Anonymity
Mike Brock is just beside himself with glee. He has “outed” the blogger who publishes “Centre of Canada”. With the “help” of Kate McMillan, Mike has published the real name and employer of a writer who chose to write anonymously. Mike did this because (to quote Mike) the blogger was posting “rude, inappropriate comments, and insulting people (like me) whom he disagrees with.”
One of Mike’s readers took and ran with Mike’s revelation, and boasts:
“I just sent an e-mail to [the blogger's employer] wishing them well on having such an outstanding employee.”
Got that? Mike has just proudly enabled one of his readers to attack a man’s livelihood, because Mike doesn’t like the tone of that man’s comments. And Mike thinks that’s just fine.
I won’t provide a link to this, because I think Mike has behaved contemptibly.
This seems to have become a bit of a fetish of late in a certain quarter of the moronosphere. Richard Evans, a fairly vile specimen, is offering a $750 “bounty” for the identity of an anonymous blogger who habitually mocks him with more wit than Richard can muster. I’ve frequently been threated with “exposure” by one of the stupider conservative bloggers who, of course, publishes under a pseudonym himself. And right here at Stageleft, when Mike runs out of argument, he’s occasionally challenged me to identify myself - as though the strength of a fact or an argument was somehow dependent on his having access to my “real” name.
What crap. Many of my favourite bloggers, both “progressive” and “conservative”, choose to publish under a pseud. I don’t really care why. It doesn’t matter. I read them for their ideas and their wit…not for their names.
I publish under a pseudonym because I like to. I choose to write in a persona not quite my own. I enjoy balbulican, this character I’ve created. He’s sort of like me, the guy who actually writes this stuff. Except the balb character is a bit more curmudgeonly and snottily superior than I am. I think I have the same relationship with balb as Robertson Davies had with Samuel Marchbanks, an exaggerated version of Davies he created principally for his own amusement.
On the other hand, I don’t go to great pains to conceal my real identify. Several folks have figured it out. I’ve released CDs of traditional music, three DVDs on scuba diving, and a book on
Aboriginal authors in Canada, and I’ve promoted them all right here on this website, with links to the sites that sell them under my “real” name. And I’ve hooked up with quite a few of the better conservative bloggers under my own name, because they seem like smart folks that I want to know.
My weak anonymity hasn’t stopped some of our stupider readers from getting it hilariously wrong (yes, CS, I know you think you’ve figured out who I am. You’re mistaken.) But you know what? I don’t care very much. And that’s because I’ve never said anything on this blog that I wouldn’t say under my own name. Never. Period.
Now, I suspect that will be incomprehensible to Mike, whose blog is largely about ego. The notion of writing anonymously, for the pleasure of writing, would be quite strange to him. And to Canadian Sentinel, whose hatemongering would no doubt be of great interest to any employer. I can understand why he think the “threat” of “exposure” is something to fear.
Well, I experienced that “exposure” once. Two years ago, a seriously disturbed blogger called “Anonalogue” took exception to my comments. He published my name and workplace on his blog - just as Mike just did. Because he thought I was “arrogant”. And then he went further. He called my staff, shouted at them, demanded to speak to one of my co-owners, and basically scared the shit out of my office manager, who thought she was dealing with a lunatic. He threatened to track me down and administer “correction”. It was horrible. Not for me - I recognize a coward blowhard when I hear them. But for my staff and my wife, it was pretty awful.
And now Mike is bragging about enabling his “fans” to harass another real person in the real world, because Mike doesn’t like the way that the writer mocked him.
Good job, Mike. Hope you’re really proud of yourself. It’s nice that you’ve chosen to publish under your own name. That’s your choice. And clearly you believe that choice gives the right to judge others who have a different view, and to expose them to harassment that may jeopardize their livelihood.
Good stuff, Mike.
So you don’t think this blog comment directed at blogger Mike Brock is at least hopelessly rude and pathetically cheapens any debate? “Bill’s” comment………
“‘One wonders how Brock can bear to seperate {Stephen}Harper’s dick from his mouth long enough to eat?’ ”
And shouldn’t one expect more class in writings from a Liberal Party of Manitoba Vice President, who also is the treasurer of the Manitoba Better Business Bureau? Just askin’
Well, John (if that is your real name), the point being that Brock has chosen to expose a person’s identity because he was rude?
Oh dear! Clutch your pearls John (if that is your real name)! The horror! Insult Mike Brock and get your livelihood threatened. Typical bullying behaviour from the authoritarian rubes that make up the right and the Conservative party these days.
Yeah, that is soo cool, isn’t it? Gosh, I’m impressed.
I did what Brock did once on my blog, to an annoying conservative troll and I regretted it, because for all the bluster, it was still a real person on the other end. Something Brock and KKKate in their pitiful arrogance like to forget (or don’t really care about).
There is more to life than Liberal vs Conservative. Grow up.
Balby, I know you wrote off my site from your visit list, but check out today’s article on Mike Brock. I think we’re on the same wave length here.
This whole “outing” gig is pure and simple power tripping, “I can, therefore I do” - woop-de-f–cking do.
If outing a blogger makes yer day then you obviously have (a) too much time on your hands finding out someones real name, and (b) pretty dull friggen days.
– and if “rude, inappropriate comments” bother you that much then you probably shouldn’t bother dipping your toes into the blogpool, or having a blog unless it’s one of those piece of trash editorial blogs where you pontificate endlessly but are afraid of being challenged.
Monty Python had a line for this sort of thing, “more to be pitied than scolded“.
“John”: Insults traded on a blog are one thing. An attack on a blogger’s livelihood is another. If you don’t understand that - if you really can’t tell the difference between verbal fencing in cyberspace and an attack on someone in the real world, you’re an idiot.
‘Monty Python had a line for this sort of thing, “more to be pitied than scolded”.
Both, I think - pitied and scolded. Mike occasionally tries for cred. He just blew it, big time.
Well done-very thoughtful piece. I don’t know the “players” in the piece at all. Wondering what you think of the relationship to the issues you write about to the whole free speech debate.
You make a compelling argument. You’ll be happy to know that there are Conservative’s who I’ve spoken to, that agree with you: that I crossed the line. That’s your right.
It’s your right to assume that I did this to exude power, or to boost my ego. Whatever. I won’t debate the quality of my character with you.
