Saturday, December 31, 2005

Re Commentaries Published B4 2/5/2006

The first day of this blog's existence was 2/5/2006. That's the day I set it up. I didn't actually publish a post until 2/7/2006. I did notice a while ago, however, that, under "post settings" the publish date can be changed. That explains this post, for which I changed the publish date to 12/31/2005 (when the actual publish date is 8/9/2016).

It occurred to me that I could publish a post "predicting" that something would happen. I could publish a commentary in which I worry that terrorists might fly planes into the world trade center, then change the date to before 9/11/2001. Then I could point to said post and say, "I called it".

Possibly in another commentary or comment in which I criticize gwb for not stopping the attacks. I mean, it was so obvious that even I suspected it might happen. Not that it wasn't "so obvious". bush WAS warned and those warnings were ignored (OST #168).

But the general public wasn't privy to the CIA briefings that bush (as president) was. Nobody but a selected few within government saw the PDB (presidential Daily briefing) that said Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US.

For example, I wrote a commentary for a sock puppet blog, a blog that is currently not visible to the public, and likely will never be. As I was going to use the identity to fool the blogger Willis Hart. But that's no longer possible. Because he restricted his blog to "team members" only (so, me infiltrating and fooling him with my sock puppet is no longer possible).

Also, I decided it was too much work and abandoned the blog long before it got to the point (enough posts) at which I was confident it would appear that the sock puppet ID had been blogging since before 2001.

As for the post, I titled it "I've Got A Feeling That Terrorists Might Attack The World Trade Center Again" and changed the date to 1/20/2001, the day that gwb was inaugurated.

George W Bush, the doofusy son of a former one term president was inaugurated today, becoming our 43rd potus. In my opinion dark days are ahead of us. For the record I voted for the Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader. In my strong opinion, however, the election was stolen from the true winner, Al Gore. That the Supreme Court stopped the recount and handed the presidency to W is total bullshit. Unprecedented bullshit.

But now we are stuck with W for at least the next 4 years. I can't imagine him getting re-elected, however. He'll be another one term president like his father, mark my words. God, it sickens me that it isn't Al Gore who is being sworn in today. Sure, I'd have prefered a president Nader, but a president Gore would have been acceptable to me as well. Especially considering that Al Gore actually won the election!

But back to the dark days. The reason I say that I think terrorists might attack the World Trade Center in New York City again is because they've done it before. On 2/26/1993 a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower, killing 6 people and injuring more than a 1,000. Those responsible had intended to bring down the entire structure and kill many more, however.

In my opinion the terrorists will probably try again, and the election of an incompetent CIC might be just the opportunity that our enemies have been waiting for. President Clinton, the traitor (AKA "New Democrat") who signed the NAFTA trade agreement, at least kept us safe. As you may recall, President Clinton attempted to take out bin Laden. Although the Republicans in Congress claimed that he did so only to distract from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

I didn't vote for Clinton, instead casting my ballot for Perot in both 1992 and 1996. I was convinced that Perot had a better shot the second time, given the fact that Clinton went back on his word and signed the trade agreement that cost many American jobs, just as Perot warned us. Unfortunately Perot did even worse the 2nd time he ran.

But at least Clinton recognized the threat posed by bin Laden and his terrorist group. Will our new illegitimate president also take the bin Laden threat seriously? I doubt it. Actually, I've got a very bad feeling that the WTC (or some other high profile target) might get bombed again. And this time our enemies might kill many more Americans. We got lucky the first time. Their plan was to kill thousands, but they only killed 6. We might not be so lucky the next time.

The sock puppet was an Independent Lefty that had abandoned the Democratic Party after the ConservaDem Bill Clinton became the nominee.

Anyway, as I already pointed out, me fooling Willis Hart (as I did previously) with a new, well constructed sock puppet can't be done any longer, as he decided he doesn't want ANYONE to comment on his blog anymore. So, that is why I abandoned the idea. And, in regards to backdating commentaries, I have not (nor will I) do that in order to fool anyone.

And, there is an encumbrance to enacting that idea (on this blog) if I decided I wanted to, which is that I've numbered all the commentaries. Check the bottom of each post and you'll find a number. A number that I manually placed there... meaning that if I wanted to insert a backdated post, I'd have to modify every post going forward (bump up the count by 1). Which would be a LOT of work.

