Hello all,

I'm writing from LA IMC. We had a meeting today (it was my first, actually)
and were discussing the disrupting activities of a person who calls
him/herself 'Bush Admirer'. We came to the consensus that he is in
violation of #6 and #10 of the Principles of Unity and we will further block
him from posting on la-imc's site.

One of the members in our collective said that both of you had already dealt
with him in some form or another. We were wondering how?

What we have decided to do is publicly announce that we are no longer
letting him post because he is in violation of those two principles and is
purposefully trying to divert attention away and disrupt the activities and
postings of people on the la-imc site. In our announcement we plan to show
evidence (i.e. some of his postings) and clearly explain why we have chosen
to take such an action.

The deeper issue that came up in our discussion, however, was that what we
really need to do (maybe on a national/international basis) is to come up
with a policy about posting, as we are sure that disruptors (FBI, right-wing
organizations, etc.) will keep on using the site to further THEIR causes and
weaken ours. We fully realize there are issues of freedom of speech
involved, but one of our members likened our problem to National forests.
We have set aside a space that can be collectively used, but if we don't at
least have some ground rules on how it can be used a huge corporation could
come in and start logging the area. Does this make any sense to you guys?

We would love your feedback/input on this issue and would really like to
collaborate on making a policy on posting so that there are clearer ways to
deal with these issues in the future, as we know they will only get worse.

Thanks so much!

Heidi

http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-portland/2003-March/002984.html

Alright,

Here's the text. I'm in and out today, so I might not be here to tweak
it on demand, but feel free to add or cut whatever is necessary. The
obvious gaps are noted in parentheses.

Have fun, Chris.

--Matt

***
On the matter of bush admirer:

Independent Media Centers worldwide operate through a consensus decision
making process in concordance with a global recognized set of principles
of unity (available at XX). Foremost among these is the principle of
equality, and the idea that open exchange of information is a
prerequisite to a more open and just society. All IMCs and, by
extension, those who work with them, are presumed to recognize the
intrinsic values of the principles of unity, to be working to foster
non-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian relationships, and be committed
to the principle of human equality.

In aid of this, IMCs utilize an open-publishing format. This format
allows for the free exchange of ideas and provides people with a forum
to discuss your views. People of all ideological persuasions are
encouraged to contribute to the dialogue, but they must be willing to
abide by the principles of unity.

As such, any systematic activity by an IMC contributor which does not
respect the IMC principles of unity must be dealt with. In the case of a
local collective, such as this one here in Los Angeles, the decision of
how best to deal with such behavior falls to the collective members
under the principle of autonomy.

So let it be known that, as of the LA-IMC general collective meeting of
March 1, 2003, it is recognized by the LA-IMC general collective that
since (insert date here) an LA-IMC contributor who goes by the name of
bush admirer has engaged in a systematic campaign of hostile, often ad
hominem attacks that are clearly not consistent with the IMC principles
of unity, specifically principles six (6) and ten (10). Through his
postings, bush admirer has shown nothing but contempt for the ideas of
respect and equality, and has done nothing to further either the
intellectual or aesthetic content on the website.

Let it further be known that bush admirer is not a resident of the metro
Los Angeles area and is not an active member of either the LA-IMC
general collective or any of its working groups.

So, whereas bush admirer has consistently demonstrated an unwillingness
to abide by the IMC principles of unity;

And, whereas this demonstrated unwillingness has become an impediment to
the free and open exchange of ideas;

It is, with much deliberation and consideration of the issues involved,
the decision of the LA-IMC general collective, by means of a consensus
process, that, from this day forward, the individual known as bush
admirer be banned from posting to the LA-IMC website.

Please direct any questions to info@la.indymedia.org

Regards,

The Los Angeles Independent Media Center collective


_______________________________________________
The imc-la-work list is for communications regarding Independent Media
Center projects. Please don't post announcements, or carry on extended
discussions on this list.
>

http://regenerationtv.com/pipermail/imc-la-web/2003-March/000421.html

is sounding more like a cult every day.

Matt,

I would like to suggest some changes to your piece. Good work
so far by the way.

1. the Principles of Unity have never been articulated to apply to
newswire
contributors. It applies only to us as IMC LA. I am not sure we can say
at this point that they apply to the newswire. BUT, it can be said that
it is our responsibility to uphold them in a manner that we see fit...
in this case, upholding X POU.

2. I don't think that his location is relevant. i think that anyone,
anywhere
has the right to participate in the newswire. i would remove that. And,
newswire
contributors are required to be members of the collective or a working
group.

3. Again, newswire contributors aren't bound to the POU's. I would remove
this:

"So, whereas bush admirer has consistently demonstrated an unwillingness
to abide by the IMC principles of unity;"

4. I might phrase this differently:

"the individual known as bush admirer be banned from posting to the LA-IMC
website.

to

"the individual known as bush admirer is denied access to posting on the
LA-IMC newswire."


best,
chris

http://regenerationtv.com/pipermail/imc-la-web/2003-March/000424.html

PROPOSAL: banning Bush Admirer and other offending posters ip =
addresses:
--First the entire collective came to the consensus that Bush Admirer is =
an asshole. Well, now it's official.
--We need a process to deal with disruptive people. The larger issue is =
one of respect not axing ideologies we dont agree with. Disrespecful =
attitutes with the specific purpose to disrupt and degrade the newswire =
or change the course of the dialogue was the main characteristics we see =
as someone who is asking for their ip getting banned. We have to do it =
under policy citing the violation of stated principles, mainly Unity. =
We all agree its a tricky and complex task. Some considerations:What =
constitutes a provocateur? The need to identify a pattern of someone =
going out of their way to be disruptive or make the newswire unusable. =
Citing IMC Principles of Unity Point # 6(recognizing importance of =
process to social change and commitment to developement of non =
hierarchical and non authorian relationships) and Point #10(All IMCs =
shall be committed to the principle of human equality,etc) in comparison =
with Bush Admirer's past posts gives us solid ground, in principle to =
ban this right wing stooge's ass. =20

Also, we decided to finalize this policy on the list while we came to =
consensus to ban BA's ip address. The IMCs globally are under attack, =
with newswire subterfuge, like BA to the fbi raid in Seattle to the =
police raid in italy. We need a strategy to deal with all of the above. =
We need to confer with other imc's about this and about how they dealt =
with BA and his kind.

There is nothing wrong with banning obvious trolls and disruptors; the KPFK Listener Forum (Goodlight) and other left sites do it all the time as a matter of preserving the purpose of the site. Practically every message board does this - left, right, centrist or apolitical. Boards dealing with classical music, baseball, alleged ufo encouters or baking your own bread don't let nuts or ill-wishers make it impossible for the board to function.
On the other hand, it is very difficult to ban an individual; all this Bush Admirer person would have to do, for example is change his handle. And keeping track of IPC numbers is generally a waste of time. Several people can use the same computer - for example in a coffee shop or college dormitory. Or one person can use several different computers - at home, at work, at their favorite internet cafe, etc. But, in principle, removing a disruptive poster is no more undemocratic than removing a shouting fascist from a room where strategy on building an anti-war march is being discussed. One good way to deal with these nuts and cointelpro types is to delete their messages as soon as they are noticed, particularly if they contain threats, racial/ethnic slurs, sexist putdowns and similar material.