I will however explain my reason for “outing” Mr. Beemer to you:
The primary reason is political. I will admit as much. The Liberal’s (ie. Cherniak) have made a blood sport out of trying to generate scandal on a daily basis, out of what often amounts to nothing but frivolous evidence at best.
The second is Mr. Beemer’s attitude. I sent him an e-mail before the posting. I asked him to confirm that he was the one who posted the message. He replied simply with: “Threating [sic] me Mikey?”
He made no attempt to apologize, clarify, or retract the comment in question when I made it apparent to him (privately) that I was aware of his identity.
Given his unrepentant attitude, and in the context of political considerations, I made a personal decision that it was appropriate to identify him.
He is a Vice President of the Liberal Party of Canada in Manitoba. He represents a party which wishes to govern Canada.
He felt he could sling highly offensive and inappropriate comments, that any reasonable person would consider such, on my privately owned blog. When confronted, he simply acted combative with me.
Not to mention, that after I outed him, he treated me outing him like a big joke, as if he didn’t care that I outed him at all, with snarky comments on at least three blogs, including mine.
So, I would say, you’re more concerned with his livelihood than he is.
I am guessing that he may, in fact, be a principle at the company of his employment, and therefore has not reason to fear for his job.
Sorry for the screwed up punctuation. :P My mobile browser automatically suggests an apostrophe when I capitalize words. It’s annoying.
Well, I have to disagree with the sentiment of this post as well as some of the comments.
First, perhaps because of my background (or perhaps my background is because of my interest), I have an interest in information, and I enjoy challenges in regard to obtaining more information, or figuring out how to figure out stuff.. including looking for different patterns, traits, etc that might lead me to knowledge of someone’s identity, if that person interested me in some way.
“Interested” can mean a number of things. Research and learning more things IS a passion of mine - and there are many times when I pursue this out of sheer enjoyment - and it has nothing to do with too much time on my hands; indeed, this trait of mine probably is one that has lead to some areas where I’ve been successful and have been rewarded/paid for my efforts.
I like mysteries, and I like solving mysteries. If someone posts anonymously, they may interest me because of their anonymity, which they have chosen. And I respect that right of theirs, but it is also my right to make use of information that I might come across, take notes, and spend my time however I wish.
As far as “outing” someone, I think Balb, if you recall that particular incident that we both shared in, you’ll recall we had some discussion about this. I think you’d agree that if push came to shove, there would be no problem in “outing” that person that posted anonymously. We did of course, want to get all our “ducks in a row” before we did.
But that suggests that “outting” someone is not in of itself a “nasty” or “mean” thing to do. So… it seems to me you would agree that we’d have a “right” to publish information should we have chosen to do so.
In that case, it seems to me that your issue here is more about some subjective precipitating factor that might make it “ok” to out someone. And that is subjective. Some would suggest that one should NEVER “out” someone… and I don’t think you’d agree with that.
What we have then is simply an issue of what events would transpire before you would do that.
And in that regard, I cannot criticize Mike Brock. He subjectively chose to do what he did based on his own criteria, and did not seem to act in any manner in this regard contrary to some principle.
If he acted contrary to some principle he claimed to hold to, or some principle that I held to, then I would be critical of him. But I don’t see any principle that he’s transgressed.
I personally have “outed” a couple of people who posted on my previous blog anonymously, and in being anonymous, thought they could get away with some words and ideas that I thought were nasty ideas.
It interested me enough and I had the resources and time available to me to partake of the fun that it was to me to investigate, research, and follow a trail and then publish information that was available using information that was publically available to me.
I of course, know and am aware of the right of freedom of expression, which includes the right to communicate ideas - which anonymously communicated may have the purpose of simply communicating an idea with a hope that in debate, there is no ad hominem used to debate the idea.
But there is no right to remain anonymous - there is no right that some anonymous person has that would suggest another person should not research, if they are interested, who the identity of someone is, and then publish that information.
There are a number of ideas of Mike Brock’s that I think likely deserve more critique (and some of his ideas I agree with) than whether he chooses to “out” someone who he feels insult from.
Those who can, write.
Those who can’t, out.
Ah yes, the logic of “what they do isn’t right and it pisses me off so I’ll get back at them by doing the same sorts of things….except when I do them it won’t be the same.“
I miss the good old days of the internet when it was unabashedly about freedom, and no one would ever even consider attacking someone in the “real world” for something they posted on a blog.
Now, people seem to regularly try to destroy people’s lives for the sin of being rude in cyberspace. I totally agree with this post. To me, it’s a much bigger sin to try to destroy a person’s livelihood for being rude, than it is to be rude.
I suppose someone could say its their right to attack a mosquito with a machine gun, but to me, that hardly makes up for the damage done by the machine gun. I guess the days of people having a place where they can be free to say whatever they like without fear of getting fired or being physically attacked in the real world are over, and that certainly saddens me.
I watched as a friend agonized whether to recognize or ignore the increasingly erratic and threatening online behaviour of a genuine psychopath until that threat became all too real to himself and others in his public life. Only then, after carefully weighing the threat against his family and his job - and then balancing guidelines on netiquette against his personal ethics and morals - did he decide to act privately to protect his family from harm while still preserving the online anonymity of the aforementioned jackass.
Given the above, Ian, there’s no comparison here between my friend’s situation in that instance and that of Mike Brock. There was no threat against Brock; no harassing phone calls, drive-bys at the office or home — only personal dislike, distaste of tactics, and differing political views.
Brock blew it. He lost it. It seems to me there were any number of other ways that Brock could have dealt with the situation instead of sending email to that man’s employer trying to get him fired.
Mike contends he took the high road. I think most people will disagree.
Bunkerites might insert one of those cheezy survey questions to guage where StageLeft readers stand? Just a suggestion.
Mike is acting as if it is only Liberals who generate scandal and act stupidly on the Internet. Nobody has a claim on stupidity on blogs Mike - there is plenty of scandal generating from both sides. It’s just, as SL pointed out, you think yours is justified while your opponents isn’t. But the truth is that you’re no better. Rise above or be what you hate - you chose the latter.
And this is why many corners of the blogosphere are becoming totally irrelevant.
