Time to buy a clue
The delightfully inarticulate law students over at Law is Cool have had twenty or so comments on one of their posts defending the right of the Muslim students to take Mark Steyn and Mcleans Magazine before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Apparently these are the ESL law students as no one who actually speaks English could write this chiller of a sentence:
“Part of Steyn’s expressed tactics include spamming government officials, media, and other figures. They have done the same here.”
And, I assume, they will also be taking that remedial internet course: spam has a fairly precise meaning. What our wannabe legal beagles might be talking about is trolling (which I usually find actually cashes out as a way of slagging someone whose arguments you cannot refute) or astroturfing.
However, the law students, being deeply committed to the values of free speech, have cut off comments on all Steyn related posts. Brave! Stouthearted…just the sort of people you’d want fighting your corner in a divorce action or a Charter case.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:49 am
Thank you for your comments. Despite your apparent xenophobia, the first language of all of our full-time student contributors is English.
The spam comments were deleted. Too bad you didn’t get a chance to read them before passing judgement. And yes, those comments would constitute the definition of spam provided.
The use of the world troll is mentioned as well if you go back and read, and is directed to the other comments that were retained as you indicate.
It was the spam, many of which included explicit profanity and/or links to inappropriate sites, that necessitated the decision to shut down comments.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:30 am
Thank you for your comments. Despite your apparent xenophobia, the first language of all of our full-time student contributors is English.
The spam comments were deleted. Too bad you didn’t get a chance to read them before passing judgement. And yes, those comments would constitute the definition of spam provided.
The use of the word troll is mentioned as well if you go back and read, and is directed to the other comments that were retained as you indicate.
It was the spam, many of which included explicit profanity and/or links to inappropriate sites, that necessitated the decision to shut down comments.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:33 am
Did I mention double posting…
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:30 am
Jay—I think that this sort of behaviour comes from not having a sense of irony and from a lack of understanding of the Golden Rule.
How they can demand space to respond and then deny it to others—it’s like asking the Spanish about their foreign policy regarding Gibraltar and their little plot of land across the straits in Morocco.
Either a third party can have his or her demand for response space enforced by the state, or he or she can’t. Steyn, you, and I are in the latter camp, as we are old-fashioned sorts who like to believe in a free society.
As for their charge that you’re a xenophobe, however—I think you’re probably guilty as charged. ;-) (Not that I don’t sometimes agree with you...)
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Law is Cool..care to comment on this
“David Reese from Alabama submitted a comment to the Law Is Cool blog, which has provided a platform to the Muslim law students trying to strong-arm Maclean’s magazine. The powers that be at the blog altered his comment—twice—and then banned him”
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:24 pm
This almost seems comical; none of you actually address the substantive content of the blog in question.
And looking at the other posts on this blog and the others in his fan base, the contents are as bad and at times worse than Steyn’s.
You guys are a bunch of scary people down there in the U.S. Keep your notions of freedom on that side of the border, we don’t want it.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:19 am
Canadian Dude writes:
“And looking at the other posts on this blog and the others in his fan base, the contents are as bad and at times worse than Steyn’s.
You guys are a bunch of scary people down there in the U.S. Keep your notions of freedom on that side of the border, we don’t want it.”
Who is this “we” buddy? I am as Canadian as you are.
It is possible for Canadians to a) believe in freedom of speech (it is in the Charter – if you are a Law Student you might want to look it up), b) believe that Human Rights tribunals should not be dealing with speech issues which is the position of Alan Borovoy the General Counsel (that would be lawyer cd) of the Canadian Civil Liberties Union.
Ben, I think xenophobe is a bit broad brush: it is literally a fear of strangers. My fear, and loathing thank you very much, is of strangers who want to kill or convert me to whatever whacky bit of religious lunacy they are flogging. Muslims, Mormons, JWs, Scientologists, fundamentalist Christians – if I don’t know you and you want to convert me or, worse, kill me, I will make every effort to keep you off my street and out of the public square – you are, however, welcome, to practice your faith up to the point of calling for the death of “Jews, Crusaders, homosexuals and apostates” in your sermon of the week. My support for free speech stops at the point of incitement to murder.
December 24th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Canadian Dude is a poser from the Law is Cool website. Statguy busted him/her when the same post was made on his site. How Lame…
December 24th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Wow – that “canadian dude” sure gets around. It seems he (or she) left the exact same comment on another blog: Magicstats. Word for word.
Interestingly, Magicstats put up a post and traced the IP of “Canadian dude” back to – hold on – the law is cool admin page!
Guess there really is a new definition of spam…
December 24th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Thanks John W and felix…I posted this over at MagicStats:
“Yikes…sockpuppet first year law students.
Sad or scary? Well more sad than scary.
Grownups use their own names and make, at least, a tiny attempt not to beclown themselves by getting basic things like citizenship wrong.
With friends like this the vast majority of moderate Canadian Muslims need no further enemies.
Three words law dudes: “abuse of process”. You will find it sounds in costs in, well, real courts.”
December 24th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Canadian bozo-dude fails at sockpuppetry. More proof that he and his buddies are deceivers, manipulators, and would-be thought police. Only a human rights tribunal could take them seriously.
December 25th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Felix: “Guess there really is a new definition of spam…”
Welcome to the net jihad.
They are a sly bunch, I’ll give em that much, but what they fail to realize, is the further they push us back, it gives the rest of os wise enough to group and educate ourselves on not only the mistakes politicaly on how we got to this point, but also in terms of Uniting, and defeating true enemies of freedom of expression (within moral ethics ofcourse) truth and liberty.
No matter the cost.
My prediction, is this. When Canadians start mass flooding to the US, once “they’ve” successfuly (if we do nothing) take us over from within, only then will people understand what United really means, and it’s not some silly catch phrase attached to American’s home land.
For us Canadians, it should be True Patriot Love.
I’m not feeling the love brother, haven’t for a very long time.
December 26th, 2007 at 3:37 am
“not feeling the love, haven’t for a while”
COOL