What happened to the concept of "open publishing"?

Yo,

I said I'd draft some amended editorial policies, and I will, and I'd
like some guideance. Would y'all chime in with your ideas for policies
of greatest need? It seems the editorial policy, such as it is, deals
with hiding spam, but not banning "disruptive" posters.

Personally, I think that posts which attack individuals, institutions or
ideologies: ie "You're just another stupid fucking liberal/conservative"
or "Pacifica and FSRN/Fox and CNN are just an outlet for the
commies/corporations" without evidence should be fair game. I also think
we need to be consistent. Once the asshole conservatives leave, the
asshole liberals will too, but until that day, they all should be
hidden, if not banned.

anyone and everyone we don't agree with, and even some of those that we do. Hide and hide and hide and hide, just like a black hole sucking the universe into the nexus of oblivion. Screw your opinion, buddy. Click click poof.

Well done, LA-IMC! I would liken this free-speech issue to someone yelling 'FIRE!' in a movie theater. While Freedom of Speech is protected, and while the shouter might say that he/she was not actually saying that there was a fire, the behavior is not only disruptive but dangerous. People might get trampled running out, etc... Thus one must balance the right of free speech/posting with the responsibility of not exercising it when/where it could cause injury/damage. The troll postings are malicious in nature and intentionally damaging, and I personally have no problem with this sort of behavior being thwarted. No valid attempts at free speech have been stiffled, only troll droppings.

"Once the asshole conservatives leave, the asshole liberals will too"

the asshole liberals ---------> Diogenes, Sheepdog, KPC, Meyer London, Brian OConner, mymicz, matt, etc...

Figure it out guys. YOU'RE NEXT!! They're talking about YOU. You're not anarchists!!!!

You bozos would cheer at your own executions.

Fucking morons. I'm sorry, but O'brien man, you're just stupid.

REmedial-boy,

Get a clue. We don't spam and we don't make bigotted remarks. Only Neo-cons and trolls have nasty little habits like that! Kind of suits, you, tho. Those with dark hearts make dark actions.

echoes....

"the IMC newswires and other spaces on the website should be devoted to outreach, discussion, education, and planning about LA-IMC for the exact same reason that Pacifica is bringing it's own processes onto their airwaves.

the fact that Matt Olson has bothered to respond to the posts here is a (very small) first or second step in the right direction. some version of the notes from your IMC meetings SHOULD be posted to the newswire. your meetings may not yet be news, but they COULD be. that is part of the point of democratizing media: to make us realize the power of us little people."
- - 5yrold

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"how does the a.v. proposal solve the 'troll' problem?

the a.v. proposal does nothing to prevent attacks that aim to exhaust the resources of the IMC servers. but with further development, the a.v. proposal could perhaps provide an incentive for commenters to appeal to one another's needs, sensiblities and tastes without forcing anyone to do so and without censoring any style, mood, sensibility, or function.

the a.v. proposal also presents a powerful disincentive for any antagonizers or harassers who crave or require a reaction. the a.v. proposal allows them to be ignored without abandoning any conversation. the vast majority of complaints we read on the IMC today can perhaps be addressed without resorting to hierarchical management.

the a.v. proposal also allows that different types of discourse may be incompatible with one another although equally worthwhile."
- - anticrisis


---------------------------------------------------------------------

anticrisis

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on who the collective was referring to when they wrote:

"the asshole liberals will (leave) too"

Who are these asshole liberals, if they're not you?

You obviously don't understand anarchist. You'll learn the hard way.

You expect me to classify myself? You'd like that, huh? You think I've survived this long with the entire strength of the NSA, FBI, CIA and Mossad intelligence networks trying to jail or kill me by being stupid? You are one poorly misinformed troll.

Tell your supervisors that they better start covering their own @$$e$ because the $hit is hitting the fan! Before it was just people like me saying Shrub was a liar and warmonger. Now ambassadors and ex-marines are joining the chorus. Time for you worthless excuses for life to start digging a hole! I wouldn't want to be in your shoes!

Now keep trying to bait me. Your attempts are as transparent as your motives.

"... delete their messages as soon as they are noticed, particularly if they contain threats, racial/ethnic slurs, sexist putdowns and similar material."

What if their post corrects a mistruth? Yes, even LA-IMC contains erroneous information.

"You think I've survived this long with the entire strength of the NSA, FBI, CIA and Mossad intelligence networks trying to jail or kill me by being stupid?"

This guy is definately a delusional paranoid schizophrenic.

Yeah, I'm delusional! I dreamed-up all those FBI agents at the Golden Gate bridge march. And I dreamed-up the 33 people they arrested (too bad they couldn't get me then, huh, agent?) Have any other marches ended in EVERYONE EXCEPT the LEADERS being arrested? Why wasn't Nessie (of Indybay) arrested? Why weren't the two other guys on the bullhorn arrested? Why did 'media people' interview these jokers before the march, allowing them to make some atrociously malicious statements, and then NOT show the interviews? Because it was a put-on for the non-agents at the march.

Where do you live, Agent?

a community between Portland and Oregon City. And I think you need another dose of Paxil.

How the F*CK would you know whether I am delusional or not? What information do you base your statement on? Can you prove that I'm NOT under surveillance? Let's hear it, loser.

The 'LEADERS' were taken into custody and released uncharged. I was never taken into custody. I left before the party started! I was not an organizer nor did I get anywhere near the bullhorn or the cameras. But boy-howdy did those agents! They had rehearsed their lines so hard, all except for Nessie who screwed his up. He included 'God' in his scripted speech at the end. (Nessie: didn't think I noticed, did ya?) Then he kind of realized he'd f*cked-up, but it was too late then. Thanks, Nessie! Keep working for the Man! You do us activists all of favor with your sloppy style!

Tell us, Brian.

Why would the CIA care about you? Why are you a threat to the nation?

Or are you just having fun pretending your some important secret agent -- like that TV show 'Alias' ?

Hey Brain, I know what you mean. Consider this; these guys now have all this $ to use. And they must use it all to justify more spending in a typical socialist spending program. Quite a package they got after 9-11 even if they are far too busy in covert illegal operations than to be effective as an intelligence agency. Oh by the way guys and gals of our most glorious secret police, nice job you individuals did on 9-11.
I wish to say that I, for one, was impressed. Again.

I believe you have made the right decision here. I agree with Brian's comparison of BA's statements to yelling FIRE.

However, I think that the risk of going overboard with message auditting is pronounced, and that a precedent of community interaction should be established early and thoroughly. I believe in time any committee can be subverted, no matter how broad, so any attempt at a review board is doomed to its own shortcomings of selectivity in the long run if it is an 'exclusive' thing.

A system of voting seems imperative to me, the trick lies in preventing 'gaming' of the voting system through use of proxies and trojan-zombie systems.

A solution that could still allow limited anonymous interaction woul d be a system of vote "weights", where anonymous users count for a small fraction of a vote, brand new users count for a little more, established users a little more, and section/site editors worth substantially more. Users would cast their vote either positive or negative, and if the message lowered below a certain threshold, it would become hidden automatically, or flagged for editorial review, or compressed in view (ie show only part of subject line and user name), etc. That threshold should probably be a little below zero to allow for visible, unpopular messages... even if only briefly.

