the response everybody took to douche bags, well there would be a lot fewer of them on the internet being douche bags.
He can still say what he wants...but I'll bet you he thinks about it next time.
Robert at August 29, 2008 6:14 AM
Haha, what a bunch of pathetic douches! Way to stand up to their harrassment and demand accountability. To any of the douches: you are rude, ignorant, time-wasting assholes and your families should be ashamed of you. Grow up!!
Debra at August 29, 2008 6:40 AM
Amy, this entire exchange cracks me up! I know, because it happened to you, that it isn't really funny and is causing you a lot of grief. But your phone conversation just had me in stitches. It's so predictable. I'm really glad you have the balls to pursue this matter! People should really have more balls, especially women! Seriously.
MonicaM at August 29, 2008 7:15 AM
Let me see if I have this in perspective:
Ann Coulter (while working as a commentator to provide commentary as a private citizen) makes a public comment about metrosexual haircut-fetishist John "Big Daddy" Edwards referring to Johnny's gender & sexuality (she observed that he is a fag, implying that such a thing is bad), and the left erupts in outrage; demands that Ann Coulter be fired, assassinated, waterboarded.
Compare to:
Kevin "Bi-Curious" Dailey (while on taxpayer-funded time on taxpayer-provided equipment) makes a public comment about Amy Alkon's gender & sexuality (accused her of being a transsexual, implying that such status is bad), and the left erupts in outrage at Amy Alkon for revealing the gaps in Kevvie's perceived anonymity and the organized attempt to stifle her free speech.
The obvious conclusions:
1) leftists believe that leftists can make derogatory comments about a person's gender & sexuality and that it is acceptable to do so
2) leftists are hypocrites in thought, word and deed
PinkoPerforator at August 29, 2008 7:25 AM
Great points Pinko, and I would also like to ask what the hell is wrong with outing this guy?? I doubt he'll lose his job, but if his boss decides he doesn't want an employee jumping on the bandwagon of a ridiculous effort to harrass and disrupt Amy and her blog, likely on goverment time, then that's his right, isn't it? Too bad Mr. Dailey didn't take that into consideration before he acted. It's also Amy's right to report an inappropriate action to the proper authority. I highly doubt she would have done this if the action weren't part of a larger and more disturbing attack. The punishment DOES fit the crime.
I'm all for posting his info. People wouldn't behave so childishly if they thought they could be identified and held responsible. It's because these so-called progressives believe they're anonymous that they're such cowards-- they deserve to be exposed!
Debra at August 29, 2008 7:51 AM
Norman says:
Too much to read. Here's one:
Let the punishment fit the crime, you know? -- larry mckenna
Agreed. But Larry, who's punishing? Not Amy. All she has done, at most, is to identify a crime.
I respond:
Amy is punishing the guy, by attempting to get him in trouble (at least) at work, if not actually fired. I think the stuff about the guy posting on the taxpayer's dime is pretty self-serving. If anyone was really concerned about that, they'd make sure they reported every government employee who posted during working hours was reported to their employer, no matter what the content of their comments is.
Again, I've got no stake in any of this. I just think her response was disproportionate. And one hopes people would outgrown being tattletales by the time they're in, say, fifth grade.
Larry McKenna at August 29, 2008 8:12 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."
I'm sorry, Amy, but I have to agree with vlad. Tracking him down and confronting him would be one thing, but posting his personal info is another. He is not a public person like you - or Ann Coulter. Even you don't put your personal phone number out there.
I understand why you're upset. This harrassment has been childish and disruptive. But like I always told my kids when they were being harrassed or bullied at school: Don't sink to their level.
Besides, you've only started the harassment up again after it had quieted down, which makes it seem that WANT the traffic, since it's more money for you. Just let it go.
lovelysoul at August 29, 2008 8:12 AM
Dailey isn't some guy who worries about whether I'm transsexual.
He's come here as part of a mob intent on punishing me for my speech not approved by "progressives."
He is, therefore, trying to inhibit my free speech while working on my dime and yours.
Not acceptable.
I refuse to be a victim of the mob, and I will go after anyone who tries to intimidate or punish me for my free speech, and actually, I will defend your right or even the right of those who speak against me (without trying to foil my free speech) to speak freely.
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 8:20 AM
The more "they" post the more I think Crid might be on to something. If more than one, maybe two or three, with a few hangers on from bulletin boards where the 1-3 posted/goaded hoping for action. The more "they" talk the more alike "they" sound and the more Crid says I'm telling you it's one guy, the more female aliases appear. To paraphrase Arte Johnson, (T's Grammy rubs her chin in a reflective manner), "very, very interesting."
I've noticed how "many" were crying and wringing their hands over his possibly losing his job over his own behavior. Hmmm, now "they" all care why? And are "they" -- given how greatly concerned "they" are over his potential loss of income -- passing the hat and taking up a collection either to aid him in his unemployment and the resultant difficulty he'll have finding a job while explaining his separation from NOAA or to get him his own 'puter and broadband so he can do this shit at home instead of work instead of risking being fired?
Hmmmm? Just saying. Enquiring minds want to know.
T's Grammy at August 29, 2008 8:23 AM
As for money for me, I wasn't prepared for the level of bandwidth that got eaten up this month, and Gregg is calling our server company today to find out how much I'll be paying for the overages. I'm not going to make money on this, and I furthermore don't relish this -- a day of these jerks calling me a tranny all over my comments section. Oh, and they were doing it before I outed this jerk, not because I outed this jerk. Because, again, it's all about punishing me for speaking in a manner unapproved by them, and intimidating me from speaking again in a manner unapproved by them.
Again, put up a blog about me, criticizing me to the hilt, I'm all for it. Dailey could've done that, and I would have been totally for it -- although perhaps not thrilled at the "Are you a tranny?" level content.
Why do you think he posted "Are you a tranny?" Come on. You come here to disrupt my speech, I'll go after you if I can -- as it should be.
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 8:25 AM
Btw, I was the first to ask whether you were a trannssexual. I believe I was the one who brought it to your attention that it said so on your Wikepedia page. And I honestly asked because I didn't know. I hadn't been here very long and wondered if it was something everyone knew but me.
Although it's unlikely that Dailey had the same innocent intentions, it's still conceivable.
lovelysoul at August 29, 2008 8:25 AM
Crid is wrong. The one guy posting giant pieces of spam from Latvia and other weird places is one person. These other people, they post e-mail addresses that correspond to distinct identities and IP addresses in various areas. Take a guy who twice posted a long piece of spam about the Ohio liquor laws. He posts under the name CincyCapell, and is from an Cincinnatti, Ohio IP. Look him up.
I have no respect for those who think I should just let my website be attacked by these thugs and just let it go. It's called defending free speech, and if you think it's preferable to be victimized, I just don't get it.
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 8:29 AM
lovelysoul, if I saw that on somebody's Wikipedia page, which is *supposed* to contain sourced facts, that's a valid question.
Let's not bullshit about the Sadly Pathetics. They don't think I'm transsexual. This is an intimidation campaign.
I mean, go back to the link where they posted the picture of me in the green dress -- better yet, I have it here:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/sadly-pathetic.html
Come on, this is a common way of attacking women, by their looks, by saying they're transsexual, and they were doing it in hopes of hurting and intimidating me.
What's with you that you're trying to play devil's advocate on this?
They have posts up telling people to come over here and fuck with me. Also, there are membership only message boards where people are encouraging the same.
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 8:33 AM
If he had been honestly asking, he would have said so during the phone call. He had every chance to defend himself, but his reaction was one of someone caught in the act. As for putting up his personal info, see what I said before.
And Larry, is standing up for your rights and demanding accountabilty tattling? "Tattletale" is a word I most remember being used by sullen brats who were just sorry they got caught. Also, just because a lot of people surf the web for fun while they're being paid to work and no one stops them doesn't mean it's ethical. In fact, it's just more disgusting if any of these people posted such childish comments en masse while they were supposedly engaged in adult occupations.
Debra at August 29, 2008 8:43 AM
I'll tell you what, if you, I or anyone else were in the position Amy's in right now, you'd be doing the same damn thing she is, and don't even think of telling me you wouldn't! In fact, I'd be kicking their asses even further than Amy has been. I challenge any damn one of you to put up with the shit Amy has been, and do less than she has. Because if any one of you say oh, I'd just ignore them, you're a damn liar. You wouldn't even think of being half as charitable as your commanding that Amy be, and you damn well know it. Put yourself in her shoes. Especially you fucked up trolls. How would you like it if someone was doing to you what you're doing to Amy? You wouldn't and you if you dare to say you wouldn't care, you're lying. You're all a buncha fuckin' morons.
Flynne at August 29, 2008 8:48 AM
It's astonishing to me that a number of you apparently think it's okay for people to engage in a concerted effort to intimidate me out of speaking my views.
That's all I can conclude from your notion that I should not go after people who are part of this mob.
Commenters here disagree with me all the time, and that's fine. I don't "go after" them for it. This is, again, a concerted effort to intimidate and punish me for speech not approved by "progressives" -- to intimidate me from speaking again in ways not approved by progressives. I'm pretty sure they mean for me to think twice as to whether I'll post something that wouldn't be what they agree with, and thus bring down the mob on myself again.
I'm guessing they've intimidated other bloggers this way. I'm trying to be tough, and to not consider the Sadly Pathetic mob coming here to suck my time and wreck my comments section with a bunch of "Are you a tranny?" comments when I post about a particular issue, and it isn't easy.
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 8:52 AM
Call me paranoid, but I think every comment between 640am and 8:12am Friday (possibly, possibly excepting McKenna) are from the vandal. All the names are new, and all the comments and personalities are weirdly inert. As noted above, when you go to the destination blogs, there are never any personalities there. The Sadly blog claims to be a years-old group effort, like Samizdata or something... Except it's all anonymous! As if groups of adults would convene everyday to say exactly the same things about third parties without expressing their identities.
I don't understand what thrill this vandal gets from this disruption. He's incapable of persuasion, and presumably incapable for being persuaded, of having his own perspective grow. (Three weeks of tepid jokes about being a transsexual is just not very bright, even for a lonely teenage boy-geek.)
It all just ends in witless, unremarkable text.
I think the vandal's a child of divorce. There were some obtuse posts deleted overnight, comments with tragic kiddy bitterness... Daddy-doesn't-love-me and Stepdad's-a-drinker stuff. He was talking to Amy the way children from homes with divorce talk to their kid sisters (until they grow up and get therapy), as if every other soul in the neighborhood were just a prop for their own mood.
Presumably the vandal's trying to entice some actual humans into his internet terrarium at the other blogs, but his imaginary friends aren't attractive enough to bring anyone over to come and play. And here's Amy with all these genuine, lively people who visit so faithfully day after day and reflect very carefully about what she has to say... I think he's jealous. It's got nothing to do with race or politics or Michelle Malkin or transsexuals.
If he was actually in a wheelchair or some other kind of shut-in with a medical condition, this might be forgivable... But such a person would also be more interesting than any of this has been. I think Amy's vandal is just a piss personality.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 8:52 AM
To wit:
> Great points Pinko, and I
> would also like to ask
Who the Hell is Pinko. and who the Hell is Debra?
The Vandal's imaginary frieds, all.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 8:55 AM
lovlysoul, your analogy doesn't really hold water.
Sure that's how you have your kids handle bullies at school but if they're playing in your backyard and the bullies -- in droves -- started coming in and harrassing them, and you when you went to their defense, how would you handle it? Not only lock the gate or door, but, most likely, call the police and if they were from school the principal. You might, if you knew or could find out who they were, contact their parents.
This is the on-line version of that. Amy is an adult not a child, so the finding out who they are and reporting them to the proper authorities is on her. Reporting this dude to his boss is on a level with reporting school bullies coming into your yard to harrass your kids to their parents. If you only collared one of them and got him to fess up, he's the one whose mother you'd call.
These trolls are nothing but bullies and are showing themselves to be exactly what bullies prove to be in the end -- cowards. They are doing the on-line equivalent of throwing rocks through Amy's window for no other reason than to look cool (it isn't even really about right or wrong but has denigrated into a might equals right attempt to shut her down and prove to their own pathetic little egos how right they are). She is utterly 100% right in whatever she does to protect herself. Including telling their parents.
Amy, I don't know. I'm not tech savvy enough. It really doesn't matter too much in the end. It's causing the same disruption and I'm not sure which is more disturbing -- the lone wacko or the mob mentality -- at this point. All I know is you're being bullied and whether what you said is right or wrong doesn't make any difference. Their retaliation is wrong.
I happened to agree with your original post but even if it had been one of the things we absolutely disagree on I don't like the methods used by this bunch.
And liberal? They've got some freaking nerve calling themself that. It's been anything but open-minded or pacifist. Of course, I'm convinced by this point that war is peace and Liberal is the new Nazi. (Yes, I said Nazi, don't like being compared, don't act the part.)
If Daily and a couple of his buddies aren't alone in this, then I've got to suspect the outing him to his boss comes home to a lot of losers using their boss' equipment to lay seige.
L for loser is absolutely right.
Keep on keeping on, Amy. I was already going to buy your book. Maybe now, even as financially challenged as I am, I'll buy a few copies as gifts and for the public library too. Just in case, any local minds need liberating from this kind of childish pettiness.
T's Grammy at August 29, 2008 8:56 AM
> is from an Cincinnatti,
> Ohio IP. Look him up.
Amy, I know this hurts your feelings, and I know this takes a lot of the fun out of it for you, and that you've enjoyed them as a baseline of reality for years, but you can't trust the IPs.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 8:57 AM
Amy, it's all so juvenile. You should really be flattered that they're so fixated with you. It's probably more because you are so striking - the kind of woman they can't have.
My son has Aspergers, which is often characterized by an obsession with computers. My bet is that a lot of these guys (note it is mostly males, which is also a trait of Aspergers) are similar. They don't relate well socially, so this IS their social life. Their jobs are often computer-related, like Dailey's.
So, yes, it was mean and not even creative. His post certainly wasn't one of the worst you've gotten here over the past few weeks. He probably did it because some online buddy told him to come over and post that. It was likely a quick, impulsive decision rather than a complex conspiratorial attempt to silence your free speech.
However, like I said, if you'd just tracked him down and confronted him, then wrote about it here, that would be fine with me. I just think making his private info public and trying to get an already pathetic little guy fired goes a bit too far. It doesn't match the crime - maybe for the "Sadly Pathetic" group as a whole, but not for him individually.
lovelysoul at August 29, 2008 8:58 AM
The playground analogy is apt. I was bullied throughout my childhood. I had no friends until I joined my temple youth group in 10th grade. And I mean not one. Kids egged our house, called me dirty Jew and other names, and ostracized me. In junior high school, my father had to go to the principal when a gang of girls were throwing chairs at me in the hall (and I was a skinny little kid, a late bloomer) and yelling anti-semitic epithets at me. At a certain point, I toughened up. Perhaps the bullying toughened me up. But, these days, I'm not going to be anybody's victim if I have anything to say or do about it. Not a car thief's, not a telemarketer's, not a hit-and-run driver, and certainly not a mob of leftist thugs who want to intimidate me from speaking in a way they don't approve.
And Crid, you keep saying this -- you're wrong that it's one person. I have probably 100 banned IPs from yesterday, from SBC here and there, systems in Canada, Comcast here and there, and even one from Boingo in Santa Monica. That one was tempting. I was already at a coffee place elsewhere writing...but I tracked down which Boingo it was and I was tempted to go in there and say "Hi!" to the person posting anonymously on my site, who'd likely have my site up on their browser and be attempting to post more "Are you a tranny?" comments and the like.
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 9:03 AM
Lovlysoul, that info isn't private, it's public. All you have to do is go to the NOAA site and look it up. If this guy did the same thing to a co-worker that he's done to Amy, he would righfully be reprimanded in some way. Same thing here. He's wrong. He gets to suffer the consequences of his assholery and dumbfuckery. This ain't rocket science.
Flynne at August 29, 2008 9:04 AM
I have doubts about the people who say "your punishment doesn't match the crime", too. First because they might be the vandal. Second, because if they aren't the vandal, they're not very quick on the draw.
Two things people should do when they make that comment. First, they need to allocute. They need to show they understand that Amy has in fact been wronged, and that they recognize the particular violations of integrity that Amy suffered, instead of glibly presuming this is understood by all.
Secondly, if you're going to say her response doesn't fit the crime, you ought to suggest something that would fit the crime. In over two hundred messages here, no one's bothered to do that.
(I think it's because of the vandal, m'self....)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 9:07 AM
Amy, you're being flattered by the vandal. 'K? You're being emotionally manipulated...
When we got bored with him a few days ago, he went away and traffic returned to normal.
Was this not instructive?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 9:10 AM
lovelysoul, when somebody's a member of a mob who's smashing windows, they don't let them off because it was a "quick, impulsive decision" to join the mob. This guy is a regular on a site which seems to largely be based around doing what was done to me -- punishing and intimidating people they perceive to be social conservatives for their speech. This Sadly Pathetic site is all about being part of a mob preventing speech.
And Crid, I'd much rather have the intelligent comments section that exists here when these yahoos aren't after me. But, I refuse to be the victim of a concerted mob attack -- which is what it is, and which is what I'd be if I did nothing.
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 9:14 AM
You missed your calling as an attorney Amy! Your cross examination of him alone warrants the production of a real-life movie.
I was ROFL as I imagined the sheer terror that this coward was experiencing, after recognizing that if was really you at the other end of the phone!
Vlad and Jody, we all (being individuals with appreciable intellects) have our own reasons for agreeing/disagreeing with Amy for "outing" those idiots' IPs.
My comments are as follows. First, I agree with Amy's actions 100%. Being familiar with the administrative side of managing websites, I have the following to add.
What these intellectually stupified clowns (such as the cerebrally-paralyzed Daily and his SimplyStunted cohorts) are doing to Amy's site requires a tremendous amount of time (and money) and at Amy's expense to address.
Quite honestly, I find Amy's actions to be quite restrained in comparison to what I would do if I myself were in her position.
Moreover, I'm of the opinion that Amy should in the very least demand that Daily be terminated from his job for, but should also seek criminal charges against him.
We pay Dailey's salarly through our taxes, and as his "employer", his actions are completely unacceptable and warrant immediate termination. Now is not the time to "rescue" a grown "man" from the consequences of his illegal behavior.
Let's not kid ourselves and play down the actions of these degenerates. They are willfully and wantonly disrupting a commercial website. That's not funny, no small matter, and is criminal in nature.
By "outing" Daily, she's sending a much-needed message that his and SimplySensless' ILLEGAL behavior will not be tolerated.
To compare her actions of outing their IP's etc with the chances of her doing so to those who simply disagree with her, is in my opinion, very insulting to Amy both personally and intellectually.
Before I get castigated for being infected with "Alkonism" or whatever that term was, my background is one that embraces the Bible, Christianity, and Right Wing Republican doctrine.
I am not certain of Amy's political affiliation or religious beliefs, however I operate under the assumption that they are Liberal and Atheist respectively. If I am incorrect Amy, I apologize.
Why do I read her column? She speaks boldly, from the heart, shamelessly, and tells it "like it is." Therefore, I tend to agree with much of what she says.
I too intend to purchase her book, and eagerly anticipate its release.
vlad, Enzyte was sued, and the owner was sentenced to 25 years by a federal judge in Cincinnati: Cincinnati Enquirer>
Ditto. Outside of taking extreme measures that are utilized by many hackers, anonymity and internet is an oxymoron. I too, and as an IT "Techie" behave online just as I do in real life. Generally, I post my full name as well.
There are occasions such as this when I don't use my full name, and I decline to do so for undisclosed reasons.
Tony at August 29, 2008 9:19 AM
I know a lot about playground bullying, believe me. My son was bullied mercilessly throughout elementary school. I was often at school trying to sort out who did what to him, and as tempting as it may be (and it is!) to grab the slowest little runner of the group and punish him for the actions of the entire group, it just isn't fair.
