Please visit our new site at

Monday, July 31, 2006

Holding the mirror to our own faces

This morning I read a diary at dKos and had to shake my head. Evidently, we, the bloggers who blog, just aren't receiving the message.

firestorm's dKos diary

As far as diaries go, it wasn't very good to begin with - some graphic pictures of dead children and some quotes from Free Republic commentors, which were the slack-jawed, no eyelid quality we've come to expect. But 'firestorm' intro'd his/her quoted comments with this:
Selective comments from freepers, we need to expose those haters' real identities...
Ah, boy... So, I read through the quoted comments and came to 'firestorm's' finale:

We should definitely track down the true identities of those freepers who advocate violence and glorify the death of innocent children. There is no difference between these beasts and Nazis, Bin Laden etc. We should hold freerepublic accountable for those comments full of hatred and violence... I suggest we should set up a team to monitor and record every freeper hater. Folks, don't underestimate them. I have no doubt if they can get away, they will have no problem killing every liberal.
Wrong, wrong, WRONG!!! I'm not here to defend anything the Freepers say, trust me. Their comments are typically churlish, inhumane, bigoted and light on facts. But they have a right to speak and they have a right to Privacy offline, just as liberal/progressive commentors do.

Based on the comments that firestorm provided, I'd be hard pressed to say that the Freepers are advocating violence but that's probably splitting hairs. And while some of them are glorifying the death of children, we, the rest of us out here, don't have the right to harass them offline or impinge on their privacy. It's that simple and we know it.

The diary received 113 comments (and hasn't been deleted, as of this post) and quite a few expressed the same thought I post here, i.e., bad form on the diarist's part. What I found odd was that more commentors were lamenting the substance of the diary (too short, no analysis, etc.). Having been around there for a while, though, I understand the dynamic - but I was really surprised that there wasn't more reaction to the diarist's calls for outing.

dKos has already felt the sting of overeager sleuths trying to use the exposure of personal information to intimidate members into silence. Frankly, I'm quite disappointed in firestorm's short memory or thoughtless attempt to turn the tables, whichever it may be. I'm sure his/her heart was in the right place and there certainly seems to be some emotion involved. But we know that it takes time and effort to create a post - and that should be enough time to think about what we write.

We hold liberal bloggers to the same standard as our friends across the aisle, here. I think I speak for all of us when I say that firestorm's post was over the line and should be denounced.

(If you decide to read the diary, the pictures are quite graphic.)

Rip -

Sunday, July 23, 2006


Junior Detective Wingnut Freaks

Over at OI the question is raised, "exposing a sock puppet: violation of OI?" The answer, I think rightly, is that it is not:
In general, while there is nothing inherently wrong with using a “sock puppet”, it betrays a lack of confidence in your own arguments to carry the day (by manufacturing a legion of supporters to lend your own arguments weight).


Regardless of any specific allegations’ veracity, the distinction must be made between a true pseudonym, used for reasons of privacy, and a sock puppet, which exists solely to buttress an existing persona.
Fair enough. But let's stress this point again: "there is nothing inherently wrong with using a 'sock puppet.'”

What is interesting about this statement is that nobody disagrees. Sock puppetry is, in and of itself, not really much of a problem. What it amounts to is someone doing something a bit odd on the Internet. And nearly everyone who has ever accessed the Internet in some way, shape, or form has at some point done something silly, and probably understands the temptation to do something sillier. So availing oneself of the anonymity afforded online to do something so essentially harmless as to mess around in this way is trivial. As trivial as Googling "tits" or "Nelly Furtado" or "hot colostomy pix,", or similar.

Of course, if someone goes totally bananas with the sock puppetry, then it becomes more serious. Like, if they employed sock puppets to add weight to a shoddy but widely cited statistical study on a matter of serious public import, or something.

