This blog is dedicated to the memory of David Weintraub, who took on insidious astroturfers and won.

Monday, August 30, 2010

What About Bob?

I'm glad it turned out Bob didn't delete TLNL's post. The drama that occurred after that post ended up in the spam bin can be figured out by checking out the two previous entries.

Unfortunately, I threw down a card, and I am of the belief that a card shown is a card played. That Bob has not been fostering dissension on this blog is good news. Nonetheless, as a result of the previous confusion, something else has come to light. I'll try to be gentle, but it doesn't look good for Bob.

Bob once told me he used to post at Rigorous Intuition. I like what Bob has added to DFQ2, in regards to his insights on RI and the satanic panic. I innocently wanted to check out what he had written there. He wouldn't tell me who he was. Now I understand why.

Bob was posting at RI as [redacted].

I don't really have many problems with his take on the Johnny Gosch story. I do think on occasion he has made some questionable comments. This is a basic disclaimer just in case he has written anything I don't want to be associated with. For the purposes of this entry, I'm not going there. I do find it very strange how he has been blogging alongside the King of all "Theresa Duncan ghost" wankers. I'm not going to delve much into that, just a bit at the end of this diary.

My problem with Bob revolves around his historic support of Big Tobacco. Perhaps he did that as a useful idiot. However, I find it tough to believe he wasn't being paid as an astroturfer to attack anti-smoking laws. The sheer volume of his posts on that topic, imho, went far beyond any normal amount. Those posts across the internet dwarfed even the production generated by the Theresa Duncan Ghost Fan Club. And this schtick actually had something to do with a real issue and not some fiction revolving around the concept of alternative reality games.

It also appears that Bob was employing the use of sock puppets, though it's always dodgy to try to prove that, unless we're talking about Jason Leopold.

I'll also touch briefly on Bob having made me look like a chump on one of his other blogs.

Bob used to run a blogspot called Surreality Times. He claimed its membership consisted of three people who shared the same login. One of those persons was [redacted]. Let's get the sock puppet thing out of the way. From the main RI thread he posted on, two separate yet similar copy and pastes were added made by himself and [redacted] on other websites. The original links are not working or I'd provide them, but Bob didn't dispute it anyway. Here are those copy and pastes along with his explanation followed by another post concerning an old e-zine they worked on. That one was deleted just like Surreality Times. I don't like it when things get white-walled. This isn't 100% proof they are the same person, but if you parse and compare the sentences, they sound amazingly similar. (Excerpts from the RI thread)
Bob Roberts? Bob?

People could knock themselves silly searching for entries written by [redacted]. I'm not going to do that here. My mind is already spinning over this thing. I'll mention a few examples. Folks are free to google and then hit the caches. Maybe Bob can explain why he deleted the blog. Maybe he can explain why he supported and voted for a Progressive Conservative named Stelmach. That doesn't sound very lefty of him.

This guy or guys were so prolific at supporting Big Tobacco, they were cited in a government report.

Robin came out with something called The Gaison Hypothesis. He argued that tax increases on tobacco would lead to an increase in teen smoking. That's the ticket.

These guys were calling second-hand smoke a hoax. They were saying tax increases would cause hunger. Last night I skimmed through many an entry of Roy Harrold's that would start out discussing one thing but eventually turn into a pro-Tobacco Industry rant. Roy liked to talk a lot about public policy. He sounded exactly like a political operative would. It thus turned out to be no surprise to find him lauding Michael Crichton while attacking global warming activists. It was no surprise to see him besmirching efforts to encourage healthier eating. According to Robin, uhm, Roy, er Bob, people should have the right to smoke two packs a day and eat a bag of Doritos for dinner. Sure, in theory he or they are correct, but anyone can do the searches I did and see that the Thou Dost Protest Too Much hypothesis was in full motion. One needs to check this out for themselves to see how prolific Roy was in supporting Big Tobacco. For someone who alleges to be a progressive activist, he sure picked a strange hobby horse to devote most of his energy to.

Here's a link that's kind of off-topic to the smoking thingie, but in light of my sincere effort to be gentle with this expose, it will provide some much needed entertainment. It's easy for anyone to confirm what I've written concerning Roy Harrold and his outrageous output of support over the years for Big Tobacco. Just hit the search engines. Bob shows up on the fourth post and turns this thread upside down and inside out. This one deserves to be enshrined in the Internet Hall of Fame for meltdowns.

Orac feels the love

Et Tu, Bob, Or Is It Roy?

Mort de C├ęsar by Michele Cammarano

I guess this last bit isn't exactly a Brutus stabbing Caesar moment. Perhaps I'm the one who is doing the betrayal. I admit it. This is deja vu with what happened with myself and The Cold Spy. It turned out that dude was associating with neonazis and various other forms of Holocaust deniers. Bob working for Big Tobacco, even if by chance he did so as a useful idiot, which I don't think, is the same kind of thing that's going to get me to scream, "Run for the hills. It's a monster troll."

Bob revealed to me a while back that he had been the author of a piece juxtaposing myself with the Theresa Duncan fixated Dreamsend nutjob. Bob's the author of a website called The Foil Beneath My Hat. Dreamsend is another person who has no qualms about deleting whole websites. Maybe that's why Bob likes him. I don't know what the attraction is. DE was going by the name BF Kade which spells out as the Blogger Formerly Known As Dreamsend. Bob has deleted the entry. However, I had copied and pasted it before that at my other forum well before we ever met.
The Foil Beneath My Hat: Dangerously Close To The Truth

Two Sites Containing Dangerous Truths:

The first site has Agents posting & exposing many truths on it:
Bob told me he didn't mean anything bad about the word agent, that his use of the word agent was positive. He referred me to his first entry. You see, Foil Beneath My Hat is an attempt at satire. It makes fun of tinfoilers. I bought his explanation that calling me an agent was a compliment. However, now that I am taking a closer look at Bob, I can see that he was lumping me in with "tinfoil-hat lunatics."

On the other hand, he put Dreamsend in a good light.
The next site is not run by Agents, nor is it run by New World Order Illuminati disinformation propagandists. This site is run by an Other -a relaxed, unpretentious seeker who comes dangerously close to exposing The Real Truth:

Take a look at the December 20, 2008 entry - "Andy vs The Octopus". Kade raises questions about deceased DU poster & election fraud activist Andy Stephenson. Kade talks about Stephenson's claim to be in contact with (recently convicted child pornographer) Delmart Vreeland. Kade wonders how/why Stephenson became a public advocate of the fraudulent Gannon=Gosch "theory", when that status would surely detract or distract from his alleged primary mission of exposing election fraud and advocating Democratic Reforms.

Take a look at the December 29, 2008 entry - "Franklin Uncovered". Again, Kade puzzles over how/why journalist Nick Bryant - who promised to expose the real truth about the Franklin Coverup in a new book on the subject (until the presales fell flat at 300 out of the required 3000) - would "choose" a tiny conspiracy obsessed publisher like Trine Day.

Now take a look at March 9, 2009 entry - "Welcome to the board, Eve". Kade says: "I see there is some confusion about my last post. I think the confusion stems from a continued failure to realize what the Rigorous Intuition site is all about".

What Kade doesn't say, is that Rigorous Intuition site owner Jeff Wells was one of the people who invented the Gannon=Gosch "theory" (posting pseudonomously on Democratic Underground), which revived flagging interest in the "Franklin Coverup", and that Jeff Wells had his own oblique connection to Delmart Vreeland:

"For Toronto blogger Jeff Wells, the collapse of the twin towers was a wake-up call. Wells, a satirist for Frank magazine, was contacted by a lawyer friend following the attacks. The friend was representing a man named Delmart Vreeland who had been arrested in Toronto for alleged credit card fraud. While in jail, Vreeland not only claimed that he worked for the U.S. Naval Intelligence, he also warned authorities about the forthcoming attacks. In August 2001, with his lawyer and prison officials present, he wrote his prediction in a letter, which was then sealed. It wasn’t opened again until Sept. 14 — and on the list of possible targets, he had included the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre. "Hearing the story from my friend opened up my eyes a bit," says Wells, who always had an interest in politics. "So that started it."Whoever/whatever Kade is, they are dangerously close to unravelling "the whole ball of wax" and if that happens there may have to be another temporal shift to wipe The Truth out of everyone's minds once again.