Also, associative vote weight precedence seems like a nice way to elect your own editors. For instance, if someone decided they trusted the editorial decisions (yay or nay) of a particular user, they could establish a 'trust' with them to multiply the signifigance of their vote when deciding whether a message should be visible or not for a particular user. This same association could be a means of insuring a particular user's messages are never hidden from people who trust what that user has to say.

Similarly a 'mistrust' association seems plausible, but I suspect that would be largely trivial.

Naturally the system above requires a reasonably secure system of user accounts. This naturally brings to mind concerns of anonymity. One option available to alleviate those concerns is one way encryption (aka hash / checksum / etc). In this case, the users ip could be stored in the appropriate login database as one of these hashs, and then when the user requests a new page and needs to be authenticated, the requesting ip could be converted to its (presumably the same) hash/checksum. By comparing and storing only these unique approximations of a users ip, usage would remain as anonymous as it is today. Which, in all honesty, isn't very. If the spooks want to know the ips of the visitors here, they will, they won't need to look at the laimc server to do so either.

Also, i think a message heirachy would greatly help keep track of the little flame wars that seem to flare up and generally distract from content of the article. That way there wouldn't be such a need to necessarily censor little 'youre stupid - NO YOURE STUPID' matches that pop up, just vote them down enough so that they appear in a condensed form in the list of user input about an article.

I have researched the IMC outlet creation process a bit in my pursuit of establishing a site for cincinnati ohio... and in doing so read up a bit about the usage of content engines and how they need to be open source projects, but they can be ?modded as need be if documented? Not sure about the second part but that was my understanding at the time. If you could provide a little background on what is possible as far as code changes / updates / upgrades goes we can figure out how to get the technology upgraded. I would be happy to help, i have a fairly extensive background in PHP, Perl, web site creation and graphic production.

As you may have read on a different thread (ESPN something or another), I have recently been wrestling with making my own system of managing this sites content in the community fashion described above via remote server, and the task is considerably more complicated than it really needs to be, especially if its goals parallel LA-IMC's. So if I can help please let me know.

I would like to submit some security concerns I have noticed to the appropriate parties and I am not sure where to refer them. info@la.indymedia.org? Is there a resident tech i could send them to directly?

His views are strident but he's always civil and polite. There are others who are rude but Bush Admirer is intelligent and raises the level of debate on this forum.

What your Stalinist 'collective' has decided is the slippery slope we always feared in Marxist Leninism.

Don't become a far-left caricature.

-he isn't. No one cares what he says anyway. good for a faint laugh

censorship isnt a good thingunless under extreme, circumstances...is this guy"BA" an extreme case?~~i don't think so~~

What's the big deal and what took so long.

This is exactly what the far left ALWAYS does when faced with even a trace of dissent.

Did anyone actually think that opposing views would be tolerated around here indefinetly?

Nonsense.

Just the simple fact that BA has been nominated to be cast out because he "disrupts" the "unity" (excuse me while I have a fucking vomit attack) but utter fools like "circle" and debate coach" who do NOTHING but utterly destroy threads are somehow a positive asset to the "unity" is the only proof that this is all just typical leftist intolerance and fear.

All of you at indymedia, who play at this nauseating charade of relevance are just more garden variety brownshirts.

And no, meyer, you whining innefectual waste, most other boards DO NOT ban people for opposing or even rude postings. They ignore them and they deal with it.

Beyond the fact that it's embarrassing to even hear you all discuss "plans" for something that is technically bound to flop, it's pathetic to hear the "collective" of an "open" publishing site deciding on and rationalizing what manner of censorship will be the most effective.

But, like I said, what took you sheep so long?

You obviously didn't take the time to read my suggestions (or perhaps you suspect most people reading your post had not), but regardless I think you'll see, upon inspection anyways, that what I have proposed is a system of allowing any user to 'elect' their own editors. Editors are a fact of life, and for this site to continue to serve a functioning purpose editors will be needed here.

As for your statements regarding 'technical flop', I think perhaps you are just ignorant and shortsited in regards to technology, so all this is magic whodo voodoo to you. Because an even moderately informed database designer would see that what I have outlined really isn't terribly difficult. Hell, the government is getting ready to stuff CTS up our ass but we can't have some editors on a webpage? You must be kidding.

I think the shrill whining of the usual suspects here is a clear indication that this was a good move. Again i think it is a better interim measure than a long term solution but if it will shutup BA and his numerous other personas long enough to get a better solution established, great.

I realize that your suggestions allowed for a personal choice for the visitors. That's great.
Nonetheless, you end your post with the same spirit as the original post. And that is to get rid of BA because you categorically don't agree with him. He's not rude and he certainly doesn't spam in the least. Yet you make no mention, here at least, of those who routinely spam from both sides of the camp.

As far as the technicalities go, believe me, I know a thing or two myself and until they go with a pure password driven site, there is no real way to stop anyone from posting; they can only offer a small annoyance. Even the password system is easily foiled. You know it and I know it.

But, that's not even the point. The point is that this is all just simply age old leftist intolerance trying to masquerade itself as a "collective" concern for "unity".
"Colletcive" and "unity" are the buzzwords of real fascists.

If this was AT ALL about getting rid of those who spam the board, there are MANY people to start with besides BA.

Free speech does not imply the freedom to speak on any medium of one's chosing. Free speech implies the right to create a venue or publication from which to speak. Nothing prevents Bush Admirer from creating a website where he call rant and rave his views. In a world where independent media such as IndyMedia has access to resources that are far more limited than those of the oppressor, IndyMedia should not waste its resources in supporting the expression of views that are not only already well supported in the commercial media, but that are specifically designed to harm IndyMedia.

The Internet is big enough to represent free speech across its many websites taken as a collective. There is no reason why any specific website should be home to all views.

We've been monitoring the brownshirts for some time. LA IndyMedia is just their latest playground. You can take it for granted that nearly all (if not all) of the posts above that attempt to imply "paranoia" or "the need for meds" or support for BA originate with exactly one person using multiple IP addresses. He does this as his job.

Anyone that thinks it absurd that the CIA, FBI, Mossad, DIA, and so on, monitor this website is living in la-la-land. The weblogs of many dissident websites show that the CIA, FBI, DIA, and Mossad monitor them. The history of COINTELPRO is well documented and COINTELPRO is alive and well.

First off to say that in order for me to criticize BA I first need to (again) criticize circle/debate coach is idiotic. Its the same play book that says before we criticize Bush we need to criticize Clinton harder, its really obvious and its lame. Of course circle/debate coach's input is pretty negligible, so are the numerous other submissions by people too moronic and transitory to bear mention. And what i've proposed would enable these passing distractions to be rapidly dealt with by the community.

And as for BA being polite/not spamming, you must be kidding. His opinion of anyone who disagrees with him is clearly 'silly stupid liberal democrat' and he's demonstrated that at every possible occasion. And he's like a posterchild for bush and coulter. No one accused him of trying to sell cars, or raffle tickets or whatnot. He's a fairly substandard sales person for the Agenda, which would be fine I believe except that he lacks an intellectual leg to stand on, and thus can not defend his positions, and his statements rapidly degenerate into this childish abusive form of self denial.