And Flynne, I don't see how a personal phone number is widely public. Yes, maybe one of us could track down Dailey at NOAA if she gave out that information, but we'd be less likely to do that and actually call him. Yet, posting his phone number here makes it very accessable and opens him up to harrassment by a large group of people - some of them not so stable, maybe even dangerous - which is exactly what they are doing to Amy.
However, Amy is, by choice, a public person with a blog that invites critism, and he is a private citizen posting on what is supposedly a site welcoming anonymous comments. There's a difference.
I mean, we're pretty much all posting anonymously here. And I've been attacked personally for my views at times, but I wouldn't (if I knew how) track down your IP and post your personal phone number and address...as well as your place of employment and boss's numbers...just because I was offended. And I would hope you wouldn't do that to me. I think that goes beyond the rules of fairplay.
lovelysoul at August 29, 2008 9:26 AM
Any honest man will admit that the most vile and hateful way to attack a woman is to do so by targeting her person and thereby her femininity
Outside of raping a woman or harming their children, I can think of no other more-hateful attack than that which is upon who she is.
I'd really love to hear some of the other ladies comment on this.
Tony at August 29, 2008 9:28 AM
> I refuse to be the victim
> of a concerted mob attack
They love that about you... Except it's not a mob.
A-my! Arrgh! These are incomplete human beings, Amy! They're 1950's black-and-white POD PEOPLE.
Know what they are? They're Scientologists... Fractured, partial souls who don't know much about real people. But they do understand a couple things about human nature, and they understand those things very well.
And so they've taken control of your attention when you oughta be finishing the goddam book! Because they know you can't resist the idea of oppositional hoards. It flatters you to imagine waving a torch of truth against the violent throng....
Except it's one guy in a basement eating Doritos.
(I still want an autographed copy of the first edition, btw.)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 9:34 AM
Well, that's because, lovlysoul, this isn't your website that you maintain and pay for, so you wouldn't have access to the same things Amy does that would allow you to track me down. Dailey broke the rules of "fair play" when he entered into the mob mentality and chose to deliberately insult Amy on the company (and taxpayer) dime. Anyone who wants my email and phone number only has to ask me, because I have nothing to hide and don't practice dumbfuckery as a general rule. If you know my full name, you can look me up in the phone book, I don't care. I know we've disagreed at times, and I tend to agree to disagree. This guy was just being an asshat. Amy didn't do this "just because she was offended" she did this because all of these asshat trolls are costing her time and money that she can't afford, just to push their agenda and punish her. Why aren't you gettting this?
Flynne at August 29, 2008 9:36 AM
Crid, I don't know why you keep saying that. Vlad said, and so did I, that the proper response would be to track him down, confront him, maybe even try to get him fired if you feel so strongly.
But opening him up to being stalked isn't appropriate. Theoretically, one of us here could be a nutjob - so devoted to Amy we'd go after him violently. What if he was hurt or killed? Would that fit the crime?
Unlike Amy, he's not a public person and didn't willingly sign on to be one. She takes that risk, by choice - to have critics and potential stalkers - but exposing him to that risk isn't appropriate in my view.
lovelysoul at August 29, 2008 9:38 AM
However, Amy is, by choice, a public person with a blog that invites critism, and he is a private citizen posting on what is supposedly a site welcoming anonymous comments. There's a difference.
Yes, there is a difference -- between a person here because they, personally, disagree with me, and wish to voice their opinion about what I've written, and a person who comes here to ask "Are you a tranny?" as part of a mob effort to intimidate me for speech not approved by "progressives."
Dailey was free to come here, and post on the entry -- I believe it was the one where I wrote about Barkley's remarks about Obama and race -- and say that he thinks I'm wrong about Barkley, or Obama, or race. He did not. He asked "Are you a tranny?" in an effort to intimidate me and disrupt my site...after reading the entreaties on Sadly Pathetic to come over here and intimidate me and disrupt my site.
Are you incapable of understanding the difference?
And I truly respect people like Tony above, who disagree with me probably on many issues (I'm actually a fiscal conservative, and socially libertarian, and yes, an atheist) but values some of my speech and respects my right to free speech.
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 9:39 AM
But opening him up to being stalked isn't appropriate.
You can look up the work phone number of NOAA employees. To say I'm opening up somebody to being stalked because I expose their behavior is ridiculous.
Please, think with your brains, not your rectums.
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 9:43 AM
Theoretically, one of us here could be a nutjob - so devoted to Amy we'd go after him violently. What if he was hurt or killed? Would that fit the crime?
I missed this part. Theoretically, you could go after my city councilman, who I could blog about. I'm mad that he has not stopped a really dumb parking decision in my neighborhood.
If you're a psychopath, let's hope somebody's caught it before you start going after anybody a moderately successful advice columnist takes issue with on her blog.
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 9:45 AM
Amy, I would only know he worked for NOAA or his name because you posted it!
I get it that you're angry. I get it that you feel under seige, but look what is happening, Amy. Your blog has gone from one where no one was deleted or banned to now a place where someone can be publicly outed for making a childish comment. I don't think that's a positive development. You're better than that. You should stand up for yourself in a more ethical manner. Have the guy arrested or fired. But don't stoop to the Sadly Pathetic level of saying, "Hey everybody, here's Mr. Dailey's contact info - harrass him for me!"
lovelysoul at August 29, 2008 9:52 AM
"Any honest man will admit that the most vile and hateful way to attack a woman is to do so by targeting her person and thereby her femininity
Outside of raping a woman or harming their children, I can think of no other more-hateful attack than that which is upon who she is." ~Tony
I agree, and this is the most common form of attack on a woman. I can't tell you how many times in my life I've been called a "fat ugly bitch." (The bitch part doesn't bother me, I just tell them, "It's bitch GODDESS, to you.")
Crid, I know you think it's one person, but if it's only one here, it's only one on Sadly, no's site, too. Went there yesterday & read some of their comments. They were very proud of themselves and what they were posting here.
I think it's good that Amy's standing up for herself, especially since she was bullied as a child. My oldest daughter was being bullied for a little while, but it stopped when I told her to give as good as she got, then went to the principle of the school and told her what was going on. She didn't like that I told my daughter to fight back, but I'm not raising victims.
Whether or not this idiot gets fired doesn't worry me. That's between him and his employer. It would suck to be him if it happened, though.
Sandy at August 29, 2008 9:59 AM
> Theoretically, one of us here
> could be a nutjob - so devoted
> to Amy we'd go after him violently.
An inexplicably goofy "theory". Amy's an advice columnist with a website... She does not direct a legion of killer commandos.
(Besides, you're new to the board since this crisis began... I think you might be one of Tom Cruise's robots!)
This episode has convinced me that people got some weird, weird ideas about identity on the internet. McArdle and Althouse had a discussion about trolls recently. These are two sharp women... Well, McArdle's a razor blade, and Althouse is a lawyer... And they were approaching the topic of trolls with the savvy and sturdiness of eighth-graders in a popularity contest.
Basically, people seem to hold two mutually-incompatible beliefs, both of which happen to be wrong:
1.) The world is full of very nice people who are polite and righteously concerned with my feelings and opinions. Sometimes they'll disagree, but only because they haven't met me yet or heard what I have to say, which will instantly convince bring them into a condition of 100% alignment with my delicate insights.
2.) The world is deadly back alley of rapists and gizzard-chewing thugs who will use any, ANY, scrap of personal information they can get about me to break up my family, discredit my church and ruin my credit rating. The precepts and logic of the American Constitution live only in my quietest heart; tell no one you saw me.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 10:01 AM
>>However, Amy is, by choice, a public person with a blog that invites critism, and he is a private citizen posting on what is supposedly a site welcoming anonymous comments. There's a difference.
Lovelysoul,
On this we agree.
Also, it is to Amy's advantage to have her name known - as a self-employed writer in this incredibly noisy community. This is all - the good and the bad - grist to the successfully public persona which pays her bills. (I just removed the typo saying "which pays her boils..."!)Not so with the rude twit.
Crid asks:
>>Secondly, if you're going to say her response doesn't fit the crime, you ought to suggest something that would fit the crime. In over two hundred messages here, no one's bothered to do that.
Ok, then - Amy should take the rude twit's quivering apology:"IN A MESSAGE DATED 8/28/08 4:29:26 AM Kevin D. wrote: I AM SORRY> I DID NOT MEAN TO OFFEND YOU> IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN"...
..and use it.
Make it emblematic of Amy's (highly defensible) refusal to be cowed. Stick the apology above the invitation to comment here, in all its crawling, awkward glory...highlight it as a banner on her site for a spell - sell T-shirts...fight this sorry, shit with style and verve and quit encouraging the insufferably po-faced, repulsively ugly comments about Kevin the rude twit deserving to be sacked from his job.
As someone else pointed out, it is what he wrote that was insufferable. Not how he sent it from work. It's a moronic, fucking fib - to borrow Flynne's voice - that anyone gives a shit about his possible work policy infraction.
It's just spite to wish him to get chucked out of his job. And if you genuinely think otherwise, your tongue should turn a horrible color. Because you're spouting total crap.
Jody Tresidder at August 29, 2008 10:01 AM
Who the fuck is Sandy?
Your new best friend, Amy! She partially agrees with us, just like a regular commenter! She's authentic! She's not extreme!
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 10:03 AM
Amy, I would only know he worked for NOAA or his name because you posted it!
The NOAA probably has thousands of employees. I do not go on their site and randomly pick out employees and post their names and phone numbers. This guy came to me, as part of a concerted effort to punish me for my free speech.
FYI, as far as getting him chucked from his job, I made it clear to the press guy I talked to on the phone yesterday that I am not calling for his head on a platter, but I would hope that somebody there sees to it that he understands why it's wrong to do this, and sees to it that he minds the satellites on the job instead of the advice columnists the mob tells him and others to go after. I just don't think people who work for the government, the one with that Constitution thingie behind it, should be using their taxpaid positions to be part of a mob intimidation effort for free speech.
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 10:06 AM
Crid, I admit that I'm new, but this isn't the first time I've posted, or even the first thread I've posted on. You want info? Here's what I'm willing to give:
I'm a single mom with two beautiful daughters and a boyfriend that I love. I live in the midwest, currently working full-time at a company that manufactures fertilizer. In July I came off of assistance, which I had been on for three years. I don't always agree with Amy, and I don't always post, just when I feel that I have something to contribute.
Anything else, just ask. I won't however give out my last name, email addy, or phone numbers.
Sandy at August 29, 2008 10:09 AM
As for the guy's apology, people always apologize when they are caught. And I asked for an EXPLANATION, which would have required thought and effort. He provided none, and really showed no understanding of what he'd done and no real remorse (except, perhaps, for getting caught). Had he owned up to being swayed by the mob, and admitted that it was wrong to try to intimidate me out of my speech on the phone, I probably would merely have posted the fact that he's a government employee doing this on the job, but not who he was. I'm always looking for people to redeem themselves. He just showed himself to be a coward, and denied even posting the stuff until he knew it was futile to continue. Not surprising. The tiny little thugs are not accountable for their behavior. They post anonymously, where I stand behind everything I say with my picture and photo, and if I won't say something to a person's face, I won't say it at all.
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 10:11 AM
> It's just spite
I like spite! Spite makes things happen.
> your tongue should turn
> a horrible color.
I don't think you quite get the magnitude of the misbehavior that was happening here.
This guy, presumably a college-edjumicated taxpayer working in for the federal government, was using the internet for some of the most childish, small-minded misconduct you can imagine out of a grown man. (He was doing it on our dime --"our" meaning taxpaying Americans, Jody-- but that point's been made.)
Not a terrible burden for Amy... But a burden nonetheless. Having graduated second grade, she shouldn't have to deal with second grade taunts from ANYONE.
Why is this grown man doing this? Answer one: Who cares? Answer two: Because he can. Or at least he thought he could.
Listen, what would you think if he did this in person? If, ever morning as you were stepping onto the subway train to get to work, he came up an accused you of being a transsexual? And he didn't touch you or threaten you or anything else, just made that accusation in front of whoever was nearby you, and then walked away?
Would you think that was forgivable? Would you think it was normal behavior, or even normal feeling, for a grown man?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 10:13 AM
>> I just don't think people who work for the government, the one with that Constitution thingie behind it, should be using their taxpaid positions to be part of a mob intimidation effort for free speech.
Not buying that Amy!
The job is just the parsley on your steak tartare, adding a little zest and color...he was dead meat due to the comment, plus the "mob" buggeration.
Jody Tresidder at August 29, 2008 10:18 AM
...he was dead meat due to the comment, plus the "mob" buggeration.
And rightfully so, in MNSHO.
Flynne at August 29, 2008 10:20 AM
Be clear, woman. WHY are you not buying what Amy says?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 10:21 AM
>>Would you think that was forgivable? Would you think it was normal behavior, or even normal feeling, for a grown man?
I thought he was a basement-dwelling child-man, Crid - and possibly in a wheelchair?
(Thanks for the tax thing. Jesus...even grimy interlopers get stuck for that, y'know?)
Jody Tresidder at August 29, 2008 10:23 AM
lovelysoul, did you read my post?
I said it was like if the bullies from school came into your backyard after your kid. Are you telling me you'd sit quietly by and ignore that in the name of free speech? (If so, your kids should be taken away from you post haste.) If you screamed hey, you kids get out of my yard and they ran like hell but there was one slow one you were able to grab by the collar and say tell me where you live or I'm calling the cops, you wouldn't? If not, you're less of a mom than I gave you credit for. I doubt that. I don't believe for one second you wouldn't collar that kid and go tell his mom what happened and try to get the nonsense stopped. Now, of course, his mom isn't going to fire him but if she's any kind of mom she is going to punish him.
Now if said bullies kept coming back and tormenting your kid calling him a butt-head or some other stupid nonsensical name that kids call other kids just to be mean and they also threw rocks at your window, would you try to keep them away from your house or would you cluck your tongue (as you seem to think Amy should do) and say they can't help themselves because they're just children or would you make a very public scene calling the police or whatever else it took to keep your windows from being broken?
A more apt analogy would be if one kid sometimes (but not every day) went by your house and called out to your kid "hey, butthead", you'd ignore it, maybe speak privately to his mom. But if this kid proceeded to enlist a whole gang of rock throwing kids and did this several times a day, I think you'd take some very public action. And, no, being a minor, the papers wouldn't publish his name but everyone in your neighborhood would very likely know who he was and who was harrassing who. Especially if he and his friends were also spray-painting on your garage "the butthead lives here" and signing it with various names they thought sounded tough and cool, even signing one Rebel Dick and giggling that is so my real name! Yeah, uh huh. You'd be liberal-minded towards them and protecting their identity I'm sure.
I know I wouldn't and frankly there'd be something very wrong with anyone who would.
Amy, I hear that. I was bullied in high school (poor instead of Jewish) and between that and the horror that was my marriage feel very strongly about never being bullied again. We got picked on for our poverty, poked fun of for being skinny and not having stylish clothes. I'm the same way. I won't stand for bullies. Not for being bullied or seeing others bullied.
T's Grammy at August 29, 2008 10:28 AM
>>Be clear, woman. WHY are you not buying what Amy says?
Because I don't buy the Nathan Hale act from anyone here on this topic. I think it's a total crock.
(If I've got the Nathan Hale reference wrong, I'll probably die of embarrassment...)
Jody Tresidder at August 29, 2008 10:30 AM
That "be clear' was for Jody... I don't understand what she means.
Listen, maybe in some cosmic measure of metaphysical righteousness, losing his job for this would be too punitive.
But I think there are a lot, an awful lot of people who are doing this kind of thing: They're anonymously saying these extremely childish things to strangers. They wouldn't have been doing this in the 1970s, or the 40s, or the seventeenth century. It's childish behavior that used to be stopped in childhood. Do we really, really want to have grown men and women carving space for this conduct in their daily schedules, then proceeding through the calendar as if nothing was wrong? Does anyone remember this guy?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 10:31 AM
Lovelysoul has a valid point when it comes to Miss Alkon being a public person.
However where I differ with her is in the opinion that being a public person entitles the public to attack one's self en masse because of that.
As a public person & a private citizen she is fully entitled to strike back and strike back hard at those who would attempt to libel, slander, attack, insult, or silence her over her thoughts, words, or actions.
Her outrage is just, her reaction in the case of that one particular idiot was measured, and it was effective in ridding us of him and his idiocy.
Boohoo, for him, maybe next time he'll use his head instead of his asshole when deciding what he wants to say.
Robert at August 29, 2008 10:32 AM
Oh, yeah, I forgot to answer Tony's question.
Yep, whether or not you care that much about looks (I'd rather be comfortable than pretty but still fess up to the fact that I'm fairly pretty so don't know what it's like to be ugly), it's the most immediate thing that gets attack. It's supposed to be a massive insult to be labelled ugly or undesirable (the implication here with all this "tranny" calling whether they admit it or not) and the ultimate compliment to be labelled "hot".
Me, I'd rather have my intellect admired and it pisses me off that I look years younger than I am but still, when, someone hurls an attack on my looks, I know they are trying to hurt and I think it's the knowledge of that intent.
I do, however, rather consider it an unintended compliment to be called a bitch. Women generally only get called a bitch when they're standing up for what's right. Instead of resembling a doormat.
I'm sure the Sadly Pathetic crowd thinks I'm a major fucking bitch. Yay!
T's Grammy at August 29, 2008 10:36 AM
Crid, I was here weeks before this happened. You can go back through old columns from earlier in the summer and see my posts if you doubt that. I'm certainly not a troll or a "bot".
And, Amy, a city councilman also has, like you, a public position. They certainly invite public input and criticism. You could certainly direct us to give input or influence us not to, let's say, bank with Bank of America, for instance. You have a lot of power because of your public visibility.
Yet, that's different than posting the private information of a private citizen, who posted on your blog believing he would remain anonymous.
lovelysoul at August 29, 2008 10:39 AM
lovelysoul, here's a different way to look at it:
Imagine if you're at your place of business and some random person came up to you and asked you if you were a tranny. How would you feel? This is, essentially, Amy's place of business. Should she just tolerat that? Would you? I wouldn't.
Sandy at August 29, 2008 10:40 AM
> I thought he was a basement-
> dwelling child-man, Crid - and
> possibly in a wheelchair?
Would you want it to happen to your daughters if it was just a guy in a wheelchair? Or a bitter child of divorce, whatever?
Allright, give me some more explanations, Jody. Why are we getting all these robotlike new commenters here, with their Stepfordlike interactions and individuation.
"I'm the one who's poor!"
"I'm the one with grandsons!"
"I'm the one who agrees with Amy!"
"I'm the one who only writes 20-word comments!"
"I'm the one who only writes 170-word comments!"
"I'm the one who's married to a miner!"
And always ending with... "But you've never heard from me before, and you'll never hear from me again!"
The reason I think this is a tightly-coordinated effort is that it's such a badly coordinated effort. As a Team One Narcissist with Oak Leaf Cluster, I'm completely impervious to the feelings of those who surround me... But I can smell this scam like dogshit.
I've never seen anything like this in politics, business, literature or film. (With one exception.) This is the forefront of something, uh... Well, something WEIRD, if not something important.
Scientologists are going to be studying this phenomenon very carefully. It's all about neediness and manipulation.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 10:44 AM
>>>They're anonymously saying these extremely childish things to strangers. They wouldn't have been doing this in the 1970s, or the 40s, or the seventeenth century.
I almost refuse to liken the rude twit to the anonymous political pamphleteers of centuries past, Crid. But I will.
They were forever scribbling sexual filth about "Yo Momma" ("or ye olde mother", I guess), and who was having sex with an ass and stuff about the bishop's willy. AND they hid behind goofy made-up, often tediously allegorical names, printing their stuff from mobile presses...
Jody Tresidder at August 29, 2008 10:45 AM
"Alkonholics"? Ugh. Terrible. I prefer the word that Godless Rose though of for us: "Alkaloids."
Patrick at August 29, 2008 10:48 AM
Jody, presuming that history is correct (and I doubt it, never having heard of such pamphleteering for quiet citizens such as our hostess), those were also the years when they used to dig the latrines right beside the kitchen, for convenience. Etc. We learned better and stopped doing that. Who wants to go back?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 10:51 AM
Who the Hell is Pinko. and who the Hell is Debra?