B. F. Kade...remember Icarus.
End of transmission.
Now this is what I don't get. Was Bob making it seem Dreamsend as BFKade was presenting the last bit as his own writing, or did he copy and paste something Dreamsend presented as his own? There's no way to know, because Dreamsend usually deletes his blogging at some point, and he did so with the BFKade username.

The last bit was actually written by a student journalist named Jessica Lockhart. I thought maybe she was BFKade. I emailed her and found out her work had been lifted without citation, i.e. plagiarised.

Since the Kades Korner blog is long gone, there's no way to know what really happened here, whether Bob made a mistake with lifting the material or DE did.

I always found it a bit odd how Bob continued to support DE. If it wasn't for DE, the insane house troll wouldn't have known my first name. DE has talked somewhat of how insidious ARG people trapped him in some game. I don't buy that one. He's allowed that house troll to continue posting at his own blog. He got involved with it last year in regards to some more Theresa Duncan centered bullshit. I can't believe how anyone can still be going on about easily debunked nonsense like that. Theresa Duncan killed herself. She suffered from paranoid delusions. If anyone was a "tin-foil hat lunatic," it was her.


bob said...


This will likely be incredibly boring for 99% of the population.

Who I really am is frankly no one's business but my own. If I choose to use pseudonyms at certain times, in certain places online, (and I have, of course - so many over the years that I can't keep track of them all), to protect my own & my family's privacy and security, that just puts me in the good company of 99.9% of internet users. I feel no need to apologize to anyone about that.

There have been no sock-puppets, however. No person who has ever attempted to unravel "who I am", (why would you want to bother? I'm such a nobody, online and off...), and posted about this 'big mystery' online, knows me or Robin - our relationship and life histories - in real life. Everyone is welcome to speculate, and believe whatever they wish to, about that.

It's not difficult to figure out what names I have used in the past. Auto-biographical info I share is always the same, under whatever name. I have very characteristic habits with regard to violating certain conventions of English grammar. I'm obsessed with certain subjects and they are all I post about online. I don't make any effort to disguise any of these tell-tale traits. If you see someone posting about ritual abuse claimant frauds, and that person claims to be a gay man with adult "stepchildren", and also abuses quotation marks & dashes, there's an excellent chance the person is me. Duh.

Yes, indeed...(DOM-DA-DOM-DOM)...I have posted on Rigorous Intuition as "Roy Harrold". Again, not very hard to figure that out. I declined to reveal that info to Socrates, for the reason I gave him at the time - the less personal information we asked each other for, the less private info we shared between us, the more confident we could both be that working together on this blog was just about the issues (and not some plot to spy on each other for some third party's benefit, or anything else that would be harmful to either of us ).

bob said...


I've said this many times in many places around the 'net - the tobacco companies are the original posterboys for corporate scumbagdom. There isn't anything positive to say about them.

Yet, it is true that I ran a blog for almost five years which overwhelmingly featured scathing attacks of the anti-smoking industry and the frauds, con-artists, pseudo-scientists and social fascists associated with that industry. I'm not ashamed of this, I'm quite proud of the work I did on that issue.

In 2002, a tobacco-tax increase was instituted in my province which was the biggest single tobacco tax increase the world has ever seen. I have friends & family members who happen to be low-income and/or disabled and/or elderly persons who smoke. This gargantuan tax increase caused people I care about a lot of misery and suffering, primarily because it forced them to divert monies from their food, clothing or shelter budgets that they could not afford to lose. None of us could figure out why this tax-rape of poor people who smoke was instituted so callously and with no protest whatsoever from political or social groups that normally speak out against deliberate f*cking of the poor and disadvantaged. So, I started investigating.

I found a complex network of "anti-smoking" activists and organizations, overwhelmingly funded by government agencies (i.e. taxpayer dollars), openly conspiring to break or evade the prohibitions against charitable organizations engaging in political lobbying, composed largely of persons with no genuine medical qualifications, pumping out propaganda that was as fraudulent, disingenuous and deceitful as anything Big Tobacco had ever come up with. This is a long story, so I'll just give a tiny sampling:

that of Lloyd Carr, who was the head of Tobacco Reduction for a government agency called AADAC for almost 10 years. Carr was an unqualified, lying, fraudulent, theiving scumbag - and I eventually helped bring him to justice.

bob said...

The most disturbing thing I found, was the complicity of supposedly left-wing politicians and organizations in campaigns to f*ck poor people (who just happen to be smokers). There are certain principles that I consider essential to genuine leftist politics & activism:
- never support or participate in spreading 'Blood Libel' slander about ANY group in our society. Here I'm using Blood Libel to mean; accusations that unnamed members of a social minority are responsible for the deaths of unidentified members of the social majority.
- Never blame the poor for their poverty or the sick for their illness.
- never support or sanction any public policy that intentionally makes life more difficult for the disadvantaged, especially impoverished, disabled or elderly persons.

What I found, was supposedly leftist people & groups violating all of these principles with respect to disadvantaged persons who happen to smoke. This betrayal enraged me to no end, and motivated me to expose and verbally kick the asses of many "left-wing" persons and groups involved in "health promotion" of any kind. I don't regret this, they all deserved what they got.

As for joining the right-wing Progressive Conservatives (for one year) so that I could help get Ed Stelmach elected the head of that party and therefore the Premier of our province...
That started as a joke amongst some life-long New Democrat supporters (which I have been). Ed Stelmach ran on a campaign of; "I have no agenda-platform, vote for me just 'cause I'm an honest farmer". Other candidates were high-powered members of political-business elites, with elaborate platforms. You'd have to understand our political history, to understand that the only possibility for ever dethroning the ruling PC party would be for them to somehow elect some schmuck with no power constituency or vision for his own leadership. We made that happen :)

Of course, while I was a member of the PCs (for a year), I exploited that fact to shame my "fellow PCs" about their mindless support of public policies which f*ck the poor, the disabled and/or the elderly.

I had announced my retirement from "smoker's right-to-exist" activism, to everyone I had respect for in the penniless grassroots segment of that community, commencing December of 2009. I left the blog up after that for ease of referencing certain information, but pulled the plug on it recently when I discovered that internet stalkers were using it to attempt to spy on me & broacast private information about me to twisted psychopaths such as troll KKk.

bob said...


I explained the Tinfoil Hat posting to you, and apologized. You seemed to accept that. However, you are free to change your mind and be upset about it again if you wish.

About Michael Crichton - sorry, but that man spoke big buckets of TRUTH in the video I referenced. Many people in my age group who were activist youth in our day, were lied to, manipulated, deceived by a variety of "cause" and "issue" campaigners. Perhaps they believed that hysteria-mongering was a necessary expedient, but I can't forgive them for adopting the same "ends justify the means" morality of the very multinational corporations they helped expose as greedy, conscienceless scumbags.

As for global warming - I just can't invest trust in any cause or issue 'movement' anymore, but for me it doesn't matter if human involvement in global warming can be conclusively proven or not. The planet, Gaia, is the Mother Of All Life. If you have respect for Her, as we all ought to, then you will minimize your personal impact on the ecosystem in every way that you can. Not because "global warming is the apocalypse" (that may or may not be accurate), but because that's the rational, compassionate, planetcentric and respectful way to live ALL THE TIME. That is how I've been living my life for 35 years.

socrates said...

I wouldn't say you're boring or a nothing blogger. We got 3,000 page views last month. That's not chump change. You were a part of that. (side note- this blog has no access to ip addresses. One can sign up for a blogspot and check it out themselves.)

Who else but you (as Vindalf) exposed Nick Bryant, that Trine Day dude, and some others on the Amazon board?

I'll buy that you're a regular guy who doesn't use sock puppets. I think you picked a strange topic to devote that much energy to, but due to the Glass Houses Hypothesis, the same could be said about me. It doesn't mean such claims are spot on.

I got paranoid when I saw TLNL's post go missing. Today I had to retrieve the fourth post of yours from the same spam bin TLNL's post had fallen into.

