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

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

The Twisted Soul Which Is The Internet

An alternative title for this entry could have been, "Ron Brynaert, welcome to my world."

Oh, now I remember what was supposed to go into this entry. It concerns a recent brush with greatness I had back in August 2010.

I found a contact address for Angharad Aubrey. She played the little girl, Susy Fane, in the Bette Davis' 1965 vehicle The Nanny. Here's what she wrote back.
Yes, that is me - a long time ago! Thanks for the lovely comments. You are right, it is a classic. I remember being terrified of Bette Davis off set - I don't think she was a big fan of little kids and she would fix me with that famous stare and I'd be off and running - William Dix was positively evil as well! I didn't pursue acting as a career after I graduated from school, but I have great childhood memories to cherish. All the best. :)
That's what we refer to in the business as a sweetie.


socrates said...

If you don't ask, you can't get an answer.

socrates said...

I'm sure Bette Davis was a fantastic woman. Maybe she was trying on some of that so-called method acting which was all the rave.

nosockz said...

RS McCain writes today, "Now, in point of fact, I never had any communication with Emick until Oct. 19, when she contacted me to talk about her recent conflicts with Neal Rauhauser."

Tweets apparently don't count as "communication" to RS McCain, even one that mentions Direct Messages. And Zapem used an email address from HBGary rootkit, as I reported on Twitter, and he's certainly talked to her, as well.

June 9

Robert Stacy McCain ‏@rsmccain

And it was pretty weird to start with! | @AsherahResearch This story keeps on getting weirder:

(The source is probably Emick or Zapem in that story)

September 9, days before Barrett Brown's raid

@AsherahResearch @ZAPEM "Drug-induced ravings" -- wild guess, you're talking about Barrett Brown?

9 Sep Team Themis ♕ Team Themis ♕ ‏@asherahresearch

@rsmccain How'd you guess?! ;D @ZAPEM

Robert Stacy McCain Robert Stacy McCain ‏@rsmccain

@AsherahResearch With Barrett, it's sometimes hard to distinguish the megalomania from the drug-addled dementia. @ZAPEM

Many tweets from September 17 can be seen at Emick's blog:

tons of tweets on september 17

September 18:

18 Sep Robert Stacy McCain Robert Stacy McCain ‏@rsmccain

Rauhauser's freakout probably prompted by this … this … especially this …

18 Sep Team Themis ♕ Team Themis ♕ ‏@asherahresearch

@rsmccain I thought it was more over having the Barrett manipulations backfire spectacularly?

18 Sep Robert Stacy McCain Robert Stacy McCain ‏@rsmccain

@AsherahResearch Barrett came after me on 9/3, attacked @Patterico 9/4, melted down 9/12. These things were obviously not coincidences.

18 Sep Team Themis ♕ Team Themis ♕ ‏@asherahresearch

@rsmccain Nope. Neal was feeding him crapola about hbgary (at someone else's request..)

Robert Stacy McCain Robert Stacy McCain ‏@rsmccain

@AsherahResearch At whose request?

11:51 PM - 18 Sep 12 ·

18 Sep Team Themis ♕ Team Themis ♕ ‏@asherahresearch

@rsmccain DM?

18 Sep Robert Stacy McCain Robert Stacy McCain ‏@rsmccain

@AsherahResearch Never mind now. I'm tired and have decided to pack it in for the night.

socrates said...

It's an end game. Make everything come down to one Hitler, Rauhauser. Then these others keep on with preposterous schticks. I do wonder how Patrick Frey still has his job.

Anonymous said...

Just sayin, but my recent FDL work is blazing on fire.

One commenter, admittedly a minourity, but no doubt representative of the vast number of lurkers who dig my schtick but are afraid of the echo chamber to post support for my obvious brilliance, called me "funny and cute."

I do hope she is a chick, not that there's anything wrong with attracting the gay demographic. They have more disposable income for when I go commercial and start posting google advertissements.

nosockz said...