In any case, the reason for the negative posts is that I decided that I wanted a place to write things I could link to. Right now I've got one idea. Just one. So the negative post numbers may end with -1. We'll see.

But (to be clear) it's ONLY the negatively numbered posts for which the dates will not be the actual publish dates. All the publish dates on the positively numbered commentaries reflect the actual dates on which they were published.


Friday, December 30, 2005

Regarding What Being "Banned" Means On This Blog

Scroll down to the GREEN box for a list of people/IDs that are banned.

Most people would interpret being "banned" from a blog as meaning that no further comments will be accepted. That is NOT how I have decided to run my blog, however.

The following is from my "Mission Statement & Blog Commenting Rules" commentary from 2/7/2006 (this blog's first post).

I reserve the right to publish or not publish any comment. This includes publishing comments from people who are banned. If I ban you, then allow through a comment later, this does not mean you aren't banned! Banned individuals will remain banned (which means most of your comments will likely NOT be published) until/unless I lift the ban. Comments being published (if the banned individual decides to keep submitting comments) do NOT mean the ban has been lifted. It ONLY means I've decided to let that particular comment through.

The reason I decided to write this post is because I wanted to make this point clear. I banned the individual who uses the ID TOM. Later, I allowed some TOM comments through (published them).

As a result of this, TOM indicated to me that, in his opinion, he was not banned. This was in the context of him asserting that it reflected badly on me because I've been banned from a few blogs, while he (in his mind) has been banned from none.

TOM: Banned? You post my comments, RN posts my comments, I am not banned anywhere you butt f**king fa**ot. (6/04/2016 AT 11:59am).

Note that the censored words were censored by me. This is one of the reasons that TOM is banned (excessive foul language). He is also banned because he started spamming my blog with similar comments on a regular basis. I published some, but for the majority of them I clicked "Spam" and Blogger moved them into the Spam folder.

This, btw, is the PRIMARY reason for enacting bans. And it's likely the ONLY reason I'll ever ban anyone. People spamming me with profane and idiotic comments. I'm not going to bother banning anyone if they make a nuisance of themselves for awhile but then go away. You'll only get banned if you make a MAJOR nuisance of yourself and do it over a prolonged period of time.

Steve was the first individual to do this. Swearing, name calling, idiocy, never (or almost never) being on topic, and homophobia. Although I have not received a comment from the Steve ID in a long time (He did send me MANY for several months). Although I strongly suspect that Steve was another ID that belongs to TOM.

What follows is an example of a comment that caused me to ban Steve.

Steve: I just found out you are a bottom boy butt f**king gay boy, figures. (1/26/2016 AT 5:27pm).

Note that (in addition to censoring Steve) the homophobia. This is why I concluded that the Steve ID and the TOM ID are both controlled by the same person. There is more evidence than the many homophobic posts by both (and I did start writing a post laying out the evidence), but I abandoned it. Because I haven't received a TOM or Steve comment for awhile, so why bother.

I did get a TOM comment a few days ago, but I sent it to Spam and haven't gotten any more. If he starts bothering me again I might have to finish my commentary on him. Right now I think it's not going to happen. Unless some Blogger I know reads this and says they would like to see it (unlikely).

The 3rd ID that is banned is Luke.

Luke: Since you insist on stealing my posts, I'll post them on your thread and make it easy for you. [post from Luke's blog titled "The Clinton Machine"]. (7/27/2016 AT 5:43pm).

I pasted Luke's comment into Word, and "The Clinton Machine" clocks in at 440 words. Now, have I seen the ID "Luke" before? I don't recall. I do know, however, that this is the 1st time that he's commented on my blog. Or the 1st time he's commented in a LONG time (maybe he commented years ago, but I don't recall). Whatever the case, I have no frigging clue what the hell he's talking about with the "since you insist on stealing my posts".

I've never stolen any of Luke's posts. I did ask Luke for a link that would prove his accusation, but he refused to provide one. And, when I told him "I have zero interest in stealing any of that", he called me "f**king liar".

Then he proceeded to send me every new commentary from his blog (via the commenting system) under the pretense of doing it "so you don't have to steal them".

Weird, right? I'm not sure what's going on with Luke. All I know is that I've never stolen any of his posts. Weirder yet, is that Luke has accused multiple bloggers of "stealing" his posts. On my blog he said (in addition to accusing me) that I should check Shaw's blog for his posts (a reference to Progressive Eruptions).