But if we're going to sort out the ethics not so much of employing a sock puppet, but of exposing one, it is perhaps not sufficient to simply say that no ethical bar prevents you from doing so. Merely saying that nothing prevents you from doing something is not a good reason for other people to think you aren't insane when you go ahead and do it. You are free to spend all your free time at home dressing up like Blossom, or memorizing batting champeens through 1916, or whatever else reconciles you to the Utter Howling Emptiness that is Human Existence. But you're still some sort of a creepy git if you go around bothering other people over a nice dinner out with your Blossom obsession. Ahem. Moving on.

Let me here propose not so much a Postulate, as a Pustulate:
If you post interminable, unreadable, turgid, whiny screeds trying to prove that someone is using a sock puppet, absent the other kind of other stuff Tim Lambert has documented, you're a complete fucking lunatic.
Can't see why anyone who concedes that using a sock puppet is a "Venial Sin" would object. Especially when we add not so much the Corollary as the Crapollary:
If you're going to post a gazillion word wankfest allegedly proving sockpuppetry, you had best (1) actually prove your case; (2) show some reasonable, non-mental-patient excuse for why you ever cared enough to post about it with enough bandwith to choke a Nazgul.
I'm afraid these simple guidelines are a bit rough on Patterico, who, remarkably, seems to have some sort of an actual job that doesn't involve writing extensive dissertations on Glenn Greenwald's use of the semi-colon. They're also bad news for the charming and winsome Ace, who in this general regard writes charmingly and winsomely of a blogger who dared to look askance at his Hardy-Boying, "He is, in short, and idiot." (Very sic).

Part II is tomorrow.

Sunday, July 16, 2006



Here is an interesting case that will amaze and delight all the true devotees of Online Integrity -- the Integriteers, if you will.

Spocko has been pointing out for a while that the fine folks at KSFO Radio are totally bananas, especially their marquee on-air personality, the charmingly, winsomely homicidal Melanie Morgan. Ms. Morgan has attracted attention lately for her adorable Mengele-esque conversations with her BFF, the lithesome A. Coulter.

Spocko has had the audacity to wonder if certain of Ms. Morgan's advertisers are fully comfortable with associating their products with naked calls for lynching journalists. The... fiend...

Joe Conason has the roundup at Salon. (Conason is not a signatory to Blogintegrity, but we do not hold that against him. Probably an oversight. He's busy.)

AND NOW FOR THE BLOGINTEGRITY: Spocko has been given shit from some goon, probably at KSFO, though perhaps it is some stray lunatic. (No direct link. Fuck that shit.)

Spocko, anonymously or not, pseudonymously or not, has been acting completely within his rights as a citizen to complain about the content of a radio station that after all uses the public airwaves.

No farther with this, kids. What they're trying to pull with Spocko is worse than what they did to me and my wife. That was just intrablog bullshit. This is about a media outlet trying to intimidate a citizen.

More later.

Ripley adds: Evidently, Melanie has no problem with people using the internets to intimidate people who may have different viewpoints. Check it, bleed!
Jones and his Bruin Alumni Association figured it was about time that someone documented just how revolting the push for leftist political thought in America's taxpayer-funded universities had gotten.

And the Bruin Alumni Association wisely realized the best way to share their findings with the world was to publish them online.

Britain, I understand, has some pretty stiff libel/slander laws and I wonder if we won't start seeing tighter legislation regarding internet posts here in the US, as well. Until then, I'd guess we'll be seeing more 'outing' and outright intimidation via the nets. Seems the RightWing has run out of real ideas, so they're reduced to finger-pointing and smears. And these are people who claim to be adults. Nice...

Friday, July 14, 2006

Help, help! He's being repressed!!

Now you just don't remember
All the things you said
And you're not sure that you wanna know
I'll give you one hint, honey
You sure did put on a show

So many victims, so few candles

So, in my travels, I came across this tidbit from Goldstein, at Sadly, No:
I’m thinking I’ll maybe pull out of the Online Integrity thing. Integrity doesn’t mean we should be compelled to respect the privacy of those who rely on our restraint to launch the basest personal attacks.
Firstly, that second sentence was an abomination before the Lord (or a goatfuck, depending on which school of Lit Crit you adhere to). Christ, Goldstein, did you take any English classes at Our Lady of the Eternal Victim that your parents paid so dearly for? (Yes, I know - that's what makes it ironical and stuff...)