Mike Stack is now claiming he is going to sue or whatever former Congressman Anthony Weiner.

World holds its breath.

will go to the Superior Court Of Somerset County, New Jersey and file for damages against Neal Rauhauser and all of those who have helped him in his quest to harass, terrorize, and soil my name and reputation.

I am also going to move against the person or persons helping release this, no matter WHO you are.

Along with Neal’s menagerie of “friends”, lawyers, clients, politicians, ”employer”, Twitter and WordPress, to name a few.

Including the guy who exposed this whole thing, Anthony, “I was hacked”, Weiner……..

socrates said...

Thanks for the update, Ron. That's some crazy stuff out of Mike Stack.

He recently took me off block only to keep ignoring me. How does a NJ Mickey Mouse demeanour warrant for Neal Rauhauser have anything to do with the SWAT calls being solved?

I was gonna post on your blog but am awaiting a new computer to be able to access the posting box you use.

And like clockwork the historic troll shows up to plug yet another of his boring pro-DLC diaries at Firedoglake.

This anonymous coward can't take the hint he's passed his expiration date for a blogger or at least that I'd like him to bugger off and never return.

Anonymous said...

OK, I thot I was still welcome given I left two comments on the No Mas thread to which you responded.

Also, your reader can still access my comment deleted by the bipolar DFQ2 censor if they click on it in the recent comments section on the right hand side of the front page.

You can't stop the historic troll, you can only hope to contain you.

socrates said...

You haven't done enough to get perma-banned like the shim supertroll going by the name of Kid Kenoma.

Yes, that fleabag was all over this blog. He and a few others forced me to put comments in a moderation queue. I have deleted next to nothing that shouldn't have been. You even called for one to be deleted because it had BK involved in some kind of FARCtastic conspiracy theory. Other times I was deleting posts that included some personal information.

(On edit: It's an easy schtick to sell. I hope you're not doing it for free. That was a good show by you in one thread smacking around Phil Giraldi, who just so happens to be buddies with.. drumroll ... BRADBLOG.COM donate to BRADBLOG.COM not hoaxing ya, buddy amigo, send in cash or THIS INVESTIGATIVE WHISTLEBLOWING SCHTICK WILL BE FORCED TO SHUT DOWN! ~~ BRAD)

Quite frankly you seem to repel lurkers who might otherwise contribute.

Brynaert is either FBI Zimbalist rare Good Guy Fed or regular guy who got entrapped in nuttiness, hence the welcome to my world, Mr. James Bond title. And lost in all your self-promotion, donkeytale, was my exclusive on the little girl from Bette Davis' The Nanny.

You flatter yourself a bit too much about your third party politics is bad schtick.

You are a bit too eager there, Flintstone, to never shut up with your Ralph Nader stinks schtick. You pulled the same crap with Cindy Sheehan. If the DLC isn't paying you, maybe you should see if they're hiring over there, Mr. Libby Lieberman.

socrates said...

I will admit you hit your stride in post #77. But you and Brynaert have made crucial errors.

Your attacks on progressives are making it easier for Romney to be elected.

There was someone on that thread who said she was voting for Stein in Ohio. That's retarded. That one proves your point.

It's time for you to come up with something new. You are sounding like a Democratic Party operative.

Anonymous said...

Oh definitely they should hire me.

I'm not saying third party's are "bad" which implies a moral aspect, I am saying that as a practical matter they are worthless.

Yes, I knew that you would enjoy my kick to the Giraldi groin. If I had been writing an academic paper I would have footnoted you. I think I also stole some more of your schtick but now I disremember what, when and where.

You are reacting much like a run-of-the-mill pwoggie, I must say.

I'm not going after Jill Stein, Nader or Sheehan. I am going after the significance out of proportion to reality assigned to them by delusional pwoggies.

My guess is that your pissed because you think Stein is a sweetie and in fact you are probably also a Steinbot.

The exclusive on the little girl isn't lost on me but I guess I didn't find it all that interesting.

