Where's The Love? Alfred the Cake

Troll-bashing time again. The anonymous commenter 'Alfred the Cake' has been banned from this website. It seems the Cake was beginning to develop an unhealthy obsession with the blog so I'm taking preventative action. I have an idea of who it possibly might be, given away by the idioms and colloquialisms employed, however I do not wish to continue to casting pearls before swine. Therefore AOL user ACCB4266.ipt.aol.com, has had their IP address 172.203.66.102 blocked from this server, and will have to find another computer if they want to read this. Might I suggest a broadband connection too, saves waiting for the images to load. The nonsense began in this post. Now I will gladly debate with anyone who has an intelligent criticism of something I've written, as witnessed in a number of times on this blog. I will even allow myself to be proved wrong and make corrections as in this post, for example. However, I'll only tolerate insults as long as an argument has merit. Once it's devolved into childish babbling, name-calling and goading, no-one is going to learn anything from the experience. It doesn't take a genius to point out the irony displayed by 'the Cake' when 'defending' a victim based on the actions of a persecutor, by replicating the actions of that said persecutor. It's not about defending victims at all, it's more to do with the cult of celebrity. So here's the new comments policy anyhow: Baited comments that include lines such as "And no WAY will you let this one through - it makes you look bad!", "Dish it out, but you can't take it..." or in anyway reference 'free speech', will be treated as a bare-faced attempt to get the comment published. They will be rejected without a second thought. The aim of this is to encourage critics to actually present a good, reasoned argument. Comments that simply link to some article without one word from the author have the appearance of comment spam. Comment spam will be rejected. If you run out of good counter arguments, admit it rather than resorting to insults. If this happens your comments may be rejected. Criticism is welcomed, but must stay in context. Criticism of my post on environMENTALISM should stay in the remit of environMENTALISM and in the comments of that post. Carrying your bile into the next post on a completely different topic, or turning the argument into a personal attack, will get your comment rejected and unpublished. Below are some tips on style and form when writing comments: Don't say something like "I'll leave you and your titchy traffic site alone. You don't deserve my time..." then come back the next day to spend half an hour on posting another poison-filled rant, it comes across slightly inconsistent. Saying things along the lines of "If you're going to trash victims who write about their experiences, then what about fair comment on Christians who advertise their piety?" only elevates your troll-like status, since it shows you've not taken the time to actually read the blog. Don't expect to offer criticism without my own or someone else's rebuttal, then get all pissy about it. Do, reveal your identity (or at least online identity) if you expect to be taken seriously. If you post a reasonable comment and it didn't get accepted right away, it is because I am away from my computer sometimes for long periods of time. Not because I am trying to shutdown dissenters. If you disagree on a point of theology, or political opinion then offer your interpretation, knowledge or source, don't just declare your credentials and expect everyone to be wowed to silence. Penis size means nothing if you don't know what to do with it. On other matters... Uh huh, the forum has been a failure so far, which I was prepared for. I guess I didn't pimp it enough, but I'm actually thinking of doing another make-over of the website. The forum will soon disappear, I'm considering experimenting with Xoops content management system, either shifting this over to a Wordpress blog (which offers better management) or even disenfranchising the blog from the site, back to Blogger or Wordpress hosting. I'm also thinking of moving or changing the domain to a new web-host. I'll try to make any changes as smooth as possible but don't be surprised if the blog vanishes temporarily. I do hope that at some point in the future I can remove comment moderation, I really want to move on to other topics... Technorati Tags: blogging, trolls, comment moderation, criticism, vendetta, stalking

