Tribbett uses his blog to call candidates for office things such as the “South County B!tch” and “Downballot D0uche Bags” and to spread defamation of other bloggers such as when he peddled the “discovery” that someone had registered a web site for the Old Dominion Blog Alliance and forwarded it to the NAMBLA web site. Of course, it all got traced back to him and Joe Stanley in the end.

Seriously, does anyone not drinking the Kos Kool Aid even go to his pathetic web site anymore?

That was a very interesting panel discussion on the ethics of blogging. I believe Laf will post the link to it.

My good friend Ed, is writing a book for the CIA on Deception and Deceit techniques” and how it is prevelant in modern politics to fool the people, manipulate truth, and hide the truth so you can do whatever you want politically.

It includes excerpts from original papers of the scientists making the discoveries. I’m a fan of collecting and reading the original works, Euclid, Newton, Faraday, Einstein, Galileo, Copernicus, Pauling, Maxwell, Feynmann, Plank, Hawkings, Penrose, etc, etc, etc are some of my heros. I only wish I was born half as smart as some of them.

I post a few references, really interesting research going on in this hormone and brain receptor field and its affect on our emotions, intelligence and behavior, especially in recent whitepapers and neuro-journals. Unfortunately Greg’s spam filter stopped them. If he posts them later I think you will find them a good read.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061001204452.htm

http://www.nida.nih.gov/scienceofaddiction/brain.html

http://www.livescience.com/health/071004-stress-memory.html

There is a lot more out there that covers the mechanisms but this is a good example.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061001204452.htm

I had hoped to bring up your coverage of the Rack and Roll, to chastise the news media for not either digging in and getting to the truth one way or another. I think it would have made a better discussion given Marc’s presence and Susan’s.

I agree with you in part about the lawyer/blogger split. I happen to like the policy/lawyer talk, but it was like a separate topic from the bloggers. In my opinion it would have been better to just have 4 bloggers, and to cover the legal aspects if they wanted another month. But I’m not going to fault the committee, I’m not sure that was clear to them ahead of time (it became clear to me when trying to prepare).

I think Ben and Greg together on the panel would have been THE BEST!

People actually watch those things?

Did you happen to catch the “debate” last night? Hillary is against English as being the “official” language of this country and sees no problem with all English speakers having to learn Spanish.

Here are some other ownership situations to ponder and compare.

1. I own the house, therefore you can only say what I will allow in my house, you cannot tresspass or do whatever you want in my home without my permission. However I cannot shoot you except in self defense.
2. I don’t own the airways, public radio waves, but the government can censor them, because they own them. I have free speech laws that limit what I can say in public, primarily based on the politics of man-made religious doctrine.
3. I don’t own the public telephone lines, but the phone company has no right to eavesdrop or change my content before it gets to the intended audience. The government however can tap this, but only under court order or rights under Anti-Terrorism laws. My company owns my e-mail and internet acount and can fire me for what I say or read on their intranet.
4. I don’t own the space in a church, but church members have a right to censor what is said in public, but not in private and can be legally held accountable for what they say (defamation), but not for what they preach. Unless they preach revolution, subversion of the state, or the killing of public officials.
5. I don’t own the space in a parking lot, or the air in a theater, but I can be held legally acountable for yelling “fire”, or verbally abusing a patron, but can yell or post anything I want as long as it is on public property or land I own to annoy others without legal rights to shut me up.
6. I own the content of what’s printed in a newspaper, but can control what gets said, or printed whatever personal political view I want to express. I can be influenced by others politically, but cannot be imprisioned for saying anything I want about the government or public officials, except things prohibited by decency laws or incompatible with current Supreme Court rullings regarding race, religion, gender or ethnic group comments. I can protect my sources legally, even if what I learn is criminal.
7. I can be held liable for anything I say in a public venue, write in a book, and in fact can be held legally acountable for anything I permit to persist in a public venue that can cause or support a crime, therefore I am obligated to control that content to avoid a legal consequence
8. I own my sidewalk but must clean it of snow to avoid a personal lawsuit should a person fall and slip, even though they trespass without my permission, I am still responsible legally for their lack of skill for walking over ice and snow.
9. I don’t own my street, and so don’t have to clear it of snow. and am not legally liable for anything that happens on it, except a law I break.
10. I can do whatever I want until somebody takes me to court and wins, or makes my life so miserable politically, that I will succumb to the political pressure under threat of embarrassment or exposure of the truth I don’t want people to know about.

All of these concepts involve censorship and ownership issues, the concepts of public deceit, privacy, free speech and laws made to protect the individual from prosecution over what is said, based on what I own or by others on what I own and what they own. It is interesting that all these free speech concepts and ownership rights are so inconsistant, IMHO.

Even the Soviets recognized the power of censorship for political purpose and could rationalize its use based on whoever was the self appointed judge of law, good taste and political ideology.

In my opinion it all comes down to personal social responsibilities, that vary with the political ideology of the person and how much they get away with before they are held accountable for hurting others.

On occassion I have seen bad judgement from a legal and social perspective, but who has a right to define bad judgement? For the most part blocking seems reasonable when it is breaking some law and unreasonable when it is not, especially if you offer a public venue, even though you can claim it is not.

Of course few laws currently cover blogs, compared to other public venues because blogs are too new.

Dude….Way! BE excellent to eachother, and PARTY ON! If you are going to catch some waves, make sure you only ride the positive ones…. Don’t be bogus…’casue that’s just , well bogus. Did you hear that? That was my skull….I am SOOO wasted…

Greg, if your server breaks, no problem. My dad is a TV repairman. He’s got an AWESOME set of tools.

As the moderator of this blog you have that right. If I have posted something in the past that didn’t suit your guidelines as the moderator, I apologize.

I appreciate having the place to voice my opinions. Thank you for putting forth the effort to provide this place on the web for us to discuss issues. I know how much of a thankless job it can be moderating things like this.

As for who picked the panel, I don’t know who did; I can only say that I had nothing to do with it. In fact, for what hindsight is worth, had I been asked, I probably would have suggested that Greg would have been a good choice, though I defended the failure to invite him as a defensible position above. While I was on the board of the C100 for a time, professional and other commitments precluded very much involvement. Thus, “Woodbridge Waiting’s” comment is simply inaccurate, as is his nonsense about being the “center of attention,” bold words from someone who comments here, and joins in the attempt to MAKE ME the center of attention. I tried to decline when Marc Fisher asked bloggers to stand. I hardly needed more attention, as I received a couple of nice comments by the panel, two of whom I had only met that night.

My first notice of this panel was when I received the newsletter. Much like everyone else.

When I have the chance to police the threads, I do remove comments from threads in order to try keep the peace, remove ugly content, bring the discussion back on track, or simply because I feel like it. Sometimes that makes some people unhappy, and I understand that. On balance I think it’s made quite a few people pleased that access to comment treads is largely free from restrictions, and managed so as to make them provide value for readers.

The bits and bytes of your comments are stored on my hard drives that I bought, and I pay the electric bill that keeps them spinning. I can choose to store the electrons you’ve sacrificed, or liberate them into the vast entropy of the universe. If you want ensure these bits and bytes are preserved for posterity, and disagree with my decisions, you are free to purchase your own hard drives, power them on your own dime, house them in a computer you buy, and maintain it with your own spare time. You cannot compel me to pay to preserve your pearls of wisdom, or promote them to the world on your behalf.

While BVBL enjoys the opportunity to express political speech free of government censorship, it does not assume a responsibility to pay for the storage, maintenance provision, and promotion of your free speech at my expense.

I hope that clears things up for a few folks.