The Vandal's imaginary frieds, all.
Uh, Crid, I'm a real person. I'm 25, opera singer, live in Germany. Nice to meet you! I regularly read Amy's columns and blog, just comment rarely, though it's not the first time. Don't know about Pinko but your comment is odd since all of what both he or she and I expressed on this item is supportive of Amy's actions... that Vandal would be one complicated motherfucker!
Debra at August 29, 2008 10:52 AM
I'm mystified. What's not to get about it's not Amy's fault if this guy gets fired? He was the ass doing this on the public dime. If he gets fired, it's his own fault. And, no, he didn't do it in private. Amy publishes her e-mail address on this site. He didn't send her a private little creepy e-mail. He wanted to stand on his head and taunt in public. Why shouldn't his mask have been ripped off and his name exposed?
No, I doubt most of us care about anyone poking around the internet when work's slow but this was not just poking around the internet. It was leaving the job to follow an unruly mob to attack one lone woman. He just misjudged how strong that one lone woman was. Stepped in it and it's his own folly that he did.
Oh, and I'm posting from the job. Extremely dead Friday before a holiday weekend. If you don't hear from me for the next three days, that's why.
T's Grammy at August 29, 2008 10:56 AM
>>those were also the years when they used to dig the latrines right beside the kitchen, for convenience. Etc. We learned better and stopped doing that. Who wants to go back?
That's disgusting, Crid. Beside the kitchen?
In England, we put the bogs ("jakes" - that was one word for 'em) at the bottom of the garden. We still do in some towns, I think!
I also think you're being a little selective about necessarily "learning better" from history. That Constitution thingie?
Jody Tresidder at August 29, 2008 10:57 AM
Crid says:
"Call me paranoid, but I think every comment between 640am and 8:12am Friday (possibly, possibly excepting McKenna) are from the vandal."
I'm not the vandal. I've posted here, albeit infrequently, for some time. Check if you like. I post under my real name, or some variant thereof (Larry McKenna, Lawrence McKenna, Lawrence M. McKenna) or perhaps sometimes using my initials (LMM). Ms. Alkon can verify this, because she's received private e-mail from me in response to her solicitations for same (I think to help with one of her advice columns). Not that she has any reason or obligation to do so, and I don't really care if anyone thinks I'm the vandal, or the enemy, or part of the mob, or whatever.
Look, all this IP address stuff is over my head. What I see is one guy, posting an asinine comment. Maybe he reads this other blog (Sadly No?) and followed someone's lead. I have no idea. Seems to me that the response he got was way out of proportion. Ratting him out to his employer and jeopardizing his livelihood strikes me as extreme. Sure, he's a jerk. Call him out on that. And, as I said above, it seems to me that if the outrage over him doing this on the taxpayers' time was genuine, people posting favorable comments would have their IP addresses checked and get the same treatment.
And, folks, if anyone wants to retaliate against me, go right ahead, but please, please don't get mix me up with my poor old father, with whom I share my name. He is a government employee (I'm not), but he can't figure out how to work a cell phone, let alone a computer. The internet is a bit beyond him.
Larry McKenna at August 29, 2008 11:04 AM
Sandy, no, I wouldn't stand for it, and I'm not suggesting Amy do so either. I said she should take whatever private measures she can - confront him, make him fear for his job, demand an apology - all of which she did.
If someone came up to me in a parking lot or somewhere and insulted me, I would probably (if they weren't too big) confront them and demand an apology, but I wouldn't print up flyers with the guy's picture and personal info and put them all around the neighborhood or on the internet. That's the equivalent, and I think if I did that, I would only look bad.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. One thing I've learned is that few people change their original stance. If anthing, they just dig in more.
Amy has definitely taught the guy a lesson. I wouldn't have gone so far as to out him publicly, just because of safety concerns. Imagine if it was a female, I think that it might be viewed in a somewhat different light posting her private phone number and address on the internet for all to see. Maybe not, but I just feel it went a bit too far.
lovelysoul at August 29, 2008 11:06 AM
> since all of what both he or she
> and I expressed on this item is
> supportive of Amy's actions
Trust no one, "comrade"!
Listen, I'm getting emails from people saying "No, listen, that guy's real!" etc...
If you really exist, please don't be offended. But if you really exist and you've been here (or to any blog comments) more than once, you probably know better than to worry about imaginary social standing on Amy's little Monopoly board of persuasion.
(I'm the top hat. I wanted to be the race car, but Eric got it first. Sumbitch.)
Jody, I can't see what you mean, --ahem, "what you're on about"-- re: the constitution and learning better.
Do you think any good comes from abject identity fakery and sniping?
Y'know, we don't ask for much here. A couple of moist neurons, the occasional adverb, and the will to be expressive is all we want out of people. After that you can sign your comments "Vicar of Christ" for all we care. Take yourself, for example: I'm reasonable confident that you are who you seem to be because [A] I looked your book up on Amazon several years ago and [B] you're being showoffishly British ("Bogs") and it's getting on my nerves and [C] you're interested enough to actually try and persuade people.
If it turns out you're actually an Operations Team Leader who makes comments during breaks in his work on a oil rig in the North Atlantic instead of a mother of teenagers in New York, it's no skin off my nose... You behave, and argue, consistently.
This system is breaking down. It worked anonymously for ten years, which ain't a bad run. (For ten years before that, I used to do this on local BBS systems. It was the same thing, but with monthly pizza gatherings and sexual encounters [not at the same time].)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 11:20 AM
> One thing I've learned is that
> few people change their original
> stance. If anthing, they just
> dig in more.
No argument is ever wasted. People's opinions change in the details. Minor adjustments are made as we anticipate yesterday's responses today.
This is what I was getting at with the McArdle and Althouse link. People who are offended at the "troll-ishness" of the internet often seem to have thought that persuasion would be a much easier enterprise than it actually is.
Most of the silent people in line with you at the bank don't agree with you anywhere near as often as you'd think. That doesn't mean they're vampires... But they don't agree with you.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 11:24 AM
Do you really think a criminal or nutcase will go after this guy based on the info here? Or some crazed Amy-supporter? There are much easier ways to victimize somebody, male or female, than lifting their WORK (not private) info from this blog. Even if it were private, it's not a call to go after the guy. He and all these assholes are depending on their anonymity, and stripping them of that is appropriate and will hopefully make them think twice in the future.
Debra at August 29, 2008 11:31 AM
> One thing I've learned is that
> few people change their original
> stance. If anthing, they just
> dig in more.
This group - and some independent research - has made me think twice about the right to bear arms, which I used to think was a bad thing. Now I know that private swimming pools are more dangerous, in terms of the number of children accidentally killed.
I didn't ever persuade Crid of anything, though, as far as I know.
(Cue Crid to reply: that's because your opinions are crap!)
Norman at August 29, 2008 11:45 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html#comment-1585816">comment from Larry McKennaWhat I see is one guy, posting an asinine comment. Maybe he reads this other blog (Sadly No?) and followed someone's lead. I have no idea.
That's right, Larry, you have no idea. Had you actually informed yourself by reading the links in the piece, you would've had an idea. Instead, you sounded off without knowing what you were talking about.
Larry has commented here before. You can sometimes Google advicegoddess.com and a commenter's name and find out if they have.
Larry, how about you read about the mob coming after me because they seek to punish me for posting entries in thinking and speech not approved by "progressives." This guy didn't come over here because he's genuinely interested in whether I've had a sex change operation. He did it as part of a mob sent over here to quash free speech.
Do you support that sort of behavior?
A word to the wise: There are a lot of blogs I lurk on but do not post on -- medical and epidemiological blogs and even Respectful Insolence, because a lot of scientists post there, and I really can't hold my own in a reasonable way in some of those discussions without first reading a pile of studies. If you don't know what you're talking about -- maybe wait to comment until you do?
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 11:47 AM
Debra, one thing I've learned from watching my son is that these guys make enemies. They vehemently argue politics with each other, often pissing each other off - all from the safety of anonymous posts. My son guards his privacy closely, and being a genius, he probably uses IP whateveryoucallems to hid his identity. Yet, years ago, we had to change our phone number because somebody who disagreed with an opinion he posted found him somehow and started harassing him.
So, Amy not only outed Dailey here but to all the guys at "Sadly Pathetic", many of whom may not be his biggest fans, and they don't seem so stable to me. If they'd harass Amy, why is it so absurd to think they could harass someone else?
Again, would we do it to a female? I mean, when I was online dating, I took precautions not to let any personally identifying information slip. That's why those sites are anonymous. Yes, it's unlikey someone would stalk me and hurt me, but you never know. That's why you don't take the chance.
This site is supposedly anonymous too, yet Amy seems to feel ok with outing him, and that's her choice.
lovelysoul at August 29, 2008 11:48 AM
>>Do you think any good comes from abject identity fakery and sniping?
Hang on a tick, Crid.
Sniping is what we all do to some extent.
Identity fakery is implicit in the "username" convention, of course. And we know, very well, that a chap called Kevin does, in fact, exist behind his offensive four words.
Amy does not have posted rules for commenting. (Some blogs state - and enforce- some really rum dos and don'ts.)
(Nor disagreeing here, just stating the obvious, as I do consistently.)
Yes, the swarming wears very thin, very fast.
I think your comments about the curiously inert style of the "mob" have probably been spot on.
But the system is not breaking down, surely?
Isn't that a little over wrought?
As several have said, this thing was already
ebbing through a combination of the standard doughty techie procedures chez Amy and the usual creeping inertia.
I think - obviously - it was a frightful miscalculation of Amy's to take things outside - as it were.
But that'll pass into the ether too. (I hope for the twit as well...)
So why d'you suspect it's The End Of Whatever As We Know It? I don't get it?
Jody Tresidder at August 29, 2008 12:04 PM
I am quite real, Crid.
And to correct some of lovelysoul's (and the other trolls) erroneous statements:
1) Amy Alkon is a private citizen who exercises her first amendment rights through a venue which she pays for. She has broken no law, and no regulation. Any access to the venue which she pays for is hers to control, and any submission made to that venue becomes her property.
2) Kevin "Bi-Curious" Dailey is a public employee (paid by me), who in essence used MY TIME and MY MONEY and equipment that I PAID FOR to initiate contact with and make gross sexual & gender insults to someone who never met him and did not solicit his input. And he did it when he was supposed to be doing the work I PAY HIM TO DO. The subject matter of his comment was not germane to the venue in which it was posted. The only logical explanation for the subject matter and placement of Dailey's comment was harassment.
3) There is no legal basis for claims of privacy on the internet. Kevvie sent his plaintive cry for attention out over public information infrastructure. Once Dailey hit send, he lost his privacy rights for that message; the recipient can publish or forward the message without restriction. The only person he has to blame for his outing (and punishment) is himself.
These are all simple, logical points. None are rocket science (or even weather satellite science). It only takes a working brain to realize the truth of this matter. Which is why the leftists are still jousting with windmills.
The tide is shifting way from the lefties, and they don't like it. Hence these soviet-style attacks on non-leftists.
PinkoPerforator at August 29, 2008 12:06 PM
Amy, I'm well aware that the offending poster didn't "come over here because he's genuinely interested in whether I've had a sex change operation." He came over here to post an insulting comment, devoid of any real substance. Since it had no substance, and since he didn't say why he came here, I have no idea what was in his mind. Nothing of interest to me or anyone else, judging by his post.
I did read the links. I didn't bother to read through the Sadly No blog, although I did look at it briefly at some point, because it didn't look that interesting to me (not nearly as interesting as your blog).
The tech stuff in your post, and in the posts of some commenters, is indeed over my head. Sorry about that. I'm not a techie.
It's not a question of me "support[ing] that sort of behavior." This isn't a for-me-or-against-me situation. I thought your response to this one poster was a bit extreme. Since I posted concerning my own reaction, yes, I do know what I'm talking about. That was my reaction. It's still my reaction. To think that is not the same as supporting anyone's attempt to "punish" you (or to consume your bandwidth, or shut down your site, or anything like that).
Larry McKenna at August 29, 2008 12:08 PM
Then, why don't you post your name and phone number, PinkoPerforator? Why don't we all do it? If there's no implicit privacy expectation to the anonymous user name, why offer it here?
By that logic, Match.com could've outed me at any moment - published my name, address, even my credit card information - but I would've been pretty upset had they done so! In fact, I would've sued them.
They get jerks on those sites too, but they DELETE them - BLOCK them - not put them up on some public shaming board. That's not how you handle it.
lovelysoul at August 29, 2008 12:15 PM
T's Grammy,
It was leaving the job to follow an unruly mob to attack one lone woman.
Your sentence (above) needs too many modifiers before it can be remotely tethered to reality!
In any case, do we know whether leaving those 4 words as a comment here physically required Kevin "leaving the job"?
I only ask because, of course, he used his personal email for the comment. (Then Amy sleuthed him to his job). He could have dashed it off any time - including during his official lunch hour?
Jody Tresidder at August 29, 2008 12:27 PM
>> {Amy]..did not solicit his input.
PinkoPerforator,
Huh?
Right above where I'm typing now it says in bold black and white "Leave a comment".
That is most certainly soliciting input!
Jody Tresidder at August 29, 2008 12:32 PM
Jody, what he was supposed to be doing when he was posting on my site is for his supervisors to figure out. But, if you're working for the government, as far as I'm concerned, you don't get to use the government server and probably the government's computer to post speech-quashing comments on my blog.
As for the question of anonymity, I'd venture that most of the people who post here do so because they're interested in a discussion rather than silencing discussion. They aren't going around to websites attacking other people on command from their "progressive" gang.
Most people here who don't post their real names do post e-mail addresses I can contact them through. I wouldn't post those e-mail addresses. In fact, I think there are a few people here who've asked to be put in touch with other commenters, and save for Crid, who I know doesn't mind, I will always ask before giving out an e-mail address. In fact, I did it recently, when one friend wanted to interview another friend for a big website. Good for both of them, but I asked the second friend first whether I could give out her e-mail address.
Likewise, there are secrets I've kept for 20 years. But fuck with me as a way to punish my speech, and don't be surprised if I do what I can to nail you to the wall.
Oh, and FYI, I support all speech. My friend, the Beverly Hills Republican had her Bush/Cheney signs stolen. I was horrified by this, same as I would be if somebody stole your Obama signs -- or your Lyndon LaRouche signs, for that matter. I don't believe in god, but for me, political speech, especially, is sacred.
Oh, and finally, supporting your right to free speech is different from supplying you with free bandwidth. You want to discuss whether I'm a tranny? You bring your own bandwidth. Over here, minus the tiny little thugs speculating on whether I'm a transsexual, we have some pretty interesting discussions go on.
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 12:38 PM
slightly off-topic: just a thought, Amy. You keep referring to these people as "tiny little thugs" but it seems to me that you SHOULD be calling them "tiny MINDED little thugs." Or something like that.
Sandy at August 29, 2008 12:50 PM
You know, this reminds me of a time, a few years ago, when a guy I was seeing dumped me in the most horrible, abrupt, classless, and hurtful way. Heartbroken and furious, I came up with this idea that I would fax flyers to his office saying, "Mike has a little dick!"
Of course, once I calmed down, I cringed at the thought of being so vindictive towards someone who just made a stupid mistake (of knocking some other girl up, it turned out! lol).
We're friendly again now...and, uh, I don't think that would be the case if I'd followed my first reaction.:)
I think if you really look at what this poor shmuck did, it really doesn't rise to the level of the punishment you're giving him. You're upset at the Sadly, Pathetic people - as you should be - but he's paying the major price, maybe even losing his job, when they're the ones that directed him to your site.
lovelysoul at August 29, 2008 12:56 PM
You're upset at the Sadly, Pathetic people - as you should be - but he's paying the major price, maybe even losing his job, when they're the ones that directed him to your site.
I doubt he will lose his job. As we all know, playing on the internet at work is common, sometimes tolerated. It is possible he was on break too. But if he IS punished by his employer, it was his choice and that's the consequence. If it's something his boss would fire him for, then maybe he shouldn't have done it if he intended to keep his job! The "they" at Sadly, Pathetic you speak of is a mob made up of individuals like him, and the only way to fight a mob is to dissolve it back into individuals... individuals who should show reponsibility.
I understand your view better, especially after your son's experience, but if some jerks choose to harrass Dailey using the info posted here, I guess he should have, again, considered the consequences of joining the attack. That maybe, just maybe he could be confronted, the address he submitted to Amy used, and his readily Google-able contact info posted, exposing him to harrassment himself. Perhaps he'll get a taste of what it's like. A little more empathy from people would prevent a lot of shitty things from being done in the world. He could also have expressed genuine remorse and a sense of responsibility when confronted, and saved himself some grief. But he chose not to. He deserves this and so do the rest of them.
Debra (The Bride of Christ) at August 29, 2008 1:17 PM
One of these Sadly Pathetic thugs is a reporter for a small newspaper, and I don't think his writing is very good. Also, he's not exactly covering stories of great importance.
I was tempted, for a millisecond, to e-mail him one of his stories (naturally, I've tracked him down -- took me about 30 seconds) with a snarky remark about how he should pay more attention to his writing and less to mine. But, that seems like dirty pool, same as it would be dirty pool to call Bank of America's Nereida Claudius at home. I have her home address and phone, and I even looked her up in the courts where she lives, but although she's an enabler of the spectacular negligence of the Bank, I will call a telemarketer at home after their company calls me at home, but I would never do the same to her. It's just good to know everything you can about your opponent.
A guy who posts comments on my site as part of a mob trying to quash speech, and does it from a government computer -- a government you and I pay to finance, a government run on the principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights -- well, he's not going to go unchallenged on that.
Back to the newspaper reporter -- I respect people who are at least trying to do something, and maybe he's trying to improve, and I'm not going to sink to their level.
In short, I have all sorts of standards that I do not state here, but just because I don't state them, don't think it means I'm absent of them. Far from it.
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 1:24 PM
Debra, I agree about the job. If he was breaking rules against personal internet usage and wasn't on break, then that's his responsibility.
Yet, as I've said, the anonymous user feature here would not lead people to "consider the consequences" of being publicly outed. Most sites, like Match.com, for instance, that allow you to protect your identity by using an alias, guard that privacy no matter what.
It's only fair if Amy wants to put a disclaimer next to her comment form warning, "if I am offended by your comments, I may elect to post all your identifying personal information online."
But talk about limiting free speech!
lovelysoul at August 29, 2008 1:30 PM
Amy,
You impossibly entertaining, stubborn broad - look at what you wrote to the communications honcho at Kevin's work!
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..."
This is not a strong, small voice battling for the right to be heard!
This is a shrill muddle of subordinate clauses trailing furiously after too many relative pronouns! If I were Scott I'd be wondering if you were going to start mentioning your problems with the FBI next!
You can't even get to the honest point without a major song and dance about what's really ticked you off - of which Kevin is just a tiny, stupid part.
Kevin's odious 4 words couldn't "quash" a flea.
By all means, hold his words up for ridicule. Go to town - he ought to think about what he wrote & why. And it seems likely he has!.
Ach - it's the job thing. I hate the idea he could possibly get such a horrendous penance from a personal email to a very, very lively site.
Fwiw, I do think you have lava loads of 100% reasonable boiling fury over the faceless, unpunishable (so far) bank fuckers. And that it's somehow spraying all over gormless tits -like Kevin - when they wander conveniently into your sights.
Jody Tresidder at August 29, 2008 1:37 PM
lovelysoul -- I think if you really look at what this poor shmuck did, it really doesn't rise to the level of the punishment you're giving him.
Amy has not punished anyone. Any punishment will be up to the shmuck's employers.
Norman at August 29, 2008 1:42 PM
Crap - please ignore the last bit. I don't know anything of the sort. It's rubbish psycho babble & projection...sorry.
Jody Tresidder at August 29, 2008 1:47 PM
Hey Crid- your comments about scientologists sound like the tip of an interesting iceberg - wanna elaborate?
--
phunctor
phunctor at August 29, 2008 2:21 PM
I hope the idiot does lose his job. If he's such a fool as to use an easily traced ISP, he's too dumb for a government job.
