Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Blacklisting, the sequel: The dumbassitude continues.


Oh, dear God, this is just too amusing. You must -- I say, must -- try to keep up with Joel J's dodging and weaving in the comments section here, as he tries desperately to avoid admitting what has, by now, been established beyond any doubt.

Seriously, how can you respond to someone who writes:

... if you think that I’m so utterly infantile and petty (and that I would even remotely have the time) that I would even start to think about ever even considering somehow encoding into the programming that runs this web site some form of “pre-emptive censorship” against a web site I’ve never even remotely heard of, ever, then you’re terribly wrong and making absolutely ridiculous and potentially harmful assumptions —in as public a way as you can, knowingly.

despite the fact that I explained how to reproduce it, that others have confirmed it and that yet others have taken screenshots.

And yet, in spite of all that, rather than take 30 seconds to verify his site's blacklisting for himself, poor Joel has worked himself into a high dudgeon, outraged -- outraged, I tell you -- that anyone would dare impugn his or his site's credibility and integrity.

(And let us not forget that I was not simply prevented from submitting comments, I was blacklisted from even registering as a commenter, which Joel has, of course, refused to address.)

This is just plain sad. It's like the six-year-old, standing in the middle of the kitchen, adamant that he never helped himself to the chocolate cake, even as he stands there with chocolate smeared all over his hands and face.

"Pathetic" doesn't begin to describe it, does it? At this point, I'm going to guess that it's only a matter of hours before either comments are de-activated or deleted, or that the entire article is just pulled from that site. Any bets? I'm thinking of starting a pool.

P.S. Note, in comment 14, how Joel childishly avoids having to deal with his bullshit:

This web site has filters in place to shield against spam attacks, referrer attacks, DOS attacks, and sundry hacker attacks that constantly happen to this web site because liberals and others are so gosh darn tolerant of it. I suppose that there’s something in our long list of items in our filters which prevents that URL from displaying. I don’t know. I might have looked at the problem had it been dealt with like a half-ass reasonable person would have dealt with it, but now I won’t.

Note that all of Joel's huffing and puffing about attacks of one form or another has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue here, but he uses his thoroughly-unjustified annoyance to call a halt to the discussion. We'll be talking more about that sleazy rhetorical trick in a future post.

AND WE HAVE A RESOLUTION!
OK, let's see here ... first, there's Joel:

Why do you “banned” and “blacklisted” folks (or are you the same people?) insist that you are “banned” and “blacklisted”? Upon what facts do you base that?

That’s a gross misrepresentation of the facts, and leads to some very bad feelings amongst the administration of this site because it can damage the reputation of a web site such as this. Perhaps you already know that.

But, hark! What's this? Only hours later:

Meanwhile, on Planet Sane, It turns out “blogspot.com” is in our filter list because it was the source of a referrer attack at some point.

Oh. So there was blacklisting going on after all. And as for those bloggers who just happened to live at that domain, like this guy, who's only politely trying to be helpful:

kevvyd here from b levkog. Guess what? I couldn’t register either, and for the same reason as the others.

If you haven’t put anything up here to block posters on purpose, then it’s been put there by accident.

Well, Joel, knows what to do with uppity cranks like that:

Another “blogspot” blogger. Genius!

So if you happened to live in the blogspot.com domain and were getting blacklisted, well, Joel's blog absolutely doesn't blacklist, no way, except when it does and if you can't figure that out, you're a moron.

Tune in next week when Joel writes an editorial chastising lefty bloggers in general for pointing out that he's a lying dumbass, and that it's all their fault.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Actually, I'm thinking that Joel, despite being so overly-agitated about the whole thing, is actually correct in saying that there has been no specific blacklisting. I believe his point is that all urls in comments are blacklisted, to prevent blogspam. Still, it would be nice if the error message made this clear.

It also seems that he thinks CC, I, and a third commenter there are all the same person. Paranoia much?

CC said...

mattt wrote:

"I believe his point is that all urls in comments are blacklisted, to prevent blogspam."

That is demonstrably untrue as I managed to submit a comment that contained a "tiny" URL version of my blog post, and that got past the filter just fine. See comment 7 at that post to see what I'm talking about.

Even your own posts there were allowed to contain URLs, albeit deliberately-damaged ones to get around the blacklisting. So your own experiments disprove your contention here.

And that still doesn't address the fact that I was blacklisted from even registering as a commenter.

The bottom line is that, with minimal effort, Joel could have verified what I was talking about. Instead, he decided to get his nutsack in a knot over it, and just plain lie about it, and his lies are blatantly obvious to everyone's who's following this.

Joel Johannesen said...

I commented in another of your multiple blog entries about me and my web site today, Cynic, but I thought I'd post it here too just to cover all the bases and to ensure that your readers are being properly informed. I know that's important to you.

Thanks for the opportunity to respond here.

Interestingly, I believe you'll find that if you type "canadiancynic.blogspot.com", it isn't "blacklisted" at all. When you type "www.canadiancynic.blogspot.com", or with just an http:// in front, it is. Fancy how I did that huh?! I will get around to fixing the problem at some point. For now though, I changed the message that you get when it happens, so as to calm your nerves a little. Apparently you take things more personally than even I do.

cc as your friend mattt ens pointed out to you and admitted in comments here (here and only here -- not at my blog even after I think I semi-helped him to semi-understand the actual facts of the matter after he alleged malfeasance at my blog) there has been no specific blacklisting of your web site, as you'd apparently love to believe despite the facts. I think I made that pretty clear from the start when, obviously ticked by your allegation (the type which I routinely get for no reason other than to bother me or try to wreck the site), I asked you to tell me what facts you based that allegation on, and telling you that I thought it was a mischaracterization of facts. Clearly I didn't agree! At that point you might have said "here's what happened". That would have been that.

Of course I know for a fact that exactly no blogs or web sites are "blacklisted" specifically, by me or anyone working for me, nor is anyone "preemptively banned" from typing their URL at my web site in the comments section, so checking for that is a mute point. You knew nothing other than an error message, and rather than seeking answers, made egregious allegations based on that solid stack of evidence.

You simply took personally what is in reality a technical matter -- something literally done by a robot. Then you turned it into an issue when really it's a illusion.

You assumed the worst, made it even worse, then you've spun it out of control with the help of your friends.

You jumped to a conclusion without regard to any sense of inquiry about the matter. Could this be a mistake? Could this be a technical glitch?

When confronted by you as I was with your real nice accusatory entree into my site's comments section rather than a simple note asking what might be up, I wasn't particularly inclined to work for you in your interests, as I believe most reasonable people would appreciate.

I've already tried to explain this in my comments at my site, but you simply refer to it as "bullshit" here in a blog entry. As I think you can see, it's really an honest technical happenstance, not really as you've described it at all here. in fact your blog entries and comments are a gross mischaracterization of the facts.

You insinuate that you were prevented from registering at my web site. That's completely untrue, as I'm sure in all honesty you would be happy to clarify for the folks here. You were prevented only from entering your URL for the reasons explained above -- but a URL isn't required for registration. So you weren't prevented from registering. I believe you know that. So perhaps you should just come clean about that too.

You ended one blog entry here by explaining to the folks how I might admit that I'm a "lying dumbass". I think you might see fit to retract that as well. I don't lie, and I think it's clear that you aren't telling the whole truth here, and it seems you set out with malicious intent and a blatant disregard for possible facts or explanations right from the get-go. Your remarks here at your blog speak to that.

Thanks again for the opportunity to clarify what really could have been clarified by you in a normal way in a very few minutes, cordially and with respect, had you only inquired rather than choosing to mischaracterize my intentions and in the long process defame my good character.