« Count Every Vote | Main | A Truly Great Prank »

Jay Tea To Kos: Get Stuffed

Before I start, a little disclaimer. I have nothing to do with the 2004 Weblog Awards. My sole involvement thus far have been 1) an e-mail from Kevin requesting that Paul and I "up the tempo" a little to keep up the pace here at Wizbang! while the Awards are keeping him busy, and 2) voting for a couple of sites already. I didn't even get a sneak preview of the ubercool logo Suzy designed. (Sniff -- I thought we meant more to each other than that, Suzy...)

Anyway, everyone else is chiming in on the ballot-stuffing being done by Kos' supporters, so I figured I'd toss in my 1.5 cents (inflation takes its toll). There are a few points I find enlightening over in the thread at Kos where this seems to have erupted.

The first is one Kos-head cites as justification for the stuffing is the fact that some Little Green Footballs readers are doing the same thing -- even pointing out that "(t)hey even borrowed the script from Kos to make their job easier." (UPDATE: I don't know whether LGFers did this or not -- I have no inside knowledge about the Awards, and don't want any. But the Kos-head's citing of it -- real or not -- is the key here.) Apparently it escaped his mind that there would have been no script to borrow had not he (or one of his colleagues) first written, used, and published it.

I understand the impulse to counter-cheat, but I don't agree with it. You don't answer bad conduct with bad conduct. My mother once told me, "don't argue with idiots. They drag you down to your level, then beat you with experience." Not only do I think that we would prove less skilled cheaters than they, but I think that by simply letting them choose the battleground, we already lose.

I also noticed, in my perusal of the comments, that Kos himself has not spoken up. He hasn't denounced the cheating, hasn't deleted the script, hasn't renounced the fraudulent votes. Kos has a history of deleting pieces from his site when they prove inconvenient; I find it telling he hasn't done so here.

I've often heard the argument against legalizing marijuana phrased as pot being a "gateway" drug that leads to more serious abuse in the future. I wonder -- could cheating in online voting be a "gateway" action that leads to cheating in votes that actually mean something? If so, it's nice of them to give us such a public track record to cite...

What really aggravates me is that Kevin set up these awards with the clear, stated purpose of giving excellent but relatively unknown blogs a chance at some publicity. Kevin seems to take Wizbang's high profile as a responsibility to the blogosphere and is trying to "share the wealth" a little. (As one of the biggest recipients of Kevin's largesse, I am especially sensitive to this topic.) But to the Kos-heads (or whatever the hell they call themselves; I don't care enough to find out), nothing is more important than WINNING.

I'm not going to suggest what sort of sanctions should be imposed. Apparently the fraudulent votes are being deleted and the abusers have been banned. That's also affecting a lot of innocent people, as well (obligatory cheap shot: but I really wonder if it's such a bad thing to ban AOL users), but apparently there's no other way to keep out the cheaters.

But this last part is strictly for any Kos-heads who find their way over here. I'm gonna speak to them in their own language for a moment:

Screw them.

J.

UPDATE: I'm closing comments on this thread. It's gotten wildly off-topic, and it's degenerated into re-fighting battles that were settled over a month ago. Anyone that obsessed with doing that is welcome to go join a Civil War Re-enactment club.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jay Tea To Kos: Get Stuffed:

» Right Wingnuthouse linked with KEVIN AYLWARD'S NIGHTMARE

» Hold The Mayo linked with A Pack of Pathetic Losers

» The Shape of Days linked with Vote for me, but only once per day, please

» Armies of Liberation linked with Election Update

» ninme linked with Never Wrote In Yesterday

» Abstract Musings linked with Stuffing the Ballot Box--Whatever the Means

» Six Meat Buffet linked with Sunday night roundup

» Interested-Participant linked with Cheating the 2004 Weblog Awards

» BLACKFIVE linked with 2004 Weblog Awards - Keep Voting

Comments (70)

I can't begin to describe h... (Below threshold)

I can't begin to describe how angry I am.

In 10 years, these are the days that those of us who are serious about this new media will look back on and, using technology that probably hasn't been imagined yet, wax poetically about the "good old days."

Kevin is a visionary...one of those who sees the potential of this new medium and, like a gardener planting a new seedling, has spent an inordinate amount of time and effort in nurturing, encouraging, and caring for his charge.

The awards are not the issue here. It is the corruption of one man's labor of love...the lack of compassion and empathy on the part of people who've laid claim to those words and wave them in front of our faces as proof of their moral superiority every chance they get.

It is the worst kind of hypocrisy...one that Dante reserved a special level in hell for; where hypocrites were punished because their crimes destroyed something pure, something good.

I have no suggestions on what can or should be done...only scorn for those who've proven themselves to be unworthy of rememberance or accolades.

Damn them all...

Mom Tea was a wise lady... ... (Below threshold)
mpickut:

Mom Tea was a wise lady... wonder what Mom Kos taught her kids...

-m

God, how lame.The ... (Below threshold)
Noonz:

God, how lame.

The best thing about the awards is finding new blogs that I wasn't aware of yet. This takes the spirit of the awards and dumps it in the crapper.

Kos is big enough that his fans shouldn't need to stuff the box to win. Play fair, and enjoy the competition!

If Kevin had had asked arou... (Below threshold)
JimK:

If Kevin had had asked around, he could have implemented a much more secure solution.

BTW, it can STILL be gamed. All one needs is Firefox (again) and one extension that I shall not name.

The whole thing is worthless. It started off as a "Who does Kevin personally think is popular and cool" contest, now it's a "who can cheat the fastest" contest.

Cut your losses. Stop until you can implement a system that defeats cheaters.

Imagine how the US presiden... (Below threshold)
Rodney Dill:

Imagine how the US presidential election would work if everyone that voted were given a '"CARD" when they voted that said they had voted, and it was their individual responsibility to keep the "CARD". If the next time they come in to vote they had lost their "CARD" they were allowed to vote again and simply given another "CARD" so that their voting could be tracked.

This is pretty much how "COOKIES" work. I think I've lost my cookies over this.

Jesus Christ is nothing Sac... (Below threshold)

Jesus Christ is nothing Sacred?

The purpose of blogging is ... (Below threshold)

The purpose of blogging is to strip away the arrogance and elitism of the MSM and return editorial control and the flow of information back to the consumer.

In blogging, the real vote by the consumer is readership and the real vote by the blogger is the link. Engaging in such vain activities such as some farcical election to establish some sort of award tradition will only plant the seeds for blogging's eventual corruption and downfall, similar to the process of decay and intellectual stagnation that the MSM is suffering from.

The only good this process serves is to expose the corruption in the blogopshere (aka the script-kiddies that cling to Kos's site like iciles off of a statue's balls) and to afford the opportunity to discredit and shun the corrupting influences.

On another note, the next time that a reporter throws out Kos as an example of a high-profile blogger or mentions Kos in the results of this ballot, maybe they should ask him why he hasn't denounced such ballot-corrupting activity instead of tossing more logs into the furious chiminea of his ego.

For the record, I was just ... (Below threshold)
JimK:

For the record, I was just able to vote, get the 24 hour lockout, change some things I was doing, and vote again 10 more times.

It's still not even close to secure. You need a CAPTCHA system in addition to the IP and cookie security.

I understand Mr. Simon's cr... (Below threshold)

I understand Mr. Simon's criticism, while not agreeing with it. It's sort of like the arguments I heard about Rock n' Roll while I was growing up; to sell out or keep the genre "pure?"

If Kevin were offering money or a trip to Tahiti to the winners, I would agree with Mr. Simon. But he's not, is he? All he's offering is exposure for a large number of blogs that I've never heard of.

More than 25 years ago, I was a struggling, starving actor in New York. Let me tell you something I learned about that experience; if talent alone determined who was successful, there are many "stars" today who'd be selling aluminum siding and lots of "tin men" making millions and having women crawling all over them.

More often than not it's luck...the fortuitousness to be in the right place at the right time. And while blogging SHOULD be an endeavor for fun and NOT profit, part of that fun is ego-boosting recognition. If we're ever to get to the desirable point that Mr. Simon advocates, everything possible should be done to encourage real talent.