Rachel at August 29, 2008 4:19 PM
The days of men getting on the internet to degrade and insult and subjugate females is over. I hope they enjoyed the free ride to abuse and inflict personal abuse cause it's done like dinner. Progressive men/women can't hide behind anonymous anymore and I think that's grand. Amy tought this progressive loser a valuable lesson, it's called "Responsibilty and accountablity for his actions".
I've stated this before but I'll say it again "Progressives" are social losers who long for a socialist/marxist utopian US of A. They are replacing the hippies of lore, the hippies are dying and their young are filling that gap.
You go Amy, you did exactly the correct thing by confronting an abusive seriel bully. He'll/it will think twice before he attacks anonymously again.
Rose at August 29, 2008 4:19 PM
Amy, I have seen the topic of bullies come up in these comments. The only way to stop bullying is to convince the bully that their behavior will hurt them more than it will make them happy. Nail Kevin Dailey’s well-trafficked ass to the wall. Complain loudly, until they walk him (and his cardboard box of pocket-protectors and cat pictures) out of his office between 2 security guards. If he isn’t materially punished, his ilk will be emboldened.
As a public service, I will now explain to Lovelysoul what is obvious to an average 5th grader. If I send a comment to someone’s blog comment page, it is THEIR property once they receive it. Being the sort of person who has an IQ higher than room temperature, I bore that fact in mind when I sent my comment. A comment which was sent from my own computer, while I was on my own time, by the way.
Since I am using Amy Alkon’s bandwidth and Amy Alkon’s comments section, the person who has the ultimate power over what does or does not get done with the information that I submitted is…Amy Alkon. And, in another example of why it is good to have an IQ higher than room temperature, I used good judgment in deciding what I submitted as a comment, so as to NOT PISS OFF THE OWNER OF THE SITE THAT I SUBMITTED THE COMMENT TO. What’s more, my comment was an observation of facts and principles, not an attack on the owner of the site. Hell, it was even on-topic, unlike Kevin “Bi-Curious” Dailey’s contribution/attempt to harass.
And, Lovelysoul, after seeing the kinds of harassment that leftists use to stifle people who don’t parrot their cockamamie beliefs, can you blame me for not volunteering my personal information? I don’t want to waste city water hosing the remains of some liberal jackass off of my porch. They can hunt me if they want; the process will leave evidence that I can use to prove they stalked me.
And this Jody Tresider person…what planet are you from? If Amy Alkon changed the text on her comments section from “Leave a Comment” to “Light Yourself on Fire”, would you do it? It’s like the menu at a restaurant: order what you think is appropriate, knowing there might be consequences. You CAN say “No, DON’T supersize me”, you know.
Judgment. Pass it on!
PinkoPerforator at August 29, 2008 4:22 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html#comment-1585885">comment from PinkoPerforatorIf Amy Alkon changed the text on her comments section from “Leave a Comment” to “Light Yourself on Fire”, would you do it? It’s like the menu at a restaurant: order what you think is appropriate, knowing there might be consequences. You CAN say “No, DON’T supersize me”, you know. Judgment. Pass it on!
PinkoPerforator, you rock my world.
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 4:28 PM
I can't believe how completely insensitive you people are. Over what - a four word post from a sad little NOAA employee? That's such a threat to "free speech"? C'mon - he didn't "quash" anything! He was just the easiest and nearest target for you to release your anger against Sadly, No.
If PinkoPerforator "rocks your world", then I guess you really like that sort of cruelty. I thought it was just because you were temporarily upset and worked up. These posters don't have the slightest concern or empathy for individuals, justice or consequences that actually match the crime. They're just sterotyping him - it's like high school ("pocket protectors and cat pictures", etc). Real mature. They just want to see somebody get it - anybody. Doesn't matter if he has kids to feed, or a disabled parent. They're happy to see him lose his job, revel in his misfortune. Might as well take them to the Colisseum and let them watch people get torn apart by lions. I'm very disappointed that you support - much less act upon - this kind of vengefulness. I expected better, Amy.
And yes, you do own this site and can do whatever you want with the info. Mastercard owns their site too, so I guess by Pinkperforator's logic, they can just release all my personal info. But just because they CAN doesn't make it right or professional. Same here.
lovelysoul at August 29, 2008 4:50 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html#comment-1585888">comment from lovelysoulAgain, the guy wasn't here being a jerk all by his lonesome. Over the years, I've had a number of people post comments like Dailey's, and much worse, attacking me. Why can't you get it: My problem is that he came here as part of a mob effort to punish me for my speech and to intimidate me from speaking in a way unapproved by "progressives" in the future. And if you're a member of a speech-squashing mob, I'll come after you and nail you to the wall.
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 5:05 PM
Here, for example, is a comment from 2005:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2005/05/15/expecting_rain.html
Now, I did not track this person down. I did not look up their IP, let alone publish it. In fact, I didn't even delete the comment. I just left it up and shrugged it off as a lone asshole trying to make me feel bad, probably because he feels bad about his own pathetic life.
The difference: There was no evidence that he was part of some mob bent on punishing me for my speech, and trying to intimidate me from further speech that is unapproved by "progressives."
Have I made myself clear yet?
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 5:15 PM
Doesn't matter if he has kids to feed, or a disabled parent.
If I had children to feed or a disabled parent, I wouldn't be an advice columnist. I'd probably work at an ad agency and make real money. If you have children to feed, you have no business jeopardizing your job.
And try that logic on the judge after you rob a string of liquor stores: "Judge, please don't send me to jail, I have children to feed, and a disabled parent!"
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 5:19 PM
Quote:
Well you seem to be intellectually impared, what he did was dispicable and hateful yet you seem more concerned with his "Mythical Children" do you know something the rest of the posters don't? People like you are tearing the fabric of society apart with your hyped up over sensitive "Feelings" and plucking tolerance of the "Intolerable" the next time he degrades a female like Amy he'll think twice.
She's a better lass than I, I'd of destroyed him professionally without a moment's grief. Did he think of his mythical kids when he attacked this site? Your mewlings have no merit, perhaps you feel empathy because you'd do the same damn thing he's done. Nice try there buttercup, adults face consequences for their actions, well not the leftards.
Save your sniviling for Obama, he'll need your snot and tears.
I've come to the conclusion you are one of the "Progressives" your soul isn't lovely it's a spinelss sniviling pandering "Over the top tolerant" void. Keep making excuses for the arsehole, it won't make a difference his actions were unacceptable to most mature adults accept you.
Sorry Amy I didn't mean to get personal but if I have to read more of her blather slather and horse shite I'd gag on a spoon.
Rose at August 29, 2008 6:01 PM
I've been a faithful reader of Amy's blog and columns for a long time, but have never felt compelled to participate until now. Crid, go ahead and call me yet another iteration of "the vandal" if you wish; I'm thick-skinned and I can take it.
Anyway, to my points. First, lovelysoul, your belief that being allowed to use an alias on a Web site somehow guarantees that site will "guard that privacy no matter what" is kinda sweet, but very naive. If you look at match.com's privacy policy, which is readily available from its home page, you will see that there are actually a number of exceptions from their protection of your personal information, some of which are very vague and open to a hell of a lot of interpretation. Further, Amy's site doesn't even HAVE a privacy policy, which to my mind equals "my house, my rules." And I think that's fair, because it IS her house. You might want to get in the habit of checking posted privacy policies on internet forums in which you wish to participate, instead of assuming that you're guaranteed privacy just because you aren't required to post in your full legal name.
Another Debra at August 29, 2008 6:18 PM
Too quick on the "submit" button...
My second point is regarding Mr. Daily's particular "right to privacy." I am a public employee. Not federal; state. Everything about my job, including my title, work address, phone number, and salary, is PUBLIC RECORD. And it should be, since the public's payin'. My agency has a very clear and very strictly enforced policy prohibiting personal use of state-owned computers and other facilities. This policy is made clear to everyone who works there. Anyone who violates the policy does so knowing full well that discipline may result. This is the reason I'm posting at 6:30 p.m., on my own time and from my own home, long after the convo on this thread has died down.
I'd be willing to be that Mr. Daily's agency's personal-use policy, if there is one, has been communicated to him. If there is one, and he CHOSE to violate it, he is responsible for any disciplinary action that results. It isn't Amy's responsibility to shield irresponsible idiots from the consequences of their CHOICES, and anyone who's spent five minutes reading either her blog or her columns knows she doesn't roll that way. The suggestion that poor Mr. Daily shouldn't "get in trouble" because the poor dear didn't know it wasn't okay to post insulting shit on the internet on company time is ludicrous. I shudder to think what some of you are teaching your kids about taking responsibility for their actions.
If this nitwit's agency prohibits personal use, he either knew he was violating that policy or he's a drooling imbecile. Thinking his comment couldn't be traced to him doesn't mitigate HIS DECISION TO VIOLATE THE POLICY. "But, but, it's not my fault because nobody TOLD me it wasn't anonymous!!" Please.
If personal use isn't prohibited, or it's allowed when one's on break and he was, then he won't get in trouble and you can all unbunch your panties about it.
Simple as that.
Another Debra at August 29, 2008 6:43 PM
So: does the subject of this article get a pass because of ethnicity?
Radwaste at August 29, 2008 8:01 PM
Timeout friend! As a conservative douche bag myself, I have no problems with Transsexuals or gays. As my wife can attest, I have never uttered a disparaging remark about lesbians....
Therefore, I take offense at your "fighting words." Well...Not really, but I have to say that to prove that I'm a douche bag...
Tony at August 29, 2008 8:38 PM
PinkoPerforator,
In addition to being an excitable type, you can't appear to read.
You earlier wrote that Kevin had leveled insults at Amy and you hotly described Amy as "someone who never met him and did not solicit his input."
The "never met him" is neither here nor there, obviously. This is the internet.
Amy did solicit his comment.
As I pointed out.
No, she didn't ask for insults and he was out of line. But his input was indeed solicited, in the normal way, as a comment.
Jody Tresidder at August 29, 2008 8:53 PM
Man, and I thought ass-clown was a funny one. Brian and Vlad, you two are hysterical.
Tony at August 29, 2008 9:27 PM
> This group - and some
> independent research - has made
> me think twice about the right
> to bear arms
That's what the riots in '92 did to me... Woke up on a smoky Brentwood morning in early May, put “Adagio for Strings” on the stereo and knew I wasn't an old-time liberal any more.
> to reply: that's because your
> opinions are crap!
Only when you say that poverty causes crime.
> This site is supposedly
> anonymous too
Where is this written? Sez hoo?
> Hang on a tick,
You've told me to hang on worse things than that.
> why d'you suspect it's The End
> Of Whatever
I have no faith that new visitors or passersby are who they claim to be.
> this thing was already ebbing
> through a combination of the
> standard doughty techie
> procedures chez Amy and the
> usual creeping inertia.
And then the guy pushed her buttons again and we were off on another cycle. If you've ever read The Gift of Fear by whatsisname, this is like that.... You have to let these things burn out.
> it was a frightful
> miscalculation of Amy's
> to take things outside
Well, if Amy really did talk to the fellow, and is accurately reporting his responses, then I am at least partially wrong in saying it's only one guy. But I'd still argue that one seemingly adult person (the NOAA guy) was having his infantile nature tempted by the wicked aroma of the vandal's (much grander) crockpot. Amy can't take too much blame for that. And furthermore, shooting down Mr. NOAA leaves the larger target unscathed. But the lesser invader confessed; no one's suggesting she got the wrong guy.
So, whence "fright"?
> I hope for the twit
> as well...
Well, speaking as an antisocial, marginally creepy, blog-obsessed male myself, he's giving the team a bad name! I hope this doesn't "pass" without causing him to seriously rethink the nature of his responses to the women he casually encounters in his life. I hope that the energy he expended on taunting Amy is simply dissipated through (late) growth. If he starts doing something similarly demented to women in other contexts, such as the subway scenario described earlier, then you'd think Amy didn't do enough, right?
> I am quite real
We'll be the judge of that!
> That's not how you
> handle it.
Sez hoo?
> maybe even losing his job
Does anyone know that this is happening or even in the cards?
> comments about scientologists
> sound like the tip of an
> interesting iceberg - wanna
> elaborate?
Not really, except that you make me think I didn't put it very well.
I *don't* think what's happening here is coming from Scientologists. DO NOT think so. 'K? Kewl.
However...
When you actually meet a certified Scientologist, it doesn't take long to recognize that you're dealing with an incomplete personality. First, they have no sense of humor, at least none that isn't pointed and bitter, like an NPR commentator's. (Tom Cruise couldn't make a truly funny movie until he dropped himself into Ben Stiller's hands, including makeup.) They're incapable of ironic thinking...
...Because they're very lonely. But they want to connect, and they want to do it NOW, dammit! They don't have time for things that aren't, like, literally true!
Yet on the other hand, they'll believe almost anything if you promise that you mean it. (Xenu! Billion-year contracts!)
And still... They are often functional human beings, with driver's licenses and laundry detergent in the pantry and favorite TV shows, etc. There are a few things they know about human character. And they know the shit out of those few things, so that they can exploit other people who have the same characteristics.
Amy's vandal has similar deficits of character. He thinks he shouldn't have to face stubborn opposition to his childish judgment of Amy's racial perspective. He just wants to be right, to say so, and have everyone agree with him. This is not a guy who's spent a lot of time with others, I'd wager, and certainly not with appealing and independent-minded women.
And yet, he knows how to flatter her and send her wheels spinning (as well as those of others here, and that includes me on at least two occasions).
He doesn't know much, but he knows what he knows. Scientology is like that.
And if you thought this was a long blog comment, wait for the next one....
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 9:32 PM
I apologize if others have already commented on this brilliant display of nothingness. I'm trying to read to the bottom of this whole thread, however I'm "A-D-D-ing" and therefore having difficulties.
Nevertheless, isn't what he said (in bold) analogous to a mentally retarded person (no insult to the truly afflicted is intended) looking in the mirror and saying, "you're retarded."
Tony at August 29, 2008 9:49 PM
Crid, what evidence do you have that the multiple IP addresses "can't be trusted" and that this is one "Vandal"? I think Amy's got enough techie knowhow and resources to make the call on that.
And then the guy pushed her buttons again and we were off on another cycle. If you've ever read The Gift of Fear by whatsisname, this is like that.... You have to let these things burn out.
This guy being an individual member of a group attack, I think singling him out and responding is appropriate. The Gift of Fear's advice to completely ignore applies to stalking from a single deranged individual, which evidence does not suggest is the case here. Your best hope of weakening the mob is peeling the cowards away one by one and trying to shock / shame them into some form of conscience.
Debra (The Bride of Christ-- Hi, other Debra!) at August 29, 2008 9:54 PM
> it really doesn't rise to the
> level of the punishment you're
> giving
You keep saying that.
> It's only fair if Amy wants to
> put a disclaimer next to her
> comment form warning, "if I am
> offended by your comments, I may
> elect to post all your
> identifying personal information
> online."
Why wouldn't a grownup assume that this was true?
> If I send a comment to someone's
> blog comment page, it is THEIR
> property once they receive it.
Exactly. That's a really, really important point.
My least favorite comment in this thread apparently came from the vandal (and if it didn't, I don't want to know), who pretended to be a reader clucking about Amy's scalping of the weatherman:
> I'm sorely disappointed to
> find out otherwise.
The priggishness and condescension of that are breathtaking. But THAT WAS NOT THE ONLY EXAMPLE OF THIS YESTERDAY.
So, there I was this afternoon, walking through the streets of San Diego's Gaslamp district, looking for the taco of my dreams. (We take vacations as best we can.) And then I saw it; the headline of Friday's Los Angeles Times, a quote from Barack Obama's speech last night:
> 'We are a better country
> than this'
This makes Amy's vandal look like an idiot savant, or a demented genius or whatever: He's definitely got a convincing take on the zeitgeist.
Each quotation is a synthetic and inappropriate use of the tone of a scolding parent. Goddamn it, Barack Obama, you are not my fucking Daddy, and I'll tell you when we can do better, and you will motherfucking listen. And goddamn it, commenter, Amy is not your little girl.
But this isn't just about the liberal search for daddy figures in public life... It's also about forced intimacy.
Here's how intimacy works: Two parties negotiate it. Ta-da! That's it. (OK, sometimes at parties in Orange County, more than two people negotiate it, but you see what I mean.)
Specifically, (parents to newborns excepted), we are never permitted to assign conditions of intimacy to other people.
The NOAA guy had no reason, zero, to think his childishness was a private matter with Amy.
Seipp went through an episode like this a few years ago. I forget the details, but some journalist sent her an email saying "I think we should blah blah and blah." Seipp didn't agree, and published the thing word-for-word. The woman was pissed, and pretended that Seipp had broken a confidence... But of course she hadn't.
Two weeks ago, I did that at work. A staffer burned me (a technician) with weak preparation for a project, and I called him on it in a public report. He sent me a snooty email; I published that too. The guy went batshit, and one manager was mildly annoyed, but couldn't say I was wrong. (The others were winking at me all week.) And you wouldn't believe how well prepared the projects have been ever since.
Government, work, blogs, sex, whatever. If you don't have a bond, don't act as though you do.
> Please, Amy, for your
> own sake - get help.
Hey Amy-- That's not only exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about in this comment: It's precisely the same (bullshit) line that Ruth Seymour used on Sandra Tsing Loh a couple years ago. So, like, you're in good company.
> But his input was indeed
> solicited, in the normal way,
> as a comment.
Don't be legalistic. Besides, it wasn't "solicited" for any transaction: In the best case (which is certainly not what he gave her), she wasn't going to get a profit from it. She 'solicits' comments as a courtesy to her readers.
Now, Jody, tell us more about "gormless tits".
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 10:21 PM
> what evidence do you have
Well, "Debra"... It's all explained in earlier comments, in this thread and in others. Did you just get here?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 10:24 PM
Here's part of an e-mail I just wrote a friend (below). Apparently, he, like some people, is under the impression that my outing Dailey is just about me being upset that some guy posted some junior high school level remark. It is not.
I posted above a comment in the past from a guy who said something similar. From 2005
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2005/05/15/expecting_rain.html
You look like a bad transvestite.
Posted by: Calum Courtney at May 15, 2005 1:28 PM
Now, I did not track this person down. I did not publish his IP or even look it up. In fact, I didn't even delete the comment. I just left it up and shrugged it off as a lone asshole trying to make me feel bad.
The difference: There was no evidence that "Calum Courtney" was part of some mob bent on punishing me for my speech, and trying to intimidate me from further speech that is unapproved by "progressives."
From my e-mail to my friend:
Amy Alkon at August 29, 2008 10:27 PM
"Why can't you get it: My problem is that he came here as part of a mob effort to punish me for my speech and to intimidate me from speaking in a way unapproved by "progressives" in the future. And if you're a member of a speech-squashing mob, I'll come after you and nail you to the wall".
Why I can't "get" it is that this is the same mentality at Guantanamo Bay. It's that you've deemed this person as a part of the "mob" and will then pursue the punishment you think is due "the mob" - not the individual. It's like gay bashing - killing one person because you disagree with the whole group. You really don't know this person is part of a "mob", only that he stupidly - and for an instant - acted at their directive.
This is from a conservative, Amy, not a lefty or "progressive". I just have a strong sense of justice, and you were right in your first dealing with people like this. Let them post and ignore it. If they continue to post, then block or delete them, but don't track them down and publicly humiliate and expose them. That violates every privacy issue that any even semi-conservative would support.
Unlike what PinkPerforator thinks, sites like Match.com NEVER post private information online. They will block someone who has complaints against them, but they don't post anyone's private information. I know a lot of people on those sites, and I challenge him to find even one person who has been so publicly outed.
He is the one who is mentally deficient. Arguing that sites who promise or imply anonymity routinely betray that. It just isn't true. My bank hasn't done so. Bank of America (one of my credit card companies) hasn't done so. American Express hasn't done so. IVillage hasn't done so, no matter what I've posted.