So, you seem eager to downplay any potential benefit my suggestions offer, eager to hype up the difficulty involved and blatantly suggesting that any discussions of how to make the system better is somehow a bad idea? You can't honestly expect that statement to hold much water anywhere, much less amidst a crowd of paranoid conspiracy theorists ;-)

(psst! Your agenda is showing)

Also, maybe your password systems are error prone and easily hacked, mine aren't. Not to say they're bullet proof, but they take care of automatically created accounts, which is the really big consideration. And if someones account were to somehow get hijacked, it would become apparent quickly and could be subsequently disabled, even if just long enough to reset the password. In fact with the system I have in mind any actions taken by a user, (including posts, votes, trust influence establishment, etc) could be retroactively undone in the event of an erroneously created/used account.

"But, that's not even the point. The point is .... Communism is bad! Vote Quimby! ".

to the credit of both circle and debate coach, either was almost an acceptably not-sucko idea. But circle, instead of focussing on circular logic, or ad-nasuem repeated arguements used by both sides, decided to act like some petty gloating child.

And debate coach was sort of neat for a second, my guess is it was originally used constructively to point out actual logical fallacies, but was subverted at the earliest opportunity.

Published hash encryptions of a posters ip will take care of all that. What i've suggested would allow searchs based off (mutated and unusable) ips, so anyone can see exactly who is trying to subvert what.

This site offers a threat to varied interests, of that there should be small doubt. This isn't just about The Mr. Admirer but a question of adaptability by the collective to a hostile environment.
Any action taken, in my opinion, to a post or thread should be a decision regarding the respectful use of the IMC spirit of uncontrolled news and analysis.
BS alarms to the chained up and non paid garage
dwellers who keep this site going would be nice.

It's the physical threats or tasteless and pecular porn and epitaphs such as
'nigger, spic,fag, dyke etc. that are clearly disruptive and sometimes
skirting upon illegal boundaries that I fear will harm this site. Is it a manpower problem? I can't help
from here.



Thank you BA for not posting anymore pictures of nude and overweight longhaired
specitcal wearing unfortunates and calling me sheep-sniffer. I will
however continue to address you as monkeyboy.

...I have said in my private E-Mails and on occaision publicly:

A. I find B.A. Hilarious. He is often completly disjoint with reality and is his own worst enemy.

B. He is a useful indicator of whatever the current spin is. He is such a complete Parrot of the Bush Junta Party line that I think he is actually valuable as contrary indicator.

I doubt seriously that many people posting here take anything he posts without a half a pound of salt (or more - too much Sodium for me).

There are other Posters who are much more disruptive. Some of their Nicks have been retired in dishonor (and disarray) but the Song remains the same.

I find some of frescaw's posts to be much more hate-filled than anything BA has ever posted.

BA at worst is the Site Buffoon.

He, I honestly believe, serves a useful function in stimulating debate. I very rarely agree with him on much of anything but I enjoy having him around. He add's a little spice and relieves what could become an overly homogenous gathering.

"The weblogs of many dissident websites show that the CIA, FBI, DIA, and Mossad monitor them."

If there are many instances, then it should be quite easy to provide one piece of evidence that intelligence agencies monitor IMC. Until then, I'll assume it's a delusion of grandeur.

The employees of the CIA, FBI, DIA, and Mossad are human after all, and everyone needs some relaxation and a good laugh during their break times.

Mebby they can't get the Comedy Channel in their secure bunkers.......

...what is available in the Secure Bunkers, which do exist, it is Irrational Abnormal Shill (RNP).

you should maybe just keep quiet about things you know nothing about.

After my post above I checked the server logs on one of the sites I administer. It is a site with absolutly NO political or government or military content at all. Without going in to detail all that is on the server is a few pages on gardening....

Sorted by Access Count

Rank Domain Accesses % Bytes % Visits %
1 net 4,029 39.25 24,198,639 43.59 353 34.95
2 com 3,159 30.77 15,287,464 27.54 387 38.32
3 UNKNOWN 1,610 15.68 8,136,633 14.66 172 17.03
4 mil 455 4.43 2,504,307 4.51 17 1.68
5 namerica 266 2.59 1,719,892 3.10 12 1.19
6 edu 260 2.53 1,306,187 2.35 12 1.19
7 europe 250 2.44 1,340,347 2.41 36 3.56
8 org 152 1.48 277,466 0.50 9 0.89
9 southpacific 28 0.27 168,224 0.30 3 0.30
10 asia 23 0.22 344,870 0.62 4 0.40


Sort the table out yourself... MIL is number FOUR!

Andersen airforce base must be doing some serious landscaping!

On a cookery site I look after mil is ranked number six!

From that I deduce that the military cares more about the way their bases look than the food they give to the troops. I can just see the headlines tomorrow!

""Shrub plants shrubs while the troops eat trash.....""

There is no significance to a ".mil" IP. What is more significant is an IP belonging to DIA.MIL or DISA.MIL.

...no sense of humor.

Personally I like raising Heirloom Vegetables - particularly Tomatoes and Melons.

And the Melons are Setting and on their way. Yippppppeeeeeeeee!

Just call me Dr. Heckle and Mr. Snide.

But you can't have a good conspiracy theory without a .mil or a .gov IP accessing your site!

messages from march started this thread as a repost, and it was with respect to Portland, not LA Indymedia

But you probably saw that and I wasn't reading all the way through

He's intentionally disruptive, NOT because he disagree's but because ... like many people who support or current gov'ment ... He offers no evidence to support his opinions other than ... "Your a [insert derogatory lable here], I know what's right cause George Bush told me and that's enough proof for me and any true patriotic god FEARING American!"

The thing I think is sad is that he's been coming here for a long time and no one has been able to wake him up, yet. ... Oh, I know he's Really closed off from learning anything here.... which is why he's disruptive.

Matt, your plan sounds fair.

BA... Why do you come here if not to be disruptive? Your not here to learn. You're not here to "convert" people are you? If so, you're going to have to show us something to prove your position ... on whatever, evidence, sources... somethin'

I'd like BA to stick around but as a more productive cog. He is a barometor for BA's everwhere. He's occasional laughable and that's kinda fun; but really I'd like to know WHY he believes we are safe in and from the hands that govern u.s. (in a different thread)

"Did you know that goat semen tastes like marshmallows? I like to put it on peanut butter sandwiches. I also like to baste mountain oysters with it."

Wow. BA is one SICK puppy.

That was a direct quote posted here by Ignatius

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/69889_comment.php#70069

Those who think (or claim to think) that government agencies (at the federal, state, county and local levels) don't have a long history of monitoring and attempting to disrupt even the smallest left groups are obviously ignorant (or pretending to be ignorant) of the long history of Cointelpro, the burglaries of offices coordinating protests against US involvement in Central America during the the 1980's, and various local Red Squads operated by local police or sheriff's departments across the nation. Police harassment of radicals in the City of Los Angeles, for example, stretches back at least a hundred years. Decades ago LA cops were actually sent to Pasadena, outside their jurisdiction, to break up a legal radical meeting. Read some of the books on the history of southern California written by people like Carey McWilliams and Mike Davis.