He also accused Pamela D. Hart of The Oracular Opinion, and she promptly banned him. Which I probably should have done. As opposed to engaging him (asking him for proof of his accusations multiple times. Proof he never provided).

Which I'm guessing is his gambit. Act like a jackass (swear and make absurd accusations) just to see how long the blog host will tolerate him. Must be how he gets his jollies. Who knows.

Which brings me to the list of banned IDs. How many actual people we're talking about here is anyone's guess. It might be three individuals, or the 3 IDs may be only 1 person. IMO the IDs are owned by either 1 or 2 people (2 being my best guess).

Banned Blogger IDs

Luke, AKA Luke Spencer. Luke Spencer is his Google Plus name. I know this because he commented on my Google Plus page using his GP profile (his comment on my GP page was another commentary from his blog). I deleted his comment and blocked him.

Steve. A Rational Nation detractor who accused people of "Jew hate". Note that the person behind the "Steve" account changed the name on the account to "Luke" (DSD #33).

TOM AKA TOM (WordPress account). This is an individual who used to post commentaries on his WordPress blog Stay A While. TOM's MO was to accuse other bloggers of attacking him (because he expressed disappointment with President Obama). First he feuded with Rational Nation, then Sue, then others (including myself) who he claimed were guilty of Jew hate.

This commentary was published on 8/9/2016 and updated on 9/29/2016.

Image: Steve (the only one among those who are currently banned) actually threatened me, saying "I will have to make life hard for you in blog land" (9/3/2013). He never followed through, however. Or maybe he did and I just didn't notice. Note that I only have the comment as an image because I removed the comment instead of sending it to spam. I wish I had kept it, but there's nothing I can do about it now. It's gone. FYI, Steve did not apologize. I was yanking his chain.

SWTD #-1

Thursday, December 29, 2005

Re An Action That "Seems Pretty Infantile" (An Observation Made By The Blogger "Ducky's Here")

Note that this is another of my negatively numbered posts, which means that I changed the publish date from the ACTUAL publish date (10/4/2016) using the "set date and time" option under "published on".

Why? Because I didn't want to include this post in my catalogue of SWTD published posts. Because what I've got to say doesn't rise to the level of something I want to publish as an official post. It's just something I wanted to write down if it comes up. If another blogger says something about actions that seem "pretty infantile" I can respond by directing said person here. "Infantile" being the assessment of a comment of mine made on another blog by Ducky's Here.

Dervish Sanders: You're going to get at least another 500 comments, shithead. (10/2/2016 AT 11:02pm).

Ducky's here: For what purpose, Mr. Dervish. That action seems pretty infantile. (10/3/2016 at 10:52pm).

This question by Ducky in response to my comment made on the blog of "Luke" (Words and Music). Although I can't answer Ducky's question because Luke generally won't publish my comments. This one he published because it makes me look bad. It makes Luke look like the victim of my trolling.

But the TRUTH is the exact opposite. Luke is the troll and I am his victim. Luke is a blog attacking troll with MANY victims. They're listed on his sidebar. Flying Junior, Rational Nation, Shaw Kenawe (who he refers to as "the bitch") and myself are among the bloggers who this Luke troll has accused of "plagarizing" his posts. Although the charge is completely without merit. I refer you to SWTD #346 for more info on that situation.

But that isn't all. When Luke came to my blog initially (and started in with his absurd plagiarism accusations) I assumed he was a blogger I hadn't encountered before. It wasn't until this had gone on for awhile (during which I attempted to suss out why he was accusing me of stealing his posts, responding to him politely, even though he was swearing at me and calling me liar) that I discovered that his blogger ID matches that of another troll who I'd encountered before.

Turns out Luke formerly called himself "Steve" and attacked this blog for several years. Note that this isn't a guess of mine based on comparing comments and finding similarities. It is a FACT that Luke changed the name on his account to "Steve" (see DSD #33).

Steve/Luke (both names that have been attached to blogger ID #11597062711930899788 is an infamous (among those he has trolled) individual who (as his troll-ies know) is obsessed with the blogger Rational Nation. This obsession extends to any blogger who allows Rational Nation to comment on their blog (which is who I came to be trolled by Steve/Luke).

So, when I noticed that Steve/Luke had a blog, I decided I'd return the favor. The "favor" being trolling. "Don't feed the trolls" is the method by which some think they can get trolls to go away. Don't pay attention to these people and they lose interest and leave. Unfortunately (and his victims can attest to this) Steve/Luke is NOT dissuaded by people ignoring him. He has kept up his trolling efforts (for years, as I previously noted) regardless of whether or not he is ignored.

So, I figured that, if I annoyed him on his blog, MAYBE that would get him to stop annoying me on mine? It surely could not make things worse, as he has already shown that he's going to keep up what he's doing no matter what. Which is why I sent him a LOT of comments. I doubt it 500, but I'm pretty sure it's in the neighborhood of 300.

Anyway, what brought about the specific comment of mine (the published one that Ducky takes exception to) came about after Luke said he was "done with me". What he meant was that he was done with responding to comments submitted by me to his blog (which he had been doing). I thought that MAYBE it meant that he was done submitting his posts (as comments to my blog).

Why? So "I don't have to steal them". This line concerns his "plagiarism" delusion. Don't ask me what it means, however. He wants me to steal his posts and is sending them to me to make it "easier"? I haven't a clue. In any case, I asked him if that him saying he was "done with me" meant he wasn't going to be sending me his posts anymore.

And he responded with the following.

Luke: Sorry, King Shithead PSYCHO KILLER TRUMP!!!
You will continue to get my posts marked, "Here is my post for today so you don't have to steal it FUCKHEAD!" Because you and your asshole buddies deserve it.
I simply won't respond. So enjoy my last comment to you KING SHITHEAD PSYCH KILLER TRUMP!!!
If I have anything to say about you King Shithead Psycho Killer Trump, it will be posted on my sidebar where I have listed your retarded behavior. (10/2/2016, unpublished comment).

So, is my submission of MANY comments to Steve/Luke's blog "infantile" as Ducky says? Perhaps, although I seriously doubt any infant has submitted even one comment to a blog (given that infants can't read or write). It might be a waste of time, given the fact that (my strategy of getting Steve/Luke to not troll me) didn't work. And it won't work, so why keep it up? Because I REFUSE to let him get away with continuing to troll my blog with zero repercussions for him (even if the repercussion is to be mildly annoyed).

It doesn't take a lot of effort to drop into his blog a few times a day and dash off a short comment, so I'm going to keep doing it. Because Steve/Luke deserves it, despite what he CLAIMS.

Luke: Thanks for admitting that you did send me death threats and 500 vulgar comments. What did I do to deserve that? Nothing!! The number of and vulgarity of your comments proves what you are. I wonder why the Blogger Sleuth isn't targeting you for being a vulgar troll? I guess because the Blogger Sleuth (Pam) is a fake blog used to attack her enemies. (10/2/2016 AT 7:01pm).

As I've already pointed out, Steve/Luke has not done "nothing". In fact, what he's done is as far from "nothing" as he could possibly get. But, that's what he's decided to do with the "Luke" persona, apparently. Play the victim. And it looks like he's fooled a few people. Ducky included.

Whatever. I did look at Ducky's profile with the intention of shooting him an email or leaving a comment on his blog (to tell him the truth about Steve/Luke). But there is no email given on his Blogger profile page. He's got a blog (titled No Blog), but there are no posts (and I cannot therefore leave a comment on "No Blog").

BTW, in regards to "personas", Steve was the guy obsessed with RN. Luke is the guy who has been victimized by many other bloggers stealing his posts. And TOM (while ALSO obsessed with RN) is a homophobe (who uses the "F" word slur for a gay man... a lot). TOM is another of Steve/Luke's IDs, a fact I've been able to discern by looking at his comments and comparing them to comments he's made with his other IDs (comparisons I've made on my DSD blog here).

Although, as I've already pointed out, both Steve/Luke and TOM are obsessed with RN (this obsession taking the form of accusations of RN being a "Jew hater" guilty of "Jew hate").

BTW, in regards to engaging in pointless endeavors that are very likely a HUGE waste of time, I've noticed that Ducky comments quite frequently on the blog Who's Your Daddy. This is an extreme Rightwing blog where - if someone comments who doesn't share their support for Trump and hate of Hillary Clinton - they are attacked. So, why comment there Ducky? That surely is an infantile environment. I mean, Ducky can't claim that he hangs out there due to all the intellectually stimulating conversations that are taking place.

SWTD #-2