I challenge him or anyone: Who else says, "Sign in with an alias or anonymous user name and we'll reveal your personal info publicly online?" Maybe there are some unethical blogs or sites who do, but no mainstream blogs or sites, and certainly not yours (or so I thought)
Yes, you don't implicitedly say that your anonymous user name will be abused, but I think it's not "naive" to assume that you wouldn't post our private information online just because you are offended by our comments. Most posters here trust that you wouldn't reveal that information, no matter how we might disagree with you.
And that is critical to our continual support and participation in this site. I love your advice. I think it's usually brilliant and dead-on. You are a very insightful woman, whom I admire. But I would be hesitant to continue to post here if I thought my privacy was totally arbitrary or connected to whether you think I'm part of a "mob".
As you say, you have morals and boundaries and that should be one of them, Amy. Honestly, you know that. I totally understand your frustration with "Sadly, Pathetic", but you're violating all of the rights of privacy that you should stand for otherwise.
lovelysoul at August 29, 2008 11:16 PM
> the same mentality at
> Guantanamo Bay
Stretching...
I mean, you have the same "mentality "as Chamberlain, man!
> that is critical to our
> continual support and
> participation in this
> site
What's with the editorial "our"?
Speak for yourself.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 11:23 PM
Ok, Crid, then go ahead and post your information online. If anonymity isn't a part of your continual support of this site, then you shouldn't have a problem with posting that all your personal information, same as Mr. Dailey. Go ahead - prove me wrong. Otherwise, you make my point.
lovelysoul at August 29, 2008 11:35 PM
> If anonymity isn't a part
> of your continual support
You don't get to make up rules like that just because they sound cute to you. Anonymity is a conditional part of my 'support'... Just as it's a conditional part of Amy's hospitality. Each of us has boundaries: I got no problem with that. On the home PC, I sign with a macro that adds an email address. If you just can't live another day without communicating privately, and can negotiate something as described above, then you're welcome to use it. Of course, I'd want evidence that you're for real and not out to prove childish points, as is the vandal....
> Otherwise, you make my point.
No at all. Amy makes the point. Do you doubt that she'd respond as she did to Mr. Noaa if I (or anybody else) misbehaved the same way? There was nothing special about him...
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 11:59 PM
You really don't know this person is part of a "mob", only that he stupidly - and for an instant - acted at their directive.
Uh...that makes him part of the mob. He didn't come here because he was interested in participating in the discussion, but because he was interested in being part of a group effort to foil it.
He would have been quite welome here had he joined in the discussion on the Barkley post -- even with an opinion that I was quite wrong about what I wrote and an explanation of why -- instead of seeking to disrupt the discussion with "Are you a tranny?"
Crid regularly posts his e-mail address here and will tell you who he is. That's why, in the intimidation campaign, it was really awful when one of these scumbags posted a racist remark and stuck Crid's name on it. Let me most emphatically say it was NOT from Crid. But, I spent some time writing to another commenter to tell him it wasn't Crid who'd left the comment, and writing to Crid to let him know I'd done it -- after writing to him after he saw the remark that was left in his name and was horrified. I'm just lucky Crid wasn't chased away by this, as he's a valuable commenter here.
I will say this again most emphatically: Note the comment from the guy in 2005 who said I looked like a transvestite. It passed without notice. I went after this guy because he is part of a mob seeking to punish me for my speech and intimidate me from speaking further in ways not approved by them.
What rights of privacy "should" I stand for? Should I allow these people to victimize me without holding them accountable? Should I allow a guy who's being paid to watch satellites by taxpayers use his government funded computer and server to try to intimidate me out of speaking freely?
I know the home address and phone number of Nereida Claudius, the "customer service" woman at Bank of America. I looked it up. I was curious. I would NEVER post that, even though I feel she has been an enabler of the bank's spectacular negligence -- not just to me but to probably to all their California customers.
I could probably figure out who many commenters are here -- even ones who don't leave their names on their post or have their names in their e-mail address. But even if you disagree with me here in the most flagrant ways, as long as you are one person who has a beef with me, and not part of a mob sent here, a mob bent on ruining my site and quashing my free speech, I will NEVER print any identifying information about you.
Conservatives disagree with me all the time, and that's fine. They don't send a mob here to post hundreds of little comments about how big my feet are or how I look like Bozo.
"That violates every privacy issue that any even semi-conservative would support."
Says who?
Amy Alkon at August 30, 2008 12:13 AM
The rocker-of-worlds quotes and responds...
> I can't believe how completely insensitive you > people are.
Who is insensitive? The person who participates in a gang-harassment by making derogatory comments about a person's gender/sexuality, or the person who complains about it?
> Over what - a four word post from a sad little > NOAA employee?
The word count is what matters to you? You think 4 words cannot possibly hurt?
"Send Them To Auschwitz"
"(your first name) (your last name) molests children"
> If PinkoPerforator "rocks your world", then I
> guess you really like that sort of cruelty.
If you think Kevin Dailey's actions should not have consequences, then I guess you really approve of belittling other people's appearance, sexuality & gender.
Which is typical of liberals. They can hurl any insult, commit any crime, and their fellow liberals will cover for them, make excuses and even enable further offenses.
Thank goodness those sensitive, enlightened liberals have hypocrisy to help them coexist with their words and deeds.
PinkoPerforator at August 30, 2008 1:55 AM
Well, "Debra"... It's all explained in earlier comments, in this thread and in others. Did you just get here?
I HAD read the earlier comments and saw no sound evidence for your suspicions that the multiple IP addresses Amy reported were somehow spoofed and that the vandal is one person--only that you thought they were. Hmm, that's not evidence! That's why I asked you if you could actually justify your thoughts. Duh!
Unless you call accusing me of being the vandal's imaginary friend evidence, which is hilarious. The quotation marks are cute. But it's sad that you would suspect I'm associated with any of the shits who've harrassed Amy. Just because you don't remember reading from me before and my comments are, what, too supportive of Amy?? That makes a lot of fucking sense. I read the blog often, have commented before (try searching plain old "Debra" on the site), and will again. Amy gave me some great advice once, and I just happen to look up to her and agree with her a lot. Sorry if my agreement strikes you as "inauthentic" or whatever.
This thread is fascinating, and you're annoying, but I have to tear myself away or I'll never get anything done. I promise to return one day in all my suspicious glory!
"Debra" (The First One, AND The Bride of Christ, but not Another) at August 30, 2008 2:04 AM
Aww, isn't that cute! In addition to being the enabling type, "Jody Tresider" is both unable to read, AND unable to comprehend simple concepts:
> In addition to being an excitable type, you
> can't appear to read.
> You earlier wrote that Kevin had leveled
> insults at Amy and you hotly described Amy
> as "someone who never met him and did not
> solicit his input."
> Amy did solicit his comment.
> As I pointed out.
> No, she didn't ask for insults and he was out
> of line. But his input was indeed solicited, in > the normal way, as a comment.
Incorrect.
Amy Alkon provides an OPPORTUNITY to make comments.
That does not constitute a SOLICITATION.
In much the same way that leaving your front door unlocked provides an opportunity for a democratic voter to rob your house, but not a solicitation for that democratic voter to do so.
Are we clear on the concept now, honey? Do you need me to explain any of the big words to you?
PinkoPerforator at August 30, 2008 2:07 AM
Lovelysoul drops the G-bomb:
"Why I can't "get" it is that this is the same mentality at Guantanamo Bay."
BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAAAAAAAAAA
Admit it, lovelysoul: you think Amy Alkon is really Dick Cheney, and this whole advice goddess thing is just a hobby when he isn't shooting lawyers in the face and drowning welfare recipients in crude oil for kicks.
PinkoPerforator at August 30, 2008 2:12 AM
See, these people just aren't interesting enough to be real.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 30, 2008 2:18 AM
lovelysoul --
There's a big difference between being gay/white/black/etc and being a member of a mob. Mob membership is voluntary. This is not like gay bashing.
It's not pretty, I'll grant you that. But the alternative is that Amy should pay in dollars and time to provide the sticks for others to beat her with. She managed to grab one of the sticks and hit back, that's all. Dailey slipped up and she got him. Hopefully, this will help him to see the error of his ways.
Here's picture of what's going on: http://www.basicinstructions.net/images/wallpapers/lp1280x960.jpg
Norman at August 30, 2008 2:25 AM
**Lets be very clear about this you moron, he may possibly getting himself fired for his ignorant and childish behavior. On company time and on the taxpayers dime, he committed a crime and should therefore do the time.
Now stop your whining about this baby "possibly losing his job" lest I contact the NOAA on behalf of the multiple organizations I'm involved with, and demand that he be terminated for his unwarranted, despicable and cowardly actions.
Hope you feel better.
Posted by: Pathetic Obsessive Disorder at August 28, 2008 9:01 AM
**Hope she feels better? Amy, were you sick? I apologize for not taking notice. Nevertheless, I'll SPAM you with a few thousand Ecards to express my sympathies. Sympathies for being forced to abjectly abandon your intellect to school these simpletons.
**Is that a threat, will you beat her with your stupidity as well? Are you really an adult? You "threaten" her with a snide remark?
You'd better start packing heat Amy.If this Einstein ever cornered you and actually started talking, you'd be forced to shoot in self-defense, this, to save your sanity.
Some people are alive simply because it's illegal to kill them POD. Rest assured that you're one of them.
If I ever met you in L.A. POD, I'd slap you so hard that not only would your drivers license scream, but it would knock you into next week as well.
Contrary to my beliefs, you make a good argument for abortion, a poster child at that. Your genes should be outlawed from the human gene pool.
Is this kid serious? My 8 year old daughter can offer a more reasoned and intellectual comment than this.
TIP: Add http://www.dictionary.com to your favorites. You'll be amazed, that after only a few short weeks using a dictionary and thesaurus, you'll appear only half as foolish as you are. Sadly, half of infinity is still infinite.
Better yet, follow that up with a course in Calculus and study "limits." There, you will find that by taking increasing smaller steps, you will actually find that there is indeed a "limit" to your stupidity.
**Well put Crid.
Posted by: Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 29, 2008 11:20 AM
**The "Old days" where the acronym SPAM rightfully earned its name as ShLt Posted As Material
**Amen Debra. It's time for a little personal responsibility. BTW, tell Jesus i said hi, congrats on the wedding.
On a different note, I saw a bumper sticker the other day. It read: "Jesus is coming...and he's pissed."
Is that true?
**I'm going to start charging for advice. Hey Stupid, assuming you wouldn't just happen to be Pathetic Obsessive Disorder, read my advice to it.
My ADD meds are wearing off, so I'm afraid I might repeat myself if I retype what I said above...
Posted by: juliana at August 28, 2008 11:11 AM
**Even more horrible is that I hear someone grinding an axe, off in the distance, near our local NOAA broadcasting station.
**Amy, after spending a considerable amount of time thinking about this dilemma, I believe I've found a sincere solution. One that's devoid of any ulterior motive.
Moreover, as a married man who doesn't look at other women, I'd feel nothing but complete shame in "looking." However, given that it would be a means to an end, I'd sacrifice my moral convictions as nothing more than a show of support to you, and would do so simply to "vouch" for your authenticity.
That said, if you'd just email me about a thousand or so nudes (gotta be ABSOLUTELY sure ya know) with a signed release giving me full publishing rights to Playboy, Penthouse et al (men buy their mags to read the Forums you know); I can clear this up (as your friend of course)once and for all.
***If it makes me cold-hearted to agree with you Crid, then I'm cold-hearted. But then again, maybe that's why I use such "harsh" disciplinary measures in parenting my daughter...
So she doesn't make "Internet Headlines" as an "adult" for doing something so shameless, immature and unacceptable, and that, so much so, that "she" ruins her career over it.
**IMHO taking down "the mob" starts taking out the slowest and stupidest member. Aren't they usually the ones who get caught first?
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
** I apologize for not shortening my quote of Kristyle's post. There was so much I concurred with, that I felt it wold be criminal to detract from something that so eloquently says it all.
"" but it's often the case that the only way to get people to behave is to start smacking some of the offenders around."" Maybe it's the Italian in me, but those words are simply artistic.Kinda brings back one of the few memories I have of my father. When one of us was foolish enough to act up at the dinner table, the others were in "My God Awe" when he backhanded one of our siblings.
Not my parenting style, but my God did it get your attention. Seems to me that Amy just delivered one of my father's backhands to a child who needed some much needed discipline.
I bet Mr. Daily takes this "life lesson" to his grave. Thanks for the vicarious childhood memories Amy.
Can't wait to update your Wikipedia entry with the details of this incident.
Posted by: Foreigner at August 28, 2008 11:30 AM
**Excuse me "Foreigner", but are you a Foreigner only to intelligence, or one to playground threats as well?
Put the beer down and throw that bong away. Many of us have been there; Only to find out through many little glimpses, and those during our brief moments of sobriety, that we really didn't know not just everything, but not anything! It was absolutely paralyzing when "it" hit us!
Maybe, just maybe if you clear that hazy fog from what's left of your cerebellum, and after 4 weeks of dictionary.com and Calculus I AND II (study limits HARD!) you too will realize that a truly wise man is one who realizes that he knows nothing.
**If his "bosses" at SadlyStunned "directed him" to jump off of a bridge, would that be Amy's fault as well?
A "grown" man engages in criminal behavior, behavior that in some states may actually amount to a felony, and his criminal actions are the fault of mindless thugs who "made him do it?"
When a gun "accidentally goes off" who made the bullet leave the barrel? The primer in the shell, or the finger that pulled the trigger?
Who cares, just ban the gun for its bad behavior.
I apologize for the long post.
Tony at August 30, 2008 2:37 AM
PinkoPerforator - and Crid on this point.
Why are you, respectively, being dense and strangely coy about the meaning of Leave A Comment here on Amy's blog?
This is a simple solicitation.
Pinko shouts:
>>"Amy Alkon provides an OPPORTUNITY to make comments.
That does not constitute a SOLICITATION".
The comments box provides the "opportunity"; the unambiguous words "Leave A Comment" are the invitation.
And Amy "took this outside" both when she revealed the guy's personal email (which he used for the comment) plus his work email (which he did not) plus contacted a superior at his work.
Ridiculing the guy with her report of the phone conversation AND revealing the apology she extracted from the trembling twit with her sharp tongue seems justified.
Especially in the light of Amy's occasional references to suffering bullying as a kid when she was small, vulnerable and powerless - and having absolutely no stomach for it as an adult.
But these childhood scars do not give you carte blanche to become a petty, raging bully yourself. What, exactly, is the lesson of these vile, defining experiences of childhood?
Just wait until you're a grown up!
You can really fuck with the puny fuckers then, for real! You can fuck with their employment!
(And Pinko? Don't call me "honey". Thanks.)
Jody Tresidder at August 30, 2008 5:45 AM
LOL!!!
Brilliant Amy! How many times have I wished I could get in touch with people who act like 'tards on the net?
Nice one!
Cal at August 30, 2008 6:01 AM
"**If his "bosses" at SadlyStunned "directed him" to jump off of a bridge, would that be Amy's fault as well?"
It's not Amy's "fault." This has nothing to do with Amy being at fault for his actions. I have only disagreed with ONE aspect of what Amy did. She did about 5 things:
1)Tracked him down
2)Confronted him on the job
3)Informed his boss
4)Demanded an apology
5)Publicly posted his private information online
Of the 5, I agree with 1 through 4. That doesn't make me anti-Amy, unreasonable, "uninteresting" or a troll, as Crid keeps alluding, although he must've missed a whole summer's worth of debates here where I've participated quite frequently.
And if "LEAVE A COMMENT" is not a solicitation for a comment, then it should say that. "I am giving you the OPPORTUNITY to comment anonymously, but I may elect to publicly out you if I suspect you're part of a mob."
A disclaimer would be fine. I would agree with that too. In that case, what Amy did would be fairplay. But, otherwise, in my opinion, Dailey had no reasonable expectation of being made a PUBLIC TARGET by his actions.
Contending that he knew the "consequences" for a 4 word, immature post would be having his personal information spread across the internet is a real stretch of cause and effect.
He couldn't have known that! He's probably posted on hundreds of blogs and it's never happened. There is nothing here WARNING him that it could happen. Therefore, it's grossly unfair to say that he "knew" what he was getting into...at least in that one regard.
Personal liberties and protections start to be lost when a "mob" of people presume to know an individual without considering all the facts - just by grouping that individual in with others.
You don't know Kevin Dailey, yet you've presumed all these negative things about him so you can hate him.
Likewise, he came here because a "mob" of people, who don't know Amy, decided to latch onto a few details so they can hate her. They chose to ignore any other detail which contradicted their view that she is a racist and/or a transsexual and therefore "deserves" to be harassed.
Both "mobs" are doing the same thing. You're assuming Kevin Dailey is an evil, conspiratorial nerd (with "pocket-protectors and cat photos"). You presume to know for sure that he was "wasting tax dollars" even though he could've been on break and nobody spends every single second at work focused entirely on work. Besides, four words doesn't account for a whole lot of wasted time.
This is how we choose to hate. We reduce the person down to the lowest generalizations possible so we aren't even able to imagine their humanity or worth as a human being anymore.
I'm sorry, but I just can't go along with this "mob" mentality. I can still imagine Kevin Dailey being a human being and having people who love him and possibly depending on him. Like all of us, he's a complex human being with strengths and weaknesses.
What I see is a person who, like all of us, made a stupid mistake. Yes, he should face consequences, but not at all to this extent. He did not expect nor deserve to be made a public target of ridicule and harassment. That went too far.
lovelysoul at August 30, 2008 6:46 AM
Every person in the mob is guilty in the same way by definition. They act as a group for a single purpose.
Every person in there, as a responsible adult, is equally responsible for their participation in the mob.
Just as during a bank robbery, the guy watching the door is just as guilty as the man driving the car, and the one getting the money.
"No single raindrop feels it is responsible for the flood."
Without that drop though, the flood would be less.
If he acted on their directive, he IS part of the mob.
And what we do in public is NOT private.
He committed a public action, commenting on a public blog, he did so with the intention of insulting someone, hopefully humiliating them, maybe silencing them. All of that was public on his part, he felt secure doing so because he thought he was entitled to remain anonymous.
There is no reasonable expectation of anonymity here, since as part of every post you include an email address, and no where is there a privacy agreement in place.
The end result was simple, he was embarrassed for his behavior, he was called on it as he rightly should have been.
oooohhh...he got a boo boo on his feelings, he felt embarrassed?
Well GOOD. If you do something shameful, you should be embarrassed, that is what generally keeps people from doing shameful things twice. He's not entitled to feel good about doing something bad.
You don't have a right to privacy in public, and you don't have a right to act a fool and feel good about it.
If he loses his job...well he's the one who used government resources/time to harass someone. Nobody made him do that. It just doesn't make sense to blame his target for not protecting him. Besides, maybe sadlyno will offer him a job as a tech. *L*
If I get mugged, am I supposed to not identify my mugger if he gets picked up, because he might feel bad and lose his day job at a convenience store? What kind of sense does that make?
If you want to be appalled at insensitivity, don't look to Amy, look to the SOB casting the insults.
Robert at August 30, 2008 6:47 AM
You don't know Kevin Dailey, yet you've presumed all these negative things about him so you can hate him.
I don't hate him. I'm just not willing to be victimized by him. Furthermore, I called him and talked to him, and reported what he said here, so I haven't presumed things about him. He told me he came to my site because of Sadly No. Do you honestly think he was concerned as to whether I was transgendered? My boyfriend pointed out, if anyone's "dehumanizing" anyone, it's all the people calling me "the tranny."
Let me point something else out: Had these people come over here and disagreed with me, even with rude language, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. In fact, people do that with some regularity here, as they sense that I won't delete posts for language issues.
These people came over here to disrupt my discussion forum, as part of a concerted mob action to punish me for my speech. I won't have that. By the way, the comments you see here from them are the tip of the iceberg. At some points, I'd get these 30 page spam and "tranny" comments every minute. There was considerable time applied to defend against these spam. And there was a reason which I will not mention that I could not merely delete them but had to unpublish and then delete them (and it was really hard just getting to the bottom of them -- as I would finish scrolling to the bottom of one, another would come in -- with tranny comments in between). This meant that any intelligent discussion about the topics on my blog was effectively cancelled. My site became a vandal's wall Wrong. Not going to have that. And I'm guessing there are other bloggers they've bullied out of blogging with their tactics. It's very upsetting to deal with and it isn't easy, psychologically, or in terms of the time they suck from you in vandalizing your site.
