So I was reading this thread on John Quiggin's blog when the discussion turned to Tim Blair's policy of banning any dissenters from commenting on his blog. (See here for an example of the sort of comment that will get you banned.) Now Blair doesn't have to support comments from people that disagree with him, but there are free commenting systems available, so I set up Haloscan so that people could comment without being banned. I also wrote a little CGI proxy script that people could use to add links to the Haloscan comments under each of Blair's posts.
Tim Blair got rather upset, apparently believing that I had made a copy of his content to create a mirror. Ken Parish was concerned that the proxied version could be mistaken for the real thing, so I modified the proxy so it clearly indicated that the user was looking at a modified version of the blog. Guy Tsafnat reckoned that I had gone too far.
Meanwhile Blair called my Head of School several times to complain. My HoS checked with UNSW's lawyers who said that they didn't think that there was anything wrong with my proxy. However, they were concerned that some people might mistakenly think that UNSW was hosting a copy of Blair's blog, so I offered to move the script off site.
Now Blair offers an RSS feed on his site. If you click on that link you will see that it is not very readable. That's because it's not meant to be directly browsed, but displayed by a feed reader. These can display the content in an enormous variety of ways and add links to other relevant material. For example, the one I use adds links to a Technorati search for links to each post. Feed readers can be desktop applications or web-based. The web based readers are sites which read in RSS feeds and reformat the information into html so that it can be displayed in a browser. If you go to any of dozens of sites you can read Blair's blog on that site instead of Blair's.
Anyway, Blair called me and asked me take it down. I asked him if would object to my taking his RSS feed and displaying it with links to the Haloscan comments. Unfortunately he did not know that he had an RSS feed or even what that was. I tried to explain what that was but Blair would not say whether or not he would object. At some stage Blair threatened me with the Packer lawyers. Packer owns the Bulletin, the magazine that Blair works for. He did not think that it was fair that he was singled for having comments added. According to Blair his comments policy was not particularly different from Ken Parish, who sometimes closes comment threads. After some discussion Blair hung up on me, warning that if it wasn't taken down today we would hear from his lawyers.
Meanwhile, drscroogemcduck posted an elegant bookmarklet that lets you add the Haloscan links from inside your browser. (It only works from Firefox.) I thought was a nice solution so I replaced the proxy with a redirect to the bookmarklet. Next, Blair's lawyer called my HoS and also UNSW's lawyer to demand that the proxy be taken down. (It already had been, but the lawyer seemed unaware of this.) I don't know whether this was one of the "Packer lawyers" that Blair had referred to earlier.
Interestingly, the alternative Haloscan comments were getting many more comments than Blair's real ones until Blair posted this comment:
Can I ask all timblair.net regulars to stop commenting here. This is exactly what he wants and you're only encouraging him.
And all the Blairites, who seemed to be enjoying having people to debate with for once, dutifully returned to their cocoon.
Update: The comment was actually posted by a Tim Blair impersonator. The Blairites took their marching orders from a fake Blair.
A handy hint from drscroogemcduck:
Avocadia has adapted my script for greasemonkey and made it look a bit nicer (I think). Greasemonkey will automatically run the script each time you visit blair's site. After installing greasemonkey you can install the script by right clicking on this link and selecting "Install User Script".
You need Firefox for this version as well.
You complete idiot. That comment wasn't posted by me. I suggest you ban the impersonator responsible.
Oh, and my issue with RSS feeds was that you wanted to talk about a potential scenario, while I was concerned with the then-current issue of you running the copy site. As you'd be aware.
Your misrepresentations are pathetic.
Quick, delete that comment!
Ahhh, the beauty of unmoderated and unregistered comments.
Sod off, swampy.
So Tim (Blair, that is). It's been awhile since I've seen someone works as hard as you seem to have to get critics their silenced - on, and even off of their own site. The Inquisition tried this against Galileo, and they didn't exactly come out shining. It would be in your interest to read up on that incident and learn from it.
In my experience, when people resort to resort to such things, it's because they know fine good and well that they can't win on a level playing field. If I was you and I truly wanted to be taken seriously, I'd give that some thought...
I read Blair's site pretty often, and I have to say I would tend to disagree with Andrea Harris's banning policy: she does tend to hit the "ban" button pretty fast.
