Normally I’d just respond to Kate at Colbert’s blog where she posted this:
Do you two have any appreciation for how ridiculous you sound? Serial commentor Meaghan Walker-Williams is one thing – she has serious phsycological issues, but Ian and Jay – get a grip!
If you hadn’t been banned before this, these irrational and offensive accusations make you deserving.
colbert
but I am being blocked by his “spam” blocker. So, Kate,
“Gee Kate do you enjoy being lied to? Do you enjoy some wingnut stating as a matter of fact that ‘you made the whole thing up ‘ and that you use drugs.
Sweetie, I realize you have to rally round to protect the dimmer members of the tribe; but don’t embarass yourself. You can leave that to the CPC front bench.”
I note that James Bow has weighed in on Colbert’s antics. Oddly he treats Colbert’s behaviour rather more seriously than Kate is able to.
I am, of course looking forward to Colbert’s appology and to getting in touch with the RCMP officer he has promised to contact to deal with the “real” hacker.
Written by jay on August 8th, 2005 with 9 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and Uncategorized and blogging and law.
While I spent the day moving and trying to get KMG back online L’affair Colbert took many a dizzying twist and turn.
A miracle occured.
First Colbert posted a long rebuttal of my email in which he states:
So what happened to this comment, I went through my spam filter to see if it was caught there but besides the countless manhood enlargement products and on-line gaming ads no “rather insulting” comments.
As I was away from my computer for most of the day, it being my youngest first birthday I know I did not delete it. A quick check with my security guy to look at the records shows no posting activity beyond what appears on the site of held in the spam blocker.
colbert
And then in his comments Colbert comes up with this:
When a comment is posted to my site I instantly get a copy sent to my blackberry so that when I am away from my desk I can see what people are saying. In the last couple of days I have not received any notification of a comment left here by Mr. Currie and it is not in the spam list so I am left with no other option but to believe that he has made this story up.
colbert
Meaghan Walker-Williams beats the poor man about the head and shoulders with, er, logic and eyewitness testimony. Ian Scott nails him on the tech end. Kate McMillan suggested that it was just spiffy to delete whatever comments you want.
With the arrival of the screen shot from Andrew Anderson’s invaluable CanConv, Colbert had to go to plan B.
I’m not disputing that Jay may have posted something to his blog. I’m not even suggesting that a few people may have seen it on his site before it was deleted by someone with administrator privileges.
colbert
Meaghan wallops the poor man pointing out that he had earlier claimed that with respect to the substance of my post, namely my comment on his blog, “I am left with no other option but to believe that he has made this story up.” op. cit. supra. Kate is surprisingly silent. Ian Scott was being “spam blocked” but posted to his own blog:
So either he is a liar, or an idiot, or his “security guy” is totally incompetent and an idiot. One comment he could miss? Perhaps. Two or three?
In fact, I’ve just tried posting a comment on Colbert’s blog a few minutes ago – the same “spam tag” message, and then tried resending it and got the “Oops” message.
So that indeed is evidence that his software DOES have a record of the comments. Therefore, Colbert is outright lying or is incompetent at figuring the difference between a spam comment about spam and a comment about inherent rights.
My guess is that Colbert is blocking some folks and is using his “spam filter” to prevent some people’s comments from going live before he has a time to “vet” them.
So fire away with your libel allegations against me, Colbert. I’ve got the screenshots, and I’ll post them on my blog as soon as I’m done my coffee.
ianism
Better still, Ian has lock down evidence that Colbert’s “spam filter” was extra clever,
In fact, if you go and look at this post, you will notice that Les McKenzie has a comment in which he says, “Had you not been such a shithead, Ian, I might apologize for misreading your quote…”
Now, Mr. McKenzie was directly replying to my one of my comments on Colbert’s blog. You’ll notice that both of my comments have been deleted. Yet McKenzie’s remains… do you see anyone else named “Ian” above his? Colbert’s actions make McKenzie look like a blooming idiot.. responding to some guy named “Ian” on TWO separate occassions on Colbert’s blog – yet no “Ian” author exists. I’d be a little miffed at that if I were McKenzie.
ianism
Ooops….smart people are ganging up on Mr. Colbert. Time for Plan C. The old “you’ve been hacked…well so have I and I am not going to take it lying down” gambit:
We have found the missing comments! By going through the actual database we have located the original comments and something very curious. it would seem that “User Unknown” was able to delete the comments, using time stamps and IP access logs I will be forwarding the information my security guru discovered off to the same person at the RCMP that reviewed the logs when I was last hacked first thing in the morning.
colbert
First rate. Better still, Colbert or his security guru were miraculously able to find and restore the comments which
“In the last couple of days I have not received any notification of a comment left here by Mr. Currie.
colbert
You can read the wee thing here - which is a link to Colbert and I will repost it to my blog shortly. “What once was lost is now found”, as the hymn goes.
[Apparently the “hacker” really had it in for me. Every comment I have posted to Colbert, until today, has been miraculously restored with the little “Comment edited by User Unknown Comment recovered by Administrator” tag. Even the ones which were not deleted in the first place…]
Having been caught lying Colbert realizes that an apology might save his well flayed skin:
I will apologize for possibly suggesting that these post never existed, I just never saw them and had no knowledge that they had been removed. If Mr. Currie is willing to withdraw his potentially libelous accusations regarding my involvement in tampering with his blog I will conceder the matter settled.
colbert
Now, as it happens I know a little something about libel law. First of all there is no legal animal as “potentially libelous”: either something is a libel or it isn’t. Here are a couple of examples of libels:
It might have even sounded like a good idea while you were refilling your bong
colbert
Stating that a person uses drugs is outright defamation of character. Doing so in writing and publishing the result is a libel.
I have not received any notification of a comment left here by Mr. Currie and it is not in the spam list so I am left with no other option but to believe that he has made this story up.
colbert
Stating that a person “made this story up” is defamatory. Doing so in writing and publishing the result is a libel.
I’ll hold the question of Colbert’s libels in abeyance for the moment in the general expectation of a full apology posted prominently on Colbert’s site.
Written by jay on August 8th, 2005 with 7 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and Pot and blogging and law.