I think this can be a tough issue. Based on what I’ve read here it doesn’t sound like a case where the use of the nuclear weapon of outing was warranted.
What about the comments section of blogs? People there will say things that they know would never be published in a newspaper. Yes, the Internet is supposed to be different, but are there any limits? If hate speech charges under the Criminal Code and human rights complaints are not the answer, is outing ever justified? What about anonymous commenters (or those using a pseudonym) who slur vary identifiable groups in our society (e.g., calling members of Group X drunk and members of Group Y lazy, mentally deficient and genetically predisposed to crime)? You can see the temptation-someone spews venom in a way that would not be possible in real life, given our social mores, and does so thinking that they are safe to do so. Should that be protected in all circumstances?
As a gloss on this question, is there a distinction between the blogger outing his/her commenter and another commenter doing so?
I’m not sure where I land on these issues-in fact one of the virtues of blogs and comments is these sorts of debates which often actually develop one’s thinking and/or change minds.
Brock blew it. He lost it. It seems to me there were any number of other ways that Brock could have dealt with the situation instead of sending email to that man’s employer trying to get him fired.
I did nothing of the sort. Whoever told you that I emailed his employer is lying.
So the gist of the argument against me is: The internet is a magical, fantasy world, where everyone respects everyones anonymity, and that people in positions of power who make poor judgments on the internet are free of real world consequences for their actions. Mike Brock has wronged the internet but introducing reality to it.
Good arguments all around. Especially from the folks who agree with me, who start with the considerable advantage of being right. (Why, that arrogant…wait, maybe he’s kidding…)
Mike, to address your points
That simply doesn’t respond to the central issue. You knowingly opened the door for an assault on a person’s livelihood, which, if your reader is to be believed, has taken place. The fact that another blogger “tries to generate scandal” is irrelevant. I personally don’t set my ethical bar by choosing the lowest point of comparison available.
In summary - you didn’t like his attitude, and you decided to punish him. Yes, I understand all that.
Your assessment of his reaction doesn’t have much merit, although I understand its importance in justifying what you’ve done. When I was “outed”, insulted and harassed by Anonalogue, I certainly didn’t give the bastard the satisfaction of knowing how badly he had upset my staff and my wife.
In any case, Mike, you’ve made your views clear. You believe that exposing commenters to real-world harrassment for political points, or because they offend you, is acceptable. I now know a bit more about your sense of blog ethics than I did.
Ian, the gentleman of whom we speak had made at least three calls to real people associated with our respective businesses and personal lives, tried to speak to one of my business partners, threatened me with physical violence, and published my name, workplace, address and likeness on his site.
The gentleman of whom Mike speaks was rude.
Not the same thing.
“So the gist of the argument against me is: The internet is a magical, fantasy world, where everyone respects everyones anonymity, and that people in positions of power who make poor judgments on the internet are free of real world consequences for their actions. Mike Brock has wronged the internet but introducing reality to it.”
No, that’s not the gist of the argument at all. That would be a petulant combination of straw man and hyperbole.
There is, in fact, no argument. Just the clarification that you will not respect a blogger’s desire to post anonymously if you deem their rudeness “excessive”, and that if as a byproduct of your exposure your readership launches a campaign of harassment, that’s fine with you.
As a former visitor to your blog who has received a fair share of cretinous and occasionally scatological abuse (never from you, but occasionally from your visitors), I must assume that only “excessive” rudeness directed at you will result in such exposure? Or are you implementing a whole new regime of civility?
This is why I blog anonymously. Not that I use a pseudonym or that I try to hide my identity, I just don’t tell anyone in the real world that I read and participate in this world. It’s kinda embarrassing — both the rude behavior and the retribution.
I cannot imagine what someone could say to or about me that would lead me to call in thugs to harass them at work or do something that could threaten their livelihood. I suspect it’s an upper quadrants vs lower quadrants thing. I don’t need to punish people for behavior I don’t like. Mock it? Ridicule it? Deride it? Sure, but that’s ideas about ideas and in the end I don’t really care if their behavior or ideas change.
Still, I’m usually very careful about not letting the relative anonymity of the internet lull me into saying things I wouldn’t under my own name in public.
As an aside, when I saw the “serious blogging” sign outside Brock’s new digs and thought that was really good news. Mike is bright, thorough and tough. If he was going to be producing “serious” posts the new site was going onto the short must read list. I don’t think it’s going to turn out that way. When he said serious blogging on a serious blog I think he meant a serious attempt to get serious traffic by replicating the tried and true outrage-echo-chamber formula. It looks like he may well be successful.
“I miss the good old days of the internet when it was unabashedly about freedom, and no one would ever even consider attacking someone in the “real world” for something they posted on a blog.”
LKO has it right.
I can understand outing someone who is threatening you or going after your employer as was the case with Anonalogue.
Outing a troll or a blogger who has offended you is both morally repugnant and purely vindictive worthy of a high school popularity contest. I am quite surprised that MB would do this. Him and I have at least a five year history of bickering on blogs but I have always found him to be a fair man to the core.
[...] explains why ‘outing’ bloggers (revealing their true identity) is not something an adult should do [...]
balbulican, I notice also in your post, you glaze over the fact that Don Beemer is a prominent liberal organizer, fundraiser and VP of the Liberal Party of Canada in Manitoba.
Are you saying that the conduct of this man is not relevant to grassroots members of the Liberal Party that voted him this position, and that it’s not relevant to voters in Manitoba?
Very interesting. I’m a regular reader of CS and would like to add my take, if I may.
I note that Balbulican is of the opinion that CS is guilty of “hatemongering”.
I disagree. I would suggest that he’s no more guilty than are anyone of you who do posts on this blog or comment on it.
And there’s Don Beemer. Doesn’t anyone on the left of the sperctrum think he’s hateful the way he carries on? I’ve seen some of the stuff he said to CS before and I thought that Don must hate CS or at least anyone who doesn’t agree with him. At least this is the impression I get of him, just like you get your impression of CS. You don’t truly think CS is hateful, do you? I would question your intelligence and/or honesty if you genuinely do, as I do know what “hate” really means, which isn’t to have a strong, opposing opinion.
Of course I realize that you may accuse him of “hatemongering” because of it all being part of the game, meaning the propaganda game, or what CS calls “political combat”.