Secondly (or nextly), when in the name of Sweet Baby James did you Ever truly subscribe to the tenets of OI? You've knighted yourself Sir Doppleganger of Online Integrity from Day One - I know it, you know it, and the entire blogosphere knows it.

Thirdly (and mostly lastly), I flat out disagree with your statement. Maybe your ego is too tender to suffer the slings, arrows and all that rot of base personal attacks, but mine isn't. You can call me whatever you want, say anything about my family, use the foulest of language, drag your internet-enlarged cock across my face... knock yourself (selves?) out... I won't intimidate your offline Life or threaten your privacy. That's just the kind of guy I am. I expect the same from the rest of the blogosphere, whether I'm dealing with right-wing idiots or left-wing idiots.

[I don't condone Frisch's comments. Then again, I don't quite buy the entire story. Call me cynical...]

But let's step back and try to get some perspective on our tearful victim, shall we? Yes, let's shall !
For those of you interested, I’ll be appearing on KIRO News Talk’s Dori Monson show at 3:05 MST (5:05 EST). [...]

Registration is all marketing/database related, so if you want, just submit Cindy Sheehan’s info.

We’ll be talking about Dr Frisch.
Oh, Satire, thy name is Jeff! What red, white and screwed American couldn't get a chuckle out of that? Not this one, I can tell ya! Hang on, I think I just peed myself.... oh, man... I did! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!! No, go on without me - I can't stop laughing!!! Hooooo Mama!

Where was I? Oh, yes... Goldstein...
update: Evidently, I’m undergoing another DoS attack. So if the site gets wonky, that’s the reason.

Oh... my... fucking... God in Heaven with no beer! Are you fucking kidding me?!?

C'mon, Jeff, we all know you never suffered a Denial of Service attack, you lying crybaby. You're a fucking liar. That's it. You're a fucking liar - we know it, you know it, even your drooling hordes know it. So stop playing the victim in hopes that you'll get a link and catch some sweet wingnut stroking and maybe some ad revenue.

You're not a victim. You're just fucking pathetic.

I had deleted this post because I messed it up, trying to re-format and edit, this morning. Frankly, I'm not very pleased with it; the tone and content are not what I was aiming for. I should also note that I can't claim certainty that Goldstein is a liar or that he didn't suffer a DOS attack.

That said, he's still fucking pathetic.

The thing that started me on this post was the line about pulling out of Online Integrity. I'd never paid attention to Goldstein before things started heating up between him and Thers. (They were NOT FLIRTING!!) But it seems that as soon as I did start watching what he wrote, Goldstein was going out of his way to violate the basic precepts of online integrity and Online Integrity on a daily basis. That, in itself, should be reason enough to dislike the creep - but I get the feeling he's actually proud of what he does, which seems to be a rather common posture of bloggers on the Right side of the aisle. I can't help but wonder if these clowns are still pulling the wings off flies.

So, for people like Goldstein, it's no big deal to post someone's personal information and mock their reaction to disturbing comments about their children. Good clean fun. Fraternity pranks. Boys will be boys, eh, Jeff? Of course, these are the people who take not-so-secret delight in the idea of torturing detainees in the unholy 'War on Terror', so it's not surprising to see the devolution to fucking with fellow Americans, simply because they're 'liberals'. And while I'm sure you have an impressive dick, Jeff, your comments about slapping people in the face with it shows a level of immaturity that makes me wonder if you have a 15 year old nephew who's borrowing your computer from time to time.
When you wake up in the morning
With your head on fire
And your eyes too bloody to see
Go on and cry in your coffee
But don't come bitchin' to me
But the part that's really amazing, to me anyway, is how shamelessly Goldstein and the other nitwit right-wingers run crying to Mommy at the slightest hint that someone's not buying their bullshit. And even more bewildering, instead of acting like the manly men (and women) they'd have us believe they are, they're suddenly swooning like some dainty maiden in an Anthony Trollope novel. Jesus - man up, people! Frisch's comments were way out of line - I'll join the chorus and condemn her comments. Do I feel for Jeff? Not a fucking bit. Know why? Because Jeff thinks he's special and shouldn't be held to the same standards as the rest of us.