Like off-broadway "Showcase" productions (where new talent was paraded before agents, producers, and directors and run by people with EXACTLY the same attitude as Mr. Aylward) these awards serve a useful purpose. I only hope that this experience won't discourage Mr. Aylward or others from continuing this project in future years.

We all constantly hear how ... (Below threshold)
Hangtown Bob:

We all constantly hear how Kos gets an amazing number of hits per day (I personally wonder how this can be). Maybe, we are now getting a hint of how this is happening. I am in no way technically knowledgable enough to know if this can be done, but why can't it? Perhaps, the the same persons who are using automated procedures to "stuff" the ballot box are using the same type of "bots" to hit on Kos' blog. Wouldn't it be a real laugh if Kos' daily traffic was only 1/100 of what he claims? Anyway, just some food for thought!!!

Jay 'ol buddy, those are th... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Jay 'ol buddy, those are the 2004 Weblog Awards.

Paul:Doh!</... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Paul:

Doh!

DAMN Logitech for putting the "3" and "4" right NEXT TO EACH OTHER on my keyboard...

Going in to fix that right now, thanks.

But for the record: I had nothing to do with the 2003 awards, either.

J.

Doesn't anyone see the iron... (Below threshold)
Just Don:

Doesn't anyone see the irony here?

Rigged election? Muwahahahahahahaha

Simon: the script-kiddie... (Below threshold)
Madfish Willie:

Simon: the script-kiddies that cling to Kos's site like iciles off of a statue's balls... LMAO!

If these were my awards, I'd just say fuck em and delete them from the voting lineup... what a bunch of jackasses...

1.) Ballot cheating is the ... (Below threshold)
julie:

1.) Ballot cheating is the gateway to Weblog Awards cheating.

2.) Since Kos announced that winning this award would increase his ad revenues, it is fraud.

3.) I would have allowed them to cheat. Then I would have disqualifed him when the final tallies were announced.

4.) I'm an AOL user, you snob!

JAY, I compared you to the ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

JAY, I compared you to the drummer with Green Day -- isn't that enough to prove my idealism where you are concerned?! What else will it take, man?!?

But, about these Awards, as... (Below threshold)
-S-:

But, about these Awards, as with the earliest tip o' the liberal iceberg attempting to sink the process when my logo was/is maligned because I, a conservative, created it (but nothing else academically, it seems that the motivation behind the criticism by some about the logo is based upon personal invective about me because I created the logo, and that I'm a conservative, someone who voted for Bush, so that means everything I've drawn, who I am, all of it is denigratable to some, particularly a few manic French/Danish MAC users -- so far, I'm mystified if they're so upset because I use a DELL and not a MAC, or, that I'm "anglo saxon" (compared to what?, I haven't a clue), that I voted for Bush, that I'm American, what, it's all combined in one big diss-fest by certain liberals about the logo and about me as designer of it, so I conclude it's simply liberal politics once again migrating into academics without further attention to specific points other than emotionally charged liberalism disdaining "all threats" to liberalism).

Anyway, the criticism of the Awards process and attempt to skewer the results, as with election forecasting months and months (and months) in the past, is motivated in my view based upon liberal politics. They attempt to make "design" about being a liberal versus being a conservative, and all the rest that goes with it, and are, once again, attempting to distort public opinion inorder to force public opinion to support their politics.

KOS has just finally proven that he has never, as in, never, had any balance where information is concerned. If it matters any, I think his site looks awful and always have, much less what's written on it, such that, I never visit his site. Sometimes some people just overassume their ability to sway the public, and I believe that KOS has finally come through, at least more clearly now, as the drum-major waving a giant weenie instead of a wand. Ha, I said they (critics of the logo based upon their emotionalism) were wankers, and, you know, they really are.

- Actually theres a very si... (Below threshold)

- Actually theres a very simple solution to all of this. Quiet down now kids. Remember what the teacher does with the child that needs attention to such a desperate degree they can't control themselves. He/She generally gives them what they want via absolute isolation, while at the same time letting their "issues" speak loud and clear to the rest of the class....

- Simply generate a new "Best of the Cheats" and move Kos over to it all by themselves.... Done and done....

- Its inescapable that the whole freeking ambush is for that purpose. Kos is even ecouraging his adelpated asshat brigade to post the most inflamitory comments as possible, encouraging even more visits by angering people who are goaded into responding. He wants to give the MSM the impression he's King of the hill and the only serious blogsite in the whole community. We help him in that endeavor if we fall for his marketing ploy....

- Isolate him and then turn your backs on him and he'll go fucking batty having been "outed". Don't fall for his bullshit Kevin. We're better than that....

- Just a thought.....

Wait, I just had the misfor... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Wait, I just had the misfortune of actually visiting that link to KOS you provide here, and I read that he writes that "you can vote once every 24 hours" as advice (motivation) to readers.

So, he's outright asking people to go cheat?

You know what? I voted once two days ago, the afternoon of the first day that the voting began.

And then I departed the Weblog voting process.

As in, I cast one vote per Category (I skipped two Categories because I didn't have an opinion about the Finalists listed -- believe it was Best of No.######### or thereabouts), but I voted once for Categories I had an opinion about and then left afterward.

As in, IT NEVER OCCURED TO ME TO VOTE MORE THAN ONCE on or for anyone, any Category, any site.

KOS is over there leading people (which is why I equate him with a drum-major waving a weaner instead of a wand) into mulitple voting in the Awards, into CHEATING?!?

I realize that there's no iron clad Awards restriction as to voting multiple times; however, it's a matter of public conscience, that you cast a vote and that the vote represents your opinion.

Voting mulitple times just ridicules the process and attempts to diminish the process of the Awards altogether. Now that I think about it, that's apparently what KOS intends: to diminish the Awards process altogether (motivating people to vote in multiples, and for HIM/KOS).

If ANYone ever doubted or questioned liberal ethics -- an oxymoron at this point to my view -- then let them access KOS and see that in action: "vote early and often" is the motto of the dishonest, crude and corrupt.

BTW....I like to think of ... (Below threshold)

BTW....I like to think of it as "Potty training for liberals/Marxists by shotgun"....
- A trip over to LGF and the constant flaming going on there by LLL trolls exposes the whole leftard campaign and goals. they're sneaky bastards....tried to pull LGF into the mess by phony postings that LGF people were fighting back using the same script....muddying the waters....total BS..... These titweasles deserve the best ostracizing we can manage.....If they want to be "poor victims" of their lying cheating ideology I say we do all we can to help them be outcasts from the blogoshere.....

Suzy, to my everlasting sha... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Suzy, to my everlasting shame, I DID forget about the "Green Day" thing. I warmed me tremendously. In fact, the only thing that would have been more satisfying was if I could ID a single Green Day song. But that's on me.

All is forgiven on my end. I am deeply ashamed and remorseful for ever doubting.

And very, very eloquently put. I felt awkward even voting once, because of the APPEARANCE of impropriety because of my status here. It's also partially why I don't participate much in the caption contests any more.

But that's just us. We're hopelessly crippled by such outdated concepts as honor and honesty propriety and the like. We're obsolete.

Care to join me for a refreshing dip in this tar pit, m'dear?

J.

This calls to mind somethin... (Below threshold)
Thomas Hazlewood:

This calls to mind something the Nixon crowd once called 'rat=f##king for things they did to rig elections while still in college. After they'd acheived REAL power and position, they didn't change their MO.

This is not some mild annoyance. It bespeaks the mentality of those practicing these methods. They WILL cheat to win, for the trivial AND the important. It's what they do.

Like the con man who feels no compunction at duping the 'dumb' mark, these folks have no compunctions about perverting social conventions that provide for peacability among us. They use the people's trust against them, destroying that trust and, then, blatantly brag about.

These are not 'good' people who made a mistake. Their willingness to abuse the traits that keep a society together, for even negligible gains, exposes their meanness.

Here's a thought; allow al... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Here's a thought; allow all the cheaters to vote for Kos, then move it to a new category called "Most Immoral Blog" or something less flattering... and then hand him the win.

I also noticed, in my pe... (Below threshold)
tas:

I also noticed, in my perusal of the comments, that Kos himself has not spoken up. He hasn't denounced the cheating, hasn't deleted the script, hasn't renounced the fraudulent votes.