Anyway, CS tells me that he thinks that Balbulican and Stageleft are “living in a glass house” in that they are hatemongering both here and on other blogs.
Just wanted to let you know, as I understand that CS doesn’t want to visit your blog at all for some reason. Not sure why, as i think your blog is actually quite amusing and a good way to assess the opinions of the leftier folks, though I’m not one of you, to be sure!
Anyways, good day, sirs!
Ian, the gentleman of whom we speak had made at least three calls to real people associated with our respective businesses and personal lives, tried to speak to one of my business partners, threatened me with physical violence, and published my name, workplace, address and likeness on his site.
The gentleman of whom Mike speaks was rude.
Not the same thing.
Comment posted by balbulican CANADA on March 2nd, 2008
As the third party that wa involved in that affair, I have to agree with Balb here. It isn’t even in same ballpark. I still remember having to explain this situation to my clients, thankfully most of them were not worried about it, but were glad I had informed them. The worst interconversion was explaining the situation to my Wife, I still hear about from time to time, although not very often now a days, thankfully.
Outting someone for being rude on your blog is power tripping, Jesus, if you can’t handle the bad language, close up shop or just delete the moron from the comments.
Oh, by the Balb, Canadian Sentinel thinks you are Ti-Guy, LOL!!!
re: comment # 16:
Sorry, Mr. Brock. I misspoke (to use a favourite term of Glorious Leader et al in Ottawa) . This is from the original post:
One of Mike’s readers took and ran with Mike’s revelation, and boasts:
“I just sent an e-mail to [the blogger’s employer] wishing them well on having such an outstanding employee.”
I suggest you made it possible (probable?) that someone would send an email to that man’s employer.
I note that only you and one other (sock puppet?) continues to use that man’s name and his position here. From what I can tell, that person is not in any position of power or authority, does not make laws or enforce them, has no special rights or protections. If he’s a complete and utter shlmiel that still does not justify to many what you did.
There are a lot of officials and members of political parties who blog with pseudonyms. Should they all be outed as well?
There are a lot of officials and members of political parties who blog with pseudonyms. Should they all be outed as well?
Comment posted by shmohawk CANADA on March 2nd, 2008
Well according to the new rulez of blogging, only if you disagree with them or if they use bad fucking and rude language. Especially if they call you a cocksucker. ~eyes rolling~
“balbulican, I notice also in your post, you glaze over the fact that Don Beemer is a prominent liberal organizer, fundraiser and VP of the Liberal Party of Canada in Manitoba. Are you saying that the conduct of this man is not relevant to grassroots members of the Liberal Party that voted him this position, and that it’s not relevant to voters in Manitoba?”
Mike, you’ve “glazed over” every significant point I’ve made, and have just taken the opportunity to maximize your political vindication for your fit of online pique.
I personally wouldn’t care if Canadian Sentinel turned out to be Stephen Harper. If he chose to blog anonymously, and if his worst offense was “rudeness”, I would respect his desire.
Anonny Mouse, CS is a delusional fellow who has accused me of espionage for Communist China, of being a communist, of being a secret Islamist, and of being Ti-Guy. He contributes to a site which espouses closer relations between modern Muslim-haters and neo-nazis, and he has a child’s understanding of politics. However, he’s welcome to post here under as many pseudonyms as he wants (including, of course, the one he’s using right now). Unlike CS, we’re not afraid of discussion; and unlike Mike, we respect our writers’ desire to remain anonymous.
The rest of your post is irrelevant.
Oooh oooh, I figured out that http://www.Daveberta.ca is actually Dave Cournoyer, some Liberal organizer. What prize do I win?
Doesn’t it strike you as somewhat strange that so many people consider anonymity to be more important than truth?
It strikes me that the ones that want anonymity the most are the losers that want to be able to talk smak about someone else without consequences.
If you’re not Man/Woman enough to use your real name, anything you have to say doesn’t really matter to any intelligent person. Smart people don’t accept anonymous commentary without verification of it’s content, source and motive.
If some retard in the gov is dumb enough to post using his/her taxpayer supplied computer on taxpayer paid time then they deserve to be outed and lose their job.
We the public have a right to know the nature of those representing us. Some accountability would sure be nice.
Chad Steele
In 2008 there will be two types of voters:
The Angry and the Stupid. Which are you?
So Balbulican’s not David; he’s Terry.
CS was incorrect. He had me thinking that Balbulican was his colleague David Boult from Consilium.
So on this one I’ll agree with Terry that CS was indeed incorrect. Big deal, though. (sarc)
Oh, and I disagree that CS is “delusional”. I think that’s just Terry here being the usual propagandist, as CS says. Communist, who knows? Leftist=Communist, so… Chinese? That’s a laugh, though… he thought you were Chinese? Funny and silly, but not delusional.
Try to be a nicer guy, Balbulican. You want to get more people to come to your side of things, so be nice.
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
You don’t want to be like Don.
Balbulican:
http://www.consilium.ca/consilium/partners-terry-rudden.html
Yes?
Scenty, you crack me up, I swear. After more than a year of dire threats of exposing the wrong guy, you’ve finally triumphantly published what pretty much every reader of this site has known for years. How did they figure out while you floundered around on Google? Oh, golly…maybe by following the links I provided to the site where I sell my dive videos, proudly promoted right here on Stageleft? Or the links to the book I edited on Aboriginal authors in Canada? Or the links to my company? Or in some cases, by simply sending me an email and asking?
Poor Scenty - you are a fool, and a coward, and a liar, and a hatemonger. (And a writer whose style is SO bad that you’re immediately obvious, whatever nom de plume you choose to use.) But you see, my gutless little friend, I defend your right to be all those things - anonymously.
I know another secret about Balb (Terry),…. he likes to dress in full body rubber suits and wears flippers on his feet. It is rumored that while dressed like that, he walks around and quacks like a duck (well that’s what I heard)
Talk about a sick freak!
Now excuse me, I have to fix a few pinholes in my own rubber suit.
~quack~ ~quack~ ~quack~
On Political Venom (Redux)
Calming down a little from my incensed reaction to the allegations that Conservative party officials attempted to bribe independent MP Chuck Cadman into voting to bring down the government back in 2005, I should note that there are several factors…
“balbulican, I notice also in your post, you glaze over the fact that Don Beemer is a prominent liberal organizer, fundraiser and VP of the Liberal Party of Canada in Manitoba.”