I re-read several of your classics that appear also on the rightside of your front page belwo the recent comments and I wish you would get back to substantial masterpieces of that type.

That Socrates was totally kick ass. This Socrates....? eh, wot was the question?

socrates said...

Yikes I almost forgot my point. You and Ron get too eager to blast credible writers. You're after Greenwald. Ron has been wrong to dismiss Mark Singer's work with Citizen K. Ron tweeted that Aaron Walker had to be pulled off of BK by 9 security dude sheriffs. Then he said oops and started his brettkimberlinlies blogspot.

socrates said...

Thanks. I am waiting on a new computer. Should make it easy to hammer out the more higher quality mailed-in entries we've all grown accustomed to expect from DFQ2. Since we seem to have cut a deal with Alex Jones to have a certain ambience of zeitgeist power, it behooves giving due where it is due. TLNL, yourself, and Bob made this thing work back in the day. Guest appearances by Al Giordano and David Dees didn't hurt. Then of course there was the epic arg of the Cold Spy, aah, those were the days.

This computer is literally falling apart. As a minimalist (and leftier than thou), I took it as an opportunity to max my own version of HAL for all it was worth.

God bless the audience

Anonymous said...

I hear you on the need for new schtick but I gotta ride the gravy train for as long as possible.

I had some good comments on another guys thread, BooRadley I think his name is. My marxist schtick took over from thr DLC schtick.

As you know, I like to keep the hitters off balance.

I was on the road all week and worn out mostly, so my quality wasn't all it could be.

I had some fun one night at a Mexican bar in Brownn town.

The band kicked ass, playing latin pop music, very good musicians...and the hotties on the dance floor made the Negra Modelos go down fast and easy.

I think I posted comment 77 when I got back to my room....alone again, naturally.

Anonymous said...

Greenwald is credible? dude's as fake as a three dollar bill. Not that there's anything wrong with 3 dollah bills..

He's off and on but mostly off imho. I think I nailed him between the eyes very specifically playing a very typical Greenwald con game.

You do know that he's yet another right woos lefty making bucks fooling the fake left, don't you?

Anonymous said...

Ah, so, well I cant wait for the computer to kick in....I am arguably your biggest fan, and I agree with you about the contributions by Bob and TLNL, et al. Various anonymi also have mde worthy contributions to your oeuvre.

I miss those guys and Stet, too. Some of the alltime grates...

Anonymous said...

I'm really happy to see nosockz contributing here.

I'd like to think he responded at least in part to my love sirens.

I'll say it again,

Brynaert reulez.

Ok, I'm done. I'm done.

Stat padding mission accomplished

Anonymous said...

Yeah, thats the schtick I schtole fro you:

I'm all about the audience!


socrates said...

We can't take your word for it. You need to put together an easy to read expose on Greenwald. There's only so much time in the day.

Bob knew all about that strange Jeff Wells Rigorous Intuition satanic panic stuff. Oh year we forgot about Doug Mesmer. He came up wih great stuff.

It was a good ride. Must say my personal favourite for a title was Italy wiping egg off of nation's face. That Amanda Knox story was despicable. Satanic panic. There are some stupid Italians.

I wonder if Amanda Knox can sue Italy in the Hague or somewhere.

Open and shut case.

socrates said...

There is nothing new under the schtick sun.

nosockz said...

Glenn Greenwald does pretty good work 11 months a year, when he is a hard critic on Democrats.

It's the month before election day, each year, and especially every four years, when he pays back the netroots Democrats (and Simon Rosenberg) who made him a star.

Anonymous said...

Well, sorry my schtick isnt easy enough for you to read. But I smacked down Greenwald's ridiculous hypothesis of "massive" Democratic support for wars just because Obama is president, and the "almost certain" almost fact that "most" Democrats will support an Obama ordered attack on Iran.

His style of argument is absurd and simply non-factual as well as illogical alot.

He is a libertarian. He has scrubbed as much of his early libertarian work from the net as he possible can.