The Water In North London

C Controversial Putting myself up for a Northsquad hit again. It's been hard to ignore the volume of pageviews I've had from "Felicity Jane Lowde" searches. I blogged on the Rachel North stalking saga back in May, and it generated the most comments I've ever had for a post. I've had links from other bloggers who, like me, took a step back and tried to see the issues from a rational viewpoint. Sure Lowde may have been locked up and she may be in need of psychiatric care, but the fact that she is the 'loser' in this scenario, doesn't actually improve my opinion of Rachel North or her supporters one bit. In fact, I've been surprised by how judgmental and vitriolic these self-labeled 'liberal' bloggers really have been towards the mentally ill. In response to one attack blog, they ganged up and created multiple attack blogs. In response to nasty comments, they made nasty comments. I don't see the difference except that Lowde is behind bars and they are not. I put comment moderation on this blog, when I started to get into a circular argument with a troll and it was successful in silencing the troll without silencing those that chose to voice reasonable disagreement. Which means I did not need to report anyone to the police for harassment. Since there is still so much interest about this, I thought I'd take the initiative to try and compose a list of those blogs that have offered thoughtful analysis. If I link you below and it generates you unwanted attention, please let me know and I'll remove the link immediately (of course if you want me to add yours, likewise get in touch). Here is a list, in no particular order, of blogs that have not been drawn into mob-mentality: Drowning and Other Fragments Tim Worstall Isadub Living With The Conspiracy 24-7 Famous For 15 Megapixels Vandaweb Duff & Nonsense Libel Lawyers London (links to a good article by Craig H) Ronpanasonic The Policemans Blog Mike Powers Not A Blog Southpawpunch It's a sad fact that with the onset of web 2.0 making it easier for idiots to publish online, that a growing number now see it as a publicity extension, rather than the great technical and informational revolution that it is. Take for example, Brian Retkin, who I'd never heard of before (but now his recent actions have allowed me to form an opinion of him), who is suing Google for... wait for it... linking to websites that have defamed him! "Lawyers for Dotworlds, which registers distinctive domain names, have sent Google what lawyers call a "letter before action". Mr Renton, 48, the company's managing director, of Wembley, north London, said he would sue if Google did not take down the links about his company posted anonymously. "Based on what I know today, I am determined to go ahead with this," he added." - The Telegraph And guess where Mr Renton is from? ... North London! Something in the water, perhaps? It's time to seriously consider the nature and the future of the internet, because free information is under threat. Perhaps a change in the law is required, but if the world continues to allow bloggers and web-publishers to be taken to court for publishing their own opinions or thoughts then we can kiss the internet as we know it goodbye. We're one step away from a law companies setting up "No Win No Fee" sites for anyone who feels they have been libeled, defamed or had their feelings hurt. Long live FJL's blog! Not because it's right or wrong, but because it's an opinion, a record, and it exists. We should not modify the past in order to fit the present. EDIT (After a quick thought): I wonder how much revenue/incoming links Google generates for Mr Retkins site, dotworlds.net? If he is successful in his idiotic lawsuit, couldn't Google just remove all links to any material mentioning dotworlds.net and therefore render his site ignored and obsolete? That would be awesome... c'mon Google, your motto is "don't be evil" now teach an evildoer a lesson! UPDATE: Southpawpunch emails... Alex I see that you have listed some blogs that mention  the Lowde/North affair You may like to consider my post - [added above] (towards the end) This post generated complaint emails from North. Technorati Tags: felicity jane lowde, rachel north, blogidalirity, stalking, north london, dotworlds, harrassment, mentally ill, libel

Note to World: Please Remove Your Libel Against Me

O Offensive Caution, this one may offend. Contains libellous blog comments. I'm so craptastically sick of reading libel and counter-libel claims being slung back and forth between immature British bloggers (who shall remain anonymous), who get far too much attention for their drivel. I'm now going to post my own bit of libel just because it seems mandatory if you own a blog these days: Cow farts are responsible for Global Warming! I now expect throngs of cows from the blogging cow-munity to accuse me of libel and post contrary statistics that it is not farts but belches, to prove me wrong. What I'd like to see is a law that fines people for accusing someone of libel and not following it up in court- surely that in itself has to be a form of libel... like calling someone libellous or something. Can all British Cows who shout libel at least once a month on their blogs, please get off the internets, you're polluting the tubes with your methanes!

