Thursday, July 05, 2007

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.

19 comments:

Red Tory said...

Apparently it seems I may be “debating” this fellow in Olaf’s curious experiment. Oh my, won’t that be jolly?

CC said...

Great, I can see it now. The resolution will be presented, you'll address it with devastating logic, he'll register "redtory.org" and link it to a porn site, and the wingnut-o-sphere will high five one another in victory celebration.

I can't wait.

Ti-Guy said...

Apparently it seems I may be “debating” this fellow in Olaf’s curious experiment.

Hey, that should be fun. You're a lot more creative in dealing with people like Evans than anyone I've seen. Of course we know the debate will go nowhere (except into the toilet of a slummy domain squat), but the rest of us might be entertained by another performance of Evans's "wingnut kabuki."

Crabgrass said...

RT, have you ever debated a pitching machine before?

Mike said...

"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."

Well cc, that is only the latest development. He originally pointed it to NAMBLA, in a clear attempt to smear psychols and imply he was a pedophile. Not only is that childish, it was borderline libel. Not in the satirical "Ha ha, Jasonkenney.org goes to a gay pride site", but in the vicious, bullying " I'm telling everyone you are a pedophile" style.

Yeah, that's some real good moral equivalence there.

Evans is a bully and should be treated as such.

The Seer said...

Actually, CC, you make a good point here. Sadam Hussein started torturing prisoners first.

Zorpheous said...

Actually with his registration of myblagh.ca, he may be in violation of the law, will have to read the fine print on the laws involving the DOT ca domain conditions.

IkeofMarch said...

You know, Mike, I would say the redirection to a NAMBLA site is defamation. Same with redirecting that sonema-named site to a white supremacist group. Richard is clearly a major league a-hole.

Ti-Guy said...

Yeabbut, Richard knows that if he's dealing with someone completely pseudonymous, there's no real legal recourse...none that's been established with cyber-stalking and online harrassment laws, as far as I know, or nothing that the police will take all that seriously, unless there's evidence that Richard does in fact know the identities of the people he's harrassing (which might have been obtained illegally).

What Richard *does* hope for is that you eventually out yourself, so you can no longer have the advantages pseudonymity provides, thus circumscribing your freedom of expression. Richard's a true fascist, in every sense of the word. Warren Kinsella's done the same thing, by the way.

Those named people who have been harassed by Richard Evans should seriously contact the RCMP. I'm sure a warning would do him some good and alert the it to potential criminal behaviour that should be brought to its attention.

Olaf said...

I think the Richard / RT debate should be interesting. Personally, I support RTs side of the argument completely, and cannot quite fathom anyone making an argument that will convince me otherwise.

But that is the point of all this: if someone has an unreasonable opinion based on nothing substantial, it will be ripped to shreds, both by the other debater (RT has done some impressive and hilarious shredding in the past) and by the commenters. In this debate, because I agree with RT, I hope some reasonable Conservatives who otherwise would just swallow the party position and agree that perhaps, they're out to lunch. I know you're beyond skeptical that this could ever be possible, CC, but stranger things have happened.

Anonymous said...

Dear CC, thanks for putting that into under 2000 words for an explanation. It's appreciated.

Do you want to know the huge irony of this entire situation... (there's actually 2 of them)

1) Being an anarcho-libertarian, I actually don't even have a problem with Richard buying look-a-like domain names. If he pays the money... and buys the domain.. in my view - he is the owner. I find it strange that someone who has nothing to do with Somena would buy a Somena related domain. But as far as I'm concered it's his business what he does with it - with a couple of exceptions. Using it to try and decieve people into believing the original to the look-alike blogowner is involved witn a pedophile association or with a white supramcist organization is a violation of our rights. This is especially true with the NAMBLA redirect. There are people on the internet who do nothing more than try to find pedophiles on-line, so as to inflict damage upon them. The same case could be made for the Stormfront redirect. It could (if I had not called the police to inform them otherwise) put me on a watch-list (because the police DO watch these site closely) for being associated with this organization.