However, lame-ass stunts like the one you did are making me rethink my position.
Just play it straight: you got caught doing something you shouldn't have been doing, because you're jealous of the guy. Now you're trying to blame him for your actions, like he's somehow irresponsible for not allowing trolls to take over a website THAT HE OWNS. How about someone that doesn't like you do the same redirection on your site, except make it where it doesn't actually suck?
You took an exact duplicate of his site, added nothing useful (just read the comments that were posted!) and removed something important (Blair often refers to comments made in his posts in updates). There was no link to the original content (as there is with Google caches). You couldn't get enough hits on your blog, why not steal his.
Oh, and Scott: Blair's critics have plenty of opportunities to state their views. Check out blogspot.com sometime. It's not Blair's fault that said views are childish and no one gives a shit what they say.
Oh, no!!! Now Blair's resorting to personal attacks*!
Clicky
*Attacks that contain Truth(TM)
whats your fucking job at UNSW fucking around on weblogs no wonder they want to boot you fucking glorified dole bludgers
Everyone together now -- Awwww, poor Tim Blair. Someone was allowing dissenting comments to be posted about his articles! No wonder the poor scared guy had to get lawyers involved. Let's all chip in and send him a night light.
Where did you tell people about this mirror? How did all the Blairites find it?
Greasemonkey version of the bookmarklet...I kinda get sick of having to click the bookmarklet every page view.
I think it was a neat trick, and it appears that TL cobbled this together in less than a day, so if I was a student at UNSW comp-sci faculty I'd be pleased that the staff are such wiz bang techo gurus.
The fact that Blair reacted so aggressivly to a simple 32 line script, means that TL hit a nerve. Blair's self image is clearly very tied up with his on-line representation, he doesn't want anyone goosing with it.
It suggests also that he's pretty touchy about his comments policy, but the fact is he's entitled to run it any way he pleases.
The real question I think is was it worth it? Was it worth the hassle to higlight all these things about Blair? I think not! I just don't see that it's worth getting all cut up about him and his following. I really couldn't summon the energy to register for commenting on his site anyway. It's not a debate over there. It's not interesting enough to bother.
funny how lambert deleted some of the comments on the 'fake' tim blair site. what's up with that? can't stand the criticism lambert? oh, and is it true that your nickname is 'moby dick'?
I was thinking sort of the same thing, Rex: it's a bit of a fine line. On the one hand, one really has to take the argument to the spouters of nonsense, because to let them constantly spew falsehoods unopposed is a mistake. But on the other hand, anything that brings any attention at all to Tim Blair is proabably a mistake. I know he already has a huge readership, but every time someone new clicks on a link that goes to a Tim Blair post, the whole world gets just a little dumber.
On a similar theme TL - have you apologised to Andrew Bolt for misrepresenting him thusly:
Dear Tim,
I became aware only of your web site this week, when Tim Blair pointed out some unethical behavior of yours.
It was only then I discovered you had form - and at my expense.
In particular, can you explain why, among your other deceits and misrepresentations, you said this:
Andrew Bolt, writing in the Melbourne Herald Sun offers this conclusive disproof of global warming: "Melbourne last week had its coldest February day on record, and its wettest day, which should surprise those still naive enough to believe our green gurus."
I ask because I actually argued the very opposite in the article you quote, as you must have known. Hint: read its concluding paragraph, which states:
Of course, one bit of wild weather in our ever-changing climate doesn't disprove the holy theory of global warming. But nor should green groups claim the odd cold snap proves it, either ..."
Got it? You say I claim to offer a "conclusive disproof". I in fact write that this "doesn't disprove". Is that simple enough for you?
So can you answer me the following three questions?
Why did you claim I said the opposite of what I in fact did say? Is this deceit of yours typical of your work and your ethics as a blogger and academic? Will you delete your preposterous posting, or at least do the moral thing and apologise for it on your blog?
-- Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
I became aware only of your web site this week : Andrew Bolt
So Andrew Bolt admits to only learning one thing new this week. I wonder if he learned anything new last week? Perhaps that's the way with RWDBs. They're so busy telling that they don't do any learning.
Mindy Hawthorn:
Looking at this exchange, I agree moby is maybe a good nickname for TL, and further "Captain Ahab" is a good nickname for Blair ...