I don't mean to be insulting, but honestly, what makes you think that Kos cares? Or that he even knows that his blog has been placed in the running for awrds from a conservative blog that he's not even remotely involved with? I mean, think about this from his perspective: the man is running the biggest blog in history, he receives at least a couple thousand comments per day, and you're asking him to read all of those comments and be responsible for the actions of all of his users. That's simply ridiculous, and no blogger should be expected to take up such a responsibility.

If you want to blame the few Kos users that perpetrated this, fine. In fact, I would agree with you that what they did is wrong, and they should appreciate Kevin's efforts for puttting this contest together. I'll agree with you there. However, this whole "blame Kos and all the liberals in general" vibe really pisses me off. And I think it's arrogant that you think Kos should answer to you when the actions committed weren't even perpetrated by him.

Wow taz. That's a really sm... (Below threshold)

Wow taz. That's a really smart thing to say. So Kos is so full of himself that he doesn't even know that this blog awards thing is going on because it's run on a conservative blog that is WAAY beneath him. How quaint. That's like saying you've never heard of Michelle Malkin, or LGF, or Instapundit, or......

As for the script thing, you are partially right. For one, Kos is on vacation. The guys that perpatrated this should be banned from the blogosphere for life. Kos should make a statement about this. It would only be fair. I though we were supposed to be better than the politicians? I guess not!

- Taz - Kos himself may be ... (Below threshold)

- Taz - Kos himself may be on vacation but I don't believe for an instant he wasn't or hasn't been made aware of this asshat mess by now.... That dog don't hunt..... try again....

- I'm just waiting for some brain dead moonbat to post something to the effect that this was a right-wing conspiracy to make Kos look bad.... "Rove waves" yet again..... bet on it.....

I love the excuses being ma... (Below threshold)

I love the excuses being made in the Daily Kos thread. The primary one seems to be that since there was a way to exploit the voting process, it's okay to do - ESPECIALLY because the person running the poll also runs a completely separate "wingnut" blog. *sigh* The twisted minds of moonbats never cease to amaze and confound.

KOS, isn't that french for ... (Below threshold)
Chris:

KOS, isn't that french for asshole??

taz:I'm not "blami... (Below threshold)
-S-:

taz:

I'm not "blaming all Liberals" or what you wrote, close to that. I do blame and recognize liberal 'philosophy' feigning as ethics in this cheat philosophy underway promoted by KOS, that site, and echoed and also promoted by Wampum, as per what Kevin posted in abstract and recap about that.

They are both notoriously liberal sites denigrating this Awards process because (1.) KOS is placed in competition with LittleGreenFootballs, a conservative site in general, a horror to the liberal prejudicial and emotionally driven way of thinking; and, (2.) Kevin authors Wizbang, and is editing/managing the Awards process -- and Wizbang is, apparently, also some sort of stumbling block to liberal mania.

Therefore, the Awards have been (mis)perceived by Liberal spokespersons as being some sort of political process by conservatives to render some sort of indecent something or other to their liberal cause and must be cheated, violated, denigrated but not disregarded, as per what's now being promoted by liberal spokespersons. It's the "attack because I THINK someone littered my third cousins yard five states away" form of committing crimes, "because it's possible, so go, do it" and all.

The Awards were and are just a nominated group of blogs from among many thousands of netizens. I mean, *I am* a conservative but no one sent me cryptic emails in the cover of darkness, asking me to commisserate in overthrowing liberalism and all that is not holy to liberals. There was, to my view and experience, a nominating process by which many thousands of blogs were suggested -- by a lot of liberals, no doubt -- and a lot of old fashioned hard work done by many volunteers (I was not one of those involved in the editing process, however, but merely volunteered and provided the logo design work), but to read liberals' blogs who are decrying the Awards process (and suggesting cheating as a response so that KOS can topple LGF or something like that), they are doing so because they have some (mis)perception that because SOME people are conservatives, that the ENTIRE Awards process is corrupt.

I mean, it's ridiculous, nonsensical reasoning. It also lends a lot of focus to KOS and others similar where no focus would be originally. They make the Awards process about them simply because they've struck out in denigration about the Awards process and the Awards are then blemished, or at least that's what appears to be being attempted by liberal sites and users of those sites (KOS and Wampum and others).

Even I, the designer of the Awards logo, am being denigrated because I'm a conservative. A lotta crumby, very tacky and even stupid naysaying that is the result of someone's emotionally driven paranoia and jealousies and whatever else is in the personality of troubled people who get emotionally upset about a logo design because the designer of the logo is a conservative....which ultimately was written elsewhere about me, that I "was a Bush supporter" (and therefore that I merited the complaints....about the logo I designed...). Makes utterly no sense at all. It's like reading someone's obsessive compulsive lunacy.

BUT, anyway, I suppose the strategy is to complain about each and all aspects of the Awards process to reach some critical mass of complaints about the Awards themselves, by those responsible for this complaining, however unfounded, however irrationally emotionally and inexplicably driven the complaints appear to be.

What I can't figure is, if the Awards are so meaningless and awful to some liberals, to KOS readers and authors especially, then why the heck is that site even working to "win" an Award? I mean, you'd think if what they posit is true, that the Awards are not credible because Kevin's a conservative, the designer of the logo is a conservative (does that even make any SENSE? no, it doesn't, to everyone else), then they wouldn't even want to participate, much less motivate people into voting for them to "win" an Award.

I say that KOS should be immortalized, such as can be, through this Awards process this year, as being responsible for encouraging cheating, for cheating and for the worst possible display of abuse of the internet going. I quite strongly believe that the KOS site should be removed from consideration in the Awards, as should the other (Wampum, if they're listed there) and similar for cheating. Cheat, you lose. I don't think any more mention or hype about KOS, especially, should take place but I DO think that advertisers of that site should take note of the dishonesty being suggested by that site.

You know, for all the acade... (Below threshold)
-S-:

You know, for all the academia lauding that liberals are so prone to do, there isn't a university I attended that doesn't have the academic honesty policy in place, such that, you cheat, you get dismissed from college.

So, I find it remarkable that there's a promotion of cheating taken place and underway, even, by liberal authors. The very idea is anathema to me and others, but apparently to liberals, the ends are their means, so cheat away!

Again, academic honesty requires that you suffer penalty of disqualification (expulsion) if you cheat, if you break the ethics required to maintain enrollment. So, cheaters should be booted from this process and others. You cheat, you lose.

Our host makes the coy stat... (Below threshold)
jukeboxgrad:

Our host makes the coy statement "I don't know" whether or not folks at LGF cheated. How lame. Not only is it clear they cheated, it's clear that cheating was promoted at LGF (see http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=13820#c0038) well before it was first promoted at Kos.

Apparently even Aylward knows folks at LGF cheated (even though our host and his ilk are doing their best to sweep that material information under the rug). This is evident in the fact that LGF is one of the blogs that had its counter reset (see http://2004weblogawards.com/archives/000079.php).

Our host also says "Kos has a history of deleting pieces," and refers to a piece of his own that Kos allegedly deleted. The cheat-script was not posted by Kos, but rather by one of his visitors. As far as I know, Kos does not delete posts by his visitors. Someone please enlighten me if they have proof to the contrary.

I think what really pisses people off is that the method posted on Kos was a lot smarter then the method posted (earlier) on LGF. Kind of like how Kerry won lots of medals (and came home and found fame and fortune) and O'Neill didn't. Sour grapes.

Kind of like how Kerry w... (Below threshold)
julie:

Kind of like how Kerry won lots of medals (and came home and found fame and fortune) and O'Neill didn't. Sour grapes.

No, Kerry scammed some medals, came home and married a couple of rich broads. O'Neill came home, graduated at the top of his class in law school, clerked at the USSC, married a woman he loves so much he donated a kidney to her. Now is that love, or what! Can you imagine Kerry ever donating a kidney to Teh-re-za? However, seeing her act and sound loaded throughout the campaign, I predict she will need a new liver before she needs a kidney.

And that is what really pisses off people like jukeboxgrad and the kos crowd -- not only are they not as smart as they think they are, they are just a bunch of sorry losers.

