Category: Internet

Had computer problems last night and wasn’t able to do my usual batch of posts for today.

Therefore need to take the rest of the blog day off.

Sorry, folks! Back up to usual blogging speed soon!

Continue reading “1/2 Blog Day Off”

Normally if someone on another web site writes a critique of something I’ve done, I let it pass. In keeping with Rule #1, not everyone has to agree with me. If someone wants to state their opinion and take exception with mine, fine.

Yesterday a couple of people pointed out to me THIS RESPONSE BY SCOTT RICHERT TO THE POST I DID ON PRICE-GOUGING, and I decided a response was in order.

Mr. Richert takes exception with what I said on the subject. That’s fine. I operate on the principle that not everyone has to agree with me.

In his post, Mr. Richert expresses the concern that many individuals feel when they see prices jump dramatically and therefore charge those who set the prices with "price-gouging." This is a natural, understandable, human reaction.

Mr. Richert regards raising prices out of a motive of greed to be a bad thing. On this, I am sure we can agree (provided that greed is understood as a disordered desire for profit rather than a properly ordered desire for profit).

It is difficult to tell from what he writes, but I suspect that Mr. Richert may think that I would disagree with him on this point.

Mr. Richert clearly has strongly held ideas about economics, and it would be very intersting to be able to interact with his position.

It’s unfortunate, therefore, that his articulation of his position is marred by things such as:

• Ad hominem,
• Guilt by association,
• Distortion,
• Exaggeration,
• Uncharitable inaccuracy, and
• Demonstrably false statements

Continue reading “It’s Unfortunate”

Attention, St. Bloggers! Did you know that your bishop may be reading your blog? Jamie of Ad Limina Apostolorum found out that an off-the-cuff remark he made about the Bishop of Colorado Springs had a wider audience than he expected:

"If you posted this…

"'[Bishop Michael] Sheridan, by the way, is a hulking beast of a man, with shoulders as broad as a gorilla and a frat boy haircut, and a glance that lets you know he could kill you in less than three seconds.’

"And got this in your comment box…

"’Jamie, It was great meeting you in the hotel lobby at WYD. I really must have intimidated you. Of course, I could kill you in three seconds — but I never would. Is a frat boy haircut a good thing?

"’+MJS

"’Bishop Michael Sheridan Homepage 08.29.05 – 2:53 pm’

"Would you be worried?

"P.S. I got an email from one of his staff today, who just wanted to assure me that it was Bishop Sheridan who posted to my blog. He’s proud of his bishop for being ‘hip’ enough to post in a combox."

GET THE STORY.

(Nod to Disputations for the link.)

I always thought it would be cool if a bishop joined St. Blog’s Parish. We have priests and nuns, so why not a bishop? And I was right. It is cool to have a bishop in the parish, even if only for a brief visit.

Now, who do we apply to have an episcopal ordinary assigned to St. Blog’s? 😉

No longer is blogging just for guys in pajamas lounging in their living rooms. Guys in Brooks Brothers lounging in boardrooms are getting in on the action. Two cases in point: Real-estate mogul Donald Trump now hosts The Trump Blog and Mark Cuban, owner of the basketball’s Dallas Mavericks, holds court at Blog Maverick.

(Nod to the Paperback Writer for the links.)

Does this mean that blogging is now going mainstream?  Or does it mean that the pajamahedin can now count Donald Trump and Mark Cuban as card-carrying members of the fold?  Does it mean that mainstream journalists will have to start taking blogging seriously?  Does it mean that there will have to be a blog ring exclusively for the billionaire bloggers?

I guess we’ll find out.

Well, it finally happened.

Yesterday, about noon Pacific Time, we passed one million hits.

These are page views rather than unique user sessions, but still, a million page views is quite an accomplishment.

THANKS FOLKS!!! MUCH OBLIGED TO Y’ALL!!!

These are the hits since I moved to TypePad back in April 2004, so it took us about a year and four months. The blog has grown since then, though, so it may not take that long to hit two mil.

In the meantime, Party On, Dudes!!!

(Oh, and . . . Be Excellent To Each Other!)

A bit of lunchblogging. . . .

Suppose there is a person who:

1. Posts comments on the blog trying to relate posts not about the Iraq War to the Iraq War
2. Sends me e-mail demanding to know my position on the Iraq War and whether I am a "war hawk"
3. Doesn’t send just one e-mail but sends seven e-mails in the same day
4. Sends them between 12:30 a.m. and 3:14 a.m.
5. Carbons these e-mails to multiple people
6. Signifies that he expects unreasonably prompt responses to his e-mails by saying in one of the later ones, "Do you think I have caused problems on your blog and so you have decided not to respond to my e-mails?" depsite the fact that I was asleep during the hours in which the e-mails were sent and so would not have responded to them for that reason alone.