I'll repeat the challenge:

"The weblogs of many dissident websites show that the CIA, FBI, DIA, and Mossad monitor them."

If there are many instances, then it should be quite easy to provide one piece of evidence that intelligence agencies monitor IMC. Until then, I'll assume it's a delusion of grandeur.

You moron. Ignatius is a neocon like yourself. Thanks for pointing out his sickness.

Eddie,

Who the f*ck cares what you assume? We live in the real world here, not some Inside-the-Beltway daydream about 'American Freedom and Demockracy'. Anyone who assumes that intelligence services are NOT monitoring this site (and individuals whom patronize it) is delusional. Let me paraphrase something Meyer wrote: After receiving $40billion in mad money, which they needed to spend within the budgeted year, the intelligence folks had plenty o' resources to conduct their little peep and listen shows. The Patriot Act opened-up whole new avenues of spying to the bastards. ANYONE who spoke up against the war was targeted: politicians, actors, ex-military people, ex-diplomats, journalist and newspapers, individual activists, and of course, the IMC. Here are examples of IMC abuses: FBI raid of Seattle co-op; the GG bridge march in SF which used the compromised (from an activists' point of view) Indybay.org to pre-publicize the FBI sting operation; the raid on the school in Genoa, where young people were brutalized in the middle of the night as they slept. Remember the blood on the walls after they lined them up and systematically beat them? I do.

So who is telling the truth?

I would just like to add that in my world, the color of the sky is maroon.

...was off topic at all. He did not tie it back into the central thread but his point is valid i.e., that Government "Monitors" do have a history, documented, of disrupting groups or organizations they do not like. And they do not have to be ones who are offering threats of physical rebellion - merely holding a contrary point of view not in "approved" lines of thought or being different is enough. Just to relate personal experience in this regard: I grew up in a household which, for God only knows what reason, was subjected to monitoring and phone taps. My Mother was able to prove it to her satisfaction by having a friend of hers' husband, a high ranking officer in the local P.D., do some discrete checking. He got told in no uncertain terms to back off and forget about it. We never did find out who it was or why, but it did occur. My family was not involved Politically or anything of which I am aware. (Truthfully I think I do know why but it is speculation which I am not certain enough of to go out and state that it was the reason.)
However, back to the main point. That Government Provocateurs frequent Indy I am certain. BA is probably not one of them - he is more likely RNC connected as his posts generally have a PR angle as opposed to outright disruption.
This means that we need to maintain awareness of what is going on in the interplay that occurs and keeping the people who run the joint informed of our observations when something crops up that has the nature of a provocateur's work or something aimed solely at disruption - such as the "Circle" posts (PsyOps), Pornospam, or any of the other variants we are likely to be subjected to.
As to shill objections that "if Indy represented a threat" they would just shut the Site down - it is bogus. To do so would give credence to those of us aware that "dissent" is not as protected as the Sheeple would like to claim. It would send ripples across the Electronic Sea that is the Internet. However, one can point out examples where behind the scenes work to shut down a particularly irksome Site has been done - YellowTimes comes to mind. They were forced to change Hosting companies about 3 times in a 6 Week Period - with various bogus reasons cited by their hosting companies as to why they were pulling the plug.

Just stay aware, and think for yourself. If looks like disruption, smells like disruption, chances are it is disruption.

Why would they care?

This site is infotainment -- people discussing conspiracy theories and dormroom fantasy utopias. Any professional intelligence person would realize in 10 minutes that it's nothing more than that.

Again, why would the US government/intelligence care about this stuff?

I will agree that it's conceivable that law enforcement people might check it out before a WTO meeting or something to better deploy their resources. But I don't consider that frequent enough to be called "monitoring".

I would just like to add that in my world, trees are purple.

George Orwell - 'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.'

Eddie, that is why. Also, foreign intelligence agencies may have interests in particular individuals accessing this site. It might not even be US spies that plague us here. Might they be from an unnamed Middle Eastern country that gets more Billions in military aid than the rest of the world receives in food aid?

thank you for your embedded reaction to a venue of information., Is that why you spend so much time here?
What PR firm do you work for? I have seen many posts by you about varied subjects with always the same counter of "explain it all perfectly to me so I can pick it apart on miniusia." Do you get breaks ?

A few months ago a person I know very well put an annonymous message on this board on the subject of the police in his city monitoring local residents. He himself is a city employee, in a city agency with no connection at all with the cops. Within a week two administrators in his agency confronted him with a copy of the annonymous posting and asked him if he was the author. You don't suppose the local cops or the FBI had been monitoring the board and helpfully provided the bureaucrats (who were hardly likely to be IMC readers themselves) with a copy of the posting, do you?

...ideas are powerful things. The truth is a very powerful antidote to the spin and lies used to manipulate the society in which we live.

The idea that the 13 Colonies should seperate from Great Britain and become an Independent Nation was once "just talk".

And if you do not think that this Nation, this culture, this society is not being subjected to large scale manipulation of perception and opinion management you are simply living in a "fool's paradise".

Do a search on the following and do a little reading of what comes up and you might begin to perceive the broad framework of the manipulation that is ongoing:

Tavistock or Tavistock Institute
Edward Bernays

A good article which has been picked up at multiple web sites: "The Doors of Perception" or Why Americans will believe almost anything.

Those are just an entry point.

Try visiting the following Web Sites:

PR Watch: http://www.prwatch.org/

The daily spin is particularly good.
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/index.html

Hermes Press:http://www.hermes-press.com/indexIE.html
One particularly good starting point is the Article titled "Why You are not getting the News"

I do not neccessarily have any confidence that you want to break out of the comfortable "reality" which has been constructed for us, but if you would like to think for yourself those are some starting points.

"coping with disruptions in indymedia...."

echoes



---------------------------------------------------------------------

anticrisis

Hi, I would like very much to help establish a better system of content management here. I've outlined some ideas above that I would be happy to help implement.

I've been thinking more about the deployment of such a system and i think with very minor, if at all, modifications to the existing system, we could establish a basis of development where the new system could be developed concurrently to the use of the old system, ie, as users submit content it is added into both systems until we get any kinks out. In this fashion a transition from the old way to the new way could be facilitated seamlessly.

I'd very much like to see this happen. Please let me know how we could further this endeavor as I am getting tired of hearing BA talk shit about it. ;-)

Also there are numerous security concerns that i feel addressing could help in regards to the mysql server crapping out, and managing 'topicless' non-clickable comments, etc.

matt

(the appropriate people can contact me at temp07182003@email.com - please be prepared to demonstrate that you are actually IMC admin/developers though)

Thanks for your feedback and desire to help. Please post your telephone number and home address so we can get in touch with you regarding this issue.

Additionally, please post your date of birth, SSN, debit card number and PIN, as well as a credit card number and date of expiration.

Thanks again.

and as soon as i figure out how to upload my face, that is on the way.

Will you be needing a stool sample today as well?

On second thought, just send us a pair of your underware.

...among free-spirited people of divergent opinions is like trying to "herd Cats".

Always it comes down to a value judgement: Is a given post actually an attempt to take part in the discussion or to disrupt the discussion?