Julie, nice to see how you ... (Below threshold)
jukeboxgrad:

Julie, nice to see how you jump at the chance to excrete an unsubstantiated personal slur. I realize this is more fun for you than even attempting to deal with the substantive nature of what I posted, that our host is a hypocrite for pretending he doesn't know that methods for cheating were posted at LGF well before similar methods (albeit smarter) were posted at Kos.

- I'll believe someone at L... (Below threshold)

- I'll believe someone at LGF cheated when I see the proof with my own eyes....right now what I've seen is posted cheat scripts on liberal sites with a lame assed typical responsibility averting disclaimer and a wink of the eye...

- What I would believe is some dork libtard pencil dick tried to muddy the water by running a script loop on LGF to make it look like conservatives are the same sort of bottom feeder slack-asses as the titweasle left....So far ISP check backs don't support your BS claims "junkbox"... try again....

- What I do see is that wonkette-ass and Kos are romancing the liberal press water boys right now and it wouldn't look so good "in the copy" if the Kos junkies came up short in an online Award contest, even while they're both out there shooting off their months and trying to give the reading public the idea that they're the "voice" of blogging.....

No, jukeboxgrad, YOU substa... (Below threshold)
julie:

No, jukeboxgrad, YOU substantiated the charge that YOU are a dumbass loser. Not by one post, mind you, but by two. Are you going to try for a third? My money is on that you will go for the gold, since dumbass loser is the only contest you will ever be able to win without cheating.

junkbox's link to LGF is to... (Below threshold)
c04ch:

junkbox's link to LGF is to a post where the people are asked to play by the rules... and then there's the post at Kos where there is a script posted...

Hardly seems like the same thing to me

Hunter said "I'll believe s... (Below threshold)
jukeboxgrad:

Hunter said "I'll believe someone at LGF cheated when I see the proof with my own eyes"

Read on. It's a darn shame you expect someone else to do your homework for you.

"What I would believe is some dork libtard pencil dick tried to muddy the water by running a script loop on LGF to make it look like conservatives are the same sort of bottom feeder slack-asses as the titweasle left"

Thank you for proving that your inane and recursive conspiracy theories can be used to blame anything on anyone. Please explain why your theory makes more sense than suggesting that the person posting the script on Kos was actually dispatched by Rove.

In the typical spirit of denial ("of course we'll still find hidden WMD, of course Saddam was really behind 9/11"), there's still refusal to believe that LGF cheated, even though the evidence is crystal-clear.

From http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=13820#c0038:

"Go here [http://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html]. Add the 'zap cookies' bookmarklet to your favorites. Vote. Then run the 'zap cookies' bookmarklet, refresh page, run bookmarklet, refresh page... each refresh will count as a vote." (12/3/2004 11:23AM PST)

From that same thread: "Sometimes having 126 IP's has it's ups. Not many, but this is one." (12/3/2004 11:20AM PST)

From that same thread: "Having four different broadband connections available at three locations is a beautiful thing" (12/3/2004 12:44PM PST)

From http://2004weblogawards.com/archives/000079.php:

"Good to see LGF coming back. What's great is that they're using the Kos' perl script against them." (12/4, 11:56 pm)

"LGF has just gained a huge number of votes in the past few minutes. Looks like someone else has learned to use scripts." (12/4, 11:59 pm)

"25,141 votes in 27 minutes ... So we've escalated from 107 votes per minute to 931 votes per minute in the past half hour after all of the script hacking notes have been posted." (12/5, 12:14 am)

"Well, that was fun. Got LGF up to 40% with Kos' own script." (12/5, 12:36 am)

Of course, the best proof that LGF cheated is that Kevin reset their counter (see http://2004weblogawards.com/archives/000079.php). Those who say LGF didn't cheat should provide some alternate explanation for why Kevin did this.

In other words, LGF folks cheated both before and after the script was posted on Kos. It's just that the LGF folks weren't very good at cheating until they bumped into a better coder who happened to also be a poster at Kos.

c04ch said "junkbox's link to LGF is to a post where the people are asked to play by the rules ... and then there's the post at Kos where there is a script posted...Hardly seems like the same thing to me"

I realize you have a selective view of reality, but please try to pay attention to the facts above. I'll summarize for you. Posters on both sites have discouraged cheating. Other posters on both sites have encouraged cheating, and suggested tricks to use. Cheating was encouraged on LGF well before it was encouraged on Kos. The main difference is that someone on Kos came up with a much smarter way to do it, which LGF folks promptly copied as soon as they heard about it. Subsequently the host reset counters for both LGF and Kos (and one or more other sites).

Meanwhile, self-righteous, hypocritical blowhards are blaming the cheating problem on Kos, while doing everything possible to deny the reality that methods to facilitate cheating were promoted on LGF well before they were promoted on Kos. Someone at Kos just had a better method.

Meanwhile, the bot known at Julie is stuck in the "when-the-other-person-has-better-facts-just-call-them-a-dumbass loser" loop, and not even pretending to say anything of substance.

- junkboxbrain - Given the ... (Below threshold)

- junkboxbrain - Given the fact that the two initial posts that are most apparent are within two minutes of each other just makes me even more suspicious that its the same dimwit....

[You can vote every few seconds (none / 1)
Just erase your cookies. Which means that this award is a waste of time. I say ignore it.
DLC=RNC-30years
by hardleft on Sat Dec 4th, 2004 at 11:21:27 PST]

"Go here [http://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html]. Add the 'zap cookies' bookmarklet to your favorites. Vote. Then run the 'zap cookies' bookmarklet, refresh page, run bookmarklet, refresh page... each refresh will count as a vote." (12/3/2004 11:23AM PST)

- However, I'm perfectly prepared to condemn anyone who took part in gaming the polling, regardless of his/her political affiliation, are you?...

- and BTW... the moment you can't get through a single post without troting out all the tired BS memes of the Marxist asshats and stay on the topic you fall off the cliff into the scum lake... try harder

From what I've read here, j... (Below threshold)
-S-:

From what I've read here, jukeboxgrad isn't going to take much of anyone else's opinion and/or information to heart, nor seriously, but I'll share what I believe to be true, that contradicts the many spinning tops that I find contained in jukeboxgrad's comments in this thread:

(1.) John Kerry wrote his own "medal" information, editorialized his own circumstances and established his own rewards -read - medals of honor accordingly, based upon substantiated and well accepted surface wounds and a well discussed bruise, even, which is insulting to the honor of those persons who served, suffered *actual* and even fatal wounds in battle and remained in their lifetimes without awards or fanfare, who didn't even require such, and yet we have a person such as John Kerry who made a four-month stint in safe to safer circumstances, shot a fleeing teenager in the back and then paraded his past as being that of 'a war hero' -- primarily, to summarize, a guy who for egotistical (I consider them cowardly) motivations, assumed a very short tour of duty in resentment and then used the tour for purposes of self congratulatory distortions of history.

Compared to John O'Neill, John Kerry is a flea on that fleeing teenager's peasant loin cloth. By the mere fact that Kerry wrote his own record and recommended himself for the medals he later received, and it appears also had his *actual* military record expunged/overwritten/rewritten/edited with the Presidentail helps of Jimmy Carter later, well, all things considered, anyone with military service can examine the actual behaviors by John Kerry and come up short of expectations.

John O'Neill, on the other hand, may not have "received" any "medals" but what value, credibility, to "medals" bear when you manufacture the conditions yourself and recommend yourself based upon surface wounds, bruises, scratches and the like, all of which John Kerry "suffered" including his 'worst' "injury," and that was scatter/rice wounds on his buttocks while running away from an explosion engineered by himself and/or his buds, not by the 'enemy' (although, in liberal terms, it apparently can be described as 'enemy fire' since the explosion was created and engineered by American military personnel, including Kerry, that inflicted Kerry's 'worst' wounding as he ran away from the exploding ordinance -- I don't know about anyone else, but, the entire scenario sounds very suspicious to my view, much less Kerry being "awarded" a "medal" later for his "wounds" that he 'suffered' from that mishap).

Anyway, all things considered, most of us have tried to honor all service persons wounded while in service, regardless. John Kerry attempted to sell himself to the Presidency based upon himself as "a war hero" complete with misrepresentations about the nature of how and why he received what he received in terms of "medals" and it was too much for others who knew the truth of his past, and, things developed from there.