The troll spray image wasn't really concerning yourself. I just deleted a post by the house troll. It posted "limited hangout." You've explained why you deleted the blog on smoking issues. I don't think Dreamsend ever explained why he has deleted nearly everything written Twilight Zone style about Theresa Duncan's demise. I think he did that, because he didn't want it easy for people to realise how insane that schtick was.

I'm always getting beat on for my personality rather than my content. I'm happy you have responded. I don't agree with you on Crichton. I think you and Robin were over the top with your anti-tobacco control crusade. For what it's worth, you are to be commended for your eloquent, well-reasoned response to this thread.

I'm glad cigarettes are now priced to the yin-yang. I'm still addicted, because I've switched to the low price roll your owns. I can still smoke about twenty a day if I want to for around two dollars. Packs in Massachusetts now cost from 7 to 9 dollars. Most smokers, imho, smoke about a pack a day. I could never handle that bill. My point is, if I didn't switch to the low priced method, one in which many would never consider doing, I would have quit cigarettes. It's still a goal of mine to do so.

You make good points about fine particle pollution killing people. I guess the scale of your attacks on tobacco control blew me away.

The satanic panic people are on the ropes. It will never fully be extinguished, just as bigotry still simmers among various numbnuts.

I'm sorry for stabbing you in the back. Due to the nature of blogger, i.e. occasional glitches, it's probably best if there's only one person in control of the moderator buttons. That way if there is to be any blame, it won't be an enigma.

The first link is unavailable and not showing up at Thanks for the second link. Ok, I see your point about the corruption of that one group run by Lloyd Carr. Wow, he stole $634,000 and was sentenced to 3.5 years apparently in April of this year. You must feel good about that. You've been vindicated.

socrates said...

Ok, I'm starting to empathise with your sincere dislike of tobacco taxes. It makes me think of the hypocrisy involved with the lottery, another state revenue maker which apparently also preys on a greater percentage of people who can't afford it than those who can, not to mention the gambling addicts.

The state does seem to care more about money than the well-being of its less advantaged citizenry. What hooks people like me to ultimately support tobacco control is that tobacco is very harmful. I don't buy Robin's hypothesis concerning teen smoking. Perhaps many of those already addicted will be forced to go cold turkey, have a few bad days, and hopefully never smoke again. That being said, I think the high prices will deter most teens from ever starting or getting addicted. I would definitely be off them by now, if I hadn't figured out the cheap roll your own alternative.

I'll redact all info in this diary which easily leads to your identity, if you want me to. Just say so.

I see your point about Stelmach. I don't like how it's the same excuse someone like Tinoire would have for supporting Ron Paul. Yet, the dirt on her runs deep anyway unlike yourself. She has been in neonazi beds with Mike Rivero. She's associated with known disinfo stooge Wayne Madsen and misinfo tinfoiler Jeff Wells.

I'm not mad about the foil beneath my hat posting. It might have just been an awkward post of yours which so happened to make me look like a nutjob and dreamsend look good.

I never followed him. I did extensive cybersleuthing into Hertzberg, BradBlog and Kimberlin, and that led to becoming aware of the Stephenson and Jeff Wells connections. The link you used from my other blog wasn't even close to hooking up readers to my best material concerning this topic. I guess folks could always check out more in depth what I came up with elsewhere in the astroturfing section. Stephenson used to work for Velvet Revolution, i.e. Brad and Kimberlin. A big chunk of internet disinfo did revolve around election integrity fakes looking for volumes of donations. It also played a big part in the creation of a powerful, internet zeitgeist.

What I would like to know, if you remember, is how Jessica Lockhart's article got involved without being cited. Things like that are red flags, imho. I think one of the worst things any blogger can do is commit a form of plagiarism. Now if it was a mistake, and you told me before you weren't expecting many to even know about the website, then fine. I'm just curious about how Lockhart's words got into the fray without being cited.

You have provided a reasonable explanation for why you deleted your anti-smoking control blog. I don't think Dreamsend has ever come up with a good reason for his continuous whitewalling. If the BFKade blog was still available, then the Lockhart connection could probably be easily figured out.

the_last_name_left said...

B: "As for global warming...."

Fair comment. The rest of the narrative is coherent too, though I don't know anything about it so I'm not best placed to judge, perhaps.

The anti-smoking thing is an interesting issue: I'll agree it smacks of an arrogant, prescriptive social policy, and yet at the same time I really can't get too ventilated about attempting to stop people doing it. (But that's exactly why it's such a useful issue for the social-fascist/health-vanguardist elements? Like picking-on Jews - who is going to get worked-up about it? It's incremental from there?)

Anonymous said...

I'm surely responsible for a number of page views myself, as I am looking in every few days, sometimes more often.
Probably, if you were less judgmentally paranoid and willing to look through the range of possibilities for peoples motivations before jumping them with a rhetorical hatchet you might be off better for it but who knows? This blog sort of turns on an axis built of your suspicious nature and it creates all sorts of riotous melodrama which somehow always gets resolved before anyone gets badly singed from the experience, like one those 1930 potboilers you favour.

I'm fine with it all, and am not at all putting you down for your Bette Davisness.

I do sometimes wonder if you have similar episodes in the space AKA reality or if this persona 'Socrates' is a self contained unit online.

Its hard to imagine anyone possessinging this much of the 'Socrates' effect in real life but it gives a chuckle to think it might possibly be so.

Bob hits on a few key points of stereotypical leftist holier than thou-ism such as anti-smoking and environmental nazism and inability to not alienate the working classes thru regular doses of smug elitism and disdain for poor folks.
The left disdains the poor more than they decry the effects of poverty.

bob said...

Here's excerpts from the Journal article on Carr, back in 2006:

"The Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission never knew Carr was an addicted gambler himself [Carr was never a problem gambler, that was just another manipulative fiction he created], and was using his office to create phoney contracts that cost taxpayers $634,250 -- most of it funnelled into his personal account, helping him pay for a car, a house, and $116,000 in withdrawals from banking machines in casinos.

The RCMP has begun a criminal investigation into the former senior bureaucrat, who also duped his bosses by falsely claiming a university degree and concealing his past criminal record to get hired, Auditor General Fred Dunn said Thursday".

"AADAC and other players in the Carr affair said they were duped by a network of contracts purportedly meant to keep youth from smoking, but which actually funnelled $441,298 to Carr.

Between 2004 and this fall, Carr arranged the five fake contracts, one with anti-smoking lobby group Action on Health and Smoking and the others with the Alberta Lung Association.

In each case, Carr arranged it so the money would ultimately reach his accounts, less a "handling fee" for the contractor and, in three cases, a third-party consultant named Kilburn and Associates.

Carr created one set of contracts for AADAC, claiming the money was for a school program. A different set for the Alberta Lung Association claimed it was for another tobacco campaign, and would be partially completed by Carr's own consulting entity and a "Debora Corr" -- a fictional name similar to his wife's, Deborah Carr."
It's important to understand that a variety of "anti-smoking" groups LAUNDERED the money for Carr. They accepted the contracts themselves, cashed the grant money, pocketed a "handler's fee" themselves and then dumped the remainder into Carr's accounts. Later, they claimed to be "naive" and "gullible" victims of Carr's scheming...yea, right. This was a network of crooks, it was the public who were naive & gullible to believe these con-artists actually gave a sh*t about their children's wellbeing.

socrates said...

Donkeytale, this is just me typing away. I don't have multiple personalities.

The same kind of keyboard psychology nonsense could be applied to yourself.

My content for the most part is gold. That's what my whatever success has been based on- the facts I've uncovered and the way they were originally written up.

You got the negativity around here started a while back, because instead of dealing with content, you decided to belittle myself and TLNL's efforts at exposing people like Michael Rivero.

Stop making this personal. Leave me alone.

I have learned the hard way that if one returns your type of interaction, you thrive on it, and your infection becomes worse. Go play at the other dives, if you're going to pull that schtick on me. Miep Kettle has opened the door for you and her to do the flame fest tango. She thinks you're Noom. She thinks I'm posting with her, when I have nothing to do with any of the dives I met you on.

Until you look into my actual finds and blogging, i.e. the actual content, your opinion is meaningless. If you're going to cherrypick my mistakes, then focker off.

Bob still hasn't explained the work of Jessica Lockhart having been lifted. This is the same nonsense he pulled on the previous thread by not dealing with the claim that you condone sexual relationships between adults and minors.

