IF you are wondering about what exactly I SAID to get banned from Jeff Jarvis' Buzz Machine blog today, see this post below.
Jarvis defends his ban by saying "Somebody who keeps typing "nazi" and "poop" isn't welcome." Well, I didn't use either of those words. Once again it seems the warbloggers are using the word "nazi" to sow confusion, labelling anyone who opposes their myopic groupthink mentatily a "nazi"... It's more than passing strange that Jarvis can't come up with a real reason for deleting my comments and then banning me, but instead offers such an incongruous excuse.
So here are my questions for Jarvis:
1. Do you receive any money at all from any sources to advocate certain views?
2. What is your relationship to the following groups:
(a) Iraq The Model, a bogus pro-US blog run by the Fadhil brothers, which you helped set up;
(b) Spirit of America, a bogus US charity which brought two of the Fadhil brothers from Iraq The Model to Washington, where they met in person with Paul Wolfowitz and George W. Bush in the White House late last year;
(c) Cyber Century Forum, a US thinktank that helped set up Spirit of America and which (incidentally) holds over $100,000 stocks in the Oil Industry;
(d) Direct Impact, a "Grassroots" marketing company that pays people to subversively promote sites like Spirit of America?
See this previous post for background on these questions.
The truth will out...
PS: I have no idea who Michael J Totten is and I have never visited his site. Maybe that was another Gandhi? Whatever...
UPDATE: Jarvis responds to my questions:
I have no financial relationship whatesoever with anyone he lists (apart from making contributions to SoA); I've explained many times that ITM are the friends of one of the early bloggers in Iraq with whom I communicated; I never heard of the other organizations he tinfoil-hats about; and I do still wish this poor, pathetic little troll would get his meds.Obviously, there is ONE question he did NOT respond to, probably the most important of the lot: Do you receive any money at all from any sources to advocate certain views?
I will keep asking the question till we get something on the record.
An apology for calling me a "troll", banning me and then lying about his reasons for banning me would also be nice, but we'll cross that bridge when and if we get to it...
UPDATE 2: Jarvis has now amended his post to say that nobody pays him except his employer. I could push the envelope by asking whether his employer pays him to promote any particular views, but enough already.
Jarvis also tempered down his hysterical calls for radical change at Google News: the demands for a huge investigation into Google News' sources and methods became a plea that Nazi sites be banned. And guess what, the Nazi site has been removed! So it seems that it only took a - presumably polite - request to Google and the Nazi site was dropped. No need for all the "troll"-bashing hullaballoo and frenzied demands to investigate Google's methods and sources....
So hooray for Google. But Jeff Jarvis comes off looking pretty stupid, if not suspiciously anti-free speech. And me? Well, I think my work here is done for now: I guess Jarvis, being the inflated ego that he is, will not be able to let go of this idea that Google News needs more transparency/change, but this battle is done and (dare I say it?) I think the Gandhi-man won. Here's a final thought from someone called NEMO:
You know, Jeff, there is another lesson to be learned from all this: "trolling"/spamming/etc is a bit like terrorism - if someone is determined to get at you, there is really very little you can do to stop it, short of totally destroying the basic freedoms afforded by a Comments section.ENDGAME:
The amazing this is that so little of it goes on, because people are basically decent and will only resort to such lengths when they feel they, their loved ones or their beloved values (religion, freedom, even Google News) have been very seriously threatened or mistreated.
Rather than demonizing the g-man as a troll, deleting his comments and banning him, you could have taken a more laissez-faire approach. The results would have been about the same...
Similarly, governments which declare that "We will NEVER negotiate with Terrorists!" usually do end up being forced to sit down, acknowledge the very real grievances of those who have resorted to such extremes and make some changes.
Following 9/11, for example, Bush pulled US troops out of Saudi, a key Al Quaeda demand...
I'm not condoning violence, just making an observation. Look at Mandela (former "terrorist") or Northern Ireland for examples...
I think there is a lesson here.
If someone is banned, how can he spam--oh yeah, he used names like Jeffsux and katsux--a real mature individual whose points I want to hear.
Posted by Kat at March 24, 2005 05:33 PM
No, "nemo," you didn't see the posts I killd that led to the banning. I would have let him back in if he'd behaved. But he did not. He got worse. He is not welcome here.
Posted by Jeff Jarvis at March 24, 2005 05:37 PM
Is it trolling if I never comment but read from a distance. I may be guilty :-) But I've seen this topic come up more than once.
I think any site that allows comments to posts that are political will bring about trolls. It comes with the territory for a popular site like this one.
Posted by chris at March 24, 2005 05:47 PM
No, "nemo," you didn't see the posts I killd that led to the banning.
Well, yes I did... coz I wrote them!
Posted by nemo at March 25, 2005 04:17 PM
And I repeat, you did not see what was wrong with the posts. You may have no life and enjoy playing this game. I don't. Go get a life. Elsewhere.
Posted by Jeff Jarvis at March 25, 2005 04:21 PM
If someone is banned, how can he spam...?
You gotta remember your Greek mythology...
"I am nobody," said Ulysses...."Nemo sum."
"Nobody has blinded me!" screamed the giant, one-eyed Cyclops.
You been punk'd, dude!
Posted by nemo at March 25, 2005 04:22 PM