John O'Neill was and is a Democrat. But, to hear liberals' take on O'Neill, he's a repulsive nogoodfornothing, while Kerry's renditions of his "hero" status were roundly accepted without question -- just read jukeboxfgrad's reiteration of the mantra of propoganda that Kerry profered, complete with promotion of misinformation for purposes of again misdirecting even a conversation about an internet polling process.

HOWEVER, the issue isn't all that unrelated, and it's interesting that a liberal and Kerry apologist would attempt to use such a tale of distortions to defend those liberal sites that promoted cheating this Awards process, much as did Kerry attempt to cheat history and reality itself (we still do not have public access to Kerry's military record in full, and Kerry still has not agreed to provide that access, but what access has been made has established enough suspicious recreations of important documents as to write several texts about it, and, even Kerry's statements contradict the greater majority of statemetns by others about his behavior in Vietnam).

The two issues are similar in that there's an attempt to "recreate" history and/or information to suit a liberal cause: that liberalism is "more popular" and/or "greater" in some public acceptance factor than anyone/anything else, that liberal authors supercede others, all that, BUT BY FALSE PRETENSES. That is, the falseness of the cheat process of these Awards is quite similar in context to how John Kerry behaved about his "military" past, and about truth and history themselves and that was by manipulating the information.

Such as has been now attempted by liberal Finalists in this process. I accept from Kevin, also, that a conservative blog has done likewise (I read that later link/update that Kevin provides here and I agree that that source is also contributing to the cheat process, and should be dealt with similarly to others behaving similarly). But, it's KOS and Wampum that appear to have led the concept, authored this method, so to speak, based upon the false and quite hideous misrepresentation by some at LGF.

I read the dishonest votes that Kevin lists in Wizbang and I see that LGF received some, but the majority there are liberal blogs, and from what I read on LGF, the site attempted to broach the subject of cheating in the Awards process as commentary ON and ABOUT and AFTER the cheating process was launched by other sites (as in, LGF commented on the process).

Like I wrote earlier, cheaters should be disqualified, and would be, were I editing the process. But, I also don't even know technically if that could be possible, to determine the extent of fraudulent votes. At least the majority of the dishonest votes are now removed. And, at least most of the rest of us have only voted once (I did) for Categories that we regard (I didn't vote in all Categories, just those I found approachable and appreciable).

It's a case of personal responsibility. Everyone should be exercising their own conscience here, but, if you're one of those whose conscience says it's alright to vote as many times as you "can" (and so you do), and you promote that concept to others, then, don't be resentful or "shocked" when the rest of us write books about your bad behavior and provide media with the facts behind the later results. As John O'Neill did and is doing.

I respect John O'Neill and wish him well. In my perspective, O'Neill is a real American hero, as are the Swiftvets, all and each. And I regard John Kerry as a dishonest and corrupt individual. As I also do KOS as a site author, and Wampum and each and all sites and site authors who have engaged in this bad behavior where these Awards are concerned. I had a hunch that Keith Olberman was a jerk, but this really clinches it.

- And yes I noted it was tw... (Below threshold)

- And yes I noted it was two different days but the time similarities maybe marks a "coffee" break poster.....

The issue here is real simp... (Below threshold)

The issue here is real simple:
1) LGF was leading the poll before the lone gunmen at Kos posted his script;
2) A poster at LGF provided a step-by-step primer on cheating a full day before the Kos script (Hunter: the 4th was a Saturday...so much for your "Coffee Break" poster conspiracy);
3) As long as LGF was winning, no one cared that LGF blatantly condoned cheating by not removing the offending post;
4) A commenter at Kos caomes up with a better method of cheating, and promptly puts Kos in the lead;
5) The geniuses at LGF copy said script, and the pissing match between Kos and LGF is symbolized in an online poll.

So, what exactly are you all so self-righteous about? The fact that LGF can't cheat as well as Kos?

Jukeboxgrad: If you call co... (Below threshold)
julie:

Jukeboxgrad: If you call coming here to insult the weblog's hosts and readers substance, get your head examined. And congratulations for winning the Dumbass 2004 award.

- However, I'm perfectly... (Below threshold)

- However, I'm perfectly prepared to condemn anyone who took part in gaming the polling, regardless of his/her political affiliation, are you?...

- I addressed that - read then comment .... but on second thought don't bother....I don't think the polling issue is your real focus here.... you just want to flame dork-for-brains... trundle on back over to your cess pool on Kos like a good little boy.... the grown-ups want to chat.....

- Kevin has taken care of the mess so it doesn't require any additional yammering.....

Truth has it exactly right,... (Below threshold)
jukeboxgrad:

Truth has it exactly right, and he's more concise than I am.

Hunter said: "Given the fact that the two initial posts that are most apparent are within two minutes of each other just makes me even more suspicious that its the same dimwit"

Your "point" is nothing but pure speculation. And even it happens to be true, it still means nothing. It's very unlikely Kevin would have ultimately needed to reset the counter for LGF if only one LGF "dimwit" was cheating. And as I showed, LGF cheating is indicated by a variety of posts (at LGF and elsewhere), not just those two.

"However, I'm perfectly prepared to condemn anyone who took part in gaming the polling, regardless of his/her political affiliation, are you?"

That sets you distinctly apart from the host at Powerline, the host at Captain's Quarters, and various other "respected" bloggers (not to mention countless commenters on their sites and elsewhere).

To answer your question, I think the "polling" is a meaningless waste of time, and I think the "gaming" is also a meaningless waste of time. What's interesting is all the hypocrites who are crawling out of the woodwork with one-sided faux-outrage. Your turn: are you prepared to condemn them? (I have a vague sense that maybe you are, but I don't want to make the mistake of overestimating your integrity.) If so, you and I have no argument.

Your later post, which consists entirely of incoherent babble, gives me the impression that you realized you were, despite yourself, actually starting to make sense, and you decided you didn't want to venture further into such unfamiliar territory.

S said "John Kerry wrote his own 'medal' information ..."

By the way, O'Neill is a liar. I proved that here: http://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/2004/09/a_challenge_to_.html. The host, as a result, still lacks the courage and decency to post a summary, despite repeated promises and reminders.

I'd be delighted to debate these points (Kerry/O'Neill etc.) with you, but here is obviously not the place. I suggest you ask Beldar to do what he promised to do (host a follow-up discussion based on his summary, which is still AWOL). If and when he does, you can be sure to find me there.

"From what I read on LGF, the site attempted to broach the subject of cheating in the Awards process as commentary ON and ABOUT and AFTER the cheating process was launched by other sites (as in, LGF commented on the process)."

Wrong. Cheating was promoted on LGF before it was promoted on Kos. Period. I've already documented this. Scroll up. I notice you're determined to not let facts get in the way of your pre-ordained beliefs.

"If you're one of those whose conscience says it's alright to vote as many times as you 'can' (and so you do), and you promote that concept to others, then, don't be resentful or 'shocked' when the rest of us write books about your bad behavior and provide media with the facts behind the later results."

If you're one of those whose conscience says it's alright to criticize only Kos, when in fact LGF folks were cheating first, and bragging about it, then don't be resentful or 'shocked' when I come along and point out what a colossal hypocrite you are.

The bot known as Julie proves again that she can't tell the difference between "insult" and "substance." And as unimaginative as you are with regard to the former, I see that you are still consistently empty-handed with regard to the latter.

- On the LurchKerry meme - ... (Below threshold)

- On the LurchKerry meme -

1) When sKerry produces that pesky form 180 releasing the other 100 pages of his "hidden" service records....

2) When he produces the "lost" form DD214 copys of "both" of his discharges....

3) When anyone anyhere is willing to take O'Neille up on his standing offer of $100,000 dollars to refute even one statement made in his book....

4) When the Ketchup Sluts boy toy goes on national TV and faces his detracters and answers the pile of questions and lies he has gotten away with for years instead of depending on his wall of silence and talking point BS by his minions to deflect and hide, using the liberal media to carry his water buckets....

5) When BunnyBoy actually files in court, as his asshat staff keep threatening too but never quite manage, which he'll never do because it would immediatly open his lying pravaricating ass up to "full disclosure"...