Lord Matt Appeal

This Post Is Rated: N for Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Contains reference to a possible abuse of process. Long time supporter and reader of Abandon All Fear, Lord Matt reports his local council's zealousness over council tax collection. Despite being subject to council tax benefit (which is under review) they haven't given him any time to respond to a demand for payment before sending him a court summons. It smells like an abuse of process but Alex Fear is limited to his experience with parking enforcement and speeding. If anyone has an idea about these things, feel free to get in touch with LM, as he is now facing a bill of £1000 or more. LM's Court Appeal Blog of trial and courts decision Thanet Council breaching the law?   Technorati Tags: council tax, lord matt, appeal, court summons

Shout Out To Those I RSS

This Post Is Rated: F for Friendly shout out. Just finished updating a new page purely for a list of blogs I read, rss or occasionally visit. In no particular order or preference. Here are the blogs. I will be modifying the links page to feature websites only, however some of these may soon cross over to resources. The objective here is to turn AAF into a conglomerate of non-professional advice, information and experience on challenging corrupt or pharisaic authorities that make the decisions and rules for us to live by, but don't necessarily follow the rules themselves.

How To Be A Victim

This Post Is Rated: O for Downright Offensive! It's controversial! Get your lawyers, call the police, a blogger has commented on a hot issue and we don't agree with his opinion. Whoa, Alex, getting personal now? Well, in a way yes, but no, not really. I've noticed a few bloggers have started to post wanted images for a blogger named Felicity Jane Lowde (FJL) recently, regarding an ongoing legal dispute generated by what can only be described as a cat-fight, between her and perpetual victim of things like malice and 7/7, Rachel North. After reading both blogs, and opinions of other bloggers, I decided on what I thought was the best response to the growing hysteria and lynch-mob that has resulted. I have posted a similar warning for the blogosphere. What has taken place was avoidable and unnecessary. It's hard to tell how it started since both women seem to have deleted comments and posts (North more evidently than FJL), but it is possible to assume that FJL began by trolling Norths blog. To read some of FJL's early postings on her blog, you wonder how it turned so nasty. Similarly North started out simply wanting to share her story of survival. It seems that FJL does have a checkered past with allegations brought against her (no official sources) on a couple of forums. She appears to have picked up a real stalker at some point early 2006. She was initially supportive of North and the Kings Cross United movement. In May 2006 she posted a constructively critical piece on the KCU and Rachel North. Having read it, I can say it was in no way vitriolic or without merit. It was written as a genuine concern (one I would have shared at the time) and I think she was entitled to post this on her own blog. The following month, FJL testifies having "problems with Rachel North", in the form of a "plethora of angry and aggressive mails from the self appointed public enquiry head campaigner". So big deal, right? This is the blogosphere, people have strong opinions and people are entitled to them. But suddenly what was originally a difference of ideas and opinions descended into vendetta's, accusations and eventually police involvement. In my own mind (which may not be right), if you can't take public criticism or the odd troll, you shouldn't be blogging. But the ridiculousness of this situation and the fault of both these women, is that they obviously did not know that blogs, posts and comments can be deleted, IP addresses can be blocked, and comments can be moderated. Instead, they both entered into a pissing contest to prove who had been abused the most. One woman chose to publish it all on her blog, the other kept it low key and delete comments/posts (unfortunately -which makes it difficult for me to present her side). It ended with confiscation of FJL's computer and her subsequent conviction for "cyber-bullying" and harassment. FJL's life being obviously decimated, has reportedly skipped bail and is on the run. Not satisfied with justice being done, North decided to go public, which comes across to me as simply gloating and sneering. Still not content with coming out on top, she has also spearheaded the aforementioned blog-campaign for vigilantes to find and shop FJL. The following quote is apparently a police description of FJL. Sounds a bit too bitchy for the police: "The police are unable to release her arrest photo, but say she has aged and put on considerable amounts of weight since it was taken. Age 41 ( police say she appears older). 