Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Dont have any case to make Rand. It is your show. Cant stand differences of opinion or pointing out facts contrary to the "chosen way" then it is your show to ban people.

Take your best shot. It says more about you then it does me.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 07:50 PM

I'm not "taking a shot," Robert, good, best or otherwise. I'm putting out your product for the other readers to see, and letting democracy happen. We'll see what my other readers think.

You may or may not be happy with the results, but I suspect that you've been living in your own little arrogant cocoon for so long that it will have no effect on your own self worth. But (I also suspect that) at least you won't be polluting this web site any more.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 11, 2007 07:54 PM

I say keep Robert. The only thing I'd really ban is excessive trolls and spam. Part of the problem probably is just the structure of the forum. It's all in one big list. Threaded conversation (like the USENET or Live Journal) would help tremendously here.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at May 11, 2007 08:07 PM

Rand.

Democracy. I bet Al sharpton thought the same thing actually.

It is your blog and your mickle. Do what you need to do. My life wont change one little bit. I come here for good political and space talk, some snappy interchange. I learn to live with dissapointments.

As for my self worth. No your view figures nothing in that, as does the view of people here. No one should derive any of their self worth from a blog.

REally no one should.

Do you derive any of your self worth from the views of others on a blog?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 08:08 PM

I say keep Robert.

Why? What is the value added?

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 11, 2007 08:08 PM

Bob is a pompous lying ass who can on occasion, when he controls his pomposity and lying, make a good point or two. But his noise to signal ratio is currently about 10 to 1.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 11, 2007 08:24 PM

I judge a troll by one real criterion: if I respond to a point seriously, does he respond seriously (to agree or disagree), or does he keep going off in his own little world. Oler is in his own little world, and by my definition, a troll.

It's your blog, but I don't see any positive gain from having him here. That said, it's good to have critics who can provide thoughtful rebuttals and points. I just don't see Oler as such a critic.

Posted by Jeff Medcalf at May 11, 2007 08:37 PM

I have to agree with Messieur's Medcalf and Trotter's assessment.

I have fenced some with Mr. Oler. He responds to his chosen, smallest bits of a post, and ignores facts that run counter to his "analysis". I had hoped to get some sort of useful perspective from his views, but there is almost no signal to his posts.

I had hoped that someone who claims to have been in the Balkans during our time there, and who claims to remain in public service, would offer greater insight. Instead, he writes like an adolescent, dedicated to one-up-manship.

His "snappy" interchange seems to be a fairly one-sided set of hurled insults.

With apologies to "Airplane":

Man don't give no respect,
Man don't get no respect.

I vote him out.

Respectfully submitted,

Posted by MG at May 11, 2007 09:14 PM

Well well.

As many on here and other sites know, I have tangled with Oler for many years, stretching back to the late 1990's. Oler is quite predictable, nice for a while, logical for a while, even flashes of brilliance for a while, but inevitably the psychosis sets in and he goes off into Oler world. In Oler world, as others have suggested, he is incredibly arrogant, overbearing, and completely unable to see the inconsistencies in his presentation or any omissions that run counter to his own position.

He has eventually worn out his welcome at every single site he has inhabited, from the amateur radio world to the many democrat oriented sites that he pontificates on. You should read some of the things that were said about him on the Howard Dean related sites. There is another guy named Oler that had a website and who was deluged with hate emails when they thought that it was him.

With all of that being said, the answer to any problems with free speech is more free speech. There are many times that I literally can't stand him as he mixes brilliance with insanity in such a way that is quite sad for what he could really bring to table should his insanty in the end rule his soul.

He eventually turns everyone against him and he leaves for more fertile fields. In this age we need to look at the worst of the arguments so that no matter the situation, we at least know what is going to be said.

A wise man once said that the price of freedom is the association with nuts, well Oler is our poster child for that axiom. Keep him here.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at May 11, 2007 09:39 PM

The only thing I'd really ban is excessive trolls and spam.

I dunno, Karl. Excessive trolling and spam seems to really be the problem here with Robert, who routinely misdirects conversations to some mundane topic.

I agree with Cecil that sometimes Robert puts up a comment that is reasonable and considerate. I've even agreed with Robert a few times. Those events are far to rare and are exceptions that prove just how often he isn't reasonable and considerate.

Posted by Leland at May 11, 2007 09:43 PM

Posted by Dennis Wingo at May 11, 2007 09:39 PM

I still post on the old Dean Blog occasionally. My problem with them, is that they have really gone over the edge. They have latched on to almost every conspiracy theory that is on the far left; the 9/11 jet fuel thing was really amazing. There was one guy who was an "expert" because he had proven that in VT in the winter he could take a bucket of Jet fuel that he got at the airport and put a match into it and it would not burn.

Gee he had just recreated the commercial from 40 years ago on I think British Caledonia.

My problem is with the extremes. The people who put ideology over reason and facts. This guy was an expert on jet fuel from an experiment that he didnt even know meant nothing he extracted everything.

I actually emailed the guy who had a similar last name and created a hot mail account so he could forward the "Hate mail"

"brilliance with insanity"...

amazing I keep my pilots license!

your a chum thanks for your support.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 11, 2007 09:52 PM

Get rid of him. He sounds (OK, types) like a drunk. No one should enable such people.

Actually, Rand, you should consider eliminating your comments "sectino" (to borrow spelling from one of Glenn Reynolds's inimitable e-mailers) altogether. There are at least a couple of first-class parasites infecting it now. It's bad enough that our tax dollars will probably be keeping them alive when their mental disabilities keep them from getting jobs. I'm not clear on the value of seeing their diatribes spewed onto an otherwise excellent blog.

Posted by Jay Manifold at May 11, 2007 10:05 PM

People who comment on the same comment page multiple times tend to contribute more noise than signal. Usually the subsequent posts are in response to off topic subjects they've introduced in their first posting. It's annoying to come in late to find that because of one person, few to none of the comments are on the subject. There's no point in adding an on-topic posting at that point, because it'll just be lost in the noise.

If this were usenet, Oler would've been in the killfile months ago.

Or better yet, he should get his own weblog and limit himself to one comment with a URL to his rebuttal/commentary page where he and those who don't care what he has to say can have at it, and spare the rest of us.

