OK, Richard, here's how it works.

I did promise I'd get around to dealing with the childish, feces-flinging Richard Evans of "Let Freedom Reign" and so, without further ado, let's get down to business.

To recap, Richard thinks it's just a hoot (and some sort of laudable contribution to civil discourse in the blogosphere, I imagine) to register "lookalike" domain names of bloggers he doesn't care for, and redirect them to interesting places, which is what he's done with "somenamedia.com" and "cycles2k.com" and "myblahg.ca" and, most recently, "canadiancynic.net."

When someone points out to him that this is the sort of thing one might expect from an intellectually-stunted, petulant, six-year-old, Richard snaps back that Meaghan Champion did exactly the same thing with smalldeadanimals.blogspot.com so, "She did it first! So there! Neener, neener, neener!," and that I should hold Meaghan to the same standard.

Where to even begin the kneecapping here?

In the first place, Richard, if you look to the right (no, the other right, you airhead), you'll notice that Meaghan is not on my blogroll. Never has been. You did notice that before you started that spittle-flecked diatribe of yours, right? Good. Onward.

It's also amusing to note the standard defense of the wank-o-sphere when called on their behaviour -- "But (fill in the blank here) did it first!" Yes, it's always entertaining to hear a rationalization along the lines of "But ... but ... Meaghan ..." or "But ... but ... the Liberals ..." or "But ... but ... Bill Clinton ...". Apparently, those who claim the moral high ground in damned near everything have a moral standard that consists of little more than telling us that, hey, they're no worse than other people and they never started it. Yes, that's a moral standard to be proud of, isn't it? But enough chit-chat. Let's get down to the real issue.

Richard is taking the position that, given Meaghan's SDA-lookalike site of "What Kate Said ..." (formerly "Small Dead Animals 2.0"), what he's doing is no worse, and I'm being hypocritical in my selective criticism. How best to respond to this? How about, you're a moron, Richard.

Let's consider Meaghan's lookalike site, shall we? As best I understand it, that site was inspired after an extended feud between Meaghan and Kate, where Kate (totally in character) made numerous racist and dishonest and slanderous comments about Meaghan. Regardless of whether or not that's true, there is one indisputable claim you can make about Meaghan's WKS site -- it's purpose is to inform.

If you go to WKS, deliberately or accidentally, and regardless of whether you believe what's there or not, that site has a singular purpose -- to impart information to the reader. Its goal is clearly to allow Meaghan to get across her message in this dispute. In short, no matter whose side you take in that dust-up, WKS seeks to educate you on the issues. Which is precisely what Richard fails to do in any way with what he's done.

If Richard wants to claim a moral equivalence here, then one can ask what message he's trying to send or what information he's trying to impart by, say, redirecting the lookalike domain cycles2k.com back to his site. Apparently, Richard has an ongoing conflict with the corresponding blogger but, by squatting on the domain name and pointing it to his own blog, what is Richard's point?

If one follows that link, what does one learn about the beef Richard has with the original blogger? What message is being presented here? What information does one get regarding the issues or points of contention in that disagreement? Quite simply, sweet fuck all. As opposed to Meaghan, who is actively using her lookalike domain to actually address issues, Richard is merely being childish, and telling readers precisely nothing other than that he's a jackass.

One can ask Richard the same question about his motivation for registering canadiancynic.net and pointing it at his LFR site. What's your point, Richard? If people accidentally follow that link and end up at LFR, what are they supposed to suddenly learn about how you disagree with me, and on what topics? What new knowledge are they supposed to take away from that visit? What stunning wisdom will you have imparted because of that? And the answer? Again, squat. No attempt to address anything whatsoever -- it's simply the equivalent of mindless, blogosphere vandalism.

And what is one supposed to conclude from the fact that Richard's lookalike Somena Media site points here -- to the white supremacist Stormfront site? Seriously, Richard, how is this contributing to the discourse in any way? This tells us nothing about Meaghan or Kate, but it does suggest that you might have a few white hood issues of your own.

(As an aside, Richard has also registered myblahg.ca, and redirected it here. And, frankly, that is the one legitimate use of a lookalike domain by Richard. Regardless of whose side you're on, he has used the lookalike to present a rebutting point of view, so that example is at least defensible.)

In short, Richard's been whining about how what he's done is no different from what Meaghan's done. Rubbish. Utter rubbish. Meaghan, whether you agree with her or disagree with her, at least tried to use her lookalike site to educate readers on the issues. Richard, on the other hand, is simply being a whiny, infantile little fuck whose only motivation is to smear people he doesn't like by generating confusion and tarnishing their reputations in the blogosphere.

I trust we're done here.

UPPITY DATE: Actually, not quite. There's a bit more coming shortly. I'm sure you'll just be waiting on tenterhooks. Whatever those are.