But he is a regular Cato Institute paid hack and a Ron Paul/Gary Johnson supporter.

He backed Citizens United decision which makes him a corporate tool

He's a Koch sucker.

Read this if it's not too difficult for you to understand:

Its the shorthand pwoggies like you and Ron who aren't really paying attention because you are more interested in Neal Rauhauser who fall easily for right woos lefty GG.

Its easy to spot the Alex Jones and Mike Riveros, dude. They are blatant.

Greenwald takes some sophisticated understanding of his treachery to get where he's truly coming from and the way in which he spins and lies.

But the end result of his work is the very same as that desired by his sponsors, the Kock Bros:

Hello, President Romney!

Anonymous said...

"nd while the majority elides the issue of corporate personhood and the question of whether money is speech, these issues form a big part of Justice Stevens’ analysis of why Congress can restrict the ability of corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to get their way in American electoral politics. Justice Stevens explains patiently both how corporations differ from human beings and how corporate resources are not “an indication of popular support for the corporation’s political ideas.” A ban on corporate expenditures is constitutional, Stevens argues, because it does not “prevent anyone from speaking in his or her own voice.” (Dissent at 77.) He concludes that “corporate spending is ‘furthest from the core of political expression,’” (dissent at 77,) because corporations have no autonomy or dignitary interests in freedom of expression; in fact, corporations, by law, must concern themselves only with maximizing profit. Therefore, prohibitions on such spending “impose only a limited burden on First Amendment freedoms.” (Dissent at 79.) In other words, because corporations are not people, and because money is not really speech, the justification needed for a ban on corporate spending on elections is not the same as the justification the government needs for banning political speech by individuals.

Greenwald himself recognizes that “corporations are creatures of the state and should not enjoy the same rights as individuals.” But his bottom-line position -- that corporate expenditures are political speech and that there is no compelling governmental interest sufficient to justify restriction on political speech -- makes this concession meaningless. Greenwald supports this position with the same simplistic textual argument relied upon by the majority: the First Amendment is a limit on Congress -- "Congress shall make no law" -- and it doesn't distinguish among who is speaking. But, it has never been the law that all forms of speech (even political speech), and all types of speakers, are treated equal. Stevens response is devastating: "If taken seriously, our colleagues' assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the government's ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by 'Tokyo Rose' during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”

Greenwald also criticizes as “intellectually confused” the argument that the conservatives on the Roberts Court were too cavalier in tossing out prior precedents, most notable its ruling in Michigan Chamber of Commerce v. Austin. Greenwald’s right, of course, that no one should be an absolutist about adhering to prior rulings – as he puts it, “if a settled proposition of law is sufficiently repugnant to the Constitution, then the Court is not only permitted, but required, to uproot it.” But everyone, including the dissenting justices, recognizes that. Justice Stevens’ main argument – powerfully laid out on pages 42-55 of his dissent – is that the majority is disingenuous in denying how sharply its ruling departs from constitutionally sound case law, and how much the Court’s ruling in Citizens United changes the law in a case in which there were numerous narrower grounds for a decision available to the Court. Here’s Justice Stevens summation:

Our colleagues have arrived at the conclusion that Austin must be overruled and that §203 [of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act] is facially unconstitutional only after mischaracterizing both the reach and rationale of those authorities, and after bypassing or ignoring rules of judicial restraint used to cabin the Court’s lawmaking power."

socrates said...

See, right there. You got too wordy. But sure. If Greenwald is a proven right woos left tool, then yes donkratise it, grasshopper. But tie it into Alex Jones or some other good stuff or it gets too boring.

Anonymous said...

Well, OK, too wordy.

As opposed to 140 character soundbites.


I did just "donkratise" Greenwald.

I note that others have belittled his hyperventilative argument style based on his own false assumptions and extreme modifiers too.

There is nothing new under the blogging sun, son.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, you already said that.


socrates said...

Dude, maybe you missed the news release but @RonBryn is not showing up at Twitter. Not only that, but a frankenstorm is headed towards his locale, not to mention mine too.