When all of these things take place I'll be glad to debate the duplicity of the plastic blow up toy Senator from Messy-Mass.... Till then I wouldn't waste my time....

- On the polling scams I stand by what I said....I would definately condemn anyone who took part in that.... period.....Loud and clear....

Jukeboxgrad: Actually, call... (Below threshold)
julie:

Jukeboxgrad: Actually, calling someone a bot is the epitome of unimaginative and your belief that you have anything of “substance” to offer anyone is, I'm afraid, delusional. No matter how you try to sublimate it, YOUR GUY LOST. YOU LOST THE ELECTION. GIVE IT UP.

p.s.: Better to be empty-handed then empty headed like you.

Hunter said "On the LurchKe... (Below threshold)
jukeboxgrad:

Hunter said "On the LurchKerry meme ..."

I realize that since your position on the current matter is utterly discredited, you'd now love to change the subject. Standard operating procedure. Meet me at Beldar's place, if you're willing to speak up there and convince the host to finally make good on his promises. He ignored my reminders. Maybe he won't ignore yours, since you and he are ideological comrades. I'll be watching for your appearance there. Put up or shut up.

"3) When anyone anyhere is willing to take O'Neille up on his standing offer of $100,000 dollars to refute even one statement made in his book...."

I've done so at the abovementioned location and O'Neill is oddly silent on the subject. So much for O'Neill's "offer." By the way, I can't find any credible reference to such an offer. URL, please.

"On the polling scams I stand by what I said....I would definately condemn anyone who took part in that.... period.....Loud and clear...."

Your statements on this point are anything but "loud and clear." Do you condemn the fact that our host here speaks up against cheating by Kos folks, but is utterly silent with regard to (earlier, albeit clumsier) cheating by LGF folks? Yes or no? Time for you to release your own Form 180 on this very simple point.

Julie said "your belief that you have anything of 'substance' to offer anyone is, I'm afraid, delusional."

I realize that labeling documented facts as "delusional" is much easier for you than coming up with an iota of contrary evidence.

"YOUR GUY LOST"

I realize you think that winning (sic) the election means that any uncomfortable truths become dismissable (like the fact that our host here and many others are hypocrites). Typical.

"Calling someone a bot is the epitome of unimaginative"

If you think "dumbass" is more imaginative than "bot," you're entitled to your opinion. I think the term I used accurately reflects the one-note nature of your consistentlly content-free posts (free of content except for steady repetition of the same numbingly unimaginative ad hominem attack).

But on second thought, I mispoke. To call you a bot is to insult innnocent computers everywhere. You're a hypocrite and an idiot.

- Listen up junkbox - The o... (Below threshold)

- Listen up junkbox - The only thing "utterly discredited" is the way you braindead moonbats throw the term "utterly discredited" around when you have no other way of arguing against the facts....

- I gave you -5- clear actions that your plastic blow up ex-candidate could do for starters that would gain him any credibility in the slightest after his dodge and weave and tap dance around anything that approaches honesty... I also made it clear that until I see him do all of those things.... none of which would be a problem for anyone other than a snake oil salesman, I won't waste my time with it... I notice you cherry picked the only thing in the list that could be a matter of conjecture... nice try... no dice....

Deal with all of it or just admit defeat.... that would be intellectually honest ... not really expecting that sort of response from your side.... Lets face it.... you titweasles got handed a line of crap and an indefensible piece of horse manure for a candidate, and you just look the worse the fool when you try to defend his hapless opportunistic ass.....

- But knock yourself out trying.... dunderheads never listen....Truth is that he's letting it go because he knows he's full of bull....If he carried through on his limp wristed threats to sue the next thing he could be facing when the truth all came out is a recall from his Senate seat...Thats why he isn't going to do diddly.....

- All I can say is good luck.... better you than me....

I realize that labeling ... (Below threshold)
julie:

I realize that labeling documented facts as "delusional" is much easier for you than coming up with an iota of contrary evidence.

Learn to read. I said your belief that you have anything of substance to offer is delusional.

I realize you think that winning (sic) the election means that any uncomfortable truths become dismissable (like the fact that our host here and many others are hypocrites). Typical.

No, I think winning the election means George Bush is president. That you and the other nuts can't accept it is pathological behavior. There are no uncomfortable truths. And the only hypocrite is you, you obnoxious jerk.

If you think "dumbass" is more imaginative than "bot," you're entitled to your opinion. I think the term I used accurately reflects the one-note nature of your consistentlly content-free posts (free of content except for steady repetition of the same numbingly unimaginative ad hominem attack).

Dumbasses is an officially recognized subject category on Whizbang, which you and your posts fall under. I remember how you crapped all over Beldar's site. You did not prove O'Neill a liar. All you proved is that you can type and type and type. Or, did you just copy and paste from every left wing website you could find? Either way, there was no substance to your posts – just obnoxious rhetorical games. Let me say it once again, your belief that you have anything of substance to offer is delusional.

You're a hypocrite and an idiot.

And you're a boor.

Gee, Truth and jukebox, you... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Gee, Truth and jukebox, you kinda seem to have missed:

"#21 Charles 12/2/2004 04:21PM PST

And by the way, no tricks with deleting cookies, please -- Kevin at Wizbang will catch you, he's quick with the banning stick, and you'll end up locked out of the voting.

Not that anyone here would even think of such a thing, of course. "
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=13809

Thus, Charles was out in front BEFORE any of this saying this kind of stuff is not appreciated nor desired. He requested no cheating --- realizing that 1) anybody who actually champions cheating in an on-line poll is a worthless person who would do the world a favor in going ahead and putting a gun in their mouth and 2) winning via cheating is meaningless.

Kos, who has cherry-picked his entire audience by banning anybody who dared to hold a differing viewpoint, is responsible for this. People HE chose did something HE refuses to distance himself from (and given all of the deleted posts in the threads there, it's not like somebody is unaware of what's going on).

Kos did the EXACT same thing during the debates (remember their calls, via the DNC, to flood the internet "Who won the debate?" polls, rendering them even MORE useless than usual?). This is not an isolated incident for his site. This is simply part of a continuing precedent.

If individual LGF'ers did it, then yes, they should be condemned. The HEAD of LGF specifically told them not to. There isn't even a question of what he said --- heck, I posted it for you here.

And, jukebox, your attempts to refute any of O'Neill's charges against Kerry were laughable. I'd, personally, distance myself from it and claim that somebody stole my name. I know, it doesn't often happen on conservative blogs, but it is rather routine on liberal blogs, so it might eventually spill over.
-=Mike

- Thats alright Mike, in tr... (Below threshold)

- Thats alright Mike, in truth I'd actually love to see the radical asshats push this numbnutz refusal to accept that thev've been dupped and used by the lying jerks like McAuliffe and others in their own party, and see LurchKerry file suit and get dragged out into the center of the public spotlight and really exposed instead of what he's actually trying to do, namely keep a low profile and let it all blow over before he truly gets "outed" once and for all and sent packing back into his weasle hole. Its never going to happen.....

- O'neill and his partner have offered to pay for the FedEx charges if Kerrydork will just please, please sue them. Nada. Nothing. Total silence except for this BS rumor they float every few weeks that he's "thinking" about it... Yeh right. If all of these things are terrible lies and slander against him then whats his problem ....whats he waiting for.... His lack of action, as it has been from the very beginning, is totally damning....

- Anyone that would be enough of an idiot to try to shovel lies against the tide of truth that hangs over that scumbag at this point deserves whatever ridicule they bring down on themselves....

- Thanks for tracking the pertinant post. As I posted earlier, It would be real cute of the moonbats to do the deed and then cover their tracks after the fact with a few well placed CYA posts. The fact that they garner such immediate rath based on past actions is no ones fault but their own....

- In the case of the sKerry mess, anyone who would try to argue that its more likely that 11 people are more viable than 265 people probably gets that mindset because their whole party is a fine example of mass lying.....

- And a sorry to Jay for ge... (Below threshold)

- And a sorry to Jay for getting so far OT ... appricaite your patience....

Does Kos circulate these ru... (Below threshold)
julie:

Does Kos circulate these rumors of a lawsuit? As a law school grad (I don't know if he ever passed the bar) he should know better. That he does nothing to squelch the rumor among his minions, is not very ethical.

