Thursday, September 11, 2008

When Conservatives embarrass themselves.


It is entertaining when the Stephen Harper Party of Childish Whiners and Mean-Spirited, Vindictive Turds gets caught with its genitals laying out there on the anvil. From Macleans, we learn a bit more about their official CPoC attack website "Not a Leader":

BTC: Now, it’s personal

By Aaron Wherry | Email | September 9th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Posted to: Capital Read, The Commons | 53 | Comment on post
Filed Under: Capital Read • The Commons
Tags: Election Watch


Also mocked on the new Conservative website: Paul, Kady and Coyne.

Hmmm ... let's visit those links in turn and see what the Conservative Party of Canada thinks of Paul Wells:


How odd ... after all, it's 3:17 a.m. right now, so you'd think bandwidth wouldn't be a problem. What about Kady O'Malley? Uh oh ...


Damn. And Andrew Coyne? Quelle surprise:


But, curiously, if you go to the site's main page ... well, how about that? (Warning: Stupid, fucking narration comes up automatically.)

So bandwidth doesn't seem to be an issue when visiting that site directly, only when you attempt to visit particular pages. How convenient -- a whole new approach to dealing with embarrassing web pages: You don't apologize or retract, the pages simply become perpetually "unavailable" due to exceeding bandwidth limits, even at 3:17 a.m. And, amusingly, other pages on that site seem to have no trouble loading at all.

It's a neat trick if you can get away with it. And, sadly, it appears that the CPoC is doing just that.

P.S. Feel free to check in on that site on occasion, note any new embarrassments, then we'll see how long it takes for that page to suddenly become "unavailable," bandwidth-wise.

P.P.S. By the way, does anyone else see the irony in a political party that has no problem making billions of dollars in pre-election promises, yet not being able to afford adequate bandwidth for one of their official websites?

Yeah, it's a bandwidth problem. That's their story, and they're sticking to it.

1 comment:

deBeauxOs said...

Funny, I would think that with the Cons, it'd be a braindepth problem.