But all you can think of is yourself and Greenwald and Ralph Nader.

Ask not what blogs can do for you but what you may do for blogs.

Jack Kennedy was a buddy of Lloyd Bentsen's. I didn't know Lloyd Bentsen personally. I kinda sorta know you. You are no Jack Kennedy.

Though I heard Bobby was truly the nicest of the three lads. Anyway, I've got candles and batteries ready to go. The priority right now turns towards brewing some coffee.

By the way, my schticks get stolen on a national level, not just by the likes of people like youse guys. A frankenstorm is on the way? That's funny. Years previouly I coined the phrase Frankensteinian atmospheric shenanigans. Coincidence? I believe not.

nosockz said...

Donkeytale is seriously deluded if he doesn't think Democrats would support Obama if he attacked Iran.

Greenwald sucks because he's a sell-out to the Netroots, not because he's a right-leaning Libertarian. Preposterous.

I agreed with Glenn on Citizen United, because the argument could have been about a liberal documentary. The problem with the verdict is that it shouldn't have been manipulated to applying to anything but documentaries. I believe in filmmakers having freedom of speech, not corporations.

If you don't have freedom of speech at a job, why should they have freedom of speech as a business? Makes no fucking sense, and the Democratic Party likes the Citizen United verdict since they prefer getting money secretly, and Obama hypocritically condemns it but profits from it that way.

Anonymous said...

You agree with Citizens United?

That's fucked up. So is Greenwald.

Its not just that he said Democrats would support Obama if he made war on Iran he said "nearly all" would while not supporting Romney on Iran, just like he claims they "massively supported" Obama on Afghanistan.

This is simply untrue speculation. Less than half of Americans polled support an attack on Iran. Less than half of americans support war in Afghanistan. When Obama announced his surge in Afghanistan suppor tfor the war did not massively increase.

Greenwald uses too many hypotheticals and misleading nonsense adverbs to make his arguments.

He's overrated as a thinker and a writer. His support for Citizens United is framed as some stupid moral ethical issue like you frmae it, but the reality is the Court used the case as a pretext to allow unlimited corporate political donations.

This is a clear case of Greenwald (and you) being in far right field.

Greenwald is an agent of the Kock Bros.

I'm sure you not, but wtf? Thats a convoluted position you took on CU.

Were you for it before you were against it?

Eh, well, batten down the hatches sailors. The smoking light shall remain lit until 12 bells.

Good night and rotsa ruck

socrates said...

Ron's problem is he feels the need to be impartial with a no spin zone. But the oppressors and status quo have an inbuilt advantage. It is sad to see Ron basically sticking up for the type of superpac work Dan Backer and Ladd Ehlinger pimp. It's how Ron took the wrong pony in the BK versus Prepostericity story.

nosockz said...


Seriously... Polls? That's your proof? Since the only thing Obama knows how to do is give speeches, those polls would probably change.

And are you kidding about Afghanistan? Nearly every Democrat I know supported that war, and I live in New York City (granted, that was after 9/11).

I don't agree with unlimited campaign funds or SuperPACs. It's absurd that that kind of shit came with the Citizen United verdict. But I don't have any problems with conservatives making bad movies and putting them on TV...Robert Greenwald makes many bad ones for the left. Michael Moore couldn't get his flawed Fahrenheit 911 on TV. But how that translated into superpacs etc is kind of beyond me.
Perhaps it should have been like Gore-Bush (wrongly decided I think) and been a one-time thingie.

Defending the right to put a documentary on television is a liberal argument, not a far right one. And no one watches tv anymore, just the shows they want on demand, since you basically need cable now due to the HDTV law, so it don't even matter anymore.

You're both twisting my view on Citizen United ruling around, when I clearly said that I was in favor of the verdict as it applies to the airing of documentaries close to an election. I support the Freedom of Speech elements of the case, that's it. I don't think giving money is FoS, but airing the doc on TV qualified.