Mike, who cares whether he’s a liberal, a conservative, a reformatory, or a space alien? He presented no real and apparent danger to you. He pissed you off, is all. And for that, you took it upon yourself to try and ruin his life in a very real manner.
If your actions are representative of Harper’s party and government’s attitude towards the citizens of this country who wish to maintain their privacy, then it’s no bloody wonder nobody trusts you guys outside your hive!
Zorph - you go too far. To be exposed as…well, as me, I guess…was excusable, given that I had already exposed myself frequently. (Oh, dear. I just know Mike and Scenty will quoting that one. Maybe I should rephrase.) But my little neoprene fetish, and the whole quacking thing…I thought that was OUR little secret. You…you…PADI diver, you!! (I’m NAUI, did you know?)
“He pissed you off, is all. And for that, you took it upon yourself to try and ruin his life in a very real manner.”
Oh, no, Chim. Mike won’t concede THAT. Don brought it on HIMSELF, you see, by being “rude”. And MIKE didn’t contact his employer - oh, goodness, no, it was one of his READERS that did it, after Mike provided all the necessary information.
Contemptible.
Balbulican, he posted his comment from his employer’s computer. You’re arguments about my indecency are completely subjective to you and those who agree with you.
I don’t agree that what I did was indecent. Even James Bow has argued what I did was fair game, given that this guy is associated with political office.
You may disagree with me. That’s fine.
Carry on with your assault on the quality of my character, while giving a fifty-some-odd-year-old Liberal political executive, organizer, and fundraiser, who uses company time and computers to write reprehensible comments on blogs a pass.
“You’re arguments” = “Your arguments”
Even James Bow has argued what I did was fair game
Nice try, Mike. I pointed out to James the part of the story he missed and his opinion has changed.
” James Bow Author Profile Page said:
I did not catch that, Robert. That certainly puts Mike in a worse light, in my opinion.”
Or they want to turn their ordinary name into a memorable one that is essentially unique on the Internet. You think someone named Mike might be able to benefit from such a writing style.
I`m sure that`s what Balb`s readers, mine, and so many others think. Actually, I don`t.
Attention to grammar is very important, Mike. Thanks for making those corrections. It certainly enhances your credibility.
As I said, we have no disagreement.
You decided to expose a writer to harassment because he was “rude” to you. That harassment (whatever its real world consequences) has occurred. You’ve retrofitted a couple of weak elaborations to your motivation, ennobling your attack with a fine new political veneer, and the folks who buy into your “slime any lib any way at any cost” ethos are cheering. That’s predictable, and irrelevant to my assessment of your choice.
I find your action contemptible. But you have no reason whatsoever to pay any attention at all to that judgment. After all, Scenty, that paragon of blogdom intelligence and integrity, is cheering for you, and has seen fit to emulate you.
We’re simply talking about different standards of behaviour. It’s a big world. You can set your bar as low as you please. I look forward to your next exciting ethical plummet.
Since we’re making corrections, I’m waiting for Mike to correct the statement at his blog that James Bow is a Liberal supporter - merely for agreeing with some of us that Mike Duffy is a Conservative-sympathetic talking head. Last I looked, James was head of the Non-Partisan Alliance of Canadians blogging Aggregate, not Liblogs.
..and now I’ll make my own correction, the classification of James Bow being a Liberal was in his post about Mike Duffy being slammed by us, but it was more to do with James being simply outraged at the reports of the alleged bribe by the Cons.officials toward Cadman.
Corrections everywhere! We need a correcting thread I think.
Balbulican, he posted his comment from his employer’s computer
Mike, that’s completely irrelevant and totally beside the point. If you were his employer then that would be relevant. But it’s not up to you to police his worktime activities and it’s not up to any one of us to police yours or anyone else’s.
I’ve run into the ‘outed’ blogger in question and recall banning him from my comments section for a few months because he can be truly rude and disgusting while making virtually no (recognizable) point.
As one of those harassed by Anonalogue, I agree that the difference in behaviour between the two is comparable to kumquats and navel oranges.
“You decided to expose a writer to harassment because he was “rude” to you.”
Let’s be clear. I’ve done no such thing. In fact, I have deleted many comments from the thread in question, where some openly called for his harassment. I deleted the messaged, and in some cases, emailed them (where they had valid e-mails) to explain to them that incitement to harass was probably not something they wanted to do, and that I’d be more than willing to hand their IP addresses over to Mr. Beemer, if he wanted to seek remedy.
I have also petitioned Kate McMillan to remove such comments from on her site. She agreed the comments inciting harassment against Mr. Beemer crossed the line, and she complied.
If anybody who reads my blog decides to engage in criminal harassment of Don Beemer, then I will be fully cooperative with the authorities, and Mr. Beemer.
Never was it my intention to “expose” him to harassment. My intention was to demonstrate his reprehensible behavior, that, as Ezra Levant puts it “masquerades as polite company”.
You’re right. It’s not my job to “police” his computer use at work. But it’s also not my responsibility to protect him from the culpability associated with that misuse.
He took a risk by posting that comment on my blog.
Here’s a hypothetical for you: had he written the following: “Brock, I think you are being an apologist for Harper”, which is really what he meant by his rude comment… and I were to have “outed him”, then would his job be in jeopardy? I think both you and I know the answer to that.
As one of those harassed by Anonalogue, I agree that the difference in behaviour between the two is comparable to kumquats and navel oranges.
Comment posted by Candace CANADA on March 3rd, 2008
Anonalogue was the great uniter. It took a real asshat like him to make people like Ian Scott (a libertarian businessman), Balb (err,.. left of centre/anti establishment, pro businessman /w a rubber fetish), Candace (Right of Centre Conservative, hysterical single mother) and myself (Centerist/Economic Conservative with Liberal Progressiveness businessman and my own rubber fetish) to unite and force that little asswipe back under that rock from which he crawled. It’s been two years since the blogosphere has heard from the little fuckwitt, and it is far better Blogosphere without him.