Amy Alkon at August 30, 2008 7:02 AM
>>"No single raindrop feels it is responsible for the flood."
>>Without that drop though, the flood would be less.
Helllooo, there Chairman Mao!
(When you're next in China, Robert - squint real hard at the ghostly slogans still visible in red paint high on the walls of public buildings. Ask your friendly translator what they say. You'll feel right at home, duckie!)
Jody Tresidder at August 30, 2008 7:22 AM
Suppose you have a gang of thugs. They go out at night and harrass people on the street - shouting, insulting, intimidating. It's safe to do this because their victims put their heads down and hurry away. Everyone has fun, except the victims.
One night they surround a target as usual, but what's this? It turns out to be a heavyweight boxer, and he lays one of them out on the pavement.
Not fair, you say! Poor thing, he's probably insulted hundreds of people and it's never happened. There was nothing WARNING him that it could happen. Therefore, it's grossly unfair to say that he "knew" what he was getting into...at least in that one regard.
Well, your words are true, when read carefully ... but why do you want to defend the thugs?
Norman at August 30, 2008 7:35 AM
Jody, you're so funny. Chairman Mao. lol
Robert, if you're mugged there's a punishment that fits the crime.
Amy, I guess that's really the problem. What punishment fits this crime? It's like an invisible mugging, and the internet is a relatively new frontier so the rules of etiquette and privacy are still fuzzy.
I suppose I can be persuaded to change my mind here. Just reading about what you had to go through to keep the site functioning during all that harassment is beginning to reverse my opinion.
I still think it's like grabbing the slowest runner on the playground and punishing him for two years worth of bullying that he maybe wasn't even a part of, except for that one day. Yet, what other recourse do you have in this cyber situation? You can't do anything to the mob as a whole.
So, I guess it could be justified - making him a sacrificial scapegoat to deter the mob.
Did it work? Has the harassment stopped?
lovelysoul at August 30, 2008 7:42 AM
Amy still writes,I still read. Did they win?
Sadly,No!
** Well, not sad in any way.
It looks like the "Tard-Bots" ADD chip kicked in and they wandered off.
SteveInTheNorth at August 30, 2008 7:59 AM
I believe I've put a chill on their chill on free speech, yes.
If anyone wants a copy of the a piece of 27-30 page spam, posted in my name (in case you missed the five or so in a row that were coming in here), or the 16 page post yesterday on Ohio's liquor laws from some jerk in Cincinnati, I'd be happy to e-mail them to you. Now, see the post from lovelysoul above? That takes up about a third of a page of a Word document (just pasted it in to see). Imagine five comments in a row of 30-page comments, left in my name on my own site, about the communist party, nonsense about people who post here, and in nonsense text. Preceded by and followed by, say, 20 different comments by various people, left in some junior-high in joke name they use on their Sadly Pathetic site, and 20 more from people asking if I'm a tranny. That's what I have been dealing with here. It ate my entire day two Sundays ago when I needed to be writing. I was on the phone with a guy at a server company in Texas, where Gregg, who stopped his work to help me, had traced one of the proxy server hops. That was late in the afternoon on Sunday, after dealing with this all day. The guy was great -- at Colo4Dallas -- and gave Gregg 19 pages of proxy server IPs to enter into my database to ban the IPs the spam posts could come in from.
Anyway, I should go back to work now.
Amy Alkon at August 30, 2008 8:02 AM
lovelysoul -- It's like an invisible mugging
Invisible to you perhaps, but only because Amy's been cleaning the decks. I think you recognise this when you refer to "what you had to go through to keep the site functioning" - so that's good.
It is like grabbing the slowest runner, but he's not being punished for the whole mob's behaviour. First, Amy's not punishing anyone, just reporting one individual's bad behaviour. Second, if Dailey gets punished at all by his superiors, it will be for Dailey's own acts, not for anyone else's acts. To punish Dailey for other people's crimes would be unjust, though I believe it happens in some legal situations. (And it's one of the obscene things about Christianity, but that's another topic!)
Has anyone taken the trouble to phone or email Dailey? I haven't. To do so would be lynch mob behaviour. If that happens, then Amy would have some responsibility for it.
Norman at August 30, 2008 8:12 AM
Norman, the problem with that is you're assuming Dailey only harassed people on blogs. That may be correct, but without evidence, you can't just assume that. You can only look at the one incident that we know about.
Like I said above, I empathize with Amy too. And the rules aren't clear, at least on this site. I think it is clear on a site like Match.com or other online sites. They would never post someone's name and address no matter how disruptive or abusive that person became. That would open them up to enormous liability. Guys could just show up on women's doorsteps, and vice versa.
So, even though it is a PUBLIC site, the information contained isn't public. Likewise with banking sites, credit card sites, and many other public sites.
I don't know about blogs. This is the only blog I've ever been to, honestly. But it seems to me that when a site solicits (or gives the "opportunity") for anonymous comments, there is a implicit expectation of privacy.
At least, if I was an attorney, that's the case I would make, and I think it would be a pretty good one. Amy probably won't face any consequences for posting this guy's private information online, but I think it's something that she should probably discuss with her attorney before doing it routinely.
I mean, I accept credit cards from my customers and a lot of private information. Sometimes, customers damage my rentals and so forth, but I would be very hesitant to post their personal information online - publicly outing them as bad people - because I know how sue-happy many people are.
Therefore, I think it would be wise for Amy to have a disclaimer here before outing people.
lovelysoul at August 30, 2008 8:12 AM
lovelysoul, I've found some of your comments here about this issue extremely annoying, but I haven't the slightest idea who you are (I believe you're a woman), nor have I ever had the slightest interest in looking.
Again, this is about a guy who chose to be a part of a movement to punish and intimidate me out of speaking my mind and to disrupt speech on my site. Do you think I would have any traffic at all, any discussion at all, if I let my comments section fill up with numerous posts speculating as to whether I'm a "tranny"?
These people are destroyers. They post anonymously, but with a handle, same as vandals who spray paint on a wall. There's a good reason this guy, Dailey, didn't ask whether I'm a "tranny" in his real name. Think about it. You don't leave your business card either when you break a window and loot a store.
Amy Alkon at August 30, 2008 8:30 AM
No, Amy, a vandal doesn't leave a calling card. Yet, none of us are using our real names here either....or almost none of us.
I am a woman living in FL. Personally, I wouldn't care so much if you posted my name and address. I'm fairly public anyway, since I market my business online and invite tourists to stay at my location. But still, I consider it safer when I'm debating with people I don't know not to have my personal information out there. A few weeks back, there was a scary guy who called himself "Obama" arguing with me. He sounded unstable, so I wouldn't really want that sort of person knowing how to reach me.
Otherwise, we could all just use our real names and the odd person who wanted to post anonymously would be suspect as a vandal. But, it seems to me that when everyone is anonymous, and you choose to publicly out only one of us - even for valid reasons and frustrations - you're opening yourself up to liability.
God forbid someone does get harmed by you putting their private information online. It's rare, but it's rare to have a fire or flood in your home, yet we still have insurance, just in case.
So, I really think you should ask your attorney whether you should be outing people like you did Dailey. Or, if so, how you can protect yourself against liability.
lovelysoul at August 30, 2008 8:51 AM
But, it seems to me that when everyone is anonymous, and you choose to publicly out only one of us - even for valid reasons and frustrations - you're opening yourself up to liability.
Unless you're a lawyer, I would suggest you avoid speculating on legal issues.
Amy Alkon at August 30, 2008 9:14 AM
*****LS, I personally don't accuse you of any of the above, I simply desire to determine if my defense of her "outing him" is within the "norms" of an online community.
We both have our opinions, and given that were opposite on one matter, one of us is "wrong" by some "unbiased albeit unknown" standard. Quite honestly, I don't care if it is me, I just want to know if it is me.
That said, and from a "Techie's" point of view and that of a father, I offer the following in defense of my stance and will agree to disagree.
His actions were intended to disrupt a web site (assuming he acted "on the orders" of the "bosses"), then with my understanding of law, he committed a crime.
A "criminal" loses his "right" to confidentiality upon a mere accusation. Not right, but the way society is. Just ask any man falsely accused of rape on nothing more than a baseless accusation.
What Amy possesses in terms of "evidence" against Dailey far exceeds the amount of evidence supporting false accusations that have ruined the lives of many men.
Again, not right, but obviously with the norms and mores of American society.
I disagree with your ascertains that Amy "exposed" his private information. When one "one the clock" and at work, they have assumed the identity of their employer. What makes up a corporation in a physical sense outside of buildings an assets? The people.
Can I call a company and ask to speak with a wall? Of course not, that's absurd. I "speak with a company" by speaking with their "agents" aka their "ambassadors" aka their employees. Their "human" resources that form the "living assets" of any organization, and hence, another (albeit critical) component of the corporate identity. Show me a corporation, entity, or business that's without the "human identity" and I'll show you one that doesn't exist.
Dailey "lost" his personal identity and donned his corporate identity when he sta down at a taxpayer owned computer, while on the taxpayers payroll and proceeded to utter his hateful comment with the intent of disrupting a commercial website.
Amy's site generates revenue not from selling products, but from persons engaging in spirited and intellectual debate.
Disrupting that legitimate debate costs her both time and money. Dailey didn't just sip his coffee and then out of nowhere think, "I wonder if she's a tranny", then proceed to post his "innocent question", when said intended insult has been hurled at her repeatedly for the last week. An insult which was a hateful and vile attack upon who she is as a woman. As I've stated, there's a no more shameful and malevolent way for a man to attack a women, than the one that targets her femininity.
As a father of a daughter, I believe that Amy's only mistake was that she didn't kick him in the nuts so as to deliver an equal amount of physical pain to counter the emotional pain he had hoped to inflict upon her.
Am I wrong for thinking that? Oh well, if I am, I too am human.
*****Publicly traded fortune 500 companies make internet usage rules very clear in employee manuals. You are to abide by their restrictions, and are usually not permitted to visit in any questionable sites (most are blocked anyway).
Many employee manuals strictly limit internet usage to business purposes only. Moreover, many employers "privacy policies" are that you have no privacy at work. They can and do eavesdrop on phone and internet usage.
I have worked for numerous companies where personal internet usage is prohibited on corporate computers.
Their reasons are numerous, some of which include legal and privacy concerns. Corporations can be sued for their employees actions, hence the restrictions on much of their behavior.
I highly suspect that Dailey had no reason to assume he was operating in a private capacity as an agent of his employer (us) and while at work at that.
*****Again, with many large corporations, claiming to "be on break" does not in any way legitimize the use of corporate assets for personal use.
If I work in a brewery, can I drink the companies beer while on break? If I work in an auto manufacturing plant, can I "borrow a car" to "run an errand on my break?"
You're stretching your argument very thin when one considers the statistical chances of your basis.
In one eight hour shift there are 28,800 seconds that pass in time. It's your position that in defense of him, four of those seconds were used for illegitimate purposes; and they just happened to be on a "break?" Would that be a half hour break (1800 seconds), an hour break (3600 seconds) or a 15 minute break (900 seconds)? I'm not being facetious either.
I'd consider your argument as having much more merit if Dailey were on his on time and own dime. That wasn't the case.
*****You don't speak for me, I believe that one should be held accountable for their actions. Making someone accountable doesn't equate with being hateful.
Although I do question his humanity when he inquires of a woman, "Are you a tranny?" That's a question that "I" would never ask, even if I were indeed curious, as I would imagine that be an hellish emotional torment to be in.
*****IMHO, calling a personal character defect a mistake, labeling a crime a mistake, and using that as an argument to support mitigating factors doesn't cut it.
I will agree to disagree with you. You have your opinion, I have mine. One of us is right, the other is wrong, presumably.
Trying to "baby" a grown man for such despicable behavior would only encourage more of the same.
I'm willing to bet that regardless of whether or not Dailey loses his job, he'll NEVER use his employers assets to dehumanized, marginalize and insult a woman.
If he doesn't lose his job, and if Amy didn't "out him", I'd be willing to guess he'd go through life and become an even bigger jackass than what he appears to be today.
He should thank Amy. Her actions may save his life one day if at some time he considers doing something but changes his mind. Why? He remembers what this "mistake" costs him.
Tony at August 30, 2008 9:19 AM
Queen Elizabeth I (who was a redhead, funnily enough) was so pissed off with the famously vulgar, identity-shy writers of pamphlets written and circulated via secret printing press (the "Martin Marprelate" papers) in London, that she chopped people's heads off.
Not always the right people's heads, of course!
But it was a damn good lesson for the mob.
Because the filthy, cowardly bastards had not only said rude stuff about her bishops - but they'd been offensive about her Majesty!
(A history lesson for Crid. No libel intended.)
Jody Tresidder at August 30, 2008 9:31 AM
Well said Robert. IMHO, that's the icing on the cake.
Tony at August 30, 2008 10:19 AM
> and strangely coy
"Strange", I'll cop to... "Coy" is fightin' words!
> the unambiguous words
> "Leave A Comment" are
> the invitation.
Why are you being so 'strangely' precious about this? Do you think Amy cares if people leave comments? Do you think she turns a profit? I'd wager that on the best comment-month of her blog's life, the ad revenue was enough for coffee with a lesser pastry at Starbucks. BFD.
> suffering bullying as a kid
> when she was small, vulnerable
> and powerless
When Amy was a kid, she wasn't anonymously sending the most pointed, offensive and hurtful messages her little child heart could imagine to strangers.
> a petty, raging bully
I'm gonna guess that you haven't routinely received a lot of messages like this over the years as this blogger has, so who knows where your boundaries are. And I'd guess your skin's not as thick as you're pretending it is. Having insulted Amy myself maybe a thousand times, I'm pretty happy with her boundaries. If she were capable of rage, I'd know.
She's the antithesis of "petty". The reason I hang out at this blog is that the woman simply can't be compelled to foreclose discussion: If you're really trying to communicate, even if you're just being a hurtful asshole, she'll just keep giving you rope until you hang yourself.
I don't think even Amy's conscious of how brilliant she is about this. She's futuristically courageous. Maybe it's a jewish thing, or a Detroit thing, or a little-gay-dog thing.
> (And Pinko? Don't call
> me "honey".
Call her "honey"! Call her "honey"!
> I can still imagine Kevin
> Dailey being a human being
> and having people who love
> him and possibly depending
> on him.
Responsible fathers (etc.) don't send messages like that. His "complexity" is his own beeswax. "Weaknesses" is an excuse that could be applied to anything criminal, isn't it? But the arena of responsible adulthood, the accused does not stand in shackles before the judge and say "Dude, I'm sorry I took out that school bus full of kids... Didn't mean to, y'know? But I was really drunk at the time...."
> there is a implicit
> expectation of privacy. At
> least, if I was an attorney,
> that's the case I would make
As opposing counsel, let me offer this thought: The point of contract law is to nail down the details. Without a contract, parties to a transaction have no idea when their responsibilities to each other begin and end. Each is presuming that the extremes outcomes will never be tested. It's not fair to the blogger for a visiting commenter to presume that the burdens of an "implicit expectation" would have no terminus. Mr. Noaa never expected to be publicly humiliated by Amy; Amy never expected to be privately humiliated by Mr. Noaa.
> A history lesson
Well, we always knew the Brits were full of shit, Tressider. When you swear allegiance to monarch, you deserve whatever happens.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 30, 2008 10:50 AM
My blog turns embarrassingly little profit. Sigh. It turned more before they got Nielsen Net Ratings. The money I make pays for server costs (I'll be in the red this month from bandwidth use, if that tells you anything) and the cost of a used dress or two from Goodwill.
I do this because I love the conversation here between all of the people who actually care to have a conversation instead of stopping one. Sometimes I get mushy and tell one or two of you that in an e-mail. But, yes, it's because of all of you. Otherwise, why bother?
The discussion makes me smarter and a better thinker, and I know (from experience...sigh) when I don't think something out fully that Crid or Rad or somebody will nail my lazy thinking ass to the wall. As it should be. But for blogging, I'd be out in bars more often, chatting it up with strangers and annoying bartenders (I drink one glass of wine; at very most, two; all I can drink, and leave a big tip). This place is much more satisfying because it's not as hit-and-miss as a bar.
My problem as I've said again and again and again above and elsewhere, is with a mob engaging in a concerted effort to disrupt my speech and that of those who post here. An effort to turn this forum into shit as my punishment for speaking "progressive"-unapproved speech
I am hugely thick-skinned. I got a series of e-mails recently from some nutbag who reads me. I will post them below. It's an example. The guy, for your information, gave his name, address, website address (containing his picture and CV) in the e-mail. I did not post the e-mails. I did not contact his employer (and it would've been easy to, since he had his life history, down to where he went to school, on his CV, and even gave his cell phone number with his home address on his e-mail.
I did not contact him because he's not part of a mob trying to intimidate me from speaking. He's one guy, and frankly, he seems kind of nuts.
The first one is from him.
(I didn't write back to tell him I think he meant "shriveled-tit")
And P.S. whether or not the guy knows the publisher, the paper would not drop me because I responded to a reader e-mail and called him on being rude.
Also, he wrote me in the middle of the night. I doubt the publisher is on call to respond to irate reader friends! I love a bluffer.
Amy Alkon at August 30, 2008 11:30 AM
"Unless you're a lawyer, I would suggest you avoid speculating on legal issues".
Well, I'm a businessperson, for over 20 years, who has been threatened with lawsuits often - yet rarely actually sued because I have such solid legal protections - so I do have some credibility in that regard, and I was trying to be helpful to you.
I don't know why you feel the need to be so bitchy towards me. I posted that I had just about REVERSED my opinion on this issue, and instead of agreeing with you on the 1 through 4 things you did to Bailey, I was also close to supporting you on the 5th. Isn't that what this site is about - to get us thinking and challenging our own positions? Did you not read that message from me?
I know you have a hard job dealing with these jerks from "Sadly, No", and I have shown you support in that. Yet, as a business person, I still feel that you are treading dangerous waters to post information about someone that makes it seem you are inviting his harassment.
I know that's not what you really intend, although it is obviously a part of the threat. You know that's why it's scary to someone like Dailey. You know that's why it would make him and others back off. They, as well as us, are concerned for our safety and privacy, otherwise we wouldn't even use anonymous names.
And I'm saying that legally I think you should be more cautious. If Dailey was a female, particularly, and you posted her information - where she worked and her phone number online - to invite any nutcase here or at "Sadly, No" to harass her - I think she'd have a good case against you. She doesn't even necessarily need to be harmed - it's that you EXPOSED her to harm, willingly and knowingly.
I'm trying to be helpful to you, Amy. I personally don't think you should out people, although I sympathize with the position you are in, trying to keep your site functioning against these attacks, and your feeling that this is the only way to handle it.
So, if you are going to out people, then I am merely recommending that you get legal advice on how to best protect yourself.
lovelysoul at August 30, 2008 12:13 PM
If Dailey was a female, particularly, and you posted her information - where she worked and her phone number online - to invite any nutcase here or at "Sadly, No" to harass her - I think she'd have a good case against you.
I actually am pretty well versed in the law in what I do. It's different from business law. Your speculating on this as a businessperson is like the PR woman referencing all those parents speculating on child development instead of doing as I did: going to Peter Gray, who's an expert on the area.
Dailey's information is a matter of public record. I didn't seek him out and randomly post this information. He was part of a concerted attack on my free speech.
Amy Alkon at August 30, 2008 12:43 PM
"Weaknesses" is an excuse that could be applied to anything criminal, isn't it?"
Yes, if he had done anything criminal, but he didn't. He posted a 4 word, immature, message - like many that have been posted here before. It isn't CRIMINAL. You guys are off the wall!
He didn't mug anyone. He didn't beat anybody up. He didn't steal anything. He is NOT, as much as you want to hate him, a CRIMINAL! Good grief. He posted on a blog. To make these criminal analogies - and say he's not a "good father" - is totally absurd! Get some perspective.