Posted by Raoul Ortega at May 11, 2007 10:13 PM

Some years ago I was briefly involved with a group of people who were trying to establish a space related think tank. Robert was one of the members. He was very smart and often made good contributions to our discussions but had great difficulty entertaining differing views and often led discussions off onto irrelevent tangents. He also often made statements which I knew to be false but could not be proved so without extensive research so I did not confront him about them openly. When I approached other members of the group privately however, they simply accepted anything he said at face value. He does have a very credible manner about him. I soon left the group because I knew it could never achieve anything significant with Robert in a senior position.
I am against banning in principle. Someone should be banned only if they are engaging in harsh personal attacks or if the nature of their posts is seriously detrimental to a forum. Does Robert frequently hijack otherwise productive discussions and send them of onto tangents? Would the discussions actually be on topic, substantive and of intellectual worth if his participation were excluded? If the answer to both these questions is "yes" then perhaps he should be banned. If the answer to either of them is "no", and note the word "frequently" in the first one, then let him rant because he is doing no harm. Either way, Rand is the one who must make the decision.

Posted by Michael at May 11, 2007 10:52 PM

Noise, not signal.

Understanding your reluctance to ban, I've considered asking you to tweak your comments template to put the commenter name above the text, to aid in avoiding his pointless, incoherent drivel. If you elect not to ban him, that might be an alternative worth considering.

Posted by T.L. James at May 11, 2007 11:32 PM

Posted by Michael at May 11, 2007 10:52 PM

I have to go fly and that means 12 hours or so...

What "think tank" was that? This has to be in the 90's and well that was sometime ago and things "pass" but I dont recall a think tank with a "Michael".

How do you know that things are "false" if you dont have the evidence for them?

Anyrate if Rand hasnt banned me by the time I get down from doing a little fly fly (about 12 hours) worth I am curious when we met. I dont remember you. Sorry. I dont recall the "think tank" either. What was its name?

Perhaps your association was "brief" after all and that is why I dont recall you...

curious

Off to fly

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 12, 2007 12:45 AM

Oler's main problem is that he likes to be provocative even when it serves no purpose except, perhaps, to stroke his own very considerable ego. Hence he tends to lower the tone very quickly of any conversation he involves himself in. That is a great pity because he does possess considerable intelligence and education. Unfortunately he does not possess self discipline, which is a big problem because he is a cauldron of resentments and grudges that I gather go back decades. And he has a very elaborate fantasy life that originally, in my experience, seemed plausible, but as Tolkien once said, "grew in the telling" to such an extent that it not only tripped into the surreal but eventually conflicted with known facts. People like him are a reason that I do not allow comments on my own blog. Dealing with that sort of thing would just be too time consuming.

Posted by MarkWhittington at May 12, 2007 05:26 AM

Keep him if he learns how to use a dictionary or a spell-checker!

Otherwise, it is more BS, and like BS, worthless noise.

Posted by Fred Kiesche at May 12, 2007 06:31 AM

As I see it, the problem is what was mentioned before, a complete inability to accept that others have valid points of view. Banning him is not going to change anything, another will fill the void.

Posted by Mac at May 12, 2007 06:39 AM

If it were up to me I'd ban him just for the way he signs his name to every comment even though it's also in the "posted by" field.

Posted by Andrea Harris at May 12, 2007 06:45 AM

Oler is a parasitic influence. He was one the reasons the RTM thread augured in. I cringed when I saw him start posting to your blog. Put him in the airlock captain.

Posted by Orville at May 12, 2007 07:27 AM

My first reaction was "ban him, please!" Reading the comments mellowed that first impulse and I think the situation calls for a degree of mercy. Perhaps a suspension of a couple of months, then restrict him to, say, one comment per day, or one per blog post; from that all can judge if he has learned anything about polite discussion and how to take part in it. If he shows signs of learning to type civilized comments, restrictions can be removed. I don't know if that's possible (or easy) but suspension followed by probation is the general idea. Screwing up during probation bans him for life. I'm tired of scrolling down through his screeds; although he's shown a better aspect sometimes, life is too short and our hours too few to associate with rude people who hijack the conversation into an endless circle...
Robert, you do occasionally show signs of civilized behavior, and have a different take on things from that of most who comment here, which can 'stir the pot' in itself. There's no need for long essays that you don't proofread. There's never a time for repeatedly throwing line after line of name-calling and slurs. It's less convincing than a Jack Chick tract, and you are working against yourself if you seek to convince anyone at all using those tactics. Time you for you to consider why it happened, and then a chance to prove you can take part in civilized discussion.

Posted by Stewart at May 12, 2007 07:58 AM

How about a limitation to one comment per post for all and a selective deletion for more than N comments? You can choose N as appropriate for the individual. So, for example Mike Puckett has N=100 or some such large number and Robert Oler has N=1.

Hopefully you can write the code needed to do that so you don't spend too much of your time dealing with this.

That would at least force people to think carefully about what they have to say before saying it. In other words be succinct and not superfluous.

While I don't believe in censoring anyone, I also don't enjoy having to read the same commenter take a discussion off in varied directions. That, even if I may agree with some of his main points.

Incidentally is Brian Swiderski now banned (N=0)?

Posted by Offside at May 12, 2007 08:22 AM

Leave him but delete his posts that veer off-topic.

Some of what he write is worth it. Some is even very good. Some of it is simply unnecessary to be charitible.

Perhpas once people realize gross violation of your Code o' Conduct results in a bitchslap, they will self-regulate.

PS, you do need a posted Code o' Conduct.

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 12, 2007 08:25 AM

Oh, and you could change N over time depending on behavior as perceived by value, tone, lack of idiocy, grammar, humor etc.

Of course since I read your blog and comment, I would assume you would give me a decent value of N !

Posted by Offside at May 12, 2007 08:28 AM

Rand, I hope you don't take Jay Manifold's advice (sorry, Jay!). This lively comments section is a big reason why I keep coming back to this site (not the only reason, mind you, but a big one). I am also mindful of the fact that I don't have all the answers, and that sometimes a different perspective is helpful in a way that an echo-chamber can never be.