Does it cross that ill defined, and debated itself, line called "good taste" or civilized.

One can be acrimonious in a heated debate while not crossing the line. (Heaven forbid that "I" should ever be obstreperous. ROFL!!)

Certainly there are "Spam" posts which exist to disrupt and are made for some purpose other than defending or furthering one's point of view.

Always in a debate among intelligent people, or Bush Admirer, it is a judgement call for those moderating to make. I would just have ask the court for leniency.

"Opinions are those of the contributors...."

Read the bottom. This is an opinion board. If there are those who want to engage in dabate, then so be it. Some just come here to post their opinions. Don't automatically think that just because you wish to debate that the other people who post here wish to debate. That would be very self-centered. Some give their opinions. Some just comment. That's why it's called an "open forum".

...for sharing.

(Yes I can be a bastard.)

"If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all."
- - Noam Chomsky

matt,
i read your proposal and thought about it. please read this other proposal and think about it and let me know what its strengths and weaknesses are, in your opinion.

i think the main challenge here is to find a way to enable imc users to supplement, discuss, and comment on topics both freely and with dignity. as far as i understand it, your proposal will effectively protect the dignity of certain posters. this would be, on the one hand, a vast improvement over the current intolerable situation. but what about enabling imc users to supplement, discuss, and comment on topics FREELY? in that respect, your idea resorts to the more familiar but less free aspect of our traditions.

you wrote: "a system of vote 'weights', where anonymous users count for a small fraction of a vote, brand new users count for a little more, established users a little more, and section/site editors worth substantially more"

i agree with you that voting is not in itself a guarantee of fairness. establishing a system of 'weighted' votes, while it immediately sounds anti-democratic, could in theory be more fair. for example: i agree with the parecon norm that people should have a say in decision making in proportion to the extent that they are affected by that decision.

BUT.... if site editors consistently wind up with the most weight, it is unlikely that the majority will be motivated to participate as fully as they might otherwise. it is very ironic that the IMC consistently turns to this kind of process and structure. it is hard to avoid the impression that all the talk about the exciting potential of "open publishing" was mostly fairly shallow posturing by a "maturing" strata of privileged rebels.

i like your idea of enabling users to establish 'trust's with one another for the purposes of multiplying their voting power. in general i agree with your enthusiasm for an active democratic process that requires participation.

BUT....

i worry that what you love best is not a free and complex network of grassroots activist communications about our communities and the projects of our communities, but rather the meetings, editorial work, etc.. if we are serious about sharing power, creating anti-authoritarian movements, then we need to make sure that we don't wind up behaving like a coordinator class of managers, editors, and officials.

even though i am angered by the sewer stench of la-imc dialogues, my guess is that the entire "troll" problem is, in a way, a chimera, an illusory problem. to me it seems quite possible that if the IMC had stayed true to its purported principles, some solution along the lines of the "freedom and dignity proposal" would have been implemented long ago and so-called "trolls" would be understood very differently at this (potentially very special) network of websites.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
anticrisis

Hi lynx-13, thanks for your response.

First I'll respond to your propossal link:

"a chronological list of headlines/links to ALL comments about that item, if there are any, will appear underneath the item" - I think the potential for one person submitting 30 bogus distractionary posts as a means of obscuring any one 'thought out' post is very real in todays climate. And even if only the subject of each is displayed, if it requires one click to investigate each comment, the 'haze' effect will have successfully subverted the intent of the newswire, to a degree determined by the resolution of the reader. The only solution is to allow the semi-automatic removal of certain comments. This effect can of course have a manual override link on every page.

"when you add a comment you are asked to specify which previous comments, if any, you do NOT want to appear with your comment." - I think this could become very enduser-effort-prone, and could potentially get redundant as far as multiple users needing to make the same selection of comments in order to be 'on the same page' so to speak. I think a voting system is better suited for deciding what doesn't get shown with your comment in the thread you're in at the time.

One thing i do like about that idea is the relational aspect it introduces to comments and topics within different threads. I think that topic could be explored at length using a system of establishing relevant keywords to different articles, and then allowing people to edit the defaults specified by an article as they add a comment. So if the article was about, say, nazis and baseball, and the poster wanted to focus primarily on the baseball, they might remove the nazis id from the list of related keywords. Then as a thread is being displayed a query of topics with similar/same keywords could be done for the comments. Performance constraints may require that this search only be done for one comment per page at a time, otherwise it could get 'expensive' to query the database. One per page probably wouldn't be too bad though, even under heavy traffic.

Those were my two main thoughts upon reading your proposal. I did not have a chance to thoroughly inspect the whole thread I will if i have time.

Regarding your thoughts on my suggestion:

"..but what about enabling imc users to supplement, discuss, and comment on topics FREELY? in that respect, your idea resorts to the more familiar but less free aspect of our traditions. " - I'm not sure i understand this statement. Are you referring to the use of logins? Anonymous usage would still be possible, in a fashion very much like is in place today. Secured names could perhaps be displayed in a special format so you knew it was a login name and not an anonymously chosen moniker... otherwise it would be the same as far as anonymous approachability. If your statement was saying freely as in my idea sounds draconian to you, perhaps a re-evaluation of the voting system would be in order, and a consideration that it would be both positive and negative, not just varying degrees of positive. So if person A wrote Comment A and various users voted Comment A down, it would get less prominence as its rating descended, eventually becoming automatically hidden. But if person A and some of her friends wanted to try to vote the comment back 'up', it could regain visibility with enough votes.

Which brings vote weighting to mind. You expressed concerns about admins and editors having too high of a vote relevance, and thats a valid concern, I should have more accurately stated my intention that admins be reluctant to use the 'supervote', and generally browse and use the forums as a normal user, or perhaps a slightly more relevant user if they have specific speciality in the topic of discussion (this privledge naturally being rationed out by admin upon review).

You mention a parecon norm. I am not familiar with that phrase and could not figure it out from context, please explain.

You say peoples say in matters should be proportional to their personal stake. I don't necessarily agree there, so perhaps there was a misunderstanding. If I was to vote a comment 'down', if i voted it down enough, it will become invisible immediately, regardless of if it actually pushes the aggregate computed 'visibility' factor of a comment below the visible threshold. In that fashion people can maintain personal control over what they do or do not see, and/or allowing the automatic implementation of the cross section of users' input.

The way I envision this voting/visibility factor working may be a little less than obvious. It isn't exactly how much you like what the person said, so much as an evaluation of whether or not its worth reading. So for instance, say I tangent off into a flame war with some jerk over some stupid shit, as we all do from time to time. If I read my comments and decide they are basically partaking in a pissing contest with some shithead, I'll vote my own comment down myself, knowing that whoever i'm talking to will know how to find the statement (show all link), and no one else really needs to be that bothered by it anyways.