He brought it up. What Bob is doing is referred to as hit and run.

So go on back to Miep, who on her my space page says she is 52. I don't think so. She looks more like 70.

She and MattyJack are as crazy as it gets. MattyJack stole Peeder's legacy and went on to make a fool of himself by throwing Dave Weintraub under the bus and lying about it, not to mention all the other idiotic pranks he's pulled. Woohoo, he just got a BA at age 25 after getting a GED. I guess being an idiot prankster is his claim to fame. And you look like an idiot too for posting there again after all the crap he made up. Ha, I asked you to leave this blog, and you didn't have the integrity to go away. You're no better than the fat guy with body odor stinking up the subway.

He's treated you like dirt, yet you keep going back. I know your type. You do get into disruptions sometimes for good reasons. Eventually you create them for no good reason, if none naturally emerge, as you did here. You also tend to be like the perverted relative who thinks people enjoy your dirty jokes.

You have an inflated view of your contribution to the blogosphere. You're not as vacuous as Miep with her post-LSD, jumbled up. gibberish, okie-dokie yeehaws, aw shucks ya varmint schtickolas, and you have made a lot of good posts, I'll admit that too.

Anonymous said...

That's what I'm saying. Read the content. None of us are the personalities we present on a blog.

And the essence of this blog is personal.Here it is an examination of someone named "Bob." His motives, his writings, his personal history.

From this we can try to generalize to greater universal truths, and that is what I am doing with my psychological nonsense.

I'm lauding the fact of "Socrates" not dissing you.

Miep captured an ugly side of your persona which is why I'm sure you don't enjoy her recent "Love Letter" that portrays an essence of "you" with accuracy.

She's an interesting blogger. She just posted her home address on FSZ.

And its pretty clearly obvious you instigated an attack on her originally for what reason remains very unclear. If I was the punitive type I could link to it, but that is your style. The attack was completely gratuitous and personal. Very ugly, in fact, and I commented upon it at the time.

Why be so defensive over me and others pointing out what "Socrates" is, and does, while you freely castigating me, Bob and others for what we do and are?

Pageviews are relatively meaningless.A relative handful of obsessives can easily account for 3,000 page views in a month. Unique visitors are the meaningful stat. At its peak, PFF had 18,000 unique visitors per month. According to Peeder, that was more than all of the Kos spin-off blogs combined.

The Brian Nowhere blog sometimes pierced the top 100,000. On Alexa, a few times getting up as high as 55,000 or so, which is Booman Trib territory. He averaged around 100 unique visitors per day during that time. He subscribed to a statistical service. The page views were 18 times the number of visitors. I think this means people read widely through the blog, which may be what is occurring here, too, since the content is interesting.
So, you're saying Bob is a plagairist?

bob said...

"What I would like to know, if you remember, is how Jessica Lockhart's article got involved without being cited. Things like that are red flags, imho. I think one of the worst things any blogger can do is commit a form of plagiarism. Now if it was a mistake, and you told me before you weren't expecting many to even know about the website, then fine. I'm just curious about how Lockhart's words got into the fray without being cited".

I really don't remember much about that posting on TFBMH. TFBMH was never intended for general public consumption so the postings there were not composed with much care or edited for mistakes. It's entirely likely that I could have pasted in excerpts from some article on Wells, enclosed it in quotations to show it wasn't my words but failed to give the excerpts any attribute.

It's far more likely, I think, that any mistakes or carelessness along those lines originated with me rather than DE.

"I think you and Robin were over the top with your anti-tobacco control crusade".

It was a genuine obsession, for a long time, yes. Some of my writings on that topic contain quite deliberate over-the-top rantings - parodying similar rant behaviour by tobacco control zealots. Many of my writings on that topic contain subtle parody of both fanatical substance prohibitionists and fanatical libertarian absolutists. It was interesting to me that libertarian absolutists sometimes recognized parody of their extremism in what I wrote, but the prohibitionistas NEVER saw their own faces reflected in my verbal mirroring.

"I'm sorry for stabbing you in the back."

I'm sure that you are aware that, whether you deserve them or not, you have reputations for certain behaviours. You won't be surprised, I'm sure, to hear that there were voices whispering in my ear things like: "Be careful. Soc eventually turns against everyone he associates with and he will turn on you someday".

I'd received such warnings even before I accepted your offer to blog here, Socrates. As you know, however, I'm unconcerned about anyone else's opinions of you - or anyone else, for that matter - and evaluate internetmates by my own criteria, primarily the content/value of their writing. I was fully aware that joining this blog would entail certain risks. I accepted them, and I have no regrets.

You said "I'm sorry...", and I accept your apology.

"Due to the nature of blogger, i.e. occasional glitches, it's probably best if there's only one person in control of the moderator buttons."

Yes, that seems prudent. You invited me to blog here. To express my appreciation of some of your postings here, to demonstrate support for you & your writing, I accepted. I always said, tho, "this is YOUR 'net crib dude, so you should have control". If you wish to go solo now, that's fine. I'm not offended.

"I'll redact all info in this diary which easily leads to your identity, if you want me to. Just say so."

That's not necessary. I'm really not feeling any more "exposed", now, than I was before. If you wish to be kind, you could remove the reference to my teenaged victimization. There was a time when we felt that it might help other teen-porn victims for us to talk about our own experiences. Porn exploitation of teens & children has been going on since film was invented, and there are many hundreds of victims who are now adults, living today. I thought it might be helpful to be public about my own victim status and show that there is no need to feel shame about it (I certainly don't). However, it has occurred to me that I could just be revictimizing myself by talking about it so publicly. I'm not sure how I feel about that disclosure, now, so I'd be more comfortable if it wasn't quoted here.

bob said...


Did you just delete a comment of mine, or was that the blogger-glitch?

"This is the same nonsense he pulled on the previous thread by not dealing with the claim that you condone sexual relationships between adults and minors."

I had to go back and see what you were talking about, above. I went offline for a week or so and missed all the "action" on that other thread.

"...the claim that you condone sexual relationships between adults and minors" was made by you, Socrates. I just reacted to it. But my post on the topic was of a general nature, not a commentary on any specific person. I did say:

"Such rationalizations will inevitably be interpreted as an endorsement of child abuse - whether their author intended that or not."

leaving the question of a given author's INTENT (which I cannot know since I'm not psychic) as something I make no judgement about.

socrates said...

Aaah, there's no donkeytale projection alert, when one is most needed. He said none of us are the personalities we present on a blog.

There it is. Donkeytale is just acting. He admits it.

Miep got on my bad side way back when, because she was in essence supporting the scum you have returned to.

The Brian Nowhere blog is no longer available. From what I could see from the archives, your contribution was minimal. You have made it seemed you were a big player there. No, you weren't.

You primarily leech off of other's energy.

I think FSZ's owner will end up in prison. I think he's dogshit. He knows deep down he is. Yet, there you are posting again at that pit.

I explained what Bob did concerning Jessica Lockhart's piece. It's on him to explain wtf happened.

I've got a new loser post to respond to on the Theresa Duncan Story Solved thread. It's pure supersoling type idiocy. There's a breed of idiot who no matter how much content is provided, they ignore, conflate, make things up, make irrational mistakes, etc..

You started the trouble on this blog. YOU! Not me.

I don't like you. I don't like being near you. You're typical of a blogosphere which doesn't remember its history. You are similar to supersoling in never dealing with actual content.

I don't care what the stats say. Alexa had this blog ahead of all three of the soapblox blogs I met you on. Now to Alexa, this place no longer exists. You saw how all those spiders or whatever from India or Bangladesh were propping up My Left Wing.

People are not coming here because of you, Donkeytale.

They're showing up to check out the content which google promotes.

It's not my problem you are shallow in how far you delve into content I specifically put together over the last couple years, not just on this blog but also at the other one I have. You are like a pimply undergrad forcing his way into a grad seminar without the prerequisites. All the info you need is out there. Yet too often you act all dumb, like it's all some cosmic jigsaw puzzle. It isn't.

I would not be scared of you linking to early ncounters I had with Miep. It would be annoying. It would be advertising for websites that don't deserve it.