You want to call liberal bloggers and the New York Times 'traitors', knock yourselves out. But stop whining when someone calls you on your bullshit or dares to tell you to Fuck Off! It's bad enough reading your John Wayne-a-be, exaggerated sense of self-worth and entitlement spilling onto the nets each day, but watching you and Malkin indulge in inter-linking orgasms of self-righteous indignation whenever someone offends your delicate sensibilities is, frankly, enough to make me retch. I'll admit, though, your toadies are well trained. (See? I said something nice about you, Jeff. Gold star for Me! Yay!)

So, go ahead, Jeff - pull out of Online Integrity. Join Trevino for a drink on the patio. Your macho Fancy Lad turned tut-tutting Society Lady is a bit of a hard sell to those of us who posses even average intelligence and humanity.

[Update] - No, it appears my first instincts about Goldstein may have been correct. To wit:
I received no email or phone call from anyone at Inside Higher Ed.

A few corrections: 1) I don’t believe I engage in “considerable mocking of liberal academics and ideas.” I taught English for a number of years at a private university in Colorado, in fact, so I’m not unfamiliar with the academy.
I'll pass that mind-fucker on to Thers, Jeff. Ya fucking liar...

But you might be thinking, 'Hey, Rip - which is it, fucking liar or victim?' The mind wobbles, don't it? Yesterday:
Guess Deb isn’t quite done milking her 15 minutes.

This time, however, I’ve contacted the authorities.
Can I get a collective gasp!! from the choir? gasp!! Thank you... now, you're probably wondering what heinous atrocity was commited that would leave Jeff no choice but to contact the authorities... the Authorities!!
Ephu, Count Cockula. Jeff - I really encourage you to have Mrs. Cockula google Satchel so she can see what you do while she’s at work all day. Trust me on this, Jeff. Cunt Cockula really needs to google Satchel.
Umm...yeah... I guess SWAT will be out in full force over that one, eh?

I'm pretty nonplussed by accusations, threats and fiery rhetoric on the internets. Hell, we've all seen (and probably typed) plenty of empty threats, drunken outbursts and strings of profanity that would make our Mothers blush. To paraphrase the old band joke: Instant asshole - just add keyboard. Yep, we've probably all been there, right?

Don't get me wrong - when it comes to children, I'm very rigid in my views of right and wrong behavior. Frankly, I have no sympathy for anyone that abuses women, children, animals or preys on the weak and helpless. (Let me add that the fucking non-human pieces of shit that engage in torture need to be put somewhere uncomfortable. Christ, it's the 21st Century - grow up, you sick fucks.) Call me a bleeding heart Liberal, if it makes you feel better.

But, back to Jeff, where was the hot-house outrage when someone made a comment about Thers' daughter? 'It wasn't one of My commentors!' That's it? Where was the RightWing hue and cry about the sanctity of children? No-fucking-where, that's where. Goldstein's regular commentors were nothing, if not loyal, and the issue became 'Why won't Thers produce the IP? Thers is lying!' Where were the RightWing 'Family Values' bloggers who, you'd think, would have jumped up to align themselves with a Father, take a stand and type, 'Say what you will about me - but children are Off Limits!'? Again, no-fucking-where, that's where. Where was the 'Politics be damned!' condemnation? You know it...

Jeff, I'll admit that I feel for you, a little bit, after all. I'm sure that you love your son and you're probably a decent father. I'm not a father but I'd hope that, if I were, I wouldn't have to read some churlish comments about my children. But let's face it: You're not special, and you're certainly no more special than Thers.

But hey - whatever it takes to keep you in the limelight... right, brother?