You really need a “preview” screen here. I type to fast, and I’m trigger happy on the submit button. What I meant by this sentence:
“Never was it my intention to “expose” him to harassment. My intention was to demonstrate his reprehensible behavior, that, as Ezra Levant puts it “masquerades as polite company”.
was…
“Never was it my intention to “expose” him to harassment. My intention was to demonstrate his reprehensible behavior, whom, as Ezra Levant puts it, “masquerades as polite company”.
I’m really glad everyone knows that the situation with Anonalogue was “different!” All situations are different of course, and indeed, in my original comment, I stated:
“In that case, it seems to me that your issue here is more about some subjective precipitating factor that might make it “ok” to out someone. And that is subjective. Some would suggest that one should NEVER “out” someone… and I don’t think you’d agree with that.
What we have then is simply an issue of what events would transpire before you would do that.”
So, perhaps instead of being critical of Mike, how about some “guidelines” or something that would motivate you to think something is no longer immoral or upsetting in regard to “outting” someone. These guidelines need to be specific and objective.
I think people are confusing some things here with regard to anonymity and privacy. First, there is no inherent right to anonymity or privacy. You may act in such a way that you believe you have privacy or anonymity - but that doesn’t mean that another person doesn’t have the right to his/her own actions in how they spend their time investigating information they have. And then publishing that information.
My own “bar” for “outting” someone would indeed be more than a “rude” comment left on my blog. But, I have outted someone for making false accusations about me. Indeed, that outting prompted a public apology and later, a good “acquaintanceship” ensued.
On another occasion, outing someone because he expressed some ideas in regard to his use of a “nickname” and how that I didn’t have enough intelligence to figure out who he was among other challenges…. it took me all of five minutes to find out what small building in New York City he was posting from and who owned the private network he was using to post from.
Immoral? Unethical? Sheesh..
If someone is going to use my property (and blogs ARE property), and although invited to make comments, but express ideas that are repugnant and knowingly so are repugnant (ie. Brocks cock in Harper’s mouth), then be forewarned - I just might want to spend some time finding out who you are and publishing my own ideas.
And just because one thinks it is the internet, and an internet handle will protect their identity - it really does sometimes only take about five minutes to get a pretty good idea about who someone is in some cases.
And thinking back to Anonalogue.. perhaps if some had taken the time when the guy didn’t seem to be so freaking loony.. and had emailed him with his identity.. maybe he wouldn’t have got to the point the nutbar did.
Brock didn’t do anything illegal or immoral. And from Brock’s account, the guy even had an opportunity to apologize before the “outting” occurred for his trash talk which was also a false allegation and insinuation as well as homophobic.
Personally, I find anonymity to be a tool that has been used at times in history for very good reasons and I think the commenter “Chad Steele” above is absolutely wrong when he says,
Chad is apparently from the US, and I wonder how much he knows about the anonymous tracts that were written - written to express ideas about truth - that were important in their circulation and motivating the rebellion against the British.
Thomas Paine wrote anonymously. It was his ideas he wanted to communicate - and wanted debate about the ideas - not his drunkeness and whether his drunkeness should be something to judge the ideas he was communicating.
On the other hand, Paine did not have a right to be anonymous - just as this Don guy has no “right” to think that just because he uses technology incorrectly to be anonymous, that he had some right to assume anonymity when using someone else’s property to make disparaging remarks about the property owner.
Personally, I wouldn’t spend the time and effort to “out” someone over a single homophobic comment. If such disparaging comments continued though, and I had opportunity to find out who the person was.. damn right I’d take that opportunity, most of the time!
If indeed Brock emailed the guy as he said, and the response was as Brock said, something to the effect, “You threatening me, Mikey?” I’d certainly take that as..”no, I’m not apologizing for what I wrote.”
On the other hand, if the guy had responded something like, “Oh man, I’m sorry.. yes, I shouldn’t have written what I wrote - having what I thought was anonymity on the Internet motivated me to say and write things I normally wouldn’t…” then I’d consider the issue finished.
Ian, I agree and disagree with you. And it is to late to debate these finer points.
My own personal opinion is that a rude comment from a twit really doesn’t warrant an outing,… but that is just my opinion on the matter. Personally I have better uses of my time,…
Oh shit, look at the time 3:35am need to get some sleep.
Oh well, at the end of the day, this nothing but a tempest in teapot.
Nite Poeple.
You really need a “preview” screen here. I type to fast, and I’m trigger happy on the submit button. What I meant by this sentence:
“Never was it my intention to “expose” him to harassment. My intention was to demonstrate his reprehensible behavior, that, as Ezra Levant puts it “masquerades as polite company”.
was…
“Never was it my intention to “expose” him to harassment. My intention was to demonstrate his reprehensible behavior, whom, as Ezra Levant puts it, “masquerades as polite company”.
Comment posted by Mike Brock on March 3rd, 2008
Well Mike, you’ll never hear me lecture you about spelling or grammar ;-)
Zorph,
Ok, I know you are a humourist :)
But seriously… I can “unite” with anyone on an issue I agree with. And for those that think that expressing ideas anonymously means the ideas shouldn’t be taken seriously, here’s a good example of what I mean by that.
I personally don’t give a shit, most of the time, who is expressing an idea - and when I choose to criticize an idea - I hope that it is the IDEA that I am criticizing, and not the person.
And I know I’ve made mistakes in that area as well.
I know there are at times, myself included when “character issues” come into play… but I’ll have a beer with just about anyone (or a cup of tea), and hopefully they’ll understand that when I get excited or critical of something they’ve said.. it’s their “IDEA” that I’m in disagreement with - their value as a human being is not what is being discussed.
And that’s not to say that I’d always at anytime have a beer (or cup of tea) with someone, sometimes there are just other people more valuable to me personally that I’d prefer to have a beer (or cup of tea) with at that time.
I think I’m in good company… I’ve had a beer with Mike Brock (he probably doesn’t remember), with Stageleft, with yourself, with CC, Jim Bobby, with Darcey of Dust My Broom, with the folks at The London Fog (Lisa is very charming in “real life” as is MapMaster), and I’ve had very important relationships with Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Irish Protestants, Irish Catholics, Blacks, Orientals, Fundamental Christians, Atheists, Blondes, Brunettes and Redheads (oh man, you should see the one I’m interested in right now!! And I don’t deserve it at all.. she’s a 12 out of 10, where I’m about a 6) and more.