She's thinking you're Noom. She thinks I'm posting at FSZ. Listen up good, you creep from Texas, I ultimately don't care about you or any of these soapblox blogs. What you're doing by continuing to post here is a relative of stalking.

I didn't say Bob plagiarised. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand. It's on Bob to explain. It was on him to explain his stance on the charge you condone sexual relations between adults and minors.

Bob's been hanging out with the most stupid trolls of all time, you know, those few who continue to wank off of Theresa Duncan's ghost.

I do care who I'm associated with. You don't. It's all just one big chuckle for you and your body odor.

Go on. Scram. Scat. Shoo. Don't come around here no more.

socrates said...

Some posts are ending up in the spam bin. I've never deleted any of your posts, Bob. I've only deleted the house troll and a few other fools who add nothing.

One came in last night on an archived thread. It was a 100% rubbish post. It was written on a third grade level. It reeked of having been written by someone who refuses to play fair. I'm going to leave that one up and respond to it. But it turns into a waste of time, where yet again threads are pushed away from the actual content, i.e. facts. When people refuse to acknowledge that the reader decides, such people are either trolls or extremely ignorant.

I started deleting donkeytale posts too. I wanted him to leave. I still do. What kind of a loser hangs around forever at a place he's not wanted?

socrates said...

Bob, thanks for accepting my apology.

I redacted what you requested and a bit more.

You answered all my concerns. I think if TLNL's post hadn't ended up in the spam bin, I never would have flown off the handle. A few other things in addition to that didn't help. In a way, I believe in fate. Various factors get stirred into some concoction, and sometimes the results aren't pretty. That I was 99.9% sure you had deleted it shows how anyone at any time can write something foolish.

I get very frustrated when content isn't dealt with, or it's corrupted. You don't do that. Things have a way of snowballing. Perhaps your semi-meltdown on the Orac thread is similar to this kind of thing. We end up feeling boxed in. I think it's a wonderful trait you possess that you're unwilling to allow others to dictate how you feel about individuals. You may have been a bit incoherent on that one thread. That didn't mean the others needed to gang up and exacerbate the situation.

Donkeytale loves that kind of chaos. As does the house troll. As did the cyberstalker I reported to local police.

I accept your explanation about the Jessica Lockhart thingie. The problem I still have, and it's got nothing to do with you, is why dreamsend deletes so much. Those are conscious decisions having nothing to do with outside forces. The BFkade place was a blogspot. I don't think those things ever get deleted, unless the blog author decides to do so.

Ok, that's cool about your take on donkeytale. I do remember that one line you wrote, "Such rationalizations will inevitably be interpreted as an endorsement of child abuse - whether their author intended that or not."

I messed up. The more days pass, and I read your responses, the more I see you are legit.

Maybe you can start a blogspot, and we can have a symbiotic relationship like myself and TLNL have. I could put the link in my profile. If you like, I could cross-post things you write there, here.

The best part of blogger is google. I'm confident we've made a nice dent into the internet satanic panic. Anyone interested will find the content we came up with.

I think it's cool how you owned up to the tobacco blog. There's no point in anyone running away from previous hobby horses. I'm not ashamed of what I came up with on chemtrails or anything else for that matter. I do like how I documented a sophisticated trolling operation put in place against me. Buggers like Tinoire, Ego, and Wells got away with nothing. I'm not saying they were behind it, but they most certainly took that football and ran with it.

socrates said...

Donkeytale, it appears if you want to post here, I have no way of stopping you. That is because you do come up with enough good stuff to offset the things that piss me off. Yet again, I would like to offer a truce. I would also appreciate it if we can find a way to stop discussing those two specific soapbloxes, FSZ and Pffugee. That nail has been hammered in. Yes, I have been doing that also. It's how I'm feeling now. I want it to stop. I don't post there. I try not to read at those places either. Unlike what you and Abbeysbooks said, I swear I'm not a masochist. It's also very tiring to do self-meta. Please, let's get back to content based posts.

At a certain point I have come to lump those two places in with any other convolution I've read, even by the neonazi tinfoilers. At some point, I shut them off. I put too much time and effort into most of my blogging. The stats are showing me that I done good with specific things, as in content.

You may not like to hear it, but you once admitted to me that yeah the skies look kind of funny and there might be something to chemtrails. Well, this is what my blogging boils down to. Chemtrails were the mother lode for my early efforts. Then I figured, if I could show sincerity in other areas of research, say as in right woos left, election integrity, satanic panic, cinema, etc., then people might take a serious look at what I came up with on chemtrails.

Now I'm over it. I've been burned too many times. Now I am in survival mode. I'm just trying to keep what I've written in the public sphere. To simplify things, most of this can be found here and at the other blog located in my blogger profile.

If you want to go after me one more post or two, please do and get it out of your system. I will take it on the chin. I want a truce. Or I want you to leave. You may think I have an inflated view of my own blogging from the last years. I disagree. This is going to sound conceited, but I think I have been one of the most important bloggers of all time. Just look at the Hertzberg, Friedman, then Kimberlin and Alexandrovna schtick. Pure fricken sassafrassic gold. I fight for myself, because I fight for the content. When Brad Friedman turned out to be a hustler, that's when I gave up on the internet as a vehicle for positive social change. It's all about creating pockets of awareness. That's all we can ever accomplish. Like you have recently done with sticking up for the true victim in Le Affaire de Assange, Mr. Manning. Yeah, I noticed that. Well-played, Mr. Bond. Though I refuse to say, "There I said it."

bob said...

I found a very illustrative example of the 'Denialism' meme being used to promote blatant bullsh*t, to belittle the intellectual capacity of every human person who is not a (self-proclaimed) "recognized scientific authority", and to promote self-loathing based subservient obedience to whatever "the scientific establishment" tells us to believe.

An article on atheism.blogspot:

starts by making some very intelligent, albeit elementary and self-evident, observations about human tendencies toward subconsciously blocking or editing out awareness of information that contradicts our habitual points-of-view or ideological belief system (if we have one).

However, once the blog author gets into discussing the implications of a study by Geoffrey Munro of Towson University, he/she proceeds to draw conclusions that are such outrageous crapola it seems beyond belief that they really mean what they have said.

"Munro took test subjects with views about stereotypes, such as homosexuality. Subjects were tested beforehand to determine what views they held. Then they were given fake abstracts of scientific studies that purported to either prove or disconfirm the stereotype. So some studies indicated that homosexuals had a higher rate of mental illness, for example, while others indicated that their rate of mental illness was lower. Not surprisingly, the subjects who read abstracts that supported their preconceived views concluded that their views had been vindicated. But something remarkable happened with the the subjects who had their prior views challenged. Rather than acknowledge that they were mistaken and change their minds, these subjects were much more likely to conclude that proving (or disproving) the thesis simply couldn’t be done by science. They rejected science itself, rather than give up their cherished idea".

Here we see one of the Denialism meme's core falsehoods arrogantly paraded as an "undeniable reality" - the idea that rejecting a research study author's INTERPRETATIONS about the meaning of the data in their study is equivalent to "rejecting science". THAT idea is self-serving nonsense used to hang a label of "anti-science" on critics of a study who might actually be fervently pro-science.

Later, the blog author goes right off the deep end with this:

"We can imagine some scheme whereby one of the subjects in the study might think their way out of the problem. “Sure, this authentic looking and authoritative sounding scientific study says that homosexuals have a lower rate of mental illness, but I know different from my own experience.” (Other studies have demonstrated how strong our tendency is to accept anecdotal and personal experience over abstract, scientific analyses. See Jonathan Baron's Thinking and Deciding. But what our subject has failed to realize is how unreliable reasoning about general epidemiological and stratitistical trends from personal and anecdotal evidence can be".

There may be some truth to that, but he/she goes on to conclude:

"Even if the scientific study is a fake, it’s methodology is superior to our subject’s method. So it should have lead him to reject his prior view, not science itself".

Out-frickin-rageous! He's saying that even if a study is self-evidently fake or fraudulent, the very fact that it IS A RESEARCH STUDY makes it's "methodology" superior to your own powers of reasoning, so you ought to accept whatever it says as "truth" and consequently adjust your model of reality to accomodate this (fake, fraudulent) "truth". If you don't refexively accept whatever a research "expert" tells you - even if it is self-evidently false - then you are an anti-science "denialist".