Rip -

Tuesday, July 11, 2006


Do What Thou Wilt

Here at Online Blogintegrity, we have a tendency to cut marionette capers, act the goat, and generally stumble around like silly-assed fucking fools. However, our dedication to crude, quasi-lobotomized humor in no way prevents us from appreciating more sober forms of drollery. I'm thinking, for instance, of Aziz Poonwalla's re-re-re-re-reclarification of what "online integrity" really, truly, honestly is and is not:
[T]his site is not a watchdog group, checking for compliance to the OI principles amongst the endorsers. In fact, to avoid any illusion of responsibility for how individual blogs behave, the blogroll has been disabled....[I]t will be upon their own conscience alone to adhere to them, and the responsibility of their readers alone to hold them to it.
It's just what the Internets have been waiting for! Finally, we have a firm philosophical framework that allows good people to be good, and bad people to be bad, just as their conscience dictates.

And it gets better:
An OI logo and button will soon be made available to blogs to display as they wish to indicate their endorsement of the Principles....
Soon? Who can wait that long? I've come up with an OI logo here and now, and there's no doubt in my mind that it shrieks "integrity" louder than Josh Trevino on a Yohimbine bender:

Now, in theory, it remains possible that some blogger might put an OI logo on his or her site, and still do something not at all integritudinal, like (for instance) publishing the home address of an insulting commenter. And it's also possible that instead of holding this blogger to the OI Principles, his or her readers might actually harass the commenter themselves...just as the blogger hoped or assumed they would right from the start.

Then, too, BushCo dead-enders seem to agree pretty much across the board that the Left "wants the terrorists to win"; for them, America's survival requires fighting this liberal Selbstschutz by any convenient means. It's no wonder OI has thusfar been a slapstick disaster that would make a cat laugh.

All the same, we have to give this thing a(nother) chance to work. We mustn't underestimate the power of a logo - and the ill-defined, unenforced "principles" it advertises - to keep delusional and emotionally crippled bloggers from overreacting to legitimate criticism, bad language, or unpalatable facts.

And if it doesn't work out that way this time around...well, I guess it serves us right for expecting too much.

Thers Adds

OI has an Open Thread up. I see this as a good thing, actually. I for one have never been against the general concept of a site discussing integrity, just the way it's been implemented. I've already asked over there about what the comments policy might be, and got a fairly reasonable response. So, it's a step. Be perlite please if you head over there, ye lot o' cabogues. Would it kill ya to put on a tie?

Sunday, July 09, 2006


The New Faces of Blogintegrity

We note with wild surmise that Online Integrity is under new management. The beloved and Most Integritudinous founder of this great Vessel of Internetty Rectitude, Lord Captain Commander Tacitus Q. Pompitude Civilitypants, has resigned his commission.

*HONK*... sniff...

It's just so darn sad to see such a Great Hero of the Integrity Wars fade away. G'Bye, ya big lug! You've made the Internet if not more civil, more integriticious, at least more verbose, and for that, we Salute You.

And this site welcomes the new Captain of Online Integrity, standing tall on the Poop-Deck of Propriety, Aziz Poonawalla, of City of Brass. He has already made one great improvement to the site, in our opinion. We have previously noted that the OI comments policy was completely opaque, with comments being deleted by persons unidentified according to undisclosed criteria. Captain Poonawalla has solved the problem elegantly, by not allowing any comments at all. Instead, he boldly states that we can stride boldly into the bold future and "shape the vision of decency and profesionalism to which we aspire" by joining a bold Yahoo email list to which nobody sends anything.

We here at Online Blogintegrity salute this bold descision to not discuss what happens on the blogosphere on the actual blogosphere. Integrity, one notes, is best discussed at a dignified remove from the riff-raff. And criticism, is, of course, always bad.

We here also would like to join in this new spirit of openness and Intergritesquiness by similarly changing management staff. We think you will be pleased with our new direction. Meet the new bosses!


Scott Thorson

Manny Mota


Ripley adds: Eat the rich non-integritudinous!!

Phila adds: Here's the part I like:
The OI project was accused of being a partisan tool, and in the ensuing reaction from both sides, that accusation became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Friday, July 07, 2006

July 4th Backwash

(Right-click, open in new window for dramatic background music while you read)

And, so, the outcry drags ever on.... Not content to paint the New York Times as an organization run by traitors, for traitors, the right-wing nutjobs are again up in arms. The latest target? Hollywood...