As a GAL, I've never recommended anyone's kids be taken away for posting on a blog.
lovelysoul at August 30, 2008 12:44 PM
> You know that's why it's
> scary to someone like
> Dailey.
How would she "know" this? How would you? That's like saying you "know" someone would be so angry about this that they'd set off a nuclear bomb in NOAA headquarters in Kansas City (or wherever).
Why is your imagination populated by such violent figures? And why do you presume that people want to be patronizingly nice to you? ("I don't know why you feel the need to be so bitchy towards me...")
I think you've misjudged human nature twice.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 30, 2008 12:52 PM
"I actually am pretty well versed in the law in what I do. It's different from business law."
Good. I don't see how liability exposure can be all that different, but I'm glad you're protected.
lovelysoul at August 30, 2008 12:54 PM
> Yes, if he had done anything
> criminal, but he didn't
And I didn't say he did. I said weaknesses don't excuse misconduct.
> Get some perspective.
Your the one who's imagining his house full of hungry dependents. I don't worry about his peeps that much... Grown men should be trusted to carry themselves so that folks like you and I don't have to.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 30, 2008 12:56 PM
Jody Honey attempts to weasel:
> The comments box provides the "opportunity";
> the unambiguous words "Leave A Comment" are the
> invitation.
"Leave a comment" is a label, identifying the method to leave a comment. It is not a solicitation to leave a comment, an order to leave a comment, a suggestion to leave a comment, or an invitation to leave a comment.
Just as a clearly labelled "suggestion box" does not require or entice people to submit suggestions.
And, Honey (or would you prefer "toots"?), I put the words in all caps in my original post since you demonstrated that you were incapable of basic reading comprehension. I typed this comment extra slow, to make it easy for you to follow along.
Oh, one other mistake in logic which you committed, sweetcheeks:
> And Amy "took this outside" both when she
> revealed the guy's personal email (which he
> used for the comment) plus his work email
> (which he did not) plus contacted a superior
> at his work.
So Amy Alkon is in the wrong for taking this outside? But Kevin Dailey didn't do exactly that when he posted an off-topic message? Or is it "ok" if liberals break the rules, and the principles of discourse?
Just when I think that liberals cannot become any more hypocritical, they go and surprise me.
PinkoPerforator at August 30, 2008 12:58 PM
Lovelysoul, you slay me.
> You don't know Kevin Dailey, yet you've
> presumed all these negative things about him so
> you can hate him.
What we DO know about Kevin Dailey:
1) He is wasting taxpayer time and money
2) He is ignorant of the internet
3) He thinks it is ok to make disparaging comments about other peoples appearance, gender & sexuality
4) He thinks that it is a good idea to harass someone he has never met, that he has not corresponded with, whose work he has not read, simply on the say-so of a partisan political website
Those are the facts, which Kevin Dailey has demonstrated to all of us.
We did not force him to do these things. He chose to do them.
So when you start crying and whining about what is happening here, bear in mind that Kevin Dailey took repeated, deliberate action to get himself in trouble.
And then quit your crying, because it is nauseating to see.
PinkoPerforator at August 30, 2008 1:08 PM
Jesus Christ, I used the wrong qoute last night: JulieA said
> I believe Amy is better
> than she behaved in
> this instance.
This is almost identical wording to what Barack Obama used.
Obama is the vandal!
(PS- Thanks to Jeff for linking the monograph)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 30, 2008 1:08 PM
"How would she "know" this? How would you?"
Uh, because you don't post your real name and address for everyone on the whole worldwide web to see? Nor do I. Nor do most of the people here. Is that not enough proof that it's scary to expose your personal info?
I swear, Crid, that's like Bill Clinton - let's argue what "is" is. Some things are just obvious. It wouldn't be a deterent to the "Sadly, No" jerks if they weren't afraid of being personally exposed. That's what Amy's whole thing is - "Fuck with me and I'll expose you!" She's saying this public outing works to make them stop harassing her, and as long as she's protected from liability, then fine. But it wouldn't work as a threat if it wasn't frightening to them.
And I don't need you or anyone to be patronizingly nice to me. You haven't been. That's because we rarely agree, but if I AGREED with you on several points - which will probably happen eventually because that's the beauty of this blog, I've noticed -and yet, you still kept treating me the way you do, I'd wonder what your problem was.
lovelysoul at August 30, 2008 1:12 PM
>>Having insulted Amy myself maybe a thousand times, I'm pretty happy with her boundaries. If she were capable of rage, I'd know.
Crid,
That's fair. Looking back at my comment, I made an ugly mistake. I should have spoken generally & I didn't. That was wrong.
>>Well, we always knew the Brits were full of shit, Tressider. When you swear allegiance to monarch, you deserve whatever happens.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...!
Actually, the Brits simply have more history, Crid.
The "Martin Marprelate" kerfuffle was in 1588-89. That's a a big heap of history before your first lot were even figuring out how to plant corn - and then killing the local folk who'd helped them.
Jody Tresidder at August 30, 2008 1:21 PM
Whoops, I don't know how that post happened twice. Sorry.
Anyway, PinkPerfortaor, it's hopeless. I could agree with 20 things Amy said and still be slightly on the fence about ONE thing, and you'd still say I was "whining".
I changed my mind and was big enough to admit it, which is more than most of you seem capable of. I've reversed course and said that Amy probably has no choice but to out Dailey publicly since she has no other recourse to address the Sadly mob's harassment of her - and that was my only objection. I just wanted to make sure she wasn't exposed legally.
So, essentially, I AGREE with you now. Why are you trying to pick a fight?
lovelysoul at August 30, 2008 1:24 PM
> and then killing the
> local folk
First of all, we killed them mostly with microbes, almost always unwittingly. (Famous exceptions to that 'almost' have in recent years been discounted.)
Secondly, when I say "we", I mean... Well, let's use your words:
> a big heap of history before
> your first lot
'Our first lot' was quite often British and their deriviatives.
Thirdly, considering British dominance of high seas and distant lands in centuries past, it's shit-wacky of you to pretend this pattern was as a Stateside invention.
> big enough to admit it, which
> is more than most of you seem
> capable of
We can't help that... You're STILL WRONG. Do you want us to pretend you're not?
I don't understand people who think being correct is something everybody should share as a courtesy... As if we should pretend that goodfballs are right about things sometimes just so they don't feel left out.
This, yet again, is the vibe I get from the McArdle and Althouse. It's from childhood, where the older siblings are supposed to let the younger ones play in the birthday games, etc, even though Baby isn't old enough to pin the tail on the donkey, and is going to fuck it up for the second-graders.
McArdle's a successful columnist, Althouse is a lawyer, LS pretends to be an adult businesswoman... I just don't understand it.
Listen, when I think I'm right and you're wrong, that doesn't mean that in the real world, I'm part right and you're part right too, such that some cosmic elevation of consciousness would reveal our common ground, and all we have to do here within the mortal realm is be polite until it we stumble into it blindly.
It means I'm right and you're wrong.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 30, 2008 1:58 PM
Yeah, like you were right about there only being one troll, even though Amy kept telling you otherwise. Then, I was the troll, even though the history shows that I've been here for many weeks. And now I'm "pretending" to be a businesswoman.
If these are examples of how right you normally are, it's not a very good track record.
lovelysoul at August 30, 2008 2:47 PM
Well, meeee-yow!
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 30, 2008 3:17 PM
Ok, Lovelysoul. Truce.
Oh, I just found this at www.gaypatriot.net:
On links and hate comments
Posted by GayPatriotWest at 1:18 pm - August 30, 2008.
Filed under: Blogging, Civil Discourse, Mean-spirited leftists
Welcome Instapundit Readers!!
When we get linked on conservative and libertarian blogs, I find no noticeable increase in hate comments an our comments (even as the number of comments (and new “commenters”) increases). When we get linked on left-wing blogs, particularly left-wing gay blogs, there is significant such increase. (And an increase in my hate mail.)
PinkoPerforator at August 30, 2008 3:33 PM
PinkoPerforator,
You still have comprehension issues:
>>"Leave a comment" is a label, identifying the method to leave a comment. It is not a solicitation to leave a comment, an order to leave a comment, a suggestion to leave a comment, or an invitation to leave a comment.
Just as a clearly labelled "suggestion box" does not require or entice people to submit suggestions.
Not so.
"Leave a comment" is a suggestion. "Leave" is a verb - it is a "doing" word.
In your example "suggestion box" - you will find that "suggestion" is a noun. It's a "naming" word. It belongs to "box". It identifies the box - therefore, it has an entirely separate function to our first example - "leave a comment".
On Amy's site, we first find the suggestion "Leave a comment" in bold, followed by "name"/ "Email address" etc.
Then, right above the pale blue lines (arranged in the shape of a square, which increases in area as one types) is the label.
This label says "Comments". Here we have another noun - remember? - a "naming" word!
Got that?
Jody Tresidder at August 30, 2008 4:35 PM
*****Tony says:I can think of no better way to teach a foolhardy person a lesson, than to help them hang themselves with their own verbiage.
I don't think even Amy's conscious of how brilliant she is about this. She's futuristically courageous. Maybe it's a jewish thing, or a Detroit thing, or a little-gay-dog thing."Posted by: Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August
*****Tony says:Regarding her brilliance Crid, I respectfully disagree. I believe she's fully conscious of her intelligence and is delectated every time she corrects the errors in others ways.
Not in a prideful and arrogant way, but rather out of a moral obligation and therefore in a satisfactory and sincere manner. Just IMHO though.
30, 2008 10:50 AM
Tony at August 30, 2008 4:38 PM
Had to look up "delectation"
The point is, her heart doesn't break when she finds out people disagree. She doesn't, as in the white American female model, furrow her brow and think "Something's wrong... I haven't made myself clear... There's been a misunderstanding..."
Yesterday, another favorite blog linked to an article about the death of network television. This is not a new story, though the prevalence of interactive media continues to accrue real estate in these writeups.
Electronic communication is become an ever less passive experience. Aside from its pandering, anesthetizing nature, maybe television hindered feminism in another respect: It didn't teach women to move comfortably in realms where people don't bother with a veneer of agreement.
(Obviously this is not all about women, there are gazillions of men who get on the web and are surprised by the resistance to their presumptives.)
Part of this is probably some sort of left over Victorian decorum, or something... Social pressure to not be thought of as an unattractively difficult woman.
But part of it is naiveté and cowardice, and that part needs to die.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 30, 2008 5:13 PM
presumpTIONS, not -tives
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 30, 2008 5:14 PM
And also... Overnight tonight, my favorite video blogger is looping an interview with a student about the impact of all these technologies. (The clock over his shoulder says about 12:20pm on 8/21.) Specifically, he acknowledges that people are having to learn to write better to make themselves understood. Television certainly never did that for viewers!
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 30, 2008 5:41 PM
*LOL* Jody Tresidder, if that were't so damned funny that would be the dumbest thing anyone has said of me in quite some time. (the quote is premao by the way, don't give him so much credit, he does't deserve it.)
I'm an arch conservative right winger.
I despise communism and everything it stands for.
If you want to compare me to someone, try Cato the younger.
Quite right lovelysoul, for mugging there is a punishment that fits the crime.
For social interactions, there are punishments too for antisocial behavior.
In this case, he attempted to embarass, shame, intimidate, or silence amy with the harshest insult you can give to a woman.
The consequences in his case, were shame and embarassment to HIM, and exposure for his behavior. Its highly unlikely he'll lose his job over it, though I'll concede it IS possible, if he works for the government, though he's not all that likely to be fired unless he's got a looooong track record of time wasting and abuse of resources.
He did something inexcusably rude, and he received his fair portion of personal shame for doing so. In the future, he might not behave in such a fashion, because now he knows not everybody will just roll over and take it.
And as to did it stop? Well it did not stop them all, but it certainly stopped HIM. He hasn't come back to do it again, and he's not likely to do so again. Do you not swat one fly simply because it won't stop them all?
Robert at August 31, 2008 5:36 AM
>>*LOL* Jody Tresidder, if that were't so damned funny that would be the dumbest thing anyone has said of me in quite some time. (the quote is premao by the way, don't give him so much credit, he does't deserve it.)
I'm an arch conservative right winger.
Yes, Robert, it is *LOL* when self-outed "arch conservative right wingers" sound like Mao.
Also, as I'm sure you know, Mao purposefully patterned his sententious public phrases after Confucius. Since the latter is dinned into every schoolkid as the timeless voice of authority. Cute trick. Sadly, Mao had a more deadly style!
Jody Tresidder at August 31, 2008 6:02 AM
Jody Honey tries to split a single hair 300 times:
> In your example "suggestion box" - you will
> find that "suggestion" is a noun. It's
> a "naming" word. It belongs to "box". It
>identifies the box - therefore, it has an
> entirely separate function to our first
> example - "leave a comment".
Like so many expressions and figures of speech,
"Suggestion Box" is a short handy way of describing something complex; in this case, a device used to accept the suggestions of people who want to make their opinions known to the owner of the suggestion box. It doesn't specifically say that the suggestions are for the box owner. It is common knowledge that the suggestions are intended for the owner.
Like "speed limit" does not denote an actual limit but rather a certain speed that you risk being ticketed if you exceed. The German definition of speed limit is quite lengthy. But that probably gives you a hard-on.
The internet is not as old and established as suggestion boxes or cars. Thus far, there has been no agreement on what a common slang term might be for the "leave a comment" feature.
And even if there were, it still would not be an encouragement, a solicitation, or an enticement. Like a short skirt is not a solicitation to rape.
It is a venue, nothing more. The decision to make a comment is left up to the prospective commenter.
And it clearly is driving you insane that you cannot twist the facts into a valid defense of your fellow traveller, Kevin Dailey. Your anger and persistence in trying to make square pegs fit round holes is amusing.
What IS your connection with Sadly, Null and Kevin Dailey, Jody? Have your liberal puppeteers ordered you to lurk on AdviceGoddess and disrupt Amy's work and foment trouble?
You appear dead-set on finding some way to make Amy Alkon the villain in this affair. Why?
PinkoPerforator at August 31, 2008 7:24 AM
Yes, he did something "inexcusably rude", and for that, he may lose his job and also be a target for anyone on the worldwide web who reads about this and wants to harass him. So, Amy certainly taught him a lesson. It doesn't seem to fit his individual crime of a four word insult, but he is obviously given this consequence for being part of a group of other people.
There's a site called, "Dontdatehimgirl.com", where women can post photos, names, cities, and personal information of guys who have wronged them. It has been helpful to at least one girlfriend of mine, who discovered her fiance was engaged to another women at the same time.
Yet, if you go read a lot of the posts, you can't help but feel bad for the guys who are being publicly outed as bad dates, bad lovers, bad people. There is no fact-checking. Any woman can post, and any guy can rebut the information.
It seems that some of these guys are also paying the price for what men, as a group, have done to women, so it is similar in a way.
The owner of that site has been sued multiple times, but I think she wins on the basis of the fact that SHE doesn't post the insults. She is merely providing a forum for the women to trash these guys, so it's protected under free speech.
lovelysoul at August 31, 2008 7:46 AM
lovelysoul, you're a desperate woman, trying to connect the two examples. I know all about dontdatehimgirl, and interviewed Todd Hollis at length, as I was assigned a piece on it for a magazine that I ended up not writing.
Dailey is paying the price for what Dailey did: being part of a speech-quashing mob. Had he come over here and posted on the Barkley entry as part of that discussion, not as a way to muck up that discussion and intimidate me out of further speech unapproved by the "progressives" he would have been welcome here.
He didn't say "You're wrong about Barkley, and here's why." He asked "Are you a tranny?"
And this, unlikely DDHG.com, was sourced -- I went right to the source and interviewed him, and he finally (after pussyishly denying it several times) admitted that he'd posted. And of course he denied it. He was doing something wrong: being part of a mob intent on quashing my speech -- from his government job, on government servers.
Think about why he didn't admit this and think about why he apologized: Because he got caught.
Now, I'm pretty tough compared to most women, but these creeps can't see in my head and can't know that. It's still no fun having hundreds and hundreds of people posting, and not just here, but all over that site -- THOUSANDS of comments about me -- how I look like a man, etc. It's all meant to intimidate and punish me for my speech, and get me thinking twice when I want to post something the "progressives" wouldn't like. And of course, they all do it anonymously, just like any window-breaking thug would.
Tell me, if you had a masked mob breaking your windows because they didn't like that you put up signs for a particular political candidate or entertained a certain view, and you caught and pulled off the mask of a guy doing it, and found out that he'd taken time off from his government job to do it...what would you do? Invite him in for a plate of milk and cookies?
Amy Alkon at August 31, 2008 8:09 AM
No, Amy, I'd press charges against him. And I've already conceded that you don't have that option, since you can't physically "catch" them, but also because, unlike someone attacking my home, what Dailey did isn't a crime.
There is that important difference. Someone trashing my property could be arrested and charged, yet someone posting on a public forum is exercising free speech.
I know you sourced Dailey and checked the facts, and I meant to add that to the DDHG post. It's not a straight parallel.
I'm honestly not taking a side. I'm not against you. It's just interesting. I thought we could have a conversation on what privacy rules should exist in cyberspace and where the boundaries might be.
You've taken a bold action, so it seems to invite that discussion.
I mean, should what Dailey did be illegal? That would certainly make it easier for you dealing with these types of disruptive people, yet how could it be made illegal without quashing free speech?
I mean, if I were a guy, who just took a girl out and it didn't click, so I dumped her, I wouldn't want to be on DDHG.com, yet it appears I wouldn't have much recourse if she posted my information and publicly outed me.
And it seemed to me when I saw the site owner interviewed (with her attorney beside her) that she went to great pains to distance herself from having anything to do with the individual posts - even editing them for grammar. It seemed to be the main area she and her attorney were most afraid of in terms of her liability and exposure to lawsuits, so I wonder how you feel about that. Should she be liable?
lovelysoul at August 31, 2008 8:37 AM
Amy, I suspect that trying to reason with these liberals is a waste of your time.
They think they are right about everything, and that they are therefore entitled to do whatever they want. Facts and logic mean nothing to them. They want things their way, or else they will make people suffer.
Example:
"a group called the Earth Liberation Front caused $1m worth of damage setting Hummers on fire at a California dealership late last year.
The group also claimed responsibility for spray painting slogans such as "Fat, Lazy Americans" on sports utility vehicles at other dealerships in the state."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3749377.stm
Liberals used to harp incessantly on the need to protect women from sexual harassment and rape, until their liberal leader (Bill Clinton) was the perpetrator. Then, like magic, women were liars, low-class, unreliable, and not to be believed. Every excuse in the book was trotted out and used to distract people from the facts.
They are harassing you because you are exposing their lies and stupidity. Don't let them win.
Protect yourself as best you can, and squash every one of the bookburning liberal scumbags that you can. Make them fear the consequences of harassing you. That is the only way to prevent them from wasting your time.
PinkoPerforator at August 31, 2008 8:38 AM
Pink, if you're implying I'm a liberal, it's simply not true. I voted for Bush, which I'm now kind of ashamed of, but I don't think that makes me a liberal.
Be careful labeling people. Why does everyone have to be, "Fuck off - Amy is right no matter what she does!", or else we're against her.
That's not a discussion. Just because I pose a topic for discussion, or play devil's advocate at times, doesn't mean I don't see the merits of both sides. I'm just trying to have an interesting debate. That's what I come here for, not to be Amy's defender.
Yet, I think, politically, I'm probably pretty aligned with her. I'm socially liberal, in that I want the conservatives out of my bedroom, and I'm fiscally conservative, in that I want the liberals out of my pocket.
lovelysoul at August 31, 2008 8:54 AM
>>And it clearly is driving you insane that you cannot twist the facts into a valid defense of your fellow traveller, Kevin Dailey. Your anger and persistence in trying to make square pegs fit round holes is amusing.
Pinkoperforator,
Glad to see you have finally conceded: "Thus far, there has been no agreement on what a common slang term might be for the "leave a comment" feature".