Perhaps you can understand better, now, why this subject is so upsetting to me.

Anonymous said...

Sure. Truce. I didn't even know we were at war.

This isn't acting but its also not the reality we share in the physical presence of others.

I refuse to believe to believe that yould personally insult a '70 year old woman' about her writing to her face just because you don't like the company she keeps.

See, I'm not personalizing this experience any more than you are.

What is this thread about if not completely personal meta?

Meta Bob.

I can't help but point out the inconsistencies and hypocrisies and call them as I see them, regardless.

Bob's plagiarism response is about what I expected.It was a mistake. If he copied and pasted copywrighted material w/o permission and w/o attribution he did wrong. If he presented it as his own material he plagiarized. This is regardless of his motive or if he made an error and forgot the quotation marks.

But I'm not saying this in condemnation. We all do wrong.I sometimes steal copyrighted TV shows too.

Anyway, cut and print. That's a wrap Bette.

Go outside and enjoy a ciggie while we set uo for the next scene.

socrates said...

I took a peek at that atheism blog and had the same reaction as Bob.

Just because a source is deemed legitimate doesn't mean we should accept it as truth. For one thing, the studies used were fake. Thus, the whole survey was ultimately a waste of time. It was a frame job.

So an atheist wants people to replace faith in God with faith in science. It's still faith and not science, except for those who understand the science. Selfish people can co-opt the science and use it for their own greedy purposes.

I've said before that atheism seems as faith-based as religion. I thank that blog for backing up my point. It's very authoritarian. Jesus, in court cases there are usually experts on both sides saying the opposite. Faith based science leads to who has the money and power deciding which scientists are the go-to guys. Now since the vast majority of scientists concur on anthropogenic global warming, that's why I as a non-scientist believe in it. Otherwise all we will ever be left with is a debilitating skeptism and nihilism.

Words on a page. That's all we have.

Nonetheless, I still believe anthropogenic global warming is rock solid truth. The greenhouse gas goes up. The planet gets roasted, because solar energy is being trapped in.

Now where I agree with you two is that we need to be cynical of the possible solutions to the crisis. I take it you guys are not denying anthropogenic global warming. It seems you are arguing to beware of people trying to make a buck off of it.

I think the ptb's have already started to geoengineer. I think this is going on far up into the stratosphere. What many refer to as chemtrails are too low to be the same thing. My best bet is "chemtrails" are used to block out uv-b radiation due to ozone depletion.

socrates said...

I wrote to a weather man asking him to explain how cirrus aviaticus had formed one day, since the scientific conditions weren't present. He told me I had witnessed a low, thin cirrus development passing into the area. When I responded that I was 100% sure the cirrus had formed from aircraft, he didn't write back.

People are so fixated on calling certain topics tinfoil for various reasons. To TLNL, the idea of chemtrails just doesn't seem likely. He isn't into actually interacting with what I came up with, so we don't discuss it. The weather people have to deny it, for they would look fairly stupid having never noticed the obvious.

This is how fake lefties get away with it. They control the moderating in which such individuals' blogging is published and most often discussed. Brad Friedman, for example, becomes a faith-based lefty leader. It doesn't matter that he has been exposed in a large number of hoaxes all leading to donations and many large ones.

At a forum I recently saw for the first time, I read many people saying I nailed the Annette Appollo story. One person said to ignore it, for I was writing a lot of garbage concerning Brad Friedman. Another mentioned my take on fake commie Tinoire, a close associate of Michael Rivero. One person responded that they knew nothing about that, but that I got Annette's story correct. I must have, for the dude hosting Annette's personal blog has turned it into a link to the DFQ2 entry.

It thus doesn't matter that BradBlog's sugar daddy is a former ex-drug smuggler also once suspected of murder and pedophilia. There can be all this evidence that Brad Friedman is a con artist, yet when I tried to get that message out, I was banned and ostracised. The same academic methods I used for a few examples to figure out Annette Appollo, Theresa Duncan, and Susan Polk, I used for every other piece I ever blogged. When people don't have a stake in what I blog on, they check out the message. With sacred fakes such as Brad and Larisa, there was an irrational backlash.

Dave from Queens was a very cool dude. He told me he was all ears about my claims about Larisa. He hadn't heard anything bad about her. He linked to her. I never got the chance to run through it with him, as his heart gave out. Rest in peace, Dave Weintraub.

socrates said...

The woman in question is 52 but looks 70.

Fine donkeytale, I'll take that last one on the chin.

I'm glad to be far away from those soapblox dives. Maybe you can do me a favour. Next time you're whooping it up with the Miepster, let her know I do not post at that blog and am not interested in her crazy fixation on me tons of months after we had our duel in the sun. You might also want to let her know you're not noom. It's an easy mistake to make at first but not after a while. Then it's just ignorance.

And for the record, I'm the one who deserves all the credit for the wake the fock up everybody line, not noom.

Yeah, Bob's explanation makes sense. He basically doesn't remember. Since the King of Theresa Duncan ghost wankers deleted his blogspot, there's no way to confirm whether he, not Bob, stole from Lockhart's piece or forgot to provide the citation. The only thing we can be sure of is that Bob came up with a funny website. It'd be nice if he could add some updates. Check it out.

socrates said...

I think the page views refers to unique computers per each day. The stats say 7 views but on the graph there are much more than that for the day. That means the 3,000 page views could be a much larger number than previously thought. For say I checked in each day, I might only account for 30 of those 3,000 views. Unless it's another glitch. I think stats are kind of fun but limited. I'm guessing a decent small blog gets around 100-200 unique visitors a day. I just took another look. There's no info for May and June, even though they are listed. July=300, August=3042, For September it's already up to 523. Though I concede unless we get in contact with a blogger technician or find the info, it is difficult to truly know what these numbers mean.

socrates said...

Sorry typo- July was 3009. So the monthly number seems to be around 3000 we're looking at. Now if we can figure out the precise definition of "page views," that would help. Then again, it doesn't really matter. This place could fizzle. It could blossom. I personally don't care either way. Honest.

Anonymous said...

Not asking you to take one on the chin. As Bob stated earlier, you have developed a certain unsavory reputation on every blog at which you have ever posted and its based on your blindness, or whats known as "projection." You castigate others for doing the exact thing that you do, oftentimes in the very same comment!
Now, before you get your panties wadded and start dumping on me, why don't you try a different approach and reflect that I may be right at least to a degree, then let it go or hang onto it but don't go all Bette on me, dude.

Besides the projection syndrome is very common on these blogs, drearily so, you are in very good company.

But as Bob notes, and he like TLNL go out of their way to not offend you, which is quite a skillset and probably why they are the only two left here, but Bob quite clearly stated that you manage to turn on and chase away every blogger you've worked with in the past.

None of this bothers me in the least, BTW. I still hang around for the Bette act, as it were. The tempestuousness of Scorates. It gets a bit redundant in its regularity, but since you are divorcing a new persona each time, you manage to somehow keep it fresh.

You are a creative destructionist, or wtf.

I'm cool with whatever you throw back at me. Again, I don't take it personally because your chatter is purely reflexive venom. Its likely the way you truly feel, and thats fine too. I get a chuckle out of it, like when my teenaged son goes all sarcastic and haughty with his put downs to the Old Man. Its good to see that you youngsters still have some spark left and all masculine doofness hasnt been coaxed out of you by your overweening mommies.

I wont be correcting Miep's misguided view of who we are or aren't. If you notice, I'm occasionally posting schtick there but rarely if ever commenting at all, except generically n my own threads. I think there have been a few attempted instigations by the usual suspects, but again, I'm floating far above all that. Really, realy could care less who they they think I am or am not or what they they think of me. That goes for you too.

I just dont have time or inclination to get after it anymore, especially with the relative handful of leftover survivors.

Anonymous said...


Miep obviously has the jones bad, posting like 30 dairies a week, but so what? She's 70 and doesnt have much time left and probably not a whole lot to do out there in Carlsbad. I been there. Its actually a nice wide open western space in the high desert emptiness. A mystical land, but rather boring. I like it alot. The time I was there in recall during the 1984 Boston-LA final. There was a huge rainstorm durinng the game, the one where Boston was getting throttled but came back to win in OT. The next day the drive was magnificent through the peaks and valleys of the Southern Rockies, the air fragrant with the smell of the wetted sage spice left over from the rainstorm.