Michelle Malkin:
Harrison Ford and Wolfgang Petersen should be shot on sight! I have never seen such blatant disregard for the safety of the President. Why, they practically showed the entire layout of Air Force One - the number of weapons, the locations of the bathrooms, the fax machine model. I urge all my readers to look for Harrison Ford and harass him! Harass harass harass!!!
Ann Coulter:
Is it any surprise that liberal Hollywood has decided to endanger the President by revealing the most sensitive secrets about Air Force One? No, it's not! Someone should kill Wolfgang Petersen and bring his blood to me.

Pam (Atlas Shrugs):
How dare they?!? How dare they?!? This was top-secret, classified information! They are putting our troops in Iraq in mortal danger! How dare they?!?

Glenn Reynolds:
I'm flabbergasted! I cannot believe that even liberal Hollywood would stoop so low and give Al Qaeda this information. Not only that, George W. Bush would never say, 'Get off my plane!' - he'd tell that terrorist to stay right there and fight. Then he'd kick the terrorist's ass!
Republican Senators were quick to support a bill, authored by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), condemning Hollywood for its release of Air Force One.
What was once a valuable and stealthy mode of transportation for the President, his aides and family, has now become the desktop wallpaper of every computer on the Al Qaeda computer network. By revealing the name (Air Force One) and description (large aircraft with Presidential seal and United States of America logos) to the enemy, liberal Hollywood has put every American at risk, especially those Americans who purchased the commemorative Air Force One bomber jackets. It is the sense of the Senate that Air Force One, Harrison Ford and Wolfgang Petersen should be condemned for their lack of patriotism and their outright treason. In addition, we find Glenn Close a bit sassy in this movie.
The outrage continues as conservatives lash out against the Tom Hanks/Steven Spielberg collaboration:

Jeff Goldstein:
They've effectively given away all of our Special Forces training programs, going back to WWII. I'd like to slap my dick across liberal Hollywood's face, then tell them that I just slapped my dick across their faces and see the look on their faces when I tell them that. Does anyone have Tom Hanks' address? I'll quote you in boldface.
Charles Krauthammer:
I can't imagine living in an America with subversives, like Steven Spielberg, who will give away our tactical tactics just to make a dollar. Why would they tell Al Qaeda that our troops use helmets and rifles? It's shameful. I'm a psychiatrist - you can trust me.
Pam (Atlas Shrugs):
How dare they?!? How dare they?!? This was top-secret, classified information! They are putting Easy Company in mortal danger! How dare they?!?

You'd think they'd be out of outrage. But you'd be wrong...

Michelle Malkin:
First of all, women don't belong in the Army Seals. Second, liberal Hollywood has just told Al Qaeda that the Army Seals use women as diversions. Does anyone have Demi Moore's address? I'll blogroll you.
Wall Street Journal:
While women are certainly an asset to America, they obviously require much more maintenance (read: defense funds) when they serve in the Military. Liberal Hollywood is doing a disservice to America by encouraging women to serve in the military. America would be better served if more women worked in the secret SWIFT monitoring program, which we've detailed on the front page, just below the MBNA ad... no, further down... now left... that's it - read that one...
Pam (Atlas Shrugs):
How dare they?!? How dare they?!? This was top-secret, classified information! They are putting the Air Force Seals in mortal danger! How dare they?!?
Jeff Goldstein:
I'd like to slap my dick across Demi Moore's face!! Does anyone have Ashton Kutcher's address?

Well, that's about all the outrage I can handle for one nite.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006


Blog of the Week

This week's Online Integrity Blog of the Week is Jesus's General, run by General JC Christian.

The good general wins for displayingActual Integrity:
I've given a lot of thought over the last few days to the practice of publishing people's personal information on blogs. It's a despicable practice, an act designed to scare those targeted into silence. It is never justifiable.

I did something very similar a few months ago. I published a map of the area in which Michelle Malkin's former residence was situated. Although I did not publisher her address or label the exact location of her house--instead, I added a "Malkinwald Internment Camp" a few blocks away at a football field--I left the red Yahoo pin, unlabeled, at the location of her home....