I do think that a "code of conduct" is a good idea. Such things as links to kiddie-porn sites, obvious spam, incitement to violence and so on should probably cause an immediate lifetime ban of that IP address. But for things like trolling, there are only two really good solutions: one is to ignore the troll, and the other is what we have been doing already, countering speech with speech. Probably the best method of the two is to ignore, as after a period of being ignored trolls usually go away on their own.

Posted by Ed Minchau at May 12, 2007 08:45 AM

As long as he stays reasonably on the topic, I'd vote to keep him. If he consistantly goes off to the same little rant like the late, unlamented "Anonymous Moron" then activate the BAN switch.

Posted by Rich at May 12, 2007 08:45 AM

Hi Rand,

There is a great Norman Rockwell painting for WWII, part of the freedoms series that I keep in mind at times like this. It shows a gentleman standing up at a New England town hall meeting. Here is a link to it.

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/R/rockwell/rockwell_speech.jpg.html

Clearly everyone in the meeting is in disagreement with, perhaps even sick of what he is saying, but the virtual of America, which Norman Rockwell was showing to the world, is that we, unlike the totalitarian states we were fighting (and the new ones we are fighting today…), believe in defending his right to say it. Note, not just allowing them to speak but going beyond to stand up for their right to do so.

This is what free speech is about, or at least what American’s of the WWII generation saw it as, allowing all individuals to have their say. No matter how much you disagree or how loud their perceived noise level is.

Supposedly this is also the basis of libertarian beliefs, to let uncensored free speech compete in the marketplace of ideas. As such is it sad to see the censorship that has being emerging on the Blog sphere in this regard labeling folks as Trolls. However the Internet has been drifting from its libertarian roots to being just another media so I guess I am not surprised this is happening….

Now this of course does make the U.S. home to crazy ideas like the cities of Mars and all the conspiracy theorists, but that is also our strength, the lack of a “group think” national mindset as is found in many countries including many so called democracies. In America there is always someone free to disagree and that is key to having a successful marketplace of ideas. And yes, some of those folks are likely not as polite as you may like, but that just that goes with allowing a free market of ideas to flourish.

But enough of my opinion. You own the blog so its what you feel you must do based on your belief system and desires.

Posted by Thomas Matula at May 12, 2007 09:34 AM

I'm for even more free speech!

I even thought Anonymous Moron should have been left to ramble on as well. I miss his wars with Mike Puckett and my reactive urgings that Mike use his shotgun on him.

This stuff is an interesting side-show, which in my opinion is fun. A serious conversation can be going on interrupted by what is (depending on your opinion) noise which then is ignored if needed.

Oler is a curiosity. Not to be placed in the BAN bucket. Though he has been quite prolific recently hasn't he? Perhaps he is in a writing class?

Please don't BAN him, duel with him. Use even greater sarcasm, shriveling wit and the occasional deaf ear.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 12, 2007 09:49 AM

Jay, I agree with Ed Minchau. Comments really add value to a site. Frankly, the lack of comments has been the chief reason I don't visit A Voyage to Arcturus on a regular basis. For example, I usually check Jon Goff's Selenian Boondocks on a regular basis (every few days). IMHO, it's similar in quality, genre, and article frequency, but he enabled posting.

Glenn Reynolds strikes me as a bad model here. He does well by his blog, but I can't help but think that he'd be a little more humble, circumspect, and informative, if someone could call him (in the comments "sectino") on some of the stuff he posts. OTOH, he'd probably have to hire people full time to keep the comments clean of spam and other nastiness. Even innocuous comments (like "I had fun driving today.") would probably draw heat.

I know there's all sorts of motives for blogs, so I don't see a compelling reason to add comment sections for the sake of it. Rand appears to get considerable recognition and perhaps a little income from his site so anything, such as comment sections, that increase reader interest and participation are valuable to him.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at May 12, 2007 09:56 AM

I support aggressive foreign policy, which I guess makes me a republican.

what made ME think I was a republican was the fact that I had an opinion (at a young age) that supported the republican agenda, A! AN! singular, one, uno position that might support republicans, and my democrat environment surrounded me with hatred.

I realized that I don't have that much energy to waste on hatred so I became a republican in fact, and just let the hatred bounce off me.

"The only people who aren't crack dealers or prostitutes in chicago that rubberneck as though they are crack dealers or prostitutes are republicans" and don't get me started on my joke about black republicans.

If your entire political stance is built on hating everyone that you know, then you have failed. Call me when stalin is president.

Posted by Wickedpinto at May 12, 2007 10:01 AM

Please don't BAN him, duel with him. Use even greater sarcasm, shriveling wit and the occasional deaf ear.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 12, 2007 09:49 AM

The joy is dueling. Ronaldus the Great had a show many years ago where he would have people with whom he completly disagreed with on and have a good "duel" with them. It sharpens the wit, hones the arguments, and seperates the wheat from teh chaff in terms of the ability to hold ones ground.

When Al Gore made his speech in San Fran oppossing the war, not a single administration official took on his points (which sadly proved to be accurate).

Instead what they did was attack him personally, professionally, and argue that his voice should not be heard because he was "not for us" (in the words of one RNC official).

They couldnt fade the arguments so they wanted him off the stage.

In the last year my current boss has reintroduced me to boxing. It was something I left a few years ago. Always box with someone who has more skill and strength then you do. Never box with a lightweight, you never get better.

Have to get some sleep.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 12, 2007 11:22 AM

Is banning Oler really equal to infringing on free speech and stifling alternative points of view and the like?

It's not the alternative points of view that's the problem here. The problem is that, to the extent Oler presents any different or dissenting ideas, they're lost in the torrent of verbal diarrhea and Walter Mitty-esque self-promotion that invariably comes with them.

I would be against banning Brian Swiderski, for example, despite disagreeing with him on most things and disliking his tone, since he presents his arguments with more signal than noise (indeed -- his recent long comment on children and space colonization was a gem that I actually forwarded to a bunch of my coworkers). I see nothing wrong with banning commenters whose purpose in writing comments is to get attention by disrupting the discussion rather than to add something constructive or informative to it.