Mr. Bolt -
It has got to be hard for anyone who read your
column to see you posing as the hurt innocent without cracking up. You say in your comment
No, you didn't. From beginning to end, the argument advanced in your column is that events of extreme weather may be taken as evidence against predictions of trends in the other direction. In the paragraph immediately above the one you quote, you said that "Warrnambool's citizens should demand a recount" of a report predicting a 35% reduction in flood risk for south-western Victoria, because they had heavy rains and a flood. For you to accuse Tim of "deceits and misrepresentations" because your last sentence, dripping with sarcasm, said that the "holy theory of global warming" was not disproven, is a clumsy exercise of the old shell game. Those who read your column really do remember where you left the pea.
As it happens, Tim has modified the
wording of his post in response to your criticism.
Which is more than you deserve.
Incidently Andrew. Boltwatch is a website that you can only be aware of next week!
http://boltwatch.blogspot.com/
You complete idiot. The first comment to this blog entry complaining about another comment wasn't posted by me. I suggest you ban the impersonator responsible.
That last comment wasn't posted by me either!
You're all idiots!
Tim L has nothing to apologise for. Bolt's two paragraphs were plainly designed to leave the impression that Melbourne's cold weather was a legitimate refutation of global warming theories, while covering his arse if anyone called him to task for his demagoguing.
What other purpose could his first paragraph have? Did he really intend his second paragraph to render his first entirely meaningless? I don't think so.
Tim L's response was a fair, if humorously exaggerated take on Bolt's obvious intention.
And Tim, thanks for the fun the other day!!
The thing I thought was funniest about this was the way Tim Blair, the rough, tough, rugged individualist, went running for Kerry Packer's apron strings when he got upset.
That said, however, I agree with Jonathan Dursi that there's probably little point going to all this trouble just to allow dissenters to comment on Blair's site by proxy. I think Spleenville should be treated as some sort of fetid, contaminated slum and isolated from the rest of the internets as much as possible.
Tim, go type a dissenting comment at DeLong's site and see how far it gets.
Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet, Lancet.
DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT.
timblair.net = circle.jerk. Why would anyone with a brain waste their time reading it?
Tim L, as one who reads both yours and tim b blogs, I was TOTALLY confused by what you did. I didn't see it as unethical, more a WTF????? - more information needed! When I went to your blog for understanding, no information was provided. Disappointing.
As an unabashed rightie, I thnk we could do a lot better addressing the arguments instead of the abuse. See for instance comment nos 28 and 32 in the comments in that thread at Tim B's place.
Who the hell is Tim Blair and why should I care about him?
Avocadia has adapted my script for greasemonkey and made it look a bit nicer (I think). Greasemonkey will automatically run the script each time you visit blair's site. After installing greasemonkey you can install the script by right clicking on this link and selecting "Install User Script".
Dissenting comments are posted all the time at Brad Delong's web page; there are often interesting discussions/arguments there. What Brad does not allow are trolls, which are very different creatures. Brad would have deleted the fourth comment in this thread, for instance, and rightly so.
Sad for you you can't recognize the difference between disagreement/debate and invective/trolling.
Aaron, I posted a link to the script on the thread on Quiggin's site. Blair chose to give it maximum publicity instead of first talking to me about it.
Rex, it took less than an hour to write the script.
Tim
In the highly unlikely event that any of these threats of legal action eventuate, I'm sure many of your regulars will be happy to kick in money for your defence.
Adding comment capability for someone else's blog? What an odd thing to do. Though from what I've seen, you didn't simply add commenting capability: you copied Mr. Blair's entire site. I'm not Don Quixote, so I'm not about to waste my time explaining why such a thing is unethical. Instead I'll just add you to the long list of people who may have something interesting to say, but aren't worth listening to because their questionable integrity makes weighing the value of their statements too much effort.
"Nunya" I did not copy Blair's entire site. The only thing at UNSW was a 32 line perl script. If you want to complain about "unethical" copying of a Blair's site, you should talk to Google, who have copied his site and will serve up modified versions of it.
Hillarious! Good going, Tim L.
I can only conclude from this whole caper that you have a really, really, really, really small dick. That you have expended so much effort trying to capitalize on Blair's popularity says far more about you and your small dick than could any response of Blair.