Sometimes, it’s about the people and MY value of them to me - but their ideas are still fair game for debate :). I’ve learned that just because I disagree, sometimes strongly, with ideas some people put forth, doesn’t mean that I can’t have a very good positive relationship with them on some other grounds.
That’s fine. But you do know that there is some point that you’d reach that would warrant, in your opinion, and “outing,” correct?
So what is that point, and what would give you the moral reason to expect that everyone should have the same “point” as you or else be criticized for it?
Look, I don’t care if someone wants to critique me for something I’ve done. But, if there are circumstances they would do the same thing - I’d hope they’d provide very clear, objective guidelines for doing so that are not subject to subjectivity.
To call an act “immoral” or “reprehensible” or have harsh criticism for that act, when you might do something similar - and not have guidelines for why you think it’s ok when you do it.. is.. well.. reprehensible to me. Is this subjective or objective?
Poor Scenty - you are a fool, and a coward, and a liar, and a hatemonger. (And a writer whose style is SO bad that you’re immediately obvious, whatever nom de plume you choose to use.) But you see, my gutless little friend, I defend your right to be all those things - anonymously. -Balbulican
Fool, coward, liar, hatemongerer. Gotcha. I’ve heard from an asshole, then, giving its cliche-for-a-Leftwingnut opinion of an ideological opponent over whom it obsesses so incessantly and can’t stop thinking about. Might I suggest you add to the laughably limited list of insults you have for me the following words: Terrorist, bastard, monster, piece of shit, miserable peckerhead, pencilneck, pantywaist, fag, Islamofascist, Communist, twit, asshole… hey, just go buy a copy of 1,001 Great Insults To Use Against People You Hate? Why stick with just a few? Really, you play really shitty/nasty (like Don and Warren) at the game of political combat. Your accusations are incorrect and out of touch with reality. You are a failure as a blogger and as an ideological combatant, with your apparent closed-mindedness, stubbornly-ignorant-of-the-truth-and-of-the- facts worldview. Your arrogance is legendary in the blogosphere, and it’s no surprise that folks who like folks like you have become either your yes-men minions or conservatives who’ve fallen for you phony friendliness (in other words, conservatives who, against their better judgement, refuse to see the reality that you’re a two-faced liar who will turn on people just like that).
You’re entitled to your opinion, of course. And it actually just beads up and rolls off of Yours Truly as I, and most folks, don’t take you seriously anyway. While it’s technically defamatory sometimes, I’m unconcerned, as it’s defamation by someone like yourself, who isn’t to be taken seriously by folks who aren’t stupid or aren’t having a selective, long-term brainfart with respect to you. You may not believe it, but I’ve actually a far thicker skin than you think, owing to years of hanging out with idiots and two-faced assholes the likes of which frequent this here blog.
I defend your right to be as much of a stupid, mixed-up, confused, ideologically-extreme, deluded asshole and arrogant, rude windbag as you want. The Charter, I believe, guarantees everyone the right to be a total asshole, and I’m on record as saying we must respect the Charter and not try to claim it says things it doesn’t and claim it doesn’t say things it does, unlike you and your Leftwing extremist brethren.
Carry on.
Buh-bye!
Very entertaining stuff!
Thank you for that!
Hey Brock… what do you think of the above, yourself? Entertaining? Serious ideas for discussion? I think it would be a great time if Balb “outed” the originator of such insane thinking, don’t you?
No?
As noted above, I’m aware you also did it to score cheap political points. As an excuse for exposing a commenter to harassment, that’s no better.
You’ve already made your point, Mike, and we now know something about your standards we didn’t know before.
Ya see, Scenty, that’s what I mean by “delusional”. You don’t actually understand that words have a meaning. You simply string them together into long chains and they dribble out.
I wouldn’t call you a terrorist, monster, Islamofascist or Communist because I don’t think you are one. As for “piece of shit” and “asshole”, well, son, you’re the guy with the poopy fetish, not me.
I did call you a fool and a hatemonger because I think that’s what you are; a coward because you mock, slander and insult without allowing responses; and a liar, which of course you’ve admitted to that at your naziphile American site. And I don’t hate you a bit. You amuse me.
I may not have this right, but it seems to me that you’re saying that the blogger called Canadian Sentinel accused you publicly of a serious felony, and has just identified you by name and employer publicly.
Is that correct?
At least you recognize your contribution to the risk you’ve created for Beemer. I wonder if all of the people who might have been incited got the message?
Mike, as I asked at James’ site: did you delete those incitements to harass upon receipt, or only when you started receiving negative feedback from threads like this?
Just Askin’: yes, that’s right.
Scenty published a statement by an alleged “reporter” that I was a spy for Communist China. The “reporter” withdrew the allegation and apologized. She then published a statement on another site that Scenty had “confirmed” I was a spy: “Balbulican has also been exposed as a spy by The Canadian Sentinel; probably Russian not Chinese but never the less very obstructive and seeing as the both the Chinese and Russian communist regimes are in bed together well say no more…”
When confronted, Scenty initially denied all this, then acknowledged it at the neo-nazi Center for Vigilant Freedom site.
I have of course retained screenshots of all the above.
I’m still a little disappointed that Balb is just Balb and not actually the front man for a research department — how else could he figure out all that stuff so fast — bent on world domination.
You’re disappointed? Hell, I’M disappointed. As Woody Allen once commented, “If there IS an international Jewish Conspiracy, I want to know why I haven’t been getting cheques from them!”
Balb, are you serious? Who was the Reporter and what media outlet does he/she work for? Oh come on man, you can’t say something this juice and not give us the links, it’s Monday freaking morning and we all need a laugh.
God, Russian Spy, damn man, you’re impressive! And here I just thought you were one of the liberal brown paper bag men, with $40 million in stolen tax payers monies stuffed in Dry Suit.
LOL.
Zorph, sorry…I thought you knew that sad tale! It’s a Bunker classic!
The “journalist” is Scenty’s primary source on Chinese issues, “Jana”. I use the term “journalist” very loosely: in a subsequent thread she admitted with disarming candour: “i resigned from my job as a reporter because i wasn’t good at it”. Heh. No kidding. Well, she’s no worse than Scenty’s other lunatic sources. But I digress.