Oh, Kerry has the benefit o... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Oh, Kerry has the benefit of lots of lawyers supporting him. They hve, no doubt, informed him of the myriad problems he'd face pursuing any legal actions. Kerry wants to sue and he'd be required to actually release all of the records he claimed he released (well, until right before the election, when he mentioned that his records weren't public) as part of the discovery process.

Kerry would be foolish to attempt to fight this (as idiotic as FNC was in suing Franken for the cover of his mindless drivel in written form) and I cannot fathom any instance in where he'd actually pursue this. Kerry is best served with the present set-up: Best to be thought a liar than to have it concretely proven.
-=Mike

- Well its more likely that... (Below threshold)

- Well its more likely that its sKerry's staff "leaking" to the liberal press lap dogs. O'Neill went public a few weeks ago when the Kerryites tryed a few well placed hints he'd like to try yet another disasterous run and said that the Swifties will be waiting for him. Right after the BS rumor that he was thinking of sueing surfaced and thats the last anyones heard of it, in spite of the pleas from O'Neill begging Lurch to sue them.....

Apparently the flipflopper has more money and ego than common sense. Yesterday he gave a speech in NH, telling his "flock" to hang together and continue their support, and next he's headed out to Oregon. I don't think he's going anywhere but even further in the political toilet..... Now I'll shut up on sKerry....

Hunter said "when you have ... (Below threshold)
jukeboxgrad:

Hunter said "when you have no other way of arguing against the facts ..."

Nice description of why you're continuing to try to change the subject. I realize you find it hard to explain why it's OK to criticize Kos cheaters while blithely ignoring LGF cheaters.

"I gave you -5- clear actions that your plastic blow up ex-candidate ..."

I realize you're still trying to change the subject. I told you where I'm willing to have that conversation with you. Put your money where your mouth is.

"I notice you cherry picked the only thing in the list that could be a matter of conjecture"

You're descending into total incoherence. Do you mean the idea that O'Neill offered a reward is just your conjecture? I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. I have a funny feeling that makes at least two of us.

"That would be intellectually honest"

Quite audacious of you to refer to such a thing, since you're still determined to avoid a direct and simple question. Maybe you missed it the first time: do you condemn the fact that our host here speaks up against cheating by Kos folks, but is utterly silent with regard to (earlier, albeit clumsier) cheating by LGF folks? Yes or no?

Julie said "I think winning... (Below threshold)
jukeboxgrad:

Julie said "I think winning the election means George Bush is president. That you and the other nuts can't accept it is pathological behavior."

Nice job trying to change the subject. I realize your reasons are the same as Hunter's.

"I remember how you crapped all over Beldar's site."

How interesting that the cat got your tongue at that time. You said nothing.

"You did not prove O'Neill a liar."

How interesting that you found some reason to avoid making that statement at the more appropriate time and place.

Anyway, if you think I didn't prove O'Neill is a liar, you should offer an alternate explanation for why Beldar has studiously avoided providing his long-promised summary.

To put this back on topic, ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

To put this back on topic, I agree that it's beyond sad that lefty blogs think that cheating is so needed, but seeing the glee with which they flooded internet polls (I loved one time where FNC refused to even refer to their results, seeing as how absurd (something to the extent of 80+% feeling Kerry "won" one of the final 2 debates) they were), we should have seen this coming.

Are conservatives perfect? No. And, no doubt, conservatives do cheat.

I'm, however, not willing to say that we ARE doing it when the evidence does not really bear it out.

I will say that conservatives don't cheat gleefully (if we do cheat, we have the common sense to not only not mention it, but to publicly gripe when others do it).

All I heard was how conservatives wanted to suppress the vote and steal elections, but which side was slashing GOTV van tires? Which side is trying to overturn the results in WA and OH? Hint: It's not the right.

I know constant disappointment in the behavior of others is inevitable and, for whatever reason, it ALWAYS bugs people --- even when we should know better.

But we SHOULD have known better. They did it during the debates. They did it during any on-line poll they could. This is just par for the course.

One thing I will always find humorous, though, is that, in 2008, Bush will STILL be blamed for the divisions in the country, and not the assorted slugs who populate places like Kos and DU --- people who have no desire to unite.
-=Mike

MIke said "Thus, Charles wa... (Below threshold)
jukeboxgrad:

MIke said "Thus, Charles was out in front BEFORE any of this."

Yes, Charles spoke up to discourage cheating. That's nice. And then his visitors proceeded to cheat anyway, and Charles did nothing, as far as I can tell. So what's your point? I never said Charles encouraged cheating. But please explain why we haven't heard a peep from Charles regarding the various cheat messages he hosted, subsequent to his warning.

By the way, what's the logic of a poll that specifically announces that people are allowed to vote over and over again (as long as it's "only" once per day)? And what do you think of Charles explicitly encouraging this: "I highly recommend voting once per day for LGF" (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=13809)?

"Kos, who has cherry-picked his entire audience by banning anybody who dared to hold a differing viewpoint ..."

I see lots of differing viewpoints on Kos. Unlike almost all the leading right-wing blogs (who have a fraction of his traffic), he has the guts to host comments. Registering and posting is simple. Back up your accusation, please.

By the way, with the exception of LGF, no right-wing blog that hosts comments has more than about 8% of the traffic that Kos gets. And Kos gets well over three times more traffic than LGF does. And obviously even LGF shouldn't now count as an "open" blog, since registration is currently closed.

" ... is responsible for this."

Really? This is pretty mind-boggling. Let me see if I can follow your "logic." Because Kos has allegedly (according to you) banned some or many people, he's therefore responsible for every statement made by every subsequent visitor to his site, because those are people he chose not to ban? He gets more than 250,000 visits per day. Many visitors leave posts. You claim it's fair to hold Markos personally responsible for every post, by every visitor. How amusing. Are you suggesting that such an absurd standard should be applied across the blogosphere?

Given the size of his audience, it's nonsense for you to claim that Kos "cherry-picked his entire audience," or that the person(s) who posted the cheat-script are "people HE chose."

I also wonder if you'd really like me to create a digest of "interesting" LGF posts (aside from the cheater posts I've already documented) that apparently, by your rules, we should hold Charles personally responsible for.

"something HE refuses to distance himself from"

The fact that Kos himself is silent on this subject means nothing. He has lots of other fish to fry. As the biggest blog, by a large margin, I can't imagine why this "poll," or the blather about it, would capture his attention. Lots of his visitors spoke up against cheating. That's more than enough.

Again, I wonder if you'd really like me to create a digest of "interesting" LGF posts (aside from the cheater posts I've already documented) that Charles is currently failing to "distance himself from."

"given all of the deleted posts in the threads there"

Pray tell what "deleted posts" you're talking about. I see no sign of "deleted posts." Proof, please.

"Kos did the EXACT same thing during the debates"

He didn't encourage people to cheat. He encouraged people to vote. Explain what's wrong with that. Or substantiate your claim that he encouraged cheating, if that in fact is your claim. I see you're willing to make lots of allegations without a shred of proof. Typical.

"If individual LGF'ers did it, then yes, they should be condemned."

Isn't it interesting then that people like Powerline and Captain's Quarters have condemned Kos cheaters but not breathed a word about LGF cheaters. Not to mention Charles himself failing to breath a word about LGF cheaters (aside from his initial warning, which was buried in an easy-to-miss message, and promptly ignored).

I also notice your nuanced use of the word "if," as if there's any question that LGF folks cheated. There is no such question. They cheated, both before and after they borrowed a smarter method from a Kos poster. Imitation is the sincerest form etc.

"The HEAD of LGF specifically told them not to."

That's true, and he deserves some credit for that (although he also "highly recommended" that his people vote repeatedly, as long as it was "only" once per day). But please explain why he apparently has nothing to say about various cheaters who have posted on his site, after he made his announcement. Anyway, I never said I had a gripe with Charles. (Unlike you, I think it's absurd to suggest that the host of a large blog should be held personally accountable for every post by every visitor). The problem is all the hypocrites who are blind to the cheaters he hosted.

"Your attempts to refute any of O'Neill's charges against Kerry were laughable."