I did it to retaliate for Malkin's publication of the personal info of two college students who had organized an anti-war demonstration. I was wrong to do that. Her actions spoke for themselves. They exposed her for what she is.

I now wish I had listened to Auguste at Malkin(s) Watch and the others who urged me to delete the post. They were right. I was wrong.

I want to thank reader Elendil for making me think long and hard about this. And I want to apologize to her for reacting defensively at first. She was right to call me on it.

Monday, July 03, 2006

The Prom Queen's assistants also blog

I don't care what side of the aisle you're on - maintain some Integritility, act like you have a fucking scrap of humanity in you and stop fucking about with the facts! This is just fucking pathetic... (from dKos)

Ethical Blogging At HuffPo ?
I blogged a few weeks ago about the situation in which an invited blogger, Dr. Peter Rost was fired from Huffington Post after he revealed a troll that showed up on almost all of his posts was in fact an employee of Huffington Post. As a result of Dr. Rosts research and subsequent blog outing of this person, he was fired.

It gets even better - go read...

Look, I don't care how liberal, conservative or wicked kewl you think you are - you have an obligation, as a blogger or blog-manager, to keep things Real. If you run a multi-author site, either vet your contributors or let them know that you have a certain 'theme' you're aiming for. And don't send your boot-lickers to refute them while you stay safe in your 'it's not My peanut butter on your chocolate!' tower.

I'll guarantee you, if I posted something that wasn't accurate or Integritastic, Thers or one of the others would call me on it, ask me to correct it and/or they'd delete the post. Same goes with comments: if we disagree with a commentor, we disagree - but we won't fake comments to make someone look bad. We don't fuck around here, kids. And by the by, see any ads on this site? This is homegrown Integrilasticity - we don't answer to anyone but you and our souls.

I don't know - maybe it's just me... I like to think that the internets give us a voice, even if no one's listening to us, but aren't we all just a little beyond the Jr. High games by now?

You'd think....


¿Mess o' pottage?

Thees story from Businessweek has already been blogged about elsewhere, but I felt eet deserved further attention.

Ted Murphy, an advetising executive *¡koff!* ¡koff!* ¡Hrnrrnrnrnrrrn! *¡koff!* *¡¡Koff!!* *¡SPLAT!* (Yo disculparse, advertising executives geeve me the hairballs) ees launching where la blogsfera can sell out eet's shiny new media street cred for Five dolares a pop.

Jon Fine, the columnist (y bloggerro) who wrote about PayPerPost for Businessweek, seem to theenk that thees ees no such a good theeng:
But media today is so cynical that you have to come out and say that shilling without disclosure is a bad idea. (...) Thanks in no small part to bloggers, this is an era of increased media transparency, and many shifty dealings between the business and editorial sides have been exposed. (...)An undisclosed PayPerPost placement on a little-seen blog isn't the most egregious thing out there, but it's far from honest. Media may be more transparent, but the line between authentic editorial and paid placement is still often smeared, and defenders of disclosure can feel, like the proverbial buggy whip company, that they're terribly outmoded.

Lindsay Beyerstein seems to have less concern over the prospect that thees concept weel destroy la Integridad de la blogsfera:
I take comfort in the fact that the PayPerPost business model is so wretched that it will burn everyone involved. Companies who pay five bucks a pop for a couple sentences on a random blog are stupid.

From what I can tell PPP will pay anyone with a blog, irrespective of traffic. So, they're probably already spawning Astroturf Spam blogs--link farms that exist solely to house unread 30-50 word blurbs on spring break meccas that the spammer has never been to.

Kristjan Wager, een the comments at Lindsay's blog, breengs up a point wheech I find muy interesante:
Well, if politicians can do it, why not bloggers?

Finalmente, sometheeng to consider, from the businessweek article:
Those seeking to subvert PayPerPost from within can't: No pornographic or "illicit" content is accepted.

Amigos, that almost sounds like a challenge to me.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?