Banning Oler would no more stifle free speech and turn TM's comments into a den of bobbleheading yes-men than banning comment spammers. It would, in fact, have much the same effect -- leaving the comments clean for more meaningful discussion.

Posted by T.L. James at May 12, 2007 11:43 AM

Please don't BAN him, duel with him. Use even greater sarcasm, shriveling wit and the occasional deaf ear. -- Toast_n_Tea

Go look at the RTM archives and other discussion forums he has frequented in the past, and see if this approach had any effect. Keith Cowing's sarcasm and shriveling wit with regard to Oler frequently crossed over into pure venom in these forums, but even that had no effect on Oler's conversational habits.

Posted by T.L. James at May 12, 2007 11:54 AM

At a minimum, I think you have the right to insist that all posts here be in English, not Esperanto, Klingonese, or whatever language Robert currently writes in.

Every print publication has minimal editorial standards for its comment section. I don't see why the Internet should be any different. Most people here write at a functional high school level or above. Including John Hare, who didn't actually graduate from high school. Robert claims he is a former professor at the United States Naval Academy, yet he doesn't even write at the level one would be expect on a college entrance exam.

I would say, let Robert post but with a warning that any post that does not show a basic high-school level of literacy will be deleted. An exception might be made for posters hailing from non-English speaking lands, but in general that's a reasonable standard. If someone has ideas worth communicating, he ought to make at least a minimal effort to communicate them coherently. Even take some remedial English instruction, if necessary. If someone doesn't believe his ideas are worth that small amount of effort, why should you bother to host their gibberish on your blog?

Posted by Edward Wright at May 12, 2007 12:43 PM

Edward: Q'ahplah!

Although the occasional misspelling might be annoying, good spelinlg ralely ins't reiquerd to get oen's piont arcsos, as lnog as teh frsit adn lsat ltteres aer in teh crorcet psoniiotn in ecah wrod, at lseat fro wrdos of mroe tahn trehe lttrees.

Posted by Ed Minchau at May 12, 2007 02:19 PM

Rand,
Anyone who uses Wiki as a basis for 'factual' information has no credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Robert does bring a few valid points to the discussion, but it's an ounce of good mixed with a gallon of muck.

If you want to spend your time editing out his junk (since he can't do it himself), then leave him here. If not, let him have his own site.

Posted by Tom W. at May 12, 2007 02:23 PM

The 8:22 a.m. comment by offside was right on the mark.

The problem with Oler isn't just with Oler. If Oler is banned Ran can expect to see someone else eventually take his place. And Rand no doubt has better things to occupy his time than wading into comment section flamewars. More good speech to drown out bad speech is not a practical solution when it's the comments section of a blog.

If it is possible, limiting all commenters to a single comment of restricted length in each comment thread would solve the problem. If someone has something to say, then awarenesss of the limit would focus their mind to make the one point they think is important to hear. If the commenter had some burning need to post more than one comment to a thread, they could always go to the extra trouble of emailing Rand. (And no anonymous trolling moron would dare to expose themselves by sending a harrassing email)

A limit of one comment per commenter would also would prevent the noise of commenters who harp back and forth to each other. I think the point of a comments section is to provide open feedback to the writer of a blog, not to provide a forum for any random parasite who can't or won't put up a blog of his own.

Posted by Brad at May 12, 2007 02:26 PM

dE,

That was brilliant. It's amazing how quickly the mind, knowing a particular language, can unscramble the symbols into something with meaning. It also indicates how much redundancy there is in eth lengshi gulanage.

If Robert could do what you just did he would be even more interesting to some of us and utterly itrafrustng ot seroth.

terRbo

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 12, 2007 02:55 PM

Comments are for comment, not diatribes, manifestos, and garbage dumps. Punt poor Robbie into the bitbucket.

P.S.: Don't like being kicked, Robbie? Get your own damn blog. That's what makes the net fun.

Posted by Dave G at May 12, 2007 03:35 PM

Posted by T.L. James at May 12, 2007 11:43 AM

You are correct. It has nothing to do with the First amendment. It has everything to do with intellectual integrity. Left and right groups are noted for their inability to 1) deal with people of oppossing opinions or 2) those who point out flaws in the ideology masquerading as intellectual thought.

What Rand does not post, is the comment to which I was replying to. Someone had stated using the "batshit" comment that X number percent of the Dem party believed the rather stupid notion that the twin towers had been brought down by some consipracy. This would be something to be entertained and alarmed by if the GOP did not subscribe to equally "whacky" (or batshit take your pick) theories on different topics. The Vince Foster was murdered theories came to mind, a theory of the "right" that apparantly our host Rand must agree with since he seems to try and defend it.

OK thats fine, but if Rand is entitled to his ideological beliefs that Vince Foster was either murdered or offed himself somewhere else and was moved in theory a sinister plot by the Clinton's then surely the other side is entitled to their equally "fun" theories.

Actually neither the left or the right can defend their "fun" theories all that well. And their answer is to usually limit debate with those who do not buy hook line and sinker the views.

Free speech is in The Constitution as a guarantee against government interference.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 12, 2007 03:40 PM

Robert, the "batshit insane" comment was mine. And yes, when 35 or whatever it was percent of the Democrat party (and something like 1 in 7 in the Republican party) actually believe that Bush knew what was going to happen on 9/11 - and instead of doing something about it, chose reading "My Pet Goat" to a bunch of kids in Florida as a more productive use of his time - then yes, those people are all insane.

In the other thread, you attempted - repeatedly - to deflect from the issue by pointing out that Jerry Falwell is a crackpot. Well, big deal, he is only one guy and we were talking about an insane belief held by tens of millions of people, many of whom vote. And Foster/Falwell has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the post.

Once again, I urge you to read Seeing the Unseen at EjectEjectEject.

Posted by Ed Minchau at May 12, 2007 04:50 PM

No Ed. I attempted to say that 1/3 of the GOP is similarly crackpot as to believe something nutty from Falwell...which is similar to 1/3 of the Dems who believe something nutty from Soros or G. Moore are who whatever crackpot is pushing that theory.

Thats all. Read with even a modicum of care I was comparing "crackpots" to mean that fundamentally I dont think that the GOP crackpots are any different from the Dem Crackpots, except that they believe different things.

I think Bush chose to continue with "My Pet Goat" in large measure because I really dont think that he had a clue WHAT to do. He basically has no attributes of a leader, I think that he was in all respects completly in over his head.

Everyone in the administration seemed to be "lost". Dick Cheney was ordering things that he had no authority to order, and that folks like Norad were completly ignoring. At one point he seemed to believe that several planes had already been shot down.

A little fun tidbit. The USSS sensing a problem took the "Panic route' from the school to the airport. They got lost!

But back to the main point. I see no difference in people who would believe that the Clintons would cover up a murder (or do it) then people who would believe that Bush ordered the buildings blown up...or people who think that the WMD went to Syria vrs people who think global warming is going to cause an ice age.

They are all ideology challenged substituting that for facts.

They all seem to rebel at the comparison with the "fruits" of the other side.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 12, 2007 06:05 PM

Well, big deal, he is only one guy and we were talking about an insane belief held by tens of millions of people, many of whom vote. And Foster/Falwell has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the post.

Posted by Ed Minchau at May 12, 2007 04:50 PM

So the people who bought Mr. Falwell's tapes (including I assume Rand!) are not millions of people who vote?

And the fact that they believe something without on the same "fact" level as Mr. Soros (or whoever) isnt important?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 12, 2007 06:07 PM

Aw c'mon now Rand. You've gone 17 posts now without anything about SPACE. And that one (Carnival of Space) was more meta-space than space, talking about people talking about space. Remember "Transterrestrial"? The word suggests humans hopping into their Jetson Turbo and popping up to L-2 on their way to Charon. What about Cassini? Don't you just love to stare at a photo of Enceladus for hours on end, going "oooooooo"

Posted by David Bush at May 12, 2007 06:09 PM

Is this like one of those survival shows? The worst poster of the week gets voted up or down?

Might be an interesting weekly event. Humilating the guy who's posted the stupidest post. I'd have likely been up several times in the last couple of years. And I often don't check my spelling and grammer closely enough, this is an entertainment, not a philosophical discourse.

Anyway I vote to keep him on board. Don't see anything ban worthy in either of his posts, myself.

Posted by K at May 12, 2007 06:14 PM

Aw c'mon now Rand. You've gone 17 posts now without anything about SPACE.

This has never been a space blog, and I've never proclaimed it to be. It's not my fault that people have wanted to fantasize otherwise.

Anyone who knows Latin would know that "trans" means "across," and nothing more.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 12, 2007 06:16 PM

It would have been really funny, right Bob, if Quahtani had been let on Flight 93; they were
only 6 minutes away from D.C. The likely target
the US Capitol. Want to risk splashing a Boeing
jet over Greater D.C. Bob. Nothing like this had
ever happened in the history of the United States; and as I pointed out earlier; The telltale
PDb you cite, was nearly worthless.

The difference is Bob, we didn't see Vince Foster
shoot himself, and the forensic investigation afterward was flawed to be charitable. We saw
those planes hit, Bob,the culprit took credit for
it. Something we are unlike to see, the next time.

Is it so crazy to believe that a rival Baathist
police state would appropriate the other's chemical arsenal. One that had had a Nazi SS maN
on staff since 1954, when he organized a massive
WMD project against Israel, from Egypt. A country
which collaborates with sectarian rivals like
Hezbollah, Palestininian Islamic Jihad, and Hamas;
not to mention it's supposed direct rival, the Jund Al Shams, who were used to assasinate a neighboring leader. Or supporting Wahhabi elements
in the last plot in Saudi Arabia; crazy talk I say...

Posted by narciso at May 12, 2007 06:46 PM

Not so much actually.

I am working this for memory but I believe that the crash site of flight 93 is about 150-160 or so sm from Washington.

Where do you get "6 minutes" from DC? I might have the numbers wrong, but I bet yours are. (sorry no interest in looking up the actual numbers you may if you want to say "You were wrong").

The capital probably was the target. the people on board 93 did a splendid job, they are true heroes.

"a situation we never faced before".

Wasnt that true of the folks on Flight93 as well?

They seemed at first glance to perform MUCH better then Mr. Bush did.

dont you think that our leaders should perform at least as well as the citizens who are in the fight? What would be your explanation as to why Bush was "reading" and the people on 93 were figuring out by all accounts, how to get into the fight?

The WTC and Vince Foster. You might think that the forensics were botched, but other then the "psuedo" experts that Mr. FAlwell and others rely on you have no one who agrees with "you" or anyone else for that matter.

Do you really accept the premise that the nations news media, would let this go by? OK Fox news and the "take me babes" was a few years into the future, But George Will, no flaming liberal more or less took down on Brinkley with Brinkley a few of the Vince Foster conspiracy people.

I recall this quite well. The "liberals" on the show just STFU and let Will do all the questioning. The Two guys on the show imploded in the first segement. They have no proof, Will had forensic evidence and experts that shut theirs down...

Not even Ken STarr found anything here.

Do you think that Ken Starr would have "let it go"...since he blew up over something trivial anyway?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 12, 2007 07:53 PM

Is it so crazy to believe

Posted by narciso at May 12, 2007 06:46 PM

Well my reply would be, that it is "crazy" to beleive anything without proof, unless one is in a religious setting where faith is the coin of the realm.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 12, 2007 07:56 PM

-A blog isn't a town meeting, it's private property. Banning commenters or deleting comments isn't censorship and doesn't harm the affected commenters. They can easily comment elsewhere at no cost. Why don't they? Because in most cases few people would read their disorganized, poorly reasoned, misspelled screeds if they did so. The intentionally disruptive ones are, therefore, parasites rather than free-speech paragons. Blog owners should feel no guilt about restricting their comments.

-Commenters like Robert Oler are not harmless. (Raoul Ortega is exactly right about this.) They destroy productive discussions. Trying to ignore them doesn't work, because no matter how much the blog owner urges restraint, in any discussion the odds that someone will argue with the troll approach 1 as the discussion grows beyond a handful of participants. As traffic grows, the blog owner must take an active role or the comments section will eventually come to be dominated by jerks.

-I don't think this post is helpful. What troll wouldn't enjoy a post devoted to him? It's like a payoff for trolling.

-Suggestions: Never mind banning, posting a comments policy, etc. Just delete abusive, off topic or excessively long comments -- no warning, no discussion, no argument, just do it. You're not hurting anyone. The decent people who sometimes go overboard will improve their behavior; the jerks will look for greener pastures. Finally, I agree partially with Raoul Ortega on the wisdom of limiting the number of comments that anyone can make. I suggest that instead of making rules about who can post how many comments, you simply start deleting comments that don't add to the discussion. For commenters like Oler, BS or the quarrelsome anonymi, even if the first comment is reasonable and deserves to be left (not always the case), subsequent comments should usually be axed.

-Or don't have comments. It all depends on the value of your time and how much you enjoy administering your blog.

Posted by Jonathan at May 12, 2007 08:22 PM

Just one note... whatever you do, be clear and open about it. Some blog owners have deleted or edited posts and banned posters in such a way as to distort what the posters were saying, often to make reasonable disagreements appear deranged. I would strongly recommend against deleting posts (beyond pure spam and blatant flamewars), in favor of poster-level bans. In addition, depending on the db you use, try to keep some sort of archive that is easily s3archable (stupid filter) where you can pull up many threads and post them to a new entry or on a special page... that way, if the arguement breaks out that the ban was uncalled for, you can display a healthy (and more importantly, unedited) list of the banned poster's comments, complete with the threads (for context; otherwise, it's not really fair) they occurred in, and let the readers draw the conclusion.

Posted by Big D at May 12, 2007 09:49 PM

I think you should cut Oler some slack due to his unique circumstances. He is trying to post these replies while directing SAR on his ham radio and advising presidential candidates on the phone. That would be enough for any man, but he is doing it from his 737 cockpit, while shooting a dead stick, night carrier landing in a typhoon.

Posted by john hare at May 13, 2007 02:21 PM

I think you should cut Oler some slack due to his unique circumstances.

Yeah, maybe you're right, John. I hadn't taken his incredibly heroic situation into consideration when I wrote that post. Where, after all, would we and the free world be without Robert G. Oler?

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 13, 2007 02:25 PM

> The difference is Bob, we didn't see Vince Foster
shoot himself, and the forensic
> investigation afterward was flawed to be charitable. We saw
those planes hit, Bob

"A difference must make a difference to be a difference." Investigations, facts, and evidence don't matter to Robert.

Rand, I take back what I said. The worst problem with Oler is not that he writes "like a drunk," as several people put it.

The worst problem is that he lies, constantly, about everything, from his resume to political issues to stupid stuff like claiming a 757 can cruise at 53,000 feet on a single engine. Even if Robert managed to bring his writing skills up to the high school level, that would still make his postings worthless.

If you were to ban him, I think everyone would be happier including Robert -- who could then use the banning as further evidence of the vast right-wing conspiracy against him. There is obviously very little happiness in Robert's life so, please, make him happy. :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at May 13, 2007 02:41 PM

"a 757 can cruise at 53,000 feet on a single engine"

IF he actually wrote this, did he specify a planet? Or at least an air temperature?

Because, it COULD be factually accurate, under the correct circumstances.

Posted by MG at May 13, 2007 05:25 PM

Hmmmm.....

I was on a Delta Airlines flight in a 757 in 2001 and when one engine went out we had to make an unscheduled landing in Phoenix (we were going to LA). The plane immediately slowed down cut as much power as possible in order to conserve resources for landing.

While something like that may be physically possible, no sane airliner or pilot would do so, especially with a hundred & fifty people on board.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at May 13, 2007 05:35 PM

"As can be seen from the first comment, he's decided to get a sharper spade, and attempt to find a deeper bottom..."

I think most bozos like this have a fleet of backhoes on retainer.

Or they borrow one from the DNC....

Posted by Barbara Skolaut at May 13, 2007 05:43 PM

Also, it might be easier if the aircraft was not trying to do it at steady, level flight, but was perhaps at the top of a parabolic trajectory.

It would be "unsteady flight", but I suppose it could happen:

"Zoom climb" with two engines on a minimally payloaded aircraft.

At the top, cut one engine, and

VOILA:

A 757, on one engine, flying at 50,000+ feet.

Posted by MG at May 13, 2007 06:45 PM

"a 757 can cruise at 53,000 feet on a single engine"

IF he actually wrote this, did he specify a planet? Or at least an air temperature?

Not specifically, but he did say he was doing a mid-air refueling at the time -- because, of course, this wasn't an ordinary 757 but one of those special Navy versions only he has access to.

So, it's safe to assume it happened somewhere on "Planet Oler."

Posted by Edward Wright at May 13, 2007 07:24 PM

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at May 13, 2007 05:35 PM

What you experienced is called "drift down". You dont say where you were coming from, but doubtless you were at cruise when this happened. That was somewhere in either the 30's or 40's depending on the winds (heading west sometimes lower is better).

None of the Boeing midsized twins can maintain that flight level on one engine. The trick is to slow to "drift down speed" while holding altitude at the original flight level. Then once that speed is reached descend at that speed. Eventually you will reach an altitude (in the high teens to 20's depending upon a number of factors; weight, use of bleed air for engine and wing anti ice and if one can transfer the pressurization load to the APU...which Delta's can). the biggest gig is that use of wing anti ice really knocks the number down.

The other factor that has to be "looked at" in the area west of the plains is terrain clearance Method 1 and method 2 for a 121 Twin. There are some requirements that put you on a certian "route" in both the twin engine config (at certian weights) and then if you go single engine to maintain appropriate obstacle clearance over the clouds with rocks in them.

It is quite amazing how this limits what happens next even in airplanes like the nickle seven.

All of Boeings "high bypass fan twins" are vastly overpowered twin engine because at their heavy weights (compared to non high bypass fans) they must meet fairly stringent V1 takeoff requirements and the drift down gig. The ETOPS requirements are even somewhat more stringent.

Stopping in Phoenix is pretty standard coming from the east if one shuts down one on any of the "big twins". The method 1 and method 2 drift down are hard to meet going into LAX. The rules require "landing at nearest suitable airport" for a twin on one...but That could easily mean going on to ATL if the nickle seven lost one just leveling at cruise going from ORD to ATL.