My efforts to establish what can be reasonably agreed - given the relatively new nature of the beast - have been a model of rational consistency, however, when compared to your own.
We have, of course, never met. Nor have I solicited your opinion about my character or IQ. I am neither angry nor on the cusp of an insane meltdown.
In the course of this debate about the objective meaning of Leave a Comment, you have - variously - called me hypocritical, illiterate, dishonest, stupid and emotionally unhinged while also employing sarcastic and sexist endearments even after I politely asked you not to.
(I'm someone who uses her full legal name here. There's no need to make up alternative forms of address for me.)
And I have also consistently trounced Kevin's appalling rudeness. I have never implied he bears no responsibility in this.
For someone who has expressed your glee at Kevin getting what you consider just desserts for awful blog comment etiquette, you have quite a nerve.
Jody Tresidder at August 31, 2008 9:07 AM
Protect yourself as best you can, and squash every one of the bookburning liberal scumbags that you can. Make them fear the consequences of harassing you. That is the only way to prevent them from wasting your time.
Thanks, PinkoPerforator, and I appreciate your voice of reason in this. That, actually, has been helping me stick to my book instead of knocking down all the irrationalities here.
lovelysoul, people don't have to agree with me here. Crid slaps me around all the time. But, he's usually got logic and reason on his side when he does it. I find it tiresome and a waste of time to keep explaining and re-explaining the difference between somebody who comes over here as an individual and finds a post they disagree with, and comments on it, and somebody who comes here as part of a speech-intimidating mob, bent on quashing my speech when it differs from what they think is appropriate to say and think.
Amy Alkon at August 31, 2008 9:09 AM
"Liberals used to harp incessantly on the need to protect women from sexual harassment and rape, until their liberal leader (Bill Clinton) was the perpetrator. Then, like magic, women were liars, low-class, unreliable, and not to be believed. Every excuse in the book was trotted out and used to distract people from the facts"
I totally agree with this, Pink. That completely nauseated me at the time...and still does.
lovelysoul at August 31, 2008 9:09 AM
I'm of the opinion that the general populous is clueless regarding the necessity of good reading, writing and English (soon to be replaced by Spanish?) skills.
If I take the necessary time to condense
my writing, I can write respectably.
I've been complemented time and again on articles I've written about a certain topic I'm passionate about.
People have said, "I wish I could write like that!" I wanted to say (instead of thanks) "No you don't, or you would!"
Many act as if good speaking and writing skills just "happen." I (as I suspect many here do as well) routinely use a dictionary and thesaurus. In fact, I have pocket-sized (D's & T's)in each vehicle and in various rooms of the house.
If I don't recognize a word (which is nearly every day) I look it up. Hang around blogs such as this long enough, and one's intelligence is bound to increase given the well-educated, articulate writers and uber-geeks (had to look that up recently) posting.
Even better, one finely hones their debating skills by arguing their positions on respectable blogs.
My wife is currently attending college, and I implore her to sign-up for non required online English classes so I can take them "with" her.
I was horrified when "she" received a B in an English class last quarter. I still think I need psychological help to work through that trauma.
I realize that this is off-topic, but I couldn't resist commenting about it.
Tony at August 31, 2008 9:16 AM
Amy, I find that hard to fathom. To me, Crid is almost incoherent, off-topic, and frequently incorrect from what I've seen, yet he does seem to sort of fashion himself your pitbull defender whenever anyone else posts something that might disagree with you. I haven't been here that long, so maybe I haven't seen his best work. I admire his loyalty.
But what is so irrational about what I have asked? Or what Jody has written for that matter?
I was honestly asking you how you felt about DDHG.com and how outing people on that site is different than outing them here. That seems a relevant and interesting debate.
The people that are tiresome are the ones who argue strange things like what a comment box is for and what it really means. That's such a stupid debate! Jody has had to waste a zillion lines arguing that nonsense...yet, you feel THOSE people, who choose to argue such vague notions rather than serious topics, are "voices of reason"?
That is just because they are agreeing with you, defending you, and stroking your ego. I don't come here for that. You can obviously defend yourself and I enjoy reading it when you do. I wish you would seriously discuss the DDHG.com parallel, and I would be interested to know about your interview with Todd Hollis.
lovelysoul at August 31, 2008 9:30 AM
> Pink, if you're implying I'm a liberal, it's
> simply not true. I voted for Bush, which I'm
> now kind of ashamed of, but I don't think that
> makes me a liberal.
Sure you voted for W. Sure. That's like racists who claim to have a black friend, as if that takes away the racism.
> Be careful labeling people. Why does everyone
> have to be, "Fuck off - Amy is right no matter
> what she does!", or else we're against her.
Now who is labeling people? You are.
I never said anything close to what you just claimed I said. Which is not surprising, because that is not what I believe.
Why don't you just retire from the field, and stop muddying the waters? You're great, we love you; Now be quiet.
PinkoPerforator at August 31, 2008 9:40 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/28/sadly_on_the_ta.html#comment-1586184">comment from lovelysoulCrid kicks my ass with regularity, and frequently votes with those who think I'm cracked on some issue. He is one of the most rational and reasoned argument-makers here.
Don't remember much about my interview with Todd Hollis, although I have it on tape. Last thing on my mind right now!
Amy Alkon at August 31, 2008 9:47 AM
Says who? Admittedly, I'm not an attorney, and I have not researched legal statutes to such extent whereby I can offer a reasonable answer either way.
That said, I believe I ran across a federal statute within the past year. One where I thought if was a federal crime to harass someone via the Internet.
Grant it, if I were indeed correct, I would have assumed that the Missouri(?) mom who harassed that teen girl to the point of suicide, would have been charged.
Can anyone say, and that, with a reasonable degree of certainty, where or not Dailey's actions constitute a crime?
Interesting remark, care to elaborate?
Tony at August 31, 2008 9:49 AM
So, you're saying I'm lying? I just pretend to vote for W to "look conservative"? Why in God's name would I do that? It's embarrassing at this point.
I haven't labeled you. I didn't call you liberal or conservative. I don't know what you are. I guess conservative, but it really doesn't matter as for as what we are discussing. What does that have to do with debating privacy issues on the internet? So, you hate liberals...so what?
That stops debate. When anyone says something contradictory, you can say, "Well, you're a liberal, and all liberals are idiots, so nothing you say has merit. Just go away now."
Even liberals can make valid points. I'm not one. I'm a registered republican. Don't particularly care for liberals either, but that doesn't mean everything a liberal says is wrong.
I may criticize your ideas, but not on the basis of what I think you are or not personally or politically. I think you make some great points at times, and stupid ones at others - same as we all do.
lovelysoul at August 31, 2008 9:54 AM
Tony, I don't believe it's a crime to post almost anything on a public, debate-oriented forum like this. Amy has allowed all sorts of rude comments, even ones insulting her like Dailey did, as she has shown in the past. Maybe it should be a crime, but currently, it isn't.
No, you can't harrass an average person using the internet, but even in that case of the teenage girl and MySpace, it was tough to charge. I think they actually charged the mom with fraud for using a false name to set up the account - not actually with harassment for what was written. They couldn't even prove she wrote it, as others, like her daughter and friends, had access to the account.
As far as my comment, I'm just saying that a lot of those women seem angry at men in general. Maybe they just got dumped by some guy, after a long string of getting dumped, so they attack him because he's the most recent "offender".
At first, I thought that site was brilliant - and, like I said, it did help a girlfriend discover she was with a scammer - but, all in all, I find it a bit disturbing. I think there would be a lot more outrage if it was a site for men to trash women.
lovelysoul at August 31, 2008 10:08 AM
It seems that some of these guys are also paying the price for what men, as a group, have done to women, so it is similar in a way.
Each person is responsible for who they let into their life. If you date a scumbag, ask yourself what you refused to look at at the beginning. It's a lot easier to lash out at somebody else -- perhaps even an innocent guy who spurned you fair and square.
Therapist Nathaniel Branden once told me (and I'm quoting from memory, but pretty accurately), "People will tell you what they're about -- if you're willing to look."
Amy Alkon at August 31, 2008 10:10 AM
We just got a telegram from la-la land, and Jody is madder than a Hillary supporter with dead batteries:
> Glad to see you have finally conceded: "Thus
> far, there has been no agreement on what a
> common slang term might be for the "leave a
> comment" feature".
I conceded nothing of the sort. It wasn't the topic at hand. You, however, made repeated attempts to claim that the label "leave a comment" equated to Amy Alkon soliciting Kevin Dailey's harassment.
A slight difference there. Anyone who is not a partisan liberal can see it.
> My efforts to establish what can be reasonably
> agreed - given the relatively new nature of the
> beast - have been a model of rational
> consistency, however, when compared to your own.
You made no such effort. And it would be irrelevant if you did. So, don't put yourself out on my account or Amy's.
> We have, of course, never met. Nor have I
> solicited your opinion about my character or
> IQ.
If you try to harass or bully someone in front of me, you have no choice but to accept my involvement. And if you don't like having your intelligence questioned, don't utter questionable comments.
> I am neither angry nor on the cusp of an insane
> meltdown.
And I am not a mind reader. I cannot claim to know why you have repeatedly attempted to portray Amy Alkon as having brought Kevin Dailey's harassment upon herself. But you did exactly that. All I did was try to find the reasons why you did it.
> And I have also consistently trounced Kevin's
> appalling rudeness. I have never implied he
> bears no responsibility in this.
This issue is not, and has never been, about "rudeness". It is about harassment. Stop obfuscating and trying to change the subject.
You DID attempt to mimimize and excuse Kevin Dailey's behavior, redefine his harassment as "rude comment behavior", and concoct some blame to foist on Amy Alkon for in essence "asking for it".
Everyone here saw you repeatedly try to do it. Lying about what you did is not going to help your credibility. But, at this point, you trying to protect your credibility is like patching a hole in the Titanic.
> For someone who has expressed your glee at
> Kevin getting what you consider just desserts
> for awful blog comment etiquette, you have
> quite a nerve.
Sigh.
You might as well stop blathering about this mythical "awful blog comment etiquette". It is off-topic, in addition to being a clumsy attempt to redefine the issue to be more compatible with your claims.
The topic is organized, deliberate harassment. It's what you are making excuses for, and enabling.
I haven't strayed off topic. I haven't gone to someone else's blog and initiated harassing behavior against them. I can understand why you are angry and frustrated that I am blocking your attempts to make Amy Alkon the villain in this mess, but that is your problem, not mine.
Have a nice day, toots!
PinkoPerforator at August 31, 2008 10:11 AM
Amy, it's true that we are responsible for who we let into our lives. Yet, to follow that logic consistently, you are also responsible for letting people like "Sadly No" into yours.
I mean, you wrote a controversial piece, and you have an open forum, which brought them to your doorstep. I don't think that means you "asked" for anything negative to happen, but neither does a woman who finds herself dating a player.
And it doesn't mean you shouldn't try to defend yourself, or publicize and warn others of the "Sadly, No" crowd's despicable tactics....or who is a part of their group. That's kind of what DDHG.com is about in its best form - warning other women about the tactics of some of these men, to spare them possibly making the mistake of letting them into their lives.
Yet, there's something disturbing about putting information like that out there too. Outing these guys publicly. Like I said, if men did it. If they wrote, "This woman is a bitch, a cheater, and a lousy lay, and here's where she lives and works and she's known to hang out at place X", well, I think there would be a lot more outrage against that, but it isn't a crime...at least right now. Should it be?
lovelysoul at August 31, 2008 10:29 AM
obfuscating - –verb (used with object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing.
1.to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2.to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
3.to darken.
foist - 1.to force upon or impose fraudulently or unjustifiably (usually fol. by on or upon): to foist inferior merchandise on a customer.
Just in case I wasn't alone in my ignorance...2.to bring, put, or introduce surreptitiously or fraudulently (usually fol. by in or into): to foist political views into a news story.
Tony at August 31, 2008 10:34 AM
you are also responsible for letting people like "Sadly No" into yours.
Oh, so by speaking one's mind, one deserves a campaign of intimidation and punishment through psychological warfare?
These people were free to come here and disagree with me. And I was and am open to that.
Try to punish me for my speech and intimidate me out of further speech, and I'll go after you if I can.
I'm sorry you're so desperate and so short on reasoning skills that you're determined to link these two things together, but Dailey's outing as one of the mob was quite well-sourced, as I went straight to the source and confronted him about what he'd done and got him to admit to doing it.
Amy Alkon at August 31, 2008 10:40 AM
Thanks, yet again, PinkoPerforator, for saying it quite well here:
Amy Alkon at August 31, 2008 10:42 AM
LS I'm honestly not being facetious nor disrespectful, and I don't mean to be offensive in in asking you the following. However, your position absolutely dumbfounds me.
Are you, or have you ever been diagnosed as neurotic?
My Trek (mountain bike) is calling and wishes to go for a walk. Therefore, I'm going out to to ride my bike...into a bus.
Tony at August 31, 2008 10:48 AM
Tony - the general populous is clueless
That'll be populace. Sorry - I couldn't resist!
Norman at August 31, 2008 1:30 PM
Alright fine. There's no correlation at all, especially if Amy says so.
She can out someone just because she called him up and got him to admit to asking her if she was a tranny, which is terrible "harassment", yet a woman who might've been stalked by a creep and posts her experience on DDHG.com - outing the guy in the same way - is "responsible for the people she lets into her life". The implication being that she should just let it go rather than fight back.
So, Amy can fight back against harassment, but other people should just take "personal responsibility" for inviting harassment or bad people into their lives. Amy, for some reason, has no accountability.
And the owner of DDHG.com gets sued often for exposing men to ridicule by posting their personal information online, but Amy has no such liability because...well, she's Amy! And you all say so.
I hope you're right. And you can call me names - whatever. But I've noticed she hasn't publicly outed anyone else since this conversation began. I think this whole incident was an overreaction, and deep down, she knows that. This sort of "revenge" against the "Sadly No" crowd isn't something to be used lightly, and she knows better than to continue to put herself and her site at risk of being sued....whether she admits it or not.
lovelysoul at August 31, 2008 2:25 PM
Look, I'm so sorry you're so light on logic, mainly because you're wasting a buttload of my time.
Truth is the defense against libel. Women can post anything on DDHG.com, true or not. A vindictive woman who's been dumped by a guy who just wasn't into her anymore can post all manner of nasty untrue stuff about him. This is wrong.
...as is a guy coming over here as part of a mob effort to punish and intimidate me for my speech, and to drive away my regular commenters, as some tried to, by posting remarks in their names -- like the one posted in a certain regular commenter's name using the word "nigger." He is not an anonymous poster, and I'm just relieved I was around to delete it that afternoon.
Other nasty remarks were posted here in my name, remarks which would be very damaging to me and to my career if I had actually said them. Catching them required constant monitoring. Again, these people were trying to steal my good name and steal my time and engage in psychological warfare against me as a way of punishing me for my speech and intimidating me out of further speech that is unapproved by their kind.
Yet, you go on and on like a cow remasticating the same cud, dragging in these tenuous ideas in hopes of finally making your "J'Accuse!" stick. Shut up already!
Oh, and note that I haven't banned you, and will not ban you. Revealing yourself to be an idiot in something you post has never been a crime around here. I'm certainly guilty of it myself.
But I've noticed she hasn't publicly outed anyone else since this conversation began. I think this whole incident was an overreaction, and deep down, she knows that.
Don't dare presume to know what I'm thinking. If anyone is incapable of doing that, it's you.
I haven't outed anyone else because the mob seems to be attacking somebody else at the moment, or maybe out at a barbeque -- perhaps because I made my point that I'm not a very good person to victimize. Also, I've got a book and column to write, and in between, idiocies posted on this blog item that must be swatted away like gnats.
Amy Alkon at August 31, 2008 2:35 PM
Yes, Amy, but Kevin Dailey, himself, didn't post the "nigger" comment. You can't prove that. You can't even make a case that he "harrassed" you other than asking the tranny question. In fact, you can't even prove he didn't ask the question purely out of curiosity. That's all he said. He didn't admit to doing it maliciously.
And you are the one contending that he is a part of a "mob" harassing you (which may well be true), but legally, you can't prove it.
Yet, what HE can prove is that he came to an open forum and asked a question. An insulting question, but just a question nonetheless. A question on a public forum run by a woman who invites commentary - sometimes rude, insulting, obnoxious, or whatever. You even demonstrated how many times you've allowed similar questions in the past, which actually supports his case.
Why him? That's what he would argue. Why did that one post, on one day, warrant you posting his name, work, and phone number to the whole world? That is an invasion of his privacy, no matter what your reasons - and I understand that you have major reasons to be pissed off, but still.
You wouldn't have much of a claim against him for harassing you based on the evidence. If he had been one of those who posted the 30 page messages, then I'd feel much better. But his one post of four words isn't enough to prove harassment.
It's just not something you should do routinely. You can say I'm a "mushbrain" for telling you that, but I've spent a lot of years running businesses, dealing with the public and defending against lawsuits, so I have a sense when you're at risk. This doesn't seem black and white to me at all.
Even when you are right and can prevail, being sued is a costly, emotionally draining experience that you should try to avoid, so I'm just saying you should really think about it first before posting anyone's personal info - even when it's not completely "private".
DDHG.com doesn't usually put anything more than name and city, but that's enough for her to be sued. And she prevails mostly because she isn't the one who posts it - her readers do. They may face liability if they can't prove the charges, but not her.
If we had found Mr. Dailey. Let's say Brian or one of the other techies here, tracked him down and had the confrontation, then posted his name and number on this blog, that would be much better for you, I think. Maybe that's a way around it in the future.
As angry as these "Sadly, No" people make you, it isn't worth opening yourself up to lawsuits. I like this site, and despite your name calling, I still like you, and I wouldn't want to see that.
lovelysoul at August 31, 2008 3:28 PM
Norman, I SWEAR that was a typo, and not an "assino!"
Tony at August 31, 2008 3:40 PM
Pinkoperforator,
I've just read again what you wrote (I quote the gist below), which you offer as a digest of my position.
>>You DID attempt to mimimize and excuse Kevin Dailey's behavior...and concoct some blame to foist on Amy Alkon for in essence "asking for it".
For the record, that's total bilge.
Jody Tresidder at August 31, 2008 4:20 PM
He came over here, he admitted, because of Sadly Pathetic's posts.
Now, come on, there's no actual reason to believe I'm transsexual. They keep posting this as an intimidation campaign against me (complete with a very feminine photo of me in a very tight dress). He came over to join in the group aggression against me because, like the rest of them, he thought he could victimize me for my "progressive"-unapproved speech with no cost to him. He was wrong.
I consider freedom of speech one of the most valuable rights granted by this country. Freedom of speech means you are free to speak freely, not free to be part of a mob to intimidate another out of speaking freely. And for any lingering nitwits, it does not mean I will provide you with free bandwidth so you can engage in a campaign to intimidate me.
I don't have a statement on my site saying I won't post your information or try to track you down. I believe most people who post here to engage in a discussion, not an intimidation campaign, know that I have no interest in tracking them down. Why would I? I'm interested in free discussion of issues, and even if you disagree with me, you're welcome here -- as an individual interested in discussion of an issue.
I likewise don't have a statement on my column saying that I won't post your name. People write me letters and ask me not to use their names, and I tell them I won't.
Again, for the mush brains: I am not "outing" regular commenters. I find you stupid and annoying, lovelysoul, but I have zero interest in knowing your name or publishing it. And yet again, posting stuff that suggests you are an idiot is not a crime here, providing you aren't doing it to intimidate me from further using my right to free speech.
If we had found Mr. Dailey. Let's say Brian or one of the other techies here, tracked him down and had the confrontation, then posted his name and number on this blog, that would be much better for you, I think. Maybe that's a way around it in the future.
There's no "better" for me. What's better for me would be that people who disagree with me use their free speech to start blogs and post about how they disagree with me instead of trying to intimidate and punish me for mine by making this forum unreadable, causing me psychological distress, and making me think twice about posting something the "progressives" disagree with, lest I be attacked by a mob.
Amy Alkon at August 31, 2008 4:25 PM