Isn't it interesting how many people (like you and Julie) are now ready to speak up, after Beldar has shut down the discussion. If you have something substantive to say on the subject, I suggest you encourage Beldar to reopen the thread (under a new summary), as he has repeatedly promised.

see above under "Too big fo... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

see above under "Too big for his britches" re: KOS

~Cindy

Mike said "I loved one time... (Below threshold)
jukeboxgrad:

Mike said "I loved one time where FNC refused to even refer to their results, seeing as how absurd (something to the extent of 80+% feeling Kerry 'won' one of the final 2 debates) they were)"

Do you think FNC would have done the same if the shoe was on the other foot? Just genuinely curious about your opinion.

"I'm, however, not willing to say that we ARE doing it when the evidence does not really bear it out."

You're obviously scroll-impaired, so let me help out. From my earlier post:

----

From http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=13820#c0038:

"Go here [http://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html]. Add the 'zap cookies' bookmarklet to your favorites. Vote. Then run the 'zap cookies' bookmarklet, refresh page, run bookmarklet, refresh page... each refresh will count as a vote." (12/3/2004 11:23AM PST)

From that same thread: "Sometimes having 126 IP's has it's ups. Not many, but this is one." (12/3/2004 11:20AM PST)

From that same thread: "Having four different broadband connections available at three locations is a beautiful thing" (12/3/2004 12:44PM PST)

From http://2004weblogawards.com/archives/000079.php:

"Good to see LGF coming back. What's great is that they're using the Kos' perl script against them." (12/4, 11:56 pm)

"LGF has just gained a huge number of votes in the past few minutes. Looks like someone else has learned to use scripts." (12/4, 11:59 pm)

"25,141 votes in 27 minutes ... So we've escalated from 107 votes per minute to 931 votes per minute in the past half hour after all of the script hacking notes have been posted." (12/5, 12:14 am)

"Well, that was fun. Got LGF up to 40% with Kos' own script." (12/5, 12:36 am)

Of course, the best proof that LGF cheated is that Kevin reset their counter (see http://2004weblogawards.com/archives/000079.php). Those who say LGF didn't cheat should provide some alternate explanation for why Kevin did this.

In other words, LGF folks cheated both before and after the script was posted on Kos. It's just that the LGF folks weren't very good at cheating until they bumped into a better coder who happened to also be a poster at Kos.

----

"I will say that conservatives don't cheat gleefully"

You must be pulling my leg. I guess "well, that was fun" (see LGF message quoted above) is conservative-speak for "I am cheating with a heavy heart?"

"if we do cheat, we have the common sense to not only not mention it, but to publicly gripe when others do it"

Thanks for being so up-front about what passes for morality in your neighborhood. I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a truer and more succint portrayal of right-wing "values."

You're saying it's "common sense" that if one cheats, the proper thing to do is not get caught, and be a hypocrite and point fingers at the other guy who is open about it. Thanks for saying it so directly. I see you've been trained in the Rush Limbaugh/Bill Bennett School for Pill Poppers and Compulsive Gamblers. I nominate you for cabinet minister in charge of moral values.

Anyway, the folks at LGF obviously didn't have enough "common sense" to "not mention it."

"They did it during the debates. They did it during any on-line poll they could."

Voting was encouraged. Please provide a shred of proof that cheating was encouraged, condoned, or practiced. Otherwise I will have to invoke the principle you stated so aptly: "the evidence does not really bear it out."

"people who have no desire to unite"

I think that expression is a euphemism for "people who aren't willing to ignore facts just because they're inconvenient." As long as you define "unite" that way, thanks but no thanks. Exhibit A: you're still in denial about the cheating promoted at LGF, before the subject even arose at Kos.

Isn't it interesting how... (Below threshold)
julie:

Isn't it interesting how many people (like you and Julie) are now ready to speak up, after Beldar has shut down the discussion. If you have something substantive to say on the subject, I suggest you encourage Beldar to reopen the thread (under a new summary), as he has repeatedly promised.

We both did: You did not refute any of O'Neill's charges and you made a fool of yourself.

And where do you get off acting like Beldar owes you anything? I think the man deserves a medal for just tolerating you. Here is what he wrote:

I'm planning to write a new post, summarizing the results of this "challenge," sometime this weekend.

Today I printed out this post to have a hard-copy handy for cross-referencing as I worked on the long-promised summary, and it ran to 154 printed pages.

Who cares! If you want a summary, do it yourself! Instead, you act like it's a damn legal contract. He and everyone else was sick of you and he was trying to close down the thread. Otherwise, you would have never stopped posting your 10k word a pop posts that no one really reads and refuted nothing. NOTHING! The reason why it ran to over 154 pages was because of your ad nauseam posting that you are now starting to do here, that I have seen you do at other websites until you are banned, and when you come back under a different name.

- junkbox - you're saying n... (Below threshold)

- junkbox - you're saying nothing - just rhetoric...pure and simple spamming....a bunch of circular long winded jibberish with no point what so ever... try a few simple coherent lines or forget it... you're wasting bandwidth....

OMG! In the time it took me... (Below threshold)
julie:

OMG! In the time it took me to make one post, the Bloviator stuck again. I guess one should never underestimate the power of your hot air.

Julie said "we both did."</... (Below threshold)
jukeboxgrad:

Julie said "we both did."

Did what? No one named MIkeSC or Julie posted on the Beldar thread I cited. As usual, you're making things up and not citing a shred of proof.

"And where do you get off acting like Beldar owes you anything?"

He owes me what he owes any reader, and that is to make good on his commitments. No one twisted his arm to post the "challenge" to begin with, and no one twisted his arm to make the commitment he repeatedly made. I realize that someone like you who lacks the capacity to respond to a simple factual challenge also lacks the capacity to understand a simple word like "commitment."

"that I have seen you do at other websites until you are banned, and when you come back under a different name."

More accusations without substance. Proof, please.

Hunter said "try a few simple coherent lines or forget it"

It doesn't get any simpler than this: do you condemn the fact that our host here speaks up against cheating by Kos folks, but is utterly silent with regard to (earlier, albeit clumsier) cheating by LGF folks? Yes or no?

You probably recognize that. It's the simple question you've already ignored twice.

By the way, earlier I didn't mean to slight O'Reilly by leaving him out. His loofah-wielding escapades qualify him to be on that list along with Limbaugh and Bennett. Nice to know he's preaching to kids now. Just what we need, a new generation of finger-pointing hypocrites whose main priority is not getting caught (Mike's morality, as he described above). Thank goodness the country is finally putting the proper emphasis on values.

- You're on perm ignore jun... (Below threshold)

- You're on perm ignore junkboxdork - and don't bother with anymore goading post attacks - its as transparent and lame as you are ... It works for awhile until people catch on and then you're toast.... might as well move along now your mommy's calling you.... b-bye

what Hunter wrote (^^).... (Below threshold)
-S-:

what Hunter wrote (^^).

And what julie wrote (^^), and angel and mike.

Everyone here can read what they wrote and what everyone else wrote. Otherwise, they are just sitting before a monitor, twirling the little wheel on the mouse.

jukebox needs to start paying rent, what with the paperwork underway.

Wow. You look at these comm... (Below threshold)

Wow. You look at these comments and suddenly it's like October all over again.

Kerry who?

On other matters, I ask this question of everybody in the group: Seriously, what needs to be said about this other than, "Cheaters are dickheads?" I don't care what your politics are. If you cheat, you're a dickhead. And if you cheat in an online poll the sole purpose of which is to have some fun and make new friends, you're a pathetic dickhead.

Why all the fuss? What more is there to be said about it than that?

- Works for me Jeff - ... (Below threshold)

- Works for me Jeff -

Nice to see that certain fo... (Below threshold)
jukeboxgrad:

Nice to see that certain folks are resuming the position they find most comforting.

Jeff said "Cheaters are dickheads; I don't care what your politics are."

The problem is that the host here, and lots of other folks, are inclined to adopt the first part of what you said but not the latter part. The idea seems to be "cheaters are dickheads except when they're ours."

This philosophy is summed up pretty cogently by Mike: "if we [conservatives] do cheat, we have the common sense to not only not mention it, but to publicly gripe when others do it."




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy