Harry's Place

If you didn’t hack the account, why the comment from David T about guessing the password?

Something smells fishy…

What happened to the other comments?

Also, the blog hasn’t ‘disappeared’ as you claim, but now consists of a single post with the word ‘owned!’ (god knows what was there before).

How do you account for that?

“Both accounts incited racial hatred and the blog applauded racist violence. “

Indeed. But I was always taught to believe that the answer to hate speech wasn’t no speech, but rather rebuttal of their ‘evidence’…

“What happened to the other comments?”

They were truly disappeared. It seems my mention that this might constitute a cybercrime was a bit too much of a wakeup call for the brave keyboard warriors of HP.

HATEFUL CONTENT: Users may not publish material that promotes hate toward groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity.

http://www.blogger.com/content.g

We encourage free speech and defend everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view. But we do not permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status and sexual orientation/gender identity).

http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines

Julia, the hacking related comments were deleted as they were inaccurate and made false claims.

Then why the single post and the cartoon? That doesn’t seem Bloggers style. Blogs that have been suspended for this sort of thing just vanish.

They don’t leave a note saying why, and certainly not in a cryptic fashion.

“Julia, the hacking related comments were deleted as they were inaccurate and made false claims.”

You didn’t remove just my comments. You removed ALL comments.

And you haven’t answered my first question…

When a Blogger account is removed for TOS violations, the address is freed up for anyone to use. I’m providing BA’s ‘fans’ with a message that they’re not free to use privately owned internet services to encourage hatred and violence. As for the first question, why are you asking me?

On the issue of free speech for Nazis, I point you to Deborah Lipstadt’s excellent book Denying the Holocaust, in particular Chapter 10.

Ahhh, all clear now. Just a suggestion: why not add the blogger guidelines to your post on the site? That way, they’ll definitely get the message! Nice work, Edmund!

“When a Blogger account is removed for TOS violations, the address is freed up for anyone to use. “

Why would you want to, knowing what use it had been put to, and what sort of visitors you’d get? You are a strange, strange man..

“On the issue of free speech for Nazis, I point you to Deborah Lipstadt’s excellent book Denying the Holocaust, in particular Chapter 10.”

Ah, yes. We all remember how Deborah Lipstadt applied to have Irving’s ravings removed from all text books, and his books pulped, and his name expunged fr…

Oh. Wait. She didn’t did she? She faced him in open court and destroyed his ‘arguments’ one by one. When last seen, he was whining about being hard done by by his landlady in some grotty little B&B.

Don’t compare yourself to her. You aren’t fit to lace her shoes…

“As for the first question, why are you asking me?”

How about it then, David T?

It seems to be a spectacularly stupid thing for a person well versed in the law to imply. What were you thinking?

Dumbass

The Britain Awake blog was doing the BNP more harm than good, so I’d say it’s you that’s been owned, dumbass.

Euler has a point, no?

And anyone wishing to compare Deborah Lipstadt’s action with that of Standing is welcome to start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Lipstadt#Free_speech

I didn’t remove it – it went as a result of the report being published. The report highlighted the blog – it then got removed. It wasn’t likely to be found by the average person looking for info on the BNP so Euler, your argument makes no sense.

Julia, regarding Lipstadt, you obviously haven’t read her book or you wouldn’t be spouting such drivel. In the book, Lipstadt makes very clear the difference between free speech – the right of Nazis to speak their idiotic and vile views publicly – and the supposed ‘right’ they have to spout their views in newspapers, magazines, and so on. If a publication is privately owned, there is no ‘free speech’ requirement when it comes to promotion of hateful views. The same holds true with internet services run by private corporations.

Lipstadt, like me, opposes the jailing of Holocaust deniers. Lipstadt, like me, also opposes the false notion that publications (or in this case, providers of internet services) are duty bound to accept such material on ‘free speech’ grounds as such notions don’t apply to private companies and publications.

It’s you, Julia, who doesn’t understand Lipstadt’s arguments or, apparently, mine, and it’s you who, for some unaccountable reason, seems to object to the removal of pro-Nazi and hateful content from the internet. Tough. I’m not interested in wasting any more time on you.

By the way, regarding your claim that we should ‘rebut’ blogs that claim, as BA did, that violent attacks on immigrants are a ‘result’, that state that they would like to see mixed race school children through the sights of a gun, or that say bricks should be thrown at Muslim women, what is there to ‘rebut’? It just needs to be removed, plain and simple. You can’t have a civilised debate with someone like that, nor should you waste time trying to.

“Julia, regarding Lipstadt, you obviously haven’t read her book…”

And you are wrong AGAIN. I have.

“In the book, Lipstadt makes very clear the difference between free speech – the right of Nazis to speak their idiotic and vile views publicly – and the supposed ‘right’ they have to spout their views in newspapers, magazines, and so on.”

So all they have to do is create their own blog (not hosted on Blogger) to get round that. Which you now shown them how to do. A masterstroke…

“Tough. I’m not interested in wasting any more time on you.”

Well, indeed. You don’t have the courage of your convictions. You can’t argue your way out of a paper bag – your entire repertoire consists of running away when someone stands up to you, or silencing your interlocutor. How, then, are you any diffeent from these BNP goons?

“You can’t have a civilised debate with someone like that, nor should you waste time trying to.”

No, you should just silence them instead. That’s worked so well for you so far, hasn’t it?

Truly, you’ve become what you supposedly fight against…

Lipstadt, like me, opposes the jailing of Holocaust deniers. Lipstadt, like me, also opposes the false notion that publications (or in this case, providers of internet services) are duty bound to accept such material on ‘free speech’ grounds as such notions don’t apply to private companies and publications.

Reveling in the silencing of your opponents on the grounds that private companies don’t have free speech obligations is always unpleasant to watch. Were blogger.com (or whoever) to state that they were not prepared to provide a platform for people with six-letter names beginning with E, would you be so sanguine?

How, then, are you any diffeent from these BNP goons?

He doesn’t want to brick women in Hijabs?

state that they were not prepared to provide a platform for people with six-letter names beginning with E

First they came for the for the violent racists, eh?

Seriously guys, how are you any different to some total idiots?

Well done, and well done for hiting back at the odious Julia M

I might have some sympathy with her claim that racists can only be deafeated by arguement if we actually, and I’ve looked hard. had any evidence of her trying to argue against them.

Many regulars of this blog will have seen the rantings of the “Head of Legal” at the BNP Lee Barnes. Perhaps Julia M mightr explain how logic can defeat this or any other Nutzie Nutcase.

Old Sailor

I can see support for the BNP crumbling now that this blog has been closed down. This leaves us free to continue pursuing those policies that are causing increasing support for the BNP. Nothing can possibly go wrong now.

This is slippery ground. Nazi sites don’t particularly go in for naming individuals any more than HP.

The point is that while we can all agree that Nazi propaganda is vile and to be condemned there are a whole host of Muslims, Leftists, appeasing Christians, PC fanatics and others who would happily ban Harry’s Place on the grounds of misrepresenting the “religion of peace”.

I would need to be persuaded that a site is inciting violence before I could fully support it being banned. I am not sure anymore that inciting hatred should be subject to hate speech bans. Because I can see no point where you stop, once you go from race to religion.

I would need to be persuaded that a site is inciting violence before…

Well try reading the report then.

Muslim woman is attacked, site says: “It’s just a pity it wasn’t a brick they threw! Good work all the same lads!”

Black man is attacked, site says: “Quite frankly this bastard got all he deserved”

Well, I for one am very glad that the legal departments of multinational companies are in the forefront of fighting fascism. It should certainly help dispell the old Trot nonsense that big business is a friend of Nazism.

The Centre for Social Cohesion: am I funding this? I checked the website and read the usual nice but sinister phrases such as ’social cohesion’. Is this tied in with a ‘common purpose’?

Why are BNP idiotss allowed to. speek on this blogg!

DONT’ LET THEM! No Platform, for the NAzi’s scum..

Old Sailor

It says “posted by Edmund Standing” isn’t that liabel?

Another contributor to Harry’s Place prides himself on undermining free speech. When they come for you, Mr Standing, I hope there’ll be someone left to speak up for you.

have they votebots you. on you tube.

Oh come on Walt, if a blogger is in breach of the service provider’s terms of service, and is additionally posting material that’s likely to be in breach of incitement laws, then you can hardly blame anyone for bringing that to the provider’s notice.

What’s so disappointing is the impression that the priority is to destroy or obscure evidence of people going a bit BNP, rather than tackle the reasons for it. So you close down a blog, and suddenly the 95% of people who think immigration is too high are going to change their minds. No they’re not. It’s about as effective a way of tackling the BNP as writing “Nick Griffin is a bender” on a wall.

Result!

Why are BNP idiotss allowed to. speek on this blogg!

Old Sailor

Haviong just come back from the pub I find the above quote attributed to me.

Comparison of the ULR’s will prove this is not so.

I do not know why some arsehole is trying to land these comments on me but they are wrong. I have every reason to allow Nutzies to speak and entertain us with thier stupidity and bigotry (and Kiddy Buggery)

With regard to Wardytrons comments. There is enough evidence to demonstrate a hard conection between support and membership of the BNP and kiddy fiddling. Chalking that a particular BNP Candidate is a “nonce” up on walls or on the internet is not graffitti. It is a statement of fact.

Old Sailor

“The BNP is proof that Tyndall fu*d a pig.”

A PM og my aquaintance suggests that I refrase my postcript to my previous post.

So be it butty

“The BNP is proof that Tyndall fu*d a pig.”

Changed to

“The BNP is proof that Tyndal was fu*d by a pig”

Old Sailor = Happy to expose the Nutzies “Wherever they may be.”

There is enough evidence to demonstrate a hard conection between support and membership of the BNP and kiddy fiddling. Chalking that a particular BNP Candidate is a “nonce” up on walls or on the internet is not graffitti. It is a statement of fact

If that specifically named person is a convicted nonce, then yes, it’s a statement of fact. If he isn’t then it’s libel. But it’s recorded that you think that accusing people of being nonces without any evidence is ok.

OT: Anyone care to post about the wannabe Bristol bomber and how he was handed to the police by the mainstream Muslims at his mosque? Isn’t this the kind of thing we’ve all been shouting must happen?

I actually think it would be a bit patronising to write a post saying “moderate Muslims help convict a bad Muslim,” like it’s my job to mark Muslims. Also I think of Muslims as people and think of this case as people shop bloke.

OT, but related: “Israel aims to colonize Hungary with Jews, says extreme right” at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1100939.html

Utterly Barking Mad!

PassingThru –

Whilst the tip off was welcoming, the report I heard said it was a tip off from one person, but one gets the strong impression this bloke had been spouting off in an extremist manner for several months before the tip off.

There’s a big question mark there.

OT: “CBS Legend Walter Cronkite Dies:’Most Trusted Man in America’ passes away in New York at 92″ at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/17/eveningnews/main5170556.shtml?tag=cbsContentWrap;cbsContent

So Edmund describes what the accounts spout, Youtube and Blogspot choose to take them down and the problem is what with regards to Edmund?????

With fascists, there is no evidence, there is no opinion, there is no point. They are dreamers of the day, made ’sane’ by the mass temptation of the delusion they serve. Argue with a void if you want, but beware the vast vaccum you will have to fill and thus will consume you….

Fellow travellers confused…..

Look. Edmund’s generally a sensible chap. I don’t take the view that shutting down ill-read BNP or BNP-esque blogs achieves a great deal, but any effort Mr Standing has engaged in in a general regard, I salute.

Julia, you are sounding rather nutty. I suggest, gently, that you cease to do so. You are only hurting yourself.

I support any anti-BNP measure, including those which authors here (and Edmund has made this very clear) have nothing to do with in a specific sense.

Wardy, I take your point. But you will equally take the point that the shutting down of a hate speech site will have no effect in favour of BNP-type views.

Frankly, we should all let the government get on with introducing a points system and leave it at that. I have no doubt that this will affect views in a quite dramatic manner over time.

Wardy,

I agree with most of your comments, and Julia´s as well. Blogs are rarely taken down by Google and when they are the URL cannot be picked up by anyone else. This blog has been hacked, and HP is gloating about it…

About a year ago HP was down for a while as a result of some mad Hun and her legal threats. You were running around like a blue arsed fly trying to raise support for the site, and I was one of the mugs that rallied to your call. The Tomb and Neil Clark refused to lift a finger, with the former saying that HP basically had it coming.

Now HP is gloating at the hacking of a site, and forgetting that we are all in this blogging lark together and need to defend each other.

Don´t bother calling me the next time that HP is down.

“Many regulars of this blog will have seen the rantings of the “Head of Legal” at the BNP Lee Barnes. Perhaps Julia M mightr explain how logic can defeat this or any other Nutzie Nutcase.”

Because in using logic you aren’t addressing him. You are addressing all the people that might be listening to him and agreeing, if no competing voice is heard.

I didn’t think this was rocket science…

“I actually think it would be a bit patronising to write a post saying “moderate Muslims help convict a bad Muslim,” like it’s my job to mark Muslims. Also I think of Muslims as people and think of this case as people shop bloke.”

Well said.

“Julia, you are sounding rather nutty. I suggest, gently, that you cease to do so. You are only hurting yourself.”

Now, you see, Ben, if I really were ’sounding nutty’, as you put it, why would you not want me to continue? I would be, after all, only hurting myself, and if you disagree with my viewpoint, you should consider that a good thing. Shouldn’t you?

Yes, there’s a parallel there with allowing others to reveal themselves as what they are. Are you able to see it?

I suspect not…

You reds are a funny old bunch. You wank on endlessly about Naaaaaaaaaaaarziz and Fassists whilst flogging SOOOOOOOOOcialiss Weeeeeeeeeeeeerkah and yet you are willing to destroy the very liberty you claim to cherish in the name of… freedom and liberty ….. by stopping free speech. No Fascist or Communist mass murderers were stopped by shutting their blogs down or writing wanky little scribbles and blabbering about Social Cohesion. The very Guardianista ideology you are fucking in your heads is the cause of the rise of the ‘right’ in Europe. You hoard immigrants into Europe, shovel them into the cramped and sweaty end of the economic sphere in the societies, and expect the already poor and desperate to be happy to see their numbers swelled to breaking point.

Every liberal and socialist is a blood thirsty communist, itching to condemn the masses to the Gulag because the enightened elite doesn’t like what they say.

Fab.

Edmund, perhaps you can do a report on MPAC UK and get them closed down http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/5867/102/

According to them we have a Nazi Government.

I see their ilk as being the opposite arse cheek to the BNP, as GG would say.

About a year ago HP was down for a while as a result of some mad Hun and her legal threats. You were running around like a blue arsed fly trying to raise support for the site, and I was one of the mugs that rallied to your call

I’m fairly sure I did nothing. I’ll go further – I’d be disappointed with myself if there was evidence I did anything.

You wank on endlessly about Naaaaaaaaaaaarziz and Fassists whilst flogging SOOOOOOOOOcialiss Weeeeeeeeeeeeerkah

Who does? Certainly none of the regulars here – this is as rabidly anti-SWP a blog as you’ll find anywhere. As you’d know if you’d spent more than five seconds here.

Britain Awake did illustrate rather well what anti-fascists are up against.

It was a useful resource to quote from. It was very persuasive against itself, so much so that I sometimes suspected it was an elaborate set-piece or parody.

Be that as it may, I’m also for anything that thwarts and demoralises the BNP in non-violent and dedicated resistence to their messages of hate and division.

So on the whole I’m glad it’s gone.

Well done, Edmund Standing.

Blogger TOS-removal and hijacking is actually a long standing tactic of anti-paedophile activists as detailed here:

http://pedoblogtracker.blogspot.com/2006/10/bloggerblogspot-list.html

So maybe some anti-fascists borrowed the idea? (If so, big thumbs up ;) )

Not the first time that young Edmund has “owned” Nazi websites… see here for a clear example of a hack:

http://odinsgirl88.blogspot.com/

Are you using a rainbow table, Edmund, or brute-forcing the admin password?

Let us commence a journey into the much travelled topic of codebreaking. In depth analysis of codebreaking can be an enriching experience. Though codebreaking is a favourite topic of discussion amongst monarchs, presidents and dictators, codebreaking is featuring more and more in the ideals of the young and upwardly mobile. It still has the power to shock those most reliant on technology, many of whom fail to comprehend the full scope of codebreaking. Keeping all of this in mind, in this essay I will examine the major issues.

Society begins and ends with codebreaking. When The Tygers of Pan Tang sang ‘It’s lonely at the top. Everybody’s trying to do you in’ [1] , they saw clearly into the human heart. More a melody to societies dysfunctions than a parody of the self, codebreaking irons out misconceptions from our consciousness.

Special care must be taken when analysing such a delicate subject. On the other hand anyone that disagrees with me is an idiot. It breaks the mould, shattering man’s misunderstanding of man.

The dictionary defines economics as ‘the social science concerned with the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services’. We will primarily be focusing on the Maiden-Tuesday-Lending model, making allowances for recent changes in interest rates.

When displayed this way it becomes very clear that codebreaking is of great importance. Obviously oil prices world wide are driven entirely by codebreaking. Perhaps to coin a phrase codebreakingeconomics will be the buzz word of the century.

Machiavellian politics is rife. Are our leaders justified in pursuing and maintaining political power? Contrasting the numerous political activists campaigning for the interests of codebreaking can be like looking at playing with a puppy and singing with a blackbird.

One quote comes instantly to mind when examining this topic. I mean of course the words of jazz singer Achilles Bootlegger ‘Man’s greatest enemy is complacency with regards to personal and political hygiene.’ [2] Primarily, he is referring to codebreaking. Perhaps the word which sums up the importance of codebreaking to politics is ‘participation’.

One of the great ironies of this age is codebreaking. Isn’t it ironic, don’t you think?

To conclude codebreaking parades along man’s streets and man waves back. It enriches, brought up a generation and it brings the best out in people.

Let’s finish with a thought from star Ozzy Cruise: ‘At first I was afraid I was petrified. Thinking I could never live without codebreaking by my side.’ [3]

——————————————————————

[1] Tygers of Pang Tang – The Cage – 1982 MCR Records

[2] Bootlegger – Take It! – 1961 Viva Books

[3] Your codebreaking – Issue 43 – Never Ever Publishing

If you look at the website I linked to above, you can see that the blogger template has been altered, as well as a post inserted. This requires administrator rights. Unless Edmund had administrator rights on an openly Nazi blog (which seems very unlikely), one must conclude that Edmund hacked this site – which is illegal.

Foolishly, Edmund appears to have not changed the setting which makes this hacked blog visible to Google and other search engines. He also appears to have left his own name under the post inserted onto the blog – which is just plain stupid.

Edmund claims:

“When a Blogger account is removed for TOS violations, the address is freed up for anyone to use. “

This is false.

I just set up a blog at Blogger and then deleted the same.

I then attempted to set up another blog at Blogger with the same name and address. I was immediately informed that this name and address were unavailable.

Try it yourself. Set up a gmail account (if you do not have one) and then try to set up a blog with the following details:

Name: the n00b’s lament

Address: http://n00bslament.blogspot.com

Edmund, you hacked.

^^^Maybe deletion by the user and deletion by Blogger work in different ways (differently coded subroutines, in which one leaves the blog name in the database and the other removes it)?

How dare the BNP whip up hatred against muslims!

That’s Harry’s job.

elsaq

Plausible – but more plausible is that Edmund hacked the site and left his fingerprints all over his hacks because he is a fucking n00b.

If he did indeed hack it, then I reiterate my ealier (now disappeared) comments; this could be construed as a cybercrime.

It’s certainly not the way to go about claiming the moral high ground, is it? No wonder David T has kept silent…

“Foolishly, Edmund appears to have not changed the setting which makes this hacked blog visible to Google and other search engines. He also appears to have left his own name under the post inserted onto the blog – which is just plain stupid.”

Someone else who ‘fails at the Internet’ then?

“If you look at the website I linked to above, you can see that the blogger template has been altered, as well as a post inserted.”

The identical image (a cartoon hand pulling up Nazi-insignia weeds) has also been placed on the Britain Awake blog.

elsaq wrote:

Maybe deletion by the user and deletion by Blogger work in different ways (differently coded subroutines, in which one leaves the blog name in the database and the other removes it)?

When a blog is removed for ToS violation it is replaced by a page similar to:

Blog has been removed

Sorry, the blog at foobarxxx.blogspot.com has been removed. This address is not available for new blogs.

And as ermintrude reminds us, voluntary deletion of a blog by its owner similarly leaves the URL unavailable for re-use.

Edmund’s claim that the Britain Awake blog simply disappeared into the ether, presumably after some admin at Google read his pamphlet, is, to put it politely, implausible. I think Edmund’s been a naughty boy, and a foolish one.

Apart from anything else the action is counterproductive. I’m sure the BNP are happy to see the back of Britain Awake. And as wardytron says, killing one obscure extremist blog is not going to dissuade the Great British People from supporting the BNP. If anything it is more likely to be worth a few victim points, as the GBP will see your action as that of a “lefty bully and criminal”.

Similarly, the argument expressed upthread, that it is pointless to engage in discussion with “fascists”, is irrelevant. It’s not the “fascists” you’re trying to convince, is it? It’s the ordinary Joe in the polling booth who’s pissed off about immigration, etc.

How dare the BNP whip up hatred against muslims!

That’s Harry’s job.

Ok, here’s your challenge. There is now a law against incitement to religious hatred. If it’s this blog’s “job” to whip up hatred against Muslims, then you’ll be able to secure a conviction against it. Go on. Give it a go. If you succeed you won’t be dishonest vermin. Go on.

“If you succeed you won’t be dishonest vermin.”

Probably still will be, in all likelihood…

And as wardytron says, killing one obscure extremist blog is not going to dissuade the Great British People from supporting the BNP. If anything it is more likely to be worth a few victim points, as the GBP will see your action as that of a “lefty bully and criminal”

This is true, but it’s not why I’m opposed to concealing manifestations of rising BNP support. I don’t care whether or not silencing them is “counterproductive” – it’s obviously wrong and undemocratic. My point, and I am willing to be boring about this for as long as it takes, is that totally unfettered immigration is wrong, and is a loopy ultra-free market policy that has nearly zero support, and is the primary factor in rising support for the far right. Once it’s stopped one of the many beneficial effects will be a fall in support for the far right.

Innit a real big slippery slope when one – anyone -wants to boot other people off the internet?

I can’t believe Walter Cronkite has just died! I thought he died twenty years ago or more.

I certainly hope no one hacks my blog, QumChat!

Britain Awake is a vile blogger with extremely right-wing, racist views and even this small and little bit silly effort to remove him from a tiny part of the Internet is to be welcomed and saluted.

Well done Edmund!

I don’t understand. I have just read the CSC report about the Britain Awake blog but when I looked at it all I found was a post by ‘Edmund Standing’, who wrote the report. I have never seen this supposed nationalist blog, so where is the evidence that it ever existed? It seems very convenient to say you have taken it over, but why not leave the evidence there, if it ever existed?

The evidence is in the zip file of screen shots which is linked to early in the report.

If I knew how to hack blogs do you think I’d put up a post there under my real name?!

Incredible ‘logic’ from some of you!

Post summary: self-righteous lefty prat gets an obscure blog pulled and scurries over to HP to congratulate himself and bask in the warm glow of admiration from fellow “anti-fascists”. Another mortal blow to the heart of the Fourth Reich…or something.

Edmund Standing: Carve his Name with Pride.

“If I knew how to hack blogs do you think I’d put up a post there under my real name?!”

Honestly?

Yes. Yes, I think you really are just that arrogant. And just that dim…

It’s pretty obvious that Standing didn’t so much “hack” the blog as guessed the admin password, probably after numerous attempts to log in.

JuliaM – dry your eyes and stop screaming like a demented nazi-sympathising harpy. You have not made a single statement that makes sense. All Edmund did was report these creeps for violating the standards demanded by their webhost, and then give them a good solid virtual kick in the nuts, as he is perfectly entitled to do.

Slight correction – Edmund didn’t say he specifically reported them to their webhost, rather that the site was suspended following the publication of his csc report.

Don’t Make Me Laugh – “Guessing” the admin password *is* hacking. If you automate the process with a brute-forcer and an associated dictionary file, then it is still hacking.

Accessing someone else’s blog via their password is possibly illegal. It is certainly a breach of privacy.

Edmund

That you altered the style template of the blog I mentioned above, inserted images and a post (not a comment on a post), after presumably deleting all previous materials on that blog means that you must have gained administrator’s access to that blog.

That you left the comment under your own name speaks of either an extraordinary sense of your own importance, extreme nativity, or plausibly both.

Lot of unhappy scumbags tonight. Ermintrude, do you realise that deleting your account is not the same as having your account suspended by your web host?

And what is ‘extreme nativity’? Is that when you follow a wandering star to witness the birth of the baby Adolf?

“JuliaM – dry your eyes and stop screaming like a demented nazi-sympathising harpy.”

Oh dear, James, your reading comprehension fails you – also your attempt at diversion and casting the people pointing out Edmund’s tale doesn’t hold water as somehow being in league with the BNP. Really, that one’s failed so often it’s a wonder peopler still try to use it.

No-one objecting to this is a ‘Nazi sympathiser’ (capitalisation is important, you know..), least of all me. Not least because their own words were showing them up for what they were.

Enough people have commented that Edmund’s explanation for what happened is unlikely, and the appearance of the two identical websites casts doubt on his claim to have appropriated the names after official closure.

But it’s easily cleared up with a query to Blogger over their policy on what happens when a blog is taken down by them. Let’s see what they say, shall we?

Oh. And allow me to impart some wisdom to you that your mummy really should have drummed into you at a very early age:

Wrong + Wrong ≠ Right

Understand?

Ermintrude, – if there is a case to be made that Edmund Standing has lied about hacking that website, it hasn’t been made here. The comments so far posted to that effect make no sense. I see no rational arguments, no evidence, just a bunch of angry people making unsupported claims based on their assertions about how evil and devious Edmund Standing is. The fact that you cite “the number of people” who are apparently upset about this as though it adds weight to your argument is just more evidence of your inability to reason.

Something you should have been taught at a very early age:

suspicions ≠ proof.

Understand?

And even if he had done the ‘dastardly deed’ of hacking a neo- nazi website, the fact that you seem to view that as a sin AT LEAST equivalent to actually running a nazi website makes you the owner of one extremely broken moral compass. No doubt you were one of those crying buckets over Chris Hitchens violent poster tearing act in Lebanon.

“No-one objecting to this is a ‘Nazi sympathiser’ (capitalisation is important, you know..), least of all me. Not least because their own words were showing them up for what they were.”

Just out of interest then, do you dispute that their site was in violation of their host’s terms and conditions?

Oops – the above post was to JuliaM, not Ermintrude.

“I see no rational arguments, no evidence, just a bunch of angry people making unsupported claims based on their assertions about how evil and devious Edmund Standing is.”

It’s plain you don’t see what you wish not to see, that’s for sure.

And no-one here has called Edmund ‘evil’ or ‘devious’ – wrong, misguided, foolish for sure. Do you have reading comprehension problems?

“And even if he had done the ‘dastardly deed’ of hacking a neo- nazi website…”

‘Moral high ground’. Get a grown-up to explain it to you.

“Just out of interest then, do you dispute that their site was in violation of their host’s terms and conditions?”

I don’t work for Blogger, so whether I judge it to be so or not is of no consequence.

But if they did indeed take it down for violating their terms and conditions, would it make any sense for them to have then allowed the name to be used by someone else?

“I don’t work for Blogger, so whether I judge it to be so or not is of no consequence.”

It’s very interesting, JuliaM, to note the things that you seem to care a lot about, and the things you don’t give a shit about.

If there were any case to be made that they were not in violation of their TOS, I feel sure you would have made it here, most energetically.

“But if they did indeed take it down for violating their terms and conditions, would it make any sense for them to have then allowed the name to be used by someone else?”

Why not? It was the blog owners who violated their TOS, not the name “britainawakes”.

“It’s very interesting, JuliaM, to note the things that you seem to care a lot about, and the things you don’t give a shit about.”

Such as? Please do enlighten me as to the things you believe I ‘don’t give a shit about’.

Oh, wait. You are trying the same tack as Old Sailor, aren’t you?

Because I disapprove of hacking and censorship, I must therefore be in agreement with the people such tactics are targeted against. I guess you agree with the phrase ‘You are either with us, or against us’ then?

“If there were any case to be made that they were not in violation of their TOS, I feel sure you would have made it…”

If they were in violation, then:

a) why allow the blog name to stand for Edmund to take it over, and
b) it’s pointless because, as noted in the next post, they’ve just set up another one

“It was the blog owners who violated their TOS, not the name “britainawakes”.”

So, if a blog gets taken off the net because it breaks its TOS, it makes sense to give the name to someone else so they can then be mistaken for the notorious blog? What the hell are you smoking!

“Such as? Please do enlighten me as to the things you believe I ‘don’t give a shit about’.”

Who has got reading comprehension problems now?

I didn’t make any assumptions, just OBSERVED your indifference towards the issue of whether they broke their TOS, as compared with your fervent conviction, (based on zero evidence), that Edmund Standing did a naughty.

“So, if a blog gets taken off the net because it breaks its TOS, it makes sense to give the name to someone else so they can then be mistaken for the notorious blog? What the hell are you smoking!”

In your experience Julia, when a blog is hacked, do the owners normally start a new blog with a different name?

Or do they contact their host to get the damage reversed, passwords changed etc?

What are you smoking?

“I didn’t make any assumptions, just OBSERVED your indifference towards the issue of whether they broke their TOS…”

Why should I care whether they did or not? That’s a matter fr them, and for Blogger. No one else.

The issue of whether they broke their TOS certainly doesn’t concern me as much as the other issues around this blog.

“What are you smoking?”

I don’t smoke. I never took it up, just as I never took up self-defeating stunts on the Internet…

Repeating:

In your experience Julia, when a blog is hacked, do the owners normally start a new blog with a different name?

Or do they contact their host to get the damage reversed, passwords changed etc?

In your experience James, when a blog is deleted for breaking the TOS, does the hosting company normally allow other users to take over the name to start a new blog of their own?

It would appear so, since there is no attempt to take the site back by its original owners, nor, as far as I can see any announcement/ discussion of any such intention by them on their new site. Odd that, don’t you think?

Now try answering my question, at the third time of asking.

“It would appear so, since…”

Assumption again? It seems you are just as guilty of that as you claim I am…

“Now try answering my question, at the third time of asking.”

I would do so were I the blog host, yes. Why they haven’t, I can’t say. That’s down to them.

There is a difference between making an unsupported assumption(your position) and drawing an inescapable logical conclusion(my position). There is simply no reason why these scumbags would not say that their site had been hacked, and contact the webhost to get it reinstated under their own name, unless…they were not hacked, but banned.

Go figure, JuliaM.

I have noted with some alarm the large raft of people, including JuliaM, that seem very happy to defend racists, anti-Semites, homophobes and bigots.

I wonder why?

Daniel H-G, I point you at JuliaM’s posts above where she objects to the faulty logic of the line which runs “because X objects to hacking or other censorship, then x supports Nazis”.

I tell it simpler – I simply cite Godwin’s Law and the apparent inability of many on this site to argue reasonably without playing the Nazi/anti-Semite card.

Hello Moomin!

It doesn’t wash with Julai M because she is always diving in to rescue neo-Nazi types and bigots, an alarming pattern indeed and seriously, not all ideas or opinions are equal, shutting down a small part of the Internet that pukes hatred is all good.