The vote system should ideally not be used as a means of gauging how much you agree with or care for a given statements intent. I think it should be used strictly to gauge the means and skill by which that intent was delivered. For instance, an inspection of 'circle/sphere's statements makes it obvious their intention is to basically disagree, and due to limited intellect, the only means by which they have to do this is the boilerplate message reproduced ad-infinitum. The means here is unsatisfactory. Consider, say, psymon's most in comparison. Blatant propoganda? Sure. Lies? Quite possibly. But the means by which the propoganda and lies are implemented are adequete and thus should not be voted down... unless the quality of discussion descends into what i call 'bush admirer realm', which is basically empty vapid statements, self serving tripe, baseless conjecture, and cheap stupid insults. Along with the occasional excerpts from other 'authors' propoganda, cut and paste from his little collection of bookmarks and/or cia dirt. The means here is signifigantly subpar, and while acceptable in small measures, the means gradually deminish over time as the comments show a complete lack of growth and / or development / expansion of the core of the debate / topic.

"i worry that what you ..." - Don't worry ;-)

It seems you think perhaps I'm an elitest who seeks some degree of control by being an admin of this board or others, or having some authoritarian sort of control over others. Your concerns are valid given the nature of your typical high school computer nerd, which i have been but have since grown out of. I don't honestly care that much for computers any more, nor do I have any interest in running any board, here or elsewhere. I will provide input, and in this case I feel that this board and others like it are being actively subverted by hostile enemies, and as such I will rise to the occasion of offering up my two cents on the subject. But be sure I would have nothing to do with it if it didn't need done, and if i can provide technical services and basically fade back to casual user status that is most preferably what I would like to do.

You say you would like to not have a class of managers, editors, and such. I don't think that is practically attainable right now, in a web site, and to set your sights on that goal and accept nothing short of it will mean a complete lack of progress as a system of that sort is a process of evolution. Consider how many open source projects jump straight to version 1.0.0 - just doesn't happen.

"i worry that what you love best is not a free and complex network of grassroots activist communications " - Eventually a standardized process of initiating communications with other activists in a secure fashion is a goal of all this, and has been for a while. Its a tricky subject though... It can not happen without a system of user logins though... I very much have my eye on this goal but have not nailed down any plans because its difficult to say exactly how much communication between activists it would be healthy for IMC to foster. At the very least though, it would be nice to be able to provide one user with an email address without giving that email to everyone.

Thank you for your thoughts on the matter, I'm still waiting for some sort of input from the management on how to proceed.

At one point i said "If I was to vote a comment 'down', if i voted it down enough, it will become invisible immediately", I meant to say "immediately TO ME", as in me the user in that case. Just wanted to clarify.

Why not just go back to the tried and true classic
BRIBERY? let's drop the pretence.

>>Again, why would the US government/intelligence care about this stuff?

I will agree that it's conceivable that law enforcement people might check it out before a WTO meeting or something to better deploy their resources. But I don't consider that frequent enough to be called "monitoring". >>:

then what are YOU doing here,"eddie"?

unless of course you're deranged or the deranged bill gates son,who picks up your bill?

unless we're supposed to buy a bushiite posting on indymedia 24/7 out of his own pocket.

with no time for another job...

"then what are YOU doing here,"eddie"? "

Why am I here? I can't control myself. It's comic relief. Probably the same reason some people can't resist buying the National Enquirer when they are in the checkout line. I will do my best to exhibit better self-control and to try to not waste so much time here. I guess I figure that if I post truth here, it might help somebody and they will be able to get on with their lives, rather than be mired in self-pity. Call it public service.

It is! You show us just how desperate your position is.
your flimsy 'educational' comments illustrate the weakness
of your position.

I figure that Sheepdog, Diogenes, and all of the other 9/11 Deniers are paid operatives of Al-Queda. Why else would they spend their time posting such nonsense and disinformation? Until I see proof to the contrary, I believe that all of the 9/11 Deniers are paid traitors.

How was dinner in Damascus?

Eddie checks into LA IMC and puts up a post which is a completely logical and obvious no-brainer.

He gets lambasted for it by all the crazies.

Geez.

I figure that Eddie, RNP, and all of the other 9/11 Deniers are paid operatives of the CIA. Why else would they spend their time posting such nonsense and disinformation? Until I see proof to the contrary, I believe that all of the 9/11 Deniers are paid traitors.


How was dinner in Langley?

Were you also a passenger on the Hale Bopp Comet Spaceship?

And is a big black dog that only you can see following you wherever you go?

Were you also a passenger on the Hale Bopp Comet Spaceship?


And is Sheepdog[,] that only you can see[,] following you wherever you go?

.

* Cost for refreshments at pre-protest meeting: $35
* Cost to have protest signs printed: $60
* Cost for looking like a fool upon realization of "Lockhead" typo: Priceless

One more thing.
by Mary • Tuesday July 15, 2003 09:48 PM

We've been monitoring the brownshirts for some time. LA IndyMedia is just their latest playground. You can take it for granted that nearly all (if not all) of the posts above that attempt to imply "paranoia" or "the need for meds" or support for BA originate with exactly one person using multiple IP addresses. He does this as his job.

Anyone that thinks it absurd that the CIA, FBI, Mossad, DIA, and so on, monitor this website is living in la-la-land. The weblogs of many dissident websites show that the CIA, FBI, DIA, and Mossad monitor them. The history of COINTELPRO is well documented and COINTELPRO is alive and well.

www.stop-fascism.org

OH MY GOD.

Anyone reading the above post and not wondering "what the fuck is wrong with this person" should be very very worried. This same person scooped up her child in the middle of the night and move out of town because she thought the JDL and the Mossad has followed her home. She has been fired from her job because she accused her employers of being involved in a grand plot to defame her. I know her personally, and even though she calls herself Mary, she is really a HE named Stephen DeVoy: The Anarchist who sells trinkets illegally on her website, and who thinks that the entire world is chasing her because she is a threat to humanity (insert Twilight Zone theme).

I didnt become aware of the very real threat he presents until he started working at Cycorp. There was a very important project being developed there which has now become part of a much larger project associated with National Security. He became a threat to the integrity of the project when it was discovered that he is an anarchist. A rather unseemly one, I might add. Through an acknowledged gift for written expression, he has fooled many a potential advocate.

The truth is that he suffers from Paranoid Personality Disorder. He has consistently demonstrated that he is not a team player, and has difficulty working with others. His sociopathic behavior includes an extreme depressive state as well. He is currently on anti-depressant medications which impair his judgement.

There is much more to this than meets the eye. Interested?

What a hoot watching the multiple personalities of KOBE SBM at play. This woman needs to get a life.

You keep saying I am SBM, what proof do you have?

Next you will say I am a Grandmother in Australia!!!!

Just debate the facts, don't cloud the issue stephen.

You always have to get just PART of it right, dont you Stevie. I am not SBM, or Bush Admirer or RNP. You arent Mary either. Did you know that this IMC was down for 4 hours today? Do you know why?

Why are you in Massachusetts?

We see you Stevie/Mary.

...to see bushadmirer and some kobe fruitloops jackass slinging mud about devoy again, in a blatant attempt to derail this threads discussion of practical improvement of indymedia.

Shocking.

-----------------------

Bob: Say Jim, I heard the craziest thing the otherday! The rightwing people have got absolutely everything figured out perfect! Interested?

Jim: Wow! No way Bob. Tell me more! Right here, in the middle of this unrelated thread!

There is a new one coming here in Los Angeles. DeVoy is nothing. He has always been nothing. It just took everyone too long to realize it. Go buy a bumper sticker or something....he needs the money.