Does this pattern sound familiar to any of y’all?

It might because it is exactly the kind of thing that Erik Johnson did last month (though not all of the details in the pattern, like the time of the morning at which Erik would e-mail, have previously been public). Following this behavior, I wrote on the blog:

Now a word to Erik: I have been patient with you beyond any reasonable expectation. It
appears that you are a troubled individual who may be in need of
counselling, as is the case with many people making the transition to
adulthood. I suggest that you talk to a counsellor.

However that may be, you are no longer welcome on this blog. Do not post further comments here.

I also told Erik (repeatedly and by e-mail) to stop e-mailing me.

Now, lo and behold, "Tom Brokaw" a.k.a. "James Carville" is doing exactly the same thing. The e-mailing mentioned above was done by him last night.

This morning he’s been trying to hijack one of Michelle’s comthreads by repeatedly posting the same comment even when she’s deleting it, a clear signal to him to lay off.

Furthermore, "Tom Brokaw" a.k.a. "James Carville" is doing all this from the same computer networks in the San Jose area that Erik Johnson used.

I submit to you that "Tom Brokaw" a.k.a. "James Carville" is a.k.a. Erik Johnson.

This means that Erik is in violation of the instructions not to e-mail or post further comments.

That means that Erik is committing Internet abuse.

This means that Erik is open to having action taken against him for Internet abuse.

That means that I am now giving Erik one last warning before filing complaints against him with his Internet service providers. (As well as requesting others not to respond to comments by "Tom Brokaw" or "James Carville" or other aliases he may cook up.)

Erik: I have already spoken with more than one of your Internet services, and they have assured me that they take abuse by those using their systems very seriously and will respond promptly to evidence I present to them that you are in violation of their Terms of Service by using their systems to engage in harrassment and abuse of others on the Internet.

If you do not immediately cease to e-mail and post comments, under whatever aliases, I will contact them and forward them the proof of what you have been doing.

I am not kidding.

Some folks at the U.N. have an idea that they seem to regard as brilliant. The idea is that the U.S., which built the Internet and grew it into the stunning, civilization-changing success that it is today, should cede control of the Internet to . . .  (are you read?) . . . (drumroll, please) . . . a U.N. committee.

This is indeed a brilliant idea.

Except for the fact that it isn’t.

Fortunately, the fact that it isn’t a brilliant idea has occurred to others. Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, for example.

"My probe of the U.N. as Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations revealed management that was at best, incompetent, and at worst corrupt," said Coleman. "The first priority for the United Nations must be fundamental reform of its management and operations rather than any expansion of its authority and responsibilities. The Internet has flourished under U.S. supervision, oversight, and private sector involvement. This growth did not happen because of increased government involvement, but rather, from the opening on the Internet to commerce and private sector innovation. Subjecting the Internet and its security to the politicized control of the UN bureaucracy would be a giant and foolhardy step backwards."

"Recently, I introduced UN reform legislation with the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations, Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN), known as the Coleman-Lugar UN Reform Bill, to help put an end to a culture of corruption that was exposed by the Oil for Food scandal, peacekeeping sexual abuse scandals, and other instances of organizational failures at U.N.," Coleman said. "Putting the U.N. in charge of one of the world’s most important technological wonders and economic engines is out of the question. This proposal would leave the United States with no more say over the future of the Internet than Cuba or China-countries that have little or no commitment to the free flow of information."

Yeah, that’s what we really need: Giving China U.N. Security Council-level veto power over decisions affecting the Internet. That’ll be really good for the free flow of information and ideas.

Perhaps if China and other countries are not satisfied with the U.S. controlling the Internet that it built and organized then maybe they should build their own Internet.

Heck, do a better job with a second Internet and I’m sure Americans will be trying to book time on it, instead.

That’s the nice thing about competition.

In the meantime,

GET THE STORY.

Some folks at the U.N. have an idea that they seem to regard as brilliant. The idea is that the U.S., which built the Internet and grew it into the stunning, civilization-changing success that it is today, should cede control of the Internet to . . .  (are you read?) . . . (drumroll, please) . . . a U.N. committee.

This is indeed a brilliant idea.

Except for the fact that it isn’t.

Fortunately, the fact that it isn’t a brilliant idea has occurred to others. Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, for example.

"My probe of the U.N. as Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations revealed management that was at best, incompetent, and at worst corrupt," said Coleman. "The first priority for the United Nations must be fundamental reform of its management and operations rather than any expansion of its authority and responsibilities. The Internet has flourished under U.S. supervision, oversight, and private sector involvement. This growth did not happen because of increased government involvement, but rather, from the opening on the Internet to commerce and private sector innovation. Subjecting the Internet and its security to the politicized control of the UN bureaucracy would be a giant and foolhardy step backwards."

"Recently, I introduced UN reform legislation with the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations, Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN), known as the Coleman-Lugar UN Reform Bill, to help put an end to a culture of corruption that was exposed by the Oil for Food scandal, peacekeeping sexual abuse scandals, and other instances of organizational failures at U.N.," Coleman said. "Putting the U.N. in charge of one of the world’s most important technological wonders and economic engines is out of the question. This proposal would leave the United States with no more say over the future of the Internet than Cuba or China-countries that have little or no commitment to the free flow of information."

Yeah, that’s what we really need: Giving China U.N. Security Council-level veto power over decisions affecting the Internet. That’ll be really good for the free flow of information and ideas.

Perhaps if China and other countries are not satisfied with the U.S. controlling the Internet that it built and organized then maybe they should build their own Internet.

Heck, do a better job with a second Internet and I’m sure Americans will be trying to book time on it, instead.

That’s the nice thing about competition.

In the meantime,

GET THE STORY.

Okay, folks. A little lunchblogging.

I just want to thank everybody again for the sanity and good humor they have displayed in the two "Huh?" posts.

It has become clear that the original commenter, Erik Johnson, is deliberately attempting to cause trouble. His lurching to new topics, raising new accusations for which he has no proof, and sending out of e-mails to other bloggers can only be interpreted as deliberate harrassment.

Y’all did notice, didn’t you, that after he introduced his latest theme that he indicated that he e-mailed it to ten other people (again, all of them being bloggers from what I can tell), right?

One of them, Steve Dillard, responded by saying:

Look, I don’t know who you are or how in the world I got on your email
list, but go sell crazy somewhere else.

Classic!

I am also told that Erik has been causing problems on other folks’ blogs, where the most successful strategy has been to simply ignore him.

I request the same here. If Erik logs on and comments again, I request that people simply ignore him.

Now a word to Erik: I have been patient with you beyond any reasonable expectation. It appears that you are a troubled individual who may be in need of counselling, as is the case with many people making the transition to adulthood. I suggest that you talk to a counsellor.

However that may be, you are no longer welcome on this blog. Do not post further comments here.

I was impressed by the comments folks posted on my original Huh? post. A lot of very perceptive comments and well-delivered humor. My compliments, folks! I was touched!

I’m not going to drag this subject out, but wanted to put a few items on the record.

First, as many pointed out, I did not endorse the Iraq War in the posts that the original commenter cited. Neither did I dis-endorse it.

Second, I have no intention of commenting specifically on the war at this point. There is no official Catholic stance on the war, and I generally confine myself to matters of theory rather than matters of application when it comes to subjects like this.

Further, if I were to stake out a position in the way that the commenter wants, it would only "feed the troll" as the saying goes. I have no interest in being provoked into a debate with the commenter on this or any other subject. I’ve tried to be patient and charitable, but I’m not going to feed a fixation.

Lest there be any doubt as to the unreasonableness of what was being asked of me in this case (and others have already very ably pointed out the problems here), I would like to put on record an e-mail that was sent to me at 11:05 p.m. Pacific Time, just over an hour before my "Huh?" post even went up–at which point I had publicly said nothing in response to the commenter. In this e-mail, the commenter wrote:

Mr. Akin,
So, you have been a little bit too much influenced by Richard John
Neuhaus, so that you’re a neoconservative like he is now, right?

This is simply wild speculation on the part of the commenter.

In point of fact, I can’t recall ever reading anything Fr. Neuhaus has written on the Iraq War. I don’t know what Fr. Neuhaus’ opinion of it is. I don’t know if he’s a "neoconservative," and I certainly am not one myself.

The commenter is simply leaping wildly to conclusions for which he has no rational grounds.

Further, the commenter carboned his e-mail to eight different people besides myself, all of whom are notable Catholic bloggers. In deference to them, I will not re-post their e-mail addresses.

I will, however, compliment them on the fact that at this time of this writing not one of them has chosen to respond to the commenter’s e-mail–at least not with me included in the reply. It appears that they all have the blogger ethics and professionalism to recognize and resist such attempts to gin up a baseless controversy and start a blogpile on someone else.

For all I know, they themselves may have had encounters with individuals attempting to entrap them in this fashion.

In any event, my compliments to them and to the voices of reason that have weighed in on this subject.

We now return to the blog . . . already in progress.