Here’s the original thread where this “not very good” reporter “outed” me.
Here’s the site (read the comments) where she reveals that Scenty has also outed me as a spy, although probably Russian this time.
And here’s the link to Scenty’s neonazi American friends, where the whole mountain of nonsense came crashing down around Scenty’s head. Shortly afterwards, I was denied posting privileges on that site - seems that al lot of folks of Scenty’s persuasion can’t stand actual facts.
Mike, as I asked at James’ site: did you delete those incitements to harass upon receipt, or only when you started receiving negative feedback from threads like this?
Yes, I deleted them upon receipt. The first in question, was deleted within the first few hours of the post, prior to any major reaction.
FYI the feds actually recommend participating in online discussions using a pseudonym:
Now some people feel that blogging or commenting other than under your real name goes to your credibility. But that’s a different point.
““Doesn’t it strike you as somewhat strange that so many people consider anonymity to be more important than truth?” (comment #31)
No, Chad. What strikes me as strange is that some people think the two are mutually exclusive.
“Never was it my intention to “expose” him to harassment. My intention was to demonstrate his reprehensible behavior, that, as Ezra Levant puts it ‘masquerades as polite company’.”
But you did expose him, and possibly to more than harassment. If you think his behavior is so reprehensible, then target the behavior, not the person. By all means, hold it up to ridicule. But putting the man himself in your sights endangers more than just him. It affects the people around him, who may be completely blameless.
When the military goes operational with civilian casualties, they call it collateral damage. What do you call it?
“You’re right. It’s not my job to “police” his computer use at work. But it’s also not my responsibility to protect him from the culpability associated with that misuse.”
And you know, without any shadow of doubt, that he was in fact misusing the computer? And on a related note, you know absolutely that it was him, and not just someone else using his computer and pretending to be him? After all, if a proxy appearance can be made on a radio interview and fool most of the country, including the interviewer at the time, how difficult can it be to impersonate someone on a computer?
“He took a risk by posting that comment on my blog.”
Does your blog colophon include a warning that anyone who makes a comment you don’t like might be leaving themselves open to venal retribution?
I’ve read the links you provided in response to Zorpheus.
Briefly, Canadian Sentinel published and then endorsed a submission unambiguously and directly accusing you of a serious felony. A writer who appears to be Canadian Sentinel then identifies you by name and place of work.
Leaving aside the obvious question of the accuser’s credibility, it seems to me you have fair legal ground to at least initiate research ino the actual identify of Mr. Sentinel.
On Political Venom, Part II
Mike Brock e-mailed me late Sunday night, after a little confusion regarding comments trapped in a spam filter (more on that later. If I hadn’t gotten his note, at least one other legitimate comment, to this post, would have fallen…
Anonymity sucks. It has no purpose in the real world. That’s why we vote naked in the middle of a gymnasium with a crowd looking on and sign our full names and attach our photos to the ballots. It’s also why confession traditionally takes place in the lobbiesof busy hotels.
I just wanted to out myself, for the record here, that I’m Warren Kinsella.
I also have to wonder, under my pseudonymn again, what Mike’s expectation was in revealing someone’s true identity. Would it be so that readers simply had the glee of knowing a supposed secret? Was that the payoff to the readers, or was the logical conclusion this: An anonymous person can act however they want without fear of retaliation against their personal life, but if an identity is known that person must act only in fear. Fear being reinforced by various possible threats to ones’ safety, ego, or financial well being.
Well, to get into the spirit of things, I’m gonna divulge that Occam’s Carbuncle is actually SEYMOUR’s Carbuncle.
I was “outed” from my Edward T. Bear nym first by one of the London Foggers for making an anti-war remark in a discussion about the “Glorious War on Terra” It wasn’t Lisa or Mapmaster
The outing then went on to the No-Treason blog where JTK intimated strongly that he would out me - so I beat him to the punch and then nuked the blog. And then a week or so after Kate McMillan jumped on it like a fat kid on a smarty… She was drooling with delight. This is of course after she had tried to sick her winged monkeys on me to try and get them numerous times to call CPS on me for the purposes of having my son taken away.
He’s 14 now, but at the time and knows all about the skanky-bitch from Delisle Saskatchewan and even asked to directly give comment on the subject at the time since Kate and her buddies at No Treason seemed to be obsessed about with my progeny.
I recall when the first person on London Fog did it, it was because he couldn’t stand losing the argument. It was pure vindictiveness that somebody was posting cogent arguements about the disaster of a war.
I posted anon and wiped out the blog after I was outed for several reasons. One of them being I had co-writers who wished to be anonymous for posting anti-war stuff.
I recall one of them saying way back in 2004 that in all likelihood the US govt was probably tracking ALL anti-war commentary. It turned out that the co-blogger’s fears were not far off the mark when we discovered that Bush had been tracking such things in violation of the Constitution.
I liked posting as Edward T.Bear much like the reasons Balb talked about his feelings about balbulican. Posting as a guy, and a fictious bear was a personnae that was fun to write from. Like Skippy the wonderdog.
I’ll still take the piss out of KKKate from time to time - but it was nice when I was anon that retribution from her winged monkeys was less probable…
As Dan Ashcroft from “Nathan Barley” says “The Idiots Are Winning”.
The whole idea that anon blogging or commenting is not acceptable practice for people is ridiculous especially when you see the lengths that some people will go to reach out past the computer to try and mess with you or your family.
I’ve taken action to document and inform the police about the incitement to harrass by Kate McMillan. It’s on record and if anybody who was outed and wants info to add to the documentation of this behavior by her, I’d be happy to supply them with that information. I called the police to protect myself and my family from malicious wanton incitement of harrassment against me and my family.
There is a difference between what Brock did and the commentator who claimed to have harrassed him at work. I hope people can see that. Sure, they couldn’t have done it if Kate and Mike hadn’t supplied the info in the first place…
And I’m not really buying that there was some noble reason for doing what Brock and Kate did. It was just petty vindictive spite. I think he was within bounds to do it - like Ian says for being dumb enough to post from work… if you use the company computer to post dreck on the net, you’ve got to expect this kind of thing these days.
I think this issue is more a matter of taste than of principle… And in that regard the outing was in poor taste and manner than the rudeness that inspired it.