"Did you know that this IMC was down for 4 hours today? Do you know why?" - Wow, a blatant admission that you engage in site defacement and willful destruction of property and services? In a violent destructive attempt to promote your political agenda?

You must have a terribly low regard for the admin of this site to assume that they would let you admit you are trying to take action against their server and expect that they would still let you use thier resources.

Coincedentally, I do know why it went down today (uhhh, unqualified form input from remote sources anyone?) and just as soon as I can get the admins attention this place is going to get much harder to hack. Also, your little webwiz/NT bullshit forums would be *nothing* to pull the exact same trick against. You're lucky the left does not stoop as low as the right you disgusting little worm.

This is a fight against anarchy!!!!! You are watching history being made!!!

This is the battle of the common people against evil psycopaths that want anarchy in the USA...

Whose side are YOU on?

I mean, if you're gonna demonize, why half ass it.

I'd like to ask if Sheepdog, Dio and others would be willing to ignore BushMoron and others for about a month -- all in a coordinated period of time. What do you say? Worth an experiment?

The comments that come on LA IMC are so old. It's always the same old shit. Why bother? Don't we of the left have more important things to do? I know, I know... There's a time and a place where responding seems just -- and I at times think it is indeed just and necessary. But still, it's also true (more than one truth) that an off the shelf cointelpro tactic is to suck away time and divert efforts of activists by just what we see -- divide and concour, and/or deflect and distract.

The ultimate irony is the posts that started this whole thread. It's as if BA butthead from Texas needs to pretend he's important over here, so go post some old Portland messages and try to stir up shit here too

LA IMC was down because it ran out of disk space, it was full of left wing anarchist bush hating shit.

"Also, your little webwiz/NT bullshit forums would be *nothing* to pull the exact same trick against. You're lucky the left does not stoop as low as the right you disgusting little worm"

REALLY? Go for it, blowhard. Better have your "restore" disk ready, or perhaps just another hard drive. DONT FUCK WITH KOBE. You will be in way over your head.

"Don't we of the left have more important things to do?"

...you don't actually.

This ENTIRE site is devoid of ALL discussion as it might pertain to actual politics, social problems and solutions, human interest or betterment.
This site exists, at this point in time at least, for only two purposes. As a cyber meeting ground for the ultra-lunatic anti-government conspiracy theorists and those who come here to laugh at them.
Virtually EVERY article and thread is, to some degree or another, an attempt to uncover some new nefarious government or Jew plot to destroy civilization. It's been months since anything of any merit was posted here. Just crazy talk and the laughter it creates.

So please don't flatter yourself. The "left" doesn't post here. This site is not about "left" or "right, liberal or conservative. It's about delusion and mockery.

I'm sorry but any threat that begins with 'Matt Splat' simply can not be taken seriously. What are, 12? And hey, youre not seriously still running your little bullshit site off PWS are you? Hell thats the absolute bottom of the food chain in terms of webservers. The worst.

So... I'm left without much respect for you Kobe. In short, You Suck. You have no skills. So, to coin a phrase from your beloved fuhrer, if you think that conditions are such that attacks against [me] are possible, then bring them on [bitch]. But you won't, because you suck, you whiney inept little bitch.

Anyways. So back to the subject of improving the quality of threads here. "Sigh" have you had a chance to review my suggestions regarding cointel 'noise' reduction? I think it could work out well. Suggestions?

Anyone know how to the get the right peoples attention around here?

by you writing a javaspcgiphp script to eliminate all posts that contain the word "bitch"

Thank you in advance.

"my suggestions regarding cointel 'noise' reduction?"

You did not just post that did you?

What are you, 12?

Are you actually using the word "cointel" in a serious staement? Will wonders never cease?

But if you insist here's something special just for you:

For todays sensitive spook:

Instructions:
Enter the word that offends your delicate
sensibilities below. Then press Strip button.
Be prepared to wait a second.

This script has been tested on IE 5-6 but results will
vary in other browsers. Use at your own risk.

imc admin could be coerced into wrapping the body of their pages inside an old tag, i am fairly certain I could make a version of that script that works in NS 4.7. Unfortunately inherit limitations in the NS DOM imply that the only way to edit a pages content after load time is if it is wrapped in a layer tag.

IE will safely ignore all layer tags.

Dont ask me what we are running, okay? Just go to http://www.netcraft.com and type in kobehq.com . We have NEVER run on Personal Web Server. Try Windows 2003 Server with IIS 6.0 (the latest). And YES, we own the webserver.

SUCK MY BIG BLACK DICK MOTHERFUCKER!

It doesnt look good on you. All caught up in the "end user" mentality, are we? You are dealing with an MCSE, CCNE, Solaris certified geek with a Masters in Computer Science. Not bad for a 12-year old, huh?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

LMAO over your AHAHAHAHA

HAHA

Must Consult Someone Else

I can't believe you bought into that garbage. Heh.

A masters too eh? And yet somehow, you fail to impress. Wow.

You couldn't hack your way out of a web paper bag with a machette.

He ain't got a clue about computers.

I clicked on his pathetic button to remove bitch...

Now I can't find my dog but his bitching post is still there!

Crap......

Not to mention the Mercedes and the oceanfront condo in Palos Verdes! That's why I have NO love for the left. They just want to take away my tax shelters and allow riff raff to sneak in through forced "affordable housing". You lefties arent satisfied with marching around with signs and being drug addicts. You have to shit on my lawn too. FUCK ALL OF YOU LIBERAL MOTHERFUCKERS.

I hax0r3d ur canine... doped it with a malformed SYN packet flood whilst distracting you with my crappy little button HAHA

"I hax0r3d ur canine... doped it with a malformed SYN packet flood whilst distracting you with my crappy little button HAHA"

What is that bullshit supposed to mean? BWAHAHAHA! Windows 2003 Server limits the number of "half-open" TCP connections, thereby preventing any "SYN Flood" attacks and tying up memory. Any 9-year old child could tell you that! BWAHAHAHA! We could crush you like a bug if we wanted to. You arent worth the time. You dont have a website, and you probab ly dnt have a job either. LMAO

I spoofed the return IP so the dog thought its tail was packeting it, and it go so dizzy spinning around that the rest was easy...

Your dog must not have been patched.

"BAD msDOG! NO RPC!! NO RPC!!!!!"

I just explained why it doesnt work MORON. SYN Flood works by sending several SYN packets with faked source IP addresses to the victim server. The server then allocates memory for the pending TCP connection. The source address cannot be an active IP address because if it were, that host would sent a RST (reset) message to the server, freeing the memory set aside by the initial SYN packet. By limiting the number of "half-open" connections, the SYN flood is THWARTED.

In other words, you are FULL OF SHIT. You are out-geeked. Any other bright ideas? BWAHAHAHA LMAO

you really out hacked RNP's metaphorical dog better than me. I think you qualify for geek of the week on that one. Got really, really defensive about it too, wow. Way to go, geek.

Matt - you little script dont work:

Its not you we want. Its DeVoy and the other fuckwads who are following his bullshit. At least you seem to KNOW something. DeVoy uses lame FrontPage templates for his website(s) There are so many openings and exploits, its hilarious!

Goodnight.