Lambert, and every other poster here who cannot fathom what was wrong with the copied site - 32 lines of perl whatever - if you disagree with Blair or his comments start your own blog and put up posts about it. You already do that - why isn't that enough for you? He sure as heck does not agree with your world view (neither do I) but he doesn't copy your site. Just because you can reproduce a site does not mean you should or even that it is permitted by law. You were so stupid, Lambert, you actually copied the Bulletin trademark and 4BC trademarks to a web site address without authority from the Bulletin or 4BC. 32 lines of perl. What about the RSS feed. Jeebus, get over the tech stuff, you Mitnick. Who cares about the tech stuff? You copied stuff without permission. What an imbecile. And all because you disagree with Tim Blair. You and your readers who think what you did was great/fun/clever/good etc are cretins. You particularly are a maroon cos your reputation, whatever it was before, is now set in stone and quite international - you are the dickhead who purloined someone else's website breached copyright and trademark law and does not even understand what is wrong about that. The dumbest thing ever done in the short history of Oz blogging. If I get a website and call it it TimLambertCretin.com and post day in day out about your studpidity eventually getting you sacked from UNSW you won't be able to do a thing about it.
Fool.
You have a blog. If you disagree with Blair just put up a post about it. And try to avoid defamation, intellectual property rights infringement and other IT law breaches.
I'd never heard of you til seeing the Instapundit post. But I know you now. And I know you and your fellow travellers are dicks.
I find it annoying and petty for bloggers who allow comments to block dissenting comments, but as a conservative I find it much more prevelent on the left than the right. I wish Tim wouldn't block comments, but he is hardly alone. I've been banned from Brad DeLongs site, though I've found he likes to post comments at conservative sites. Go figure. Either allow comments or not, but don't allow some and not others, unless they are commmercial or obscene.
Kozinski, I don't agree with you about open comments. Ban all the comments you like. Don't have comments. Leave em open. It's your blog so run whatever editorial policy you like. Just don't mess up your neighbour's blog by Lamberting it - he copied completely and tries to hide behind a 32 lines of perl rubbish argument. tim Blair's site turned up at a whole new URL and this feat was performed by Lambert. All because he does not like the treatment of comments at Blair's site. Sheesh. Blair can do what he likes so long as he stays within law So can Lambert - and he is so stupid he cannot stay within the law.
kozinski, it might surprise you, but most major right-winged blogs don't even allow comments. This of course could be said to involve no banning, but somehow I don't see it that way.
Oh, and Free Republic and Little Green Footballs are arguely some of the biggest right-winged blogs/forums that allows comments, and they ban very fast indeed.
Kristjan:
I am not a frequent poster at Free Republic but if I am in the mood for it I will post on a global warming article (although its kind of like shooting fish in a barrel there). Anyway, I have not had any problem about being banned. Maybe they don't consider global warming important enough.
Y.
kozinski, I think bloggers should ban trolls. Where I differ from Blair is that he thinks that someone who disagrees with you is a troll. Whereas, the usual definition of troll is someone who deliberately tries to disrupt the discussion. For quite some time, I felt that the complaints against Blair were unfair -- a high traffic blog is likely to attract trolls and banning them makes it a better experience for everyone. But when I saw some of the examples of what got people banned, I had to change my mind.
Take a note Lambert. You've deleted my comments calling you a fool. I have NOT copied your site to a new URL based on my place of work (or anywhere else) and started a different comments facility.
I know you are Tim Lambert from UNSW.
A hypocrit as well as a jerk.
And I know you are a jerk.
What I find really amusing about the whole issue is how none of Blair's dittohaeds would be here now talking about peni, jerks and bad faith unless little tim hadn't drawn their attention to it in the first place.
The whole little tim-Tim L contremps would have been settled exactly the way it was settled without little tim first responding by posting a link to it on his site first, before any other attempt to work it out.
Tim L, I thought it was a great prank, especially when little tim and his winged monkeys started getting all huffy and legalistic - a bit like PC tort lawyers in fact.
Yelling, it could be that Free Republic have changed their policies within recent time. I know for sure that I'm banned there.
Of course, I did the cardinal sin of defending Clinton with the truth (i.e. correct their "facts" when they were too much out of synch with reality).