Had the trip been reversed say going from LAX to DFW and the engine was shut down over Phoenix....one could make a case for going on to DFW. the FAA bought a recent example of someone having done that. They had a fairly good reason why it was the "nearest suitable"...

Single engine flight in the nickle seven is like all modern Boeing twins rather easy. The FMS does all the heavy calculations for you. Pop on the wing anti ice and it recalculates the drift down altitude. Transfer the pnuematic air/cycle conditioner (PACK) over to the APU and the DD number goes up...all on the FMS and all nicely drawn by the EFIS.

It doesnt have FBW so no auto rudder. But even women can do it.

The Dreamliner's big concern is not bleed air, but electrical power. It doesnt take air out of the engine as much.

Awesome plane.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 13, 2007 07:44 PM

Mr. Oler, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Posted by Principal Max Anderson at May 13, 2007 08:01 PM

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at May 13, 2007 05:35 PM

One more thing Dennis.

the nickle seven can actually "go higher" then its certified service ceiling even on two engines. Particularly in "lightly loaded" categories such as "green airplane" ferry etc.

There are two "ultimate limitations" on the service ceiling. The airplane "wings out" before it powers out in a green airplane configuration. The "coffin corner" starts getting very very thin (ie high speed/slow speed stall). The second is that the pressurization system wont sustain a cabin altitude below 8K much above its sc.

In passenger service there are other (besides weight) limitations. The onboard passenger O2 system is not pressure O2 so in the event of "a loss of cabin pressure" the passengers would simply not be able to breath using that system above the SC.

Indeed the "high dive" (emergency descent) has to be demonstrated on a type ride to get below FL 300 by a certian time in the manuever...or the people in the back are "less" then what you started with.

The Flight attendants have pressure O2 but only if they are near a walkaround bottle. The drivers up front do as well, but as the Greeks (I think it has been awhile) demonstrated that doesnt work very well, if you dont turn it on.

That had to have been a real cooker.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 13, 2007 08:08 PM

Posted by Principal Max Anderson at May 13, 2007 08:01 PM

thank you max..

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 13, 2007 08:09 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE

anyone want to see a critical engine failure in the nickle seven and a textbook performance by the crew and ATC, and the fire brigade...

this is it.even during the compressor stalls there is almost no "yaw deflection".

well done

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 13, 2007 10:07 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE

anyone want to see a critical engine failure in the nickle seven and a textbook performance by the crew and ATC, and the fire brigade...

this is it.even during the compressor stalls there is almost no "yaw deflection".

well done

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 13, 2007 10:08 PM

Dennis, the 757 has a service ceiling of 42,000 feet. They never fly at 53,000, even with both engines working.

Robert probably meant to write "35,000" and transposed two digits, but instead of admitting that mistake he's still defending it after all these years because, well, he's got a reputation as an idiot to maintain. :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at May 13, 2007 10:35 PM

"-I don't think this post is helpful. What troll wouldn't enjoy a post devoted to him? It's like a payoff for trolling.

I totally agree with Jonathan. Especially the part about making an entire post specifically about Oler. From comment number one he knows the spotlight is on him and he's struttin' around the place with his chest puffed out, "I have to go fly and that means 12 hours or so...". Yea Mr. Bigshot here is just to busy hangin' ten in the sky looking down on all the little people beneath his feet. "In the last year my current boss has reintroduced me to boxing. It was something I left a few years ago." Aside from the fact that this sounds like a line straight out of Napoleon Dynamite it serves as a good example of what repeated blows to the head can do for a person.

Everyone appreciates a fair and judicious moderator. I think more respect can possibly be gained from deftly swiping errant posts. I even honestly realize this type of management style would eliminate most mine as well and I wouldn't take it personally. I believe if off topic post removal was done with moderation and restraint then people probably wouldn't even notice. I used to make the occasional long rambling rant in the past but after reading Swiderski's and Oler's enough times I realize now the error of my ways. A limit to the comment length could be a good remedy. If someone is interested in sticking around they will learn to make their points more eloquent and concise. As well, they will possibly begin to learn what subject matter would prove appropriate for these here comment threads.

However, as long as this arena has been set and the audience has gathered then a vote I must cast.

*holds thumb out flat*
*The crowd cheers for blood*
*Thumbs down!!*

Posted by Josh Reiter at May 13, 2007 11:29 PM

Way to go Josh, you've hit the nail without knowing it. Don't ban Oler, just have the server change his tag from Robert G Oler to Napoleon Dynamite. That way, we all know that whatever follows, comes with a giant serving of fantasy.

Posted by Mac at May 14, 2007 05:49 AM

The bad grammar and narcissism that are Robert add a certain je ne sais quois to the site. That reminds me. I need to clean up the dog's je ne sais quois today.

This is your site Rand. Why make it a democracy? If you do, before you know it we're going to be demanding free universal health care and 12 weeks of paid vacation. Trolls are like the illegal immigrants of the blogging world. Is a border fence the sollution or do we need to start aggressive deportations?

Posted by Gunga at May 14, 2007 06:48 AM

Posted by Edward Wright at May 13, 2007 10:35 PM

When you get more pilot credentials you will understand more!

take care

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 14, 2007 06:54 AM

Posted by Edward Wright at May 13, 2007 10:35 PM

this part got cut off.

707's never roll either, not even on two engines.

enjoy

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 14, 2007 06:55 AM

Rand, you're saying this retard has actually made a genuine contribution, at some point, somewhere? His deranged aimless ramblings on this thread reveal only a sad mental patient with access to MS Flight Simulator and a keyboard with an excess supply of quote keys.

Posted by Principal Max Anderson at May 14, 2007 08:02 AM

This sort of behavior on Mr. Oler's part got him booted off of the Clear Lake City Community Association board. He'd go on and on about who and what he knows but when he was called on to perform it was clear that he was all hat and no cattle.