I'm completely against SuperPACs and unlimited campaign funds. This country would be better off if we changed the election system to only public funds with a cap. But I have no clue how that would work...and it will never happen as long as both parties control the electoral process through secretaries of state etc.

I do feel a need to be impartial...but I still have opinions. I don't vote, but I am going to make an endorsement for POTUS if I return to Twitter. I think I've only ever publicly endorsed three since I began blogging: Kerry in 2004, re-election of Kucinich, and a friend who ran in NYC.

Anonymous said...

Well, polls are a lot more than Greenwald has to back up his assertions.

He has....nothing.

Yes, I twisted your opinion of CU but the bigger picture is the reality: the conservtative SCOTUS twisted it into judicial activism on behalf of the fascist coup d etat.

The bigger picture is that the Democratic Party-nominated justices voted "nay" because they correctly ascertained (unlike Greenwald) the bigger picture.

There are 2-3 seats likely to be picked in the coming four years.

I know Obama is a drag. I also know the prevailing national mood is conservative-fascist. If you read my piece debunking the "Nixon was a liberal" meme you know that I take a marxist historical perspective. The times make the man, not vice versa.

We have to go to battle with the Army we've got.

Or wtf.

Looking forward to your endorsement. If you want, I'll write it up at FDL and generally plug your fine work in the process.
I'm currently pulling lots of eyeballs there, although mainly of the slowing to look at a wreck on the highway variety.

Here's a tune to help get you guys through the storm:

socrates said...

Donkeytale in an early DKos post admitted to being a contrarian. I.E., he gets his rocks off being a historic troll.

Of course he twisted Ron's words to supplicate that and his DLC marching point.

Donkeytale loved himself some of that Afghanistan War when it first went Obama style. If he doesn't get paid to post by the DLC, he is truly a chump.

I apologise to Mr. Brynaert for exacerbating this Greenwald-centered fiasco in a cheap effort to pad DFQ2 stats.

Donkeytale doesn't have a clue about Ladd Ehlinger and Dan Backer, and how it relates to the Aaron Walker hoax. He's still cleaning his panties he soiled while deciding his Troll Wars series was more than a bag of chips. He thought they were supersized fries. Not even close.

This storm is not as advertised so far. My fear is that it is gonna smack right into Brynaert's connection and take him offline not even for just Twitter.

I think this could be a good opportunity for him to stay off of Twitter. It is too difficult there to follow anything. It's basically a glorified version of messenger.

Being impartial is not always a good thing. That's what prevents anything from getting better. Protest becomes circumscribed into the status quo.

Anonymous said...

Nice smear. Got anything to back it up? A link?

Who is Ladd Ehlinger and Dsn Blocker and explain to me in a coherently detailed and footnoted honest diary wtf I should care?

socrates said...

Oh yeah, like you did with Greenwald. ... I've a feeling Ron lost electricity. Hurricane Sandra is not a sweetie.

socrates said...

Backer is a superpac whore who now represents Walker instead of Ali. Ladd is some kind of political whore video maker. He's easy to figure out. There's something called a googler and this comp is on its last legs.

nosockz said...

Major new article at my blog that I can't promote on Twitter:

Did Team Romney Quietly Fire Social Media Director Bill Murphy?
October FEC filing indicates Murphy may have been terminated after I reported he used same Twitter account he was getting paid to promote Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to tweet about "black-on-white race war"; Salary dropped from $8,294.76 in September to $2,770.83 in latest filing.

Also, I updated the prior article to tease an upcoming one about the real woman Tom Ryan used for his Robin Sage hoax to allegedly con NSA and DoD employees:

Getting suspended - hopefully only temporary and I think for non-content reasons - from Twitter means I have no way to promote my articles. However, I'm still getting outrageous traffic on the Fawkes Security article so hopefully folks will see the new one and help push it. It could even qualify as an October surprise, but the media should have picked up my reporting in August.

socrates said...