I notice another old codger, Otvos, has left the Soapblox building, too. Another of your endless nemeses gone for now. Why did you go off on him again?

AH, who cares? I'm sure you have some thin gruel of a reason, so dont even bother. It will just make you seem petty.

Oh yeah, you asked me not to mention soapbloxville, but then again, in typical Socrates fashion you brought it right back into the conversation. For which I'm sure you will now turn and blame me for talking about it.


I just still like to see my own schtick in writing once in a while, is all. I'm not creating masterpieces much these days like in past because I'm not putting much time or effort into the creative process. But occasionally, something sneaks up, a mood more than an idea, and it demands some words to express it.

I'm in mature phase, I guess, hoepfully soon to fade to black.

"The 50-50" was a fun piece. It deserved more fiddling after I posted it here so I fiddled and posted it there.

The Assnage bit was OK, more of a throw away. I was very busy last week and didnt have much time to embellish that one. I see Assange as really more a striver after celebrity than anything else, so I wasn't in the least surprised that he found his way into unzipped dick trouble. Which is fine, its in the tradition of "enlightened self-interest" which is a lefty concept.

Ex-PFC Manning is the only one I have any feeling for. The leak itself was too much, not very surprising, and didnt have any impact at all like the Pentagon Papers. Those were huge because there was active protest in those days. The draft makes all the difference in how wars are perceived by the public. As clearly as I can see anything, the military draft needs to be reinstated in order to save the soul of this no longer if it ever was -great country.

You know, I dont remember you actually interacting in threads with DFQ, although I never spent much time on his blog except when he wrote about me. You werent at FSZ until later? I fought hard for him at FSZ and I know he appreciated my take even as he deplored my treatment for some of his sycophants like Susan Something. I just knew them better than he did, and he was blinded by the adoration.

I fought hard for you too, but that was before I knew the connection between you and Dave. I fight hard for the odd men out especially when they have something, like you did and Dave did.

Do you have any links to your blog interactions with DFQ? You knew him only briefly offline too, as I recall?

I guess he died before you could turn on him. He was pretty in your face and a fairly conventional democrat who backed Obama. I'm sure there would have been trouble soon enough.

bob said...

Socrates said;

"Now where I agree with you two is that we need to be cynical of the possible solutions to the crisis. I take it you guys are not denying anthropogenic global warming"

I've never needed multi-million dollar studies to tell me that human activity impacts the ecosystem - I can see evidence of that everywhere I look, everyday of my life. And after 200+ years of largely unregulated industrial activity, and a population of 6? 7? billions of us now, human activity has to be a primary suspect in any large-scale changes we can observe taking place in the natural world. The ozone layer is thinning? High probability we are contributing to that. If the planetary system is warming, high probability we are contributing to that also.

But, whenever someone states: "the science tells us we should be doing this or that", such a statement is inherently disingenuous. "The Science" is incapable of holding or expressing opinions about what humans "ought" to do. "The Science" is simply data, and that data doesn't have human policy directives magically encoded within it.

Interpretation of the data, extracting implications for public policies as an example, can be consciously or unconsciously influenced by all the same forces of subjectivity; personal bias, ideology, greed, lust for power, professional status or fame, etc., that drive every other aspect of our personal paradigms. Corporate sponsorship can influence interpretation of data, but so can government agency or NGO sponsorship. Interpretations of data must be scrutinized and debated, that's actually the "scientific" approach to determining what meaning it has for humanity. Questioning the validity of popular or "authoritative" interpretations of data isn't "anti-science".

My concern, as always, is that the least powerful and most disadvantaged segments of the population should not get scapegoated and f*cked-over by whatever policies evolve from the debates over interpretation of data. That's what usually happens and it doesn't seem to make any difference anymore if the policy bus is driven by corporate greed or by cause & issue zealotry.

Anonymous said...

My recollection is that a unique visitor for Alexa anyway is based on a single IP address logging in during a 24 hr period. A page view is each time that user clicks something and looks at a different page or the same page refreshed.

Nowhere had relatively lots of page views, which is what I believe the Alexa rankings are based on, at least in part.

During the frequent inter blog dust-ups with Daily Kossacks, the page views were through the roof.

Brian had written his own software and it had a lot of gaping security holes, I guess, because during heated moments of back and forth with DK people, the blog was infected twice and went down for days at a time. Each time some sockpuppet came in and announced what it was about to do and the site whitewalled.


I believe the average page view per unique visitor was normally like 5-7 but ours went to 18-20 during those times, when we shot up to 55,000-60,000 on the charts. I think we were inundated with kossacks who searched the site thoroughly for the dirt we were heaping, which was quite highbrow, like insinuating Kos was a girly man, or worse. (or better depending on your view of effeminate men).

Of course it wasnt me he made Nowhere, although for a few months I was the featured front pager for the most part and we stayed in the 100,000-250,000 range consistently.

I left on my own, mainly because I needed rehab for my blogging jones.

Soon thereafter, Brian whitewalled. First he brought along another frontpager named commoncau3e, or wtf, who turned out to be the dreaded lefty cliche. Like running Tom Tomorrow cartoons and youtubes of Olbermann from last night (this when Olbermann was considered cool on the left).

The great Errin F. came over after his classic "Delete My Account Now, Kos" garnered like 1700 comments and got him banned. He came over and the battle changed to our site. We kicked some serious kossack ass. It was scrubs, mostly, the kos dicksucker types like "The Blaz" who also participated in the FLH smackdown on MLW (where I also defended him vociferously). Mr. F. wasnt really into Kos or our blog really, he just had that one classic entry in him, then stopped by for some dessert at our place and he went back to facebook or Myspace for good, or wtf, which is where all the online action really is anyway. We are just pimples on that FB's butt. No, we are less than that.

All the lefty blogs combined might equal a pimple on Facebook's butt.


(All right, I'm done)

Later. Love u dude....

socrates said...

There are gaping holes in the ozone layer. Rockets and other pollution continue to damage it. If it's gone, everything gets steamed.

The ozone layer can heal itself. That will take about 50-100 years.

The problem with CO2 is it takes a good number of centuries to work its way out of the atmosphere.

There is only one solution. That is to go renewable energies and to be blunt, go Luddite style.

The status quo is the most dangerous force in the world.

Instead of thinking Luddite and clean energy, the ptb's are looking for scientific bandaids. One of them is called geoengineering. I think it should be called Frankensteinian Atmospheric Shenanigans.

Bob, what's going on with the eco-system is important. There's a lot of pollution to go around. Global warming concerns the atmosphere. We're looking at some serious consequences in regards to climate change.

As for my rebuttal against global warming deniers and specifically Crichton, people can read Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion. I like that website. They came out strong against geoengineering through particulate dispersals, when plans for that type of thing hit the zeitgeist around 2006. Geoengineering is one of those hidden topics.

I believe we should be wary of Dr. Evil solutions. And now China is out of control with pollution. It's a real shame how this world turned out. Sure it's been bad all throughout history, but now things are literally nearing a boiling point.

socrates said...

I'll try to respond to your posts donkeytale with a good spirit. You made some mistakes. Some I will take on the chin. At some poitn I would like you to stop taking rips at me. Ripping at the content and not me is always no problem.

You posted Bob said I've, "developed a certain unsavory reputation on every blog at which you have ever posted." I don't remember him saying that. It's not true. He was warned about me by the King of Theresa Duncan ghost wankers. You, donkeytale, have been an asshole at every blog you've ever been on. Get your facts straight. I don't love you. I don't even like you.

What part of I don't want your perverted imagery on this blog don't you get? Stop calling me Bette. Stop talking about panties. Just stfu with that type of style of writing, troll.

Aaah, Bob and TLNL are the only two left here? When was there ever anyone else other than some guests? I don't miss The Cold Spy and his links to neonazis. I don't miss Larry and his links to neonazis. If you were to go away, I wouldn't miss you.

Where is your blog with all its regulars? I've looked at some of your diaries at various soapbloxes the last months, and let's face it, no one cares. No one is responding.