What Richard has done is take his property (which he should have full use of) and use it to try and incite harm and harrassment against people under false pretenses. And even though those domains belong to him... he does not have the "right" to use them in this fashion...

That is - if he understands what the concepts of "rights" are.

Which I am highly doubtful of.

MW

Anonymous said...

Oh.. the second irony being.... the formerly SDA 2.0 site, now the "What Kate Said" blog has gotten dozens upon dozens of hits in the past few days... which is funny because I haven't really added new posts and it all seems to be related to Richard making a huge fuss about the place.

So well done Richard. Keep up the good werk!

Richard Evans said...

"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?"

Neither am I yet you chose to whine about me anyway. So what's your point?

"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."

To which I have to again reply; No, actually, it's exactly the same. If you're going to hold a conservative accountable for doing a thing, you must also hold accountable, the moonbat, who is doing the exact same thing. And, no, it doesn't matter who did it first.

You can try to shift the focus toward the content of the sites if you'd like but it's intellectually dishonest. You were bitching when I had somena.com pointed to MWW's real blog. The issue is the domain names and you need to face up to that fact. You weren't happy when it was pointed to MWW's site, you weren't happy when it was pointed to a legit parody site. You're just not happy that I own it at all. Period.

Crabgrass said...

But Richard, cc isn't "holding you accountable" for purchasing those doman names. It was something else.

How stupid are you? Are we on Candid Camera or something?

Anonymous said...

Which brings us back to the original point I tried to make in the commbox a few days ago... that it's not just the domain name thingy -- it's all the other things you say and do Richard that has people frustrated with your antics.

It's sort of like somebody who gets charged with reckless endangerment, child abuse, pedophilia, running a red-light, obstruction of justice, and murder.

If you go to court and all you do is instruct your lawyer to keep talking about how you never ran that red light... it's not like all the other charges against you disapear just because YOU want to focus on the red-light business.

Please try to understand this. It's getting so tedious.

MW

Ti-Guy said...

What Richard has done is take his property (which he should have full use of) and use it to try and incite harm and harrassment against people under false pretenses.

Yeabbut, Meaghan...you're using a legalism (property rights) and a moral argument, both of which have no legal validity in Canada. I applaud you for seeking common ground with Richard and pointing out the incoherence, but in the end, what we have is Canadian law and how it applies to Richard Evans.

I repeat...those named people who've been harrassed by Richard should complain to the RCMP.

Anonymous said...

CC remarked that I am not on his blogroll. Never have been. - Richard Evans responds :

"Neither am I yet you chose to whine about me anyway. So what's your point?"

Ok... the reason that is relevant Richard is because this whole thing started up over Olaf and his association with you, and Canadian Cynic excercising his FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, to dissassociate himself from blogs that link with or are affiliated with "LFR"

It seems you really got your dander up when Paladia was removed from the blogroll for her association with Olaf who associates with you.

So the original hissy-fit was about that, but now in typical "let's waste everybody's time and "move the goal posts Richard Evans fashion" it's all about the "What Kate Said" blog.

To be perfectly honest, I think this whole hissy-fit on your part is to deflect attention away from the fact that your antics are actually starting to cause you a problem, in that Canadian Cynic has started a meme which could take off in the political blogging world -- namely... a mass shunning and dissassociation with anything related to you and your blog.

As CC pointed out the recent domain thing offends his sensibilities... but that is not the end of it. I suspect that if asked to name the other things about you that offend his sensibilities -- he could come up with a dozen or more.

Here's the sad thing Richard. In a week, nobody will care about this BS that you are currently having a hissyfit about. But the blogroll kicks from CC will still exist, and the idea might take off and so your world on-line, as time goes by, will just get smaller and smaller and smaller.

And that's the REAL reason for this snap-show on your part. CC has made a major towel snap to your nads by his action of refusing to associate with anybody connected to you.

MW

thwap said...

And now let's leave Richard alone with his crickets.

Crabgrass said...

thwap: "And now let's leave Richard alone with his crickets."

I am so in.