Thanks for the update, Ron. I'd plug your schtick at Twitter for you, but I am one step away from donkeytale status, a total nobody.

In fact we are not worthy of your greatness. Yeah on that Murphy dude. It does seem like he got quietly canned for being associated with racism. That would have devastated Romney's chances, if the Murphy story hit the mainstream media.

Anonymous said...

A link to where I cheered for the Afghanistan war, I meant.

You've simply confirmed the other two guys aren't worthy of anyone's attention. If they get your rocks off, great for you.

everybody needs somebody to love.

And I'll let your little dig about being above me in the whiteysphere food chain go uncommented upon.

Who cares, besides you?

That's like fighting for the last chair at the end of the Celtics bench....if the team consisted of 315 million players.

nosockz said...

LMFAO Neal Rauhauser got trolled by a dead guy.

He thinks someone scrubbed the tweets to him, but the default for is on No Replies. You have to click on All to see the arguments he had with Neal Rauhauser, etc.

Twitter added that feature in June:

socrates said...

You weren't cheering big time like Noom does for war, but I definitely remember you were making light of wtf Obama was up to in Afghanistan.

What people don't realise is that you've already admitted to being a blue dog democrat. Since going to FDL you've brought in Marxist terminology. It's been fairly transparent. You either get your rocks off being in arguments no one cares about or you are paid to post. Case closed on the donkeytale troll.

No, donkeytale, you've confirmed that you are not much help in terms of group research and consensus building.

Those two dudes you say don't matter are the freakin Koch Bros.. Same schtick. Shall I send you a gift pass so you can hop on the next clue train?

By the way, I took off the captcha requirement and 14 spam posts came in within a half day. So I don't know what to do.

Hold up on supertrolling me at least until the new computer comes in. I have been fighting over my weight. With the new comp I should be able to retain the Heavyweight Cybersleuth Title. People like to read something new. If they wanted to hear political posturing, they'd watch debate recordings.

You've got a nice racket going on at FDL. Through "fairleft" you suckered in all the few other pinheaded, ex-drug addicted, airport commies (well, I guess the airport's now out for their proselytising), anyway, you gathered up all these snowman retards pro-Iranian theocracy thus making your blue dog schtick effective. You are basically the lesser of two evil turds.

You're not fooling me with this donkeytale as socialist schtick. You are Mr. DLC. It's only because your target audience is fake left, potential third party voters, that you foist up this canard of sardines with a facade of caviar.

socrates said...

Neal Rauhauser along with those others are playing Alternative Reality Games but on a spy factory budget. Ron exposed them, so their response was to cheat him off of Twitter. Then folks like Emick, Zapem, et al tweet with the exposed fakes as if they are legit. It's retarded. Maybe once the new comp comes in, I can make a fancy chart explaining in more detail who are the numbnuts and how they are linked along with links. Perhaps donkeytale isn't the only self-sentered dick unable to get past his simpleton analysis of the troll wars. Cointelpro was retarded and so is this.

nosockz said...

No, as I reported at my blog, it must have been FawkesSecurity and company who got me suspended from Twitter.

@VizFoSho got suspended today, and he had been going after FawkesSecurity, too.

socrates said...

Sorry, Ron, for twisting that up.

I just see such and such tweeting with who and whatnot, and it's tough not to put them all into the same bracket.

Let's see if I have this correct. Fawkes Security made some kind of threat that if any of us had made it, we would have been arrested?

It was made to make Anonymous look bad? Like cointelpro tried to bring violence into activist groups in the 60's and 70's?

Then Zapem and Emick tweet with that infiltrator or whatever it is along with Lamo? Mike Stack is buddies with them and Doug Stewart who loves Mandy Nagy. Who the frick do these people think they're fooling?

Unfortunately donkeytale would rather debate Ralph Nader, so I am not sure how much can be figured out on this thread. It does appear that my internet cointelpro schtick is looking better by the day.

Anonymous said...

Well, once again making light?

I have long before coming to FDL asserted my marxist schtick.