Posted by CL local at May 14, 2007 08:30 AM

Ed writes

***
Dennis, the 757 has a service ceiling of 42,000 feet. They never fly at 53,000, even with both engines working.
***

Ed, yea I know, I just could not resist poking the beast to watch it roar for a while. While I don't really want him banned, you and I both know that he is such a loon that he will inevitibly self destruct, especially when posting late at night after a few drinks.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at May 14, 2007 08:37 AM

Posted by CL local at May 14, 2007 08:30 AM

not so much, I believe that I resigned because I couldnt make meetings anymore after a "job change" forced extensive time "out of the city".

It was all covered in the Citizen. It was a rather moving moment actually. I would have loved to stay to the end of the term, which I had stated was my last, it is a rather fatiguing job. But job circumstances precluded doing that. to many weeks "away from home".

Getting the finances back on track was a pretty big hurdle. Never know what happens "Latter".

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 14, 2007 08:53 AM

Yes, Mr.Oler had a job change. He got canned. It would seem that vt-b737.com is open under new management too.

Posted by CL local at May 14, 2007 10:38 AM

Hey Rand, now that you're donating entire posts and threads to Mr. Oler, why not go all the way and rename the blog to reflect this? Maybe Trans-Oler Musings?

Posted by Phil Fraering at May 14, 2007 11:18 AM

> 707's never roll either

Guess you never saw Tex Johnston do the barrel roll over Lake Washington.

Posted by Edward Wright at May 14, 2007 11:36 AM

you are priceless Ed. just wonderful.
Its really amazing.

I didnt 'see' Tex do the Gold Cup roll, not in person at least, but I have seen the video and the one inside the cabin.

I'm doing this continuing education thing (your paying for it at least in part!) and your post is so wonderful.

Take care buddy

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 14, 2007 01:02 PM

Posted by CL local at May 14, 2007 10:38 AM

no, just the web page is changing. Just got the state franchise tax in on Friday. a tiddy little source of income.

Thanks for keeping tabs...part of the charm.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 14, 2007 01:34 PM

Posted by Phil Fraering at May 14, 2007 11:18 AM

this has actually been very "fascinating". I am doing some continuing education and am working on a paper about blogs and the election cycle. Usually what one sees is a meltdown with people whose lot in life is just bordering on walmart stocker or something.

This is the extension of my main point to a semi to full professional class. Pure happenstance actually. It and the effort to take it to another "internets" (couldnt resist) site have been just wonderful material.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 14, 2007 01:38 PM

This sort of behavior on Mr. Oler's part got him booted off of the Clear Lake City Community Association board.

His position on the board? To hear Robert tell it, he was the board:

Your should know in my spare time I run a 1.8 million dollar 501C4 org...check out the Clear Lake Citty Community Association web site.

Remember the old plaque? "Six months ago, I coudn't spell pilut, and now I are one!" :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at May 14, 2007 06:14 PM

the President of the Board is, if he/she choices to be the most powerful board member. Just in the meetings, the Pres sets the agenda, is a standing member of each committee and is the only officer authorized (other then the Treasurer) to dispense cash.

When I was Pres the board was able to do enormous things that in no small measure changed the course of the association. Most I did by persuasion.

But I could be a rather domineering force as well.

The time angle is enormous. To "hold the deck" really one has to be at all the committee meetings etc and when the "show" got moved east, I just couldnt keep playing. It was one of the hardest decisions I had to make, but I didnt move the "show" east.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 14, 2007 06:49 PM

Yes, Mr. Oler could indeed be "domineering". This is what led to his departure from the board .... that and the fact that they grew tired of his tall tales and claims that he was on constant alert to be called up for special duty in Iraq as part of some special flight group.

Posted by CL local at May 14, 2007 06:59 PM

Laf

Here is a good one.

*******
no, just the web page is changing. Just got the state franchise tax in on Friday. a tiddy little source of income.
*******

Yea right. State Franchise tax. That is what you pay to the state for the right to have a franchise (corporation). You might want to change that income item to a liability.

(it is going to be fun the see the response to this)

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at May 14, 2007 07:18 PM

(it is going to be fun the see the response to this)

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at May 14, 2007 07:18 PM

then you are easily amused.

That is a good thing I guess.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 14, 2007 07:22 PM

Aw, come on, Dennis! Don't you know Robert's a sovereign state and collects his own taxes? :-)

"Sanity is a one trick pony, but when you're good and crazy, the sky's the limit!" -- The Tick, probably quoting Robert Oler

Posted by Edward Wright at May 14, 2007 09:52 PM

I gotta admit, you have a point there!

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at May 15, 2007 07:36 AM

this has actually been very "fascinating". I am doing some continuing education and am working on a paper about blogs and the election cycle. Usually what one sees is a meltdown with people whose lot in life is just bordering on walmart stocker or something.

I'm reminded of the old saw that debates on the internets have become contests where the person whose time is the least valuable win.

Congratulations, Mr. Oler, you're even beating out retail stock clerks in that regard.

I suppose it would be too much for Rand to take pity on us poor proles, whether we're in retail or not, and do whatever editing he has to so that there's a comments section we can keep up with?

Posted by Phil Fraering at May 15, 2007 08:57 AM

Dennis, Ed, and others, I'm sure you're having fun here, but I must ask: why feed the trolls? And yes, I realize that I have just become part of the troll-feeding process by typing this, as I am sure that said troll will simply not be able to resist replying.

Posted by Ed Minchau at May 15, 2007 11:07 PM

Ed W and I have a long history with this particular troll. From his secret missions during the Gulf War to his girlfriend's (former) bombing runs over Kosovo and Serbia (a good war to him) and now with his report that he actually recieves franchise tax payments we draw him out in order that through his missives, he can be judged by those who read his posts.

The thing about Oler is that while he is certifiable, he is actually very smart as well and for a while can give the appearance of sanity and well thought out positions. In a free society where we allow everyone's voice to be heard, it is sometimes difficult to differentate the sane from the insanse without allowing for the full flowering of discussion of a subject.

Remember that for the most part these blogs, chat groups, and other forums are forever, that is I can go back almost 20 years now and find posts of mine from usnet. Anyone who does a similar search can read and review someones posting record and draw conclusions as to the worth of their positions.

While there may be an element of troll baiting here it also serves a useful purpose.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at May 16, 2007 08:35 AM

Post a comment