Now where's the exact quote with Bob saying I've "manage to turn on and chase away every blogger you've worked with in the past." Come on asshole, where is it?

You've come up with nothing for content. I have. That's the difference between me and you. I don't need you or any other blog to fix any blogging jones as you put it. I've already said if you were to go away, if this place was to dwindle to next to no comments, I wouldn't care. What part of if you fell off the face of this earth and I wouldn't give even one shit don't you get?

I have friends I've made through blogging. So what if I had falling outs with obvious crazies. You are asking me about Ormond Otvos? People can take a look at the entry I wrote on him here at DFQ2 for the truth about him. And here you are supporting that douchebag. I guess it takes one to know one, as in I'm not and you two are.

You don't mind what gets thrown out, becuase you have a sick mind. You thrive on the rancor.

Why do you keep saying Miep is 70? On her Myspace page it says she is 52.

I have a number of friends I made through my other blog. I'm still in touch with them, even though they don't blog too much.

I only interacted with Dave once, maybe twice, can't exactly remember. I introduced myself. I mentioned some things, Larisa too. I was Prepostericity at Daily Kos after being run off of DU. Ever hear of the Michael Connell hoax? You don't know squat about what I've blogged on, yet here you are pissing in my corn flakes. I don't wish you were dead, but I do wish you didn't exist, as in I wish you'd go away. There's something very slimy about you. Number5 had stuck up for me against MajorFlaw. He told me about DFQ and FSZ. Then Dave went missing. Then we found out he had died.

I wouldn't have turned on Dave. Donkeytale, you're a piece of shit.

Maybe if I delete everything you post from now on, you'll go away. I bet your wife and family are scumbags too, just like you. I'm proud of what I blogged, the content. There's nothing you've ever blogged on that anyopne remembers. All you are known for is being a disruptive, perverted presence.

socrates said...

No more of you on this blog. May you enjoy your last bitter twenty years.

socrates said...

I'm through with donkeytale, the house troll, and any other sadist who wants to post here. I don't care if the comments dwindle to zero. I was a regular nobody before I got into this. I remain a regular nobody to this day. Comment moderation will stay on probably forever. I'm going to start over in a way. Bob and TNLN's posts will be okayed on sight, if they wish to continue. Anyone else who wants to put donkeytale's lies about me to the test and post here based on content and respect and trying one's best to adhere to honesty and the truth, give it a go, and see if I'm as focked up as donkeytale puts it in regards to blogging. I'm done with having two very nasty people in my life. Blogging is part of life for those who partake in it. When one is around nastiness, they cannot help but become a part of it. I'm sorry for this thread. I'm sorry for going back and forth on this donkeytale person. This decision is final. If and when I blog again, it will be pure and just me writing or whatever. I'm accessible to anyone who doesn't play mind games. I have fun posting on another board which is subject specific. I get along fine with them. I'm not going to link to it, because sadistic trolls would follow me there. I have a nice family and a nice life and I am no masochist. Most of my content adds up. I've always tried my best to play devil's advocate with it. I've always been willing to admit when I'm wrong. Some of the things I've come up with were very good, and I did it selflessly for no pay and simply because I am a lefty idealist and see nothing wrong with that. I'd rather be alone than be anywhere near donkeytale.

bob said...

I guess I can be pretty slow on the uptake, sometimes.

If Donkeytales felt that my posting on "Exploitation of Teens..." was intended to be some kind of personal attack against him, let me be very clear that was never the purpose of that post.

In fact, I only repeated what Socrates had reported concerning a former member of the blog, as an introduction to a discussion about historic rationalizations for and romanticization of "intergenerational relationships" in Gay literary culture. I thought having a posting on this blog, in which rationalizations of that nature were confronted and exposed for the self-deceptive falsehoods they really are might help "clear the air". However, I chose to discuss them within the context of my own community - rather than quoting and dissecting what Donkeytales had posted elsewhere - so that the posting would not be a personal attack against him or anyone else.

To Donkeytales - when you replied in the comments to that thread, that it was not your intention to justify child abuse, I accepted that. You know your intent and I cannot, so I accepted your assertion. After that, I didn't really see that there was anything for us to debate or discuss.

If you felt that I impugned your character or something, in that posting, I'll happily apologize to you right here.

To Socrates - I know you are proud of never deleting anything from your blogs, but I would not object to your deleting the whole "Exploitation of Teens..." posting if you felt it was in your best interests or that of the blog, to do so. I apologize if its existence has caused you stress.

socrates said...

Bob, you're a nice guy. You have nothing to apologise for.

That was a good effort. It wouldn't make sense to delete. The more who see that people are people the better.

I apologise, if this thread caused you tension.

Some of the last comments made by donkeytale led to my meltdown. I finally realise how bad an influence he has on my blogging state of mind.

There are no "interests" here. Just various bloggings. I make no money. I'm not saying you said otherwise. I do realise words such as agents and interests can have various definitions.

I admit a bit of ego has developed on my part. I put in a good chunk of time and effort over several years with what the_last_name_left refers to as a hobby. Nonetheless, I feel that if I hadn't fought hard for myself, say like you have for yourself on this thread, then all those hours and efforts, i.e. content, would be damaged.

When time like that is put in, one hates to see it erased or perverted for whatever reasons.

I'm in survival mode. If I am now a poor writer who may have only a small audience checking out my hobby, then so be it.

Through the stats, I found a forum in which people liked what I had written on Annette Appollo and Democratic Underground. A few others chimed in saying I was not worth anything because of my writings on Brad Friedman and Tinoire whomever. One person then replied to paraphrase, "I don't know about any of that at all, but I do know he makes sense with Annette."

I'm in survival mode. I'm tired of being dissected by donkeytale. Woah Nellie, does the slang to dis come from dissect? Er, I just googled. One website is saying its etymology is African-American and comes from the word disrespect. Hello, McFly. Anyway, I'm tired of donkeytale, period. As in life long tired never want to be near him again tired.

I know I can be hypocritical at times. We all can. I'm not saying everyone should put down the phone, stop what they're doing, and check out my blogging here and at the other website in my blogger profile. But if I don't stand up for what I did, who will? I don't mind a good ribbing once in a while, but with donkeytale, it never ends.

I think you should start another blog. Then you could give the link. I even think you should write some more at your foil beneath my hat blog. There's a good overall concept in there somewhere. A bunch of it may seem like inside jokes. But it wouldn't take much to throw in a few key factoids into your satire. The skill would be in making it clear what is farce and what is fact.

You've also put too much time and effort into your blogging to give up either.

the_last_name_left said...

I'm lost. oh well.


Anonymous said...

Socrates: "Where is this one (comment by Bob), asshole?"

Bob: "Socrates, Did you just delete a comment of mine, or was that the blogger-glitch?"

Response by Scorates to Bob's question: Sound of crickets chirping.

Once again, your soiled, wadded panties are exposed for all to see, yet again.

Thanks for this, Bette.

Have a nice life.

socrates said...

Donkeytale is telling me to have a nice life. I guess that means that was his final post and is going to finally leave.

It also appears that was his rebuttal to my confronting him for putting words in Bob's mouth.

Bob asked, "Socrates, [did] you just delete a comment of mine, or was that the blogger-glitch?"

He asked that on Sept. 4th at 12:07 p.m..

Donkeytale says my response was crickets chirping.

However, at 1:09 p.m. I wrote, "Some posts are ending up in the spam bin. I've never deleted any of your posts, Bob. I've only deleted the house troll and a few other fools who add nothing."

Donkeytale just wrote, "Socrates: "Where is this one (comment by Bob), asshole?"

From looking at my post from 1:57 a.m., he clearly misquoted me. I wrote, "Now where's the exact quote with Bob saying I've managed to turn on and chase away every blogger [I've] worked with in the past. Come on asshole, where is it?"

Hmmm. How's this new donkeytale reply a fair response to that question? Donkeytale in his goodbye post has also failed to prove his claim that Bob said, "[I've] developed a certain unsavory reputation on every blog at which [I've] ever posted."

Now we see more of donkeytale's sexism talking up soiled panties.

Donkeytale is a sadistic troll who doesn't see much wrong with sexual relations between adults and minors. Good riddance to bad rubbish.