He was wright. He's also the father of the bastard child you call home: sociology, er I mean "social theory."

I think you're trolling me more than vice versa.

Now I'm a blue dog Democrat?

N*gger, please.

As Kate Hepburn told Hank Fonda in the Golden Girls, or wtf, "You're a bore you old fuckstick."

Too which Hank then keeled over with a fake heart attack.

If and when I die, you will loose half your devoted audience, or more.

Much more. Then you'll be crying for me just like Kate did for Hank.

Bet on it.

Good to hear Ron made it through the storm OK.

I'm surprised we didnt see pictures of him surfing in Williamsburg.

Anonymous said...

Some links to all these assertions you make about me would help you gain some credibility, Mr Flip-Flop. Must be something in the water there in Massass.

You back on Twitter yet? What was the over/under, 9 days?

Besides, its about time for my annual socratisation tune-up, isnt it?

Anonymous said...

Oct 19 GBCW

Return Oct 24.

I took the under.


Right again. God, the burden of being perfect can be so debilitating at times.

socrates said...

The GBCW on Twitter was performance art. I gave it away towards the beginning when I admitted the best part was it could be rescinded.

Dude, I'm not gonna try to dig up your Obama Afghanistan praise, at least not before I have a better piece of equipment.

But at that point, it will no longer be necessary to socratise you. Come on dude, you keep denying that was you at DKos as Petey. But it was the same exact schtick.

Then you went to Booman with that 19 year old sock puppet with hmmmm, the same exact duplicate of a schtick. I do give you credit for padding the stats. That is always welcomed, especially as we approach this critical fork in the DFQ2 road.

socrates said...

By the way, you overvalue Marx' contribution to social theory. Durkheim was also an original heavyweight. They complemented each other's theories. It was actually Max Weber who was the historic great for Sociology. Then of course the next wave of best and brightest originated from or were affiliated with the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory.

Anonymous said...


I sent you emails telling you why I think Mark Singer sucks, including the fact that he wrote articles about how Kimberlin probably sold dope to Dan Quayle, when there wasn't any proof that he did. And that he still justified his articles later.

Your absurd logic that my distaste for a clown who closed a book where he suggests to his subject that he might make shit up, and pulled a prank on his researcher, means I work for BK or Efrem Zimbalist Jr. is extremely annoying.

If you want to sing Mark Singer's praises because he emailed you, go right ahead...but I sent you emails and told you on the phone many, many reasons why a hyper-partisan blogger who writes jokey posts without doing real research sucks.

socrates said...

Is that really you, Ron? If so, why didn't you log in? You're the one who tweeted Walker had physically assaulted BK and needed to be pulled off by guards. What kind of real reporter would have done that? None would have. No more anonymous posts are allowed on this blog. I have been cybersmeared, and Ron Brynaert did absolutely nothing to report on that. Instead Brynaert was behind a number of false smears against me.

socrates said...

You are wrong about Mark Singer. Unfortunately you're the only one in your mind allowed to shoot truth staples.

The point was BK through Larisa Alexandrovna was spreading a hoax that he had been exonerated, that he was also a political prisoner.

That was a big chunk of what I accomplished. I made sure to expose that. Exposing Brad Friedman was the icing.

Your snide remarks concerning others' writing styles is beyond the boorishness of the Johnny Cash middle finger.

You don't seem to understand what Mark Singer accomplished. He was not taking back that BK had been unfairly treated by the Prison during the Quayle brouhaha. It wasn't within the scope of his original deadline to figure out Kimberlin's schtick.

If that was you as anonymous, you also presented no proof that Singer personally believed the pot had been sold.

The ending was brilliant. That you want to act as Mr. God's Gift to journalism and King Critic, bravo to you.

That Brynaert has sued nobody including Patterico tells me he could be some kind of FBI tool. Personally I don't think he is. But one never knows.

Singer did plenty of research for his book. I can't believe that's Ron. And if he is, he's playing too much of donkeytale's brand of sophistry.