5'8 tall. Size 16/18 ( police say overweight for height) Eyes brown/green with unusual squinting appearance in one eye. Hair mouse/light brown, possibly some grey" Rachel North (Italics mine) I had never heard of these two women till recently from a couple of other blogs I read. I've seen examples of trolling and flaming. I've even had a few trolls on my blogs in the past (though I'm not a prominent blogger or widely read). I believe that gives me a unique perspective in that I am able to look at both blogs, both sides and assess what I see. From my point of view, it's clear that FJL comes across on her blogs as slightly obsessed with Rachel North. She has created a number of strange defense blogs (here, here and here) when there is only need for one. In her defense, she posts a lot of evidence and exchanges that have taken place, so even if you do not agree with her- there is a method to her madness, so to speak. FJL could have a mental illness, again she appears to to be highly paranoid and suspicious. However this does not make her an evil or bad person. Mental Illness is an illness. If FJL suffers from it then she needs to be treated with an attitude of forgiveness and care. IF FJL is mentally ill, then she has an excuse for her odd behaviour, which prompts me to question those who oppose her: what is your excuse? "Don't answer the foolish argument of fools, or you will become as foolish as they are." - Solomon On the other hand, North hardly smells of roses. FJL has accused her of "using press attention to further what are ambitious career goals in journalism rather than help other deserving people quietly get to the truth of the matter (May 04 2006)". To be fair, FJL may not be far off the mark. Of course, I'm not saying that North shouldn't have a career in journalism, but why write under the blog pseudonym? It's clear she has benefited from the publicity. FJL is not the only critic that North has had on her blog and she has had no problem moderating comments in the past. This should not have got as far as the police. This could have been dealt with by methods I mentioned above. Even persistent trolls can be dealt with and eventually tire when they are moderated, ignored and blocked. It seems to me that North was either: a) Ignorant of online forum and blog culture and the methods for dealing with hostile posters and/or b) Wanted to escalate the situation, possibly motivated by desire for justice revenge on one of her critics Yes, Option B sounds strong. But why now try to turn the blogosphere against a woman who is now obviously disturbed and unstable? If it is indeed with the police, leave it for them to find her. Why not host a more worthwhile campaign on your blog, is it really worth the hyperbole? I wonder, if Tony Blair ever decides to pursue libel against bloggers, how many of us would also end up with our computers confiscated, eh Rachel? What hasn't been helpful in escalating this sad affair is supporters of Rachel North. They are not innocent and are themselves guilty of the same accusations levelled against FJN. I suspect many people are blogging about this and adding the 'Wanted FJN' badge to their website without knowing the full story or reading both blogs. They have simply bought into the mob-mentality. I'm convinced some bloggers out there care little about what campaigns they are supporting, but simply leap for the chance to add another 150x200px badge to their sidebar. Blog-Solidarity - Blogidarity. As mentioned, North had her other critics, most notably David Duff (Duff & Nonsense). Last year Duff posted on his blog: "Rachel North is a young woman from north London who was on a train hit by Islamist terrorists on July 7th last year. I first crossed 'pens' with her over at The Sharpener (I can't find the link but it was about a month ago) and then again yesterday and today on her own site - although you will be hard pushed to find much because she censored me first before banning me! Apparently I "insulted" her by, amongst other things, suggesting that she was mounting a political platform on the backs of the dead and wounded." - Rachel North from Planet Zog Rachel responded in the comments: "...In fact, we have corresponded once before, on one day, by email, and the correspondence relates to you querying why I did not pass a comment made by you on my blog. I said 'Just to let you know disagreement is fine, but personal attacks which add nothing to the debate will be binned. Your call. If you can't manage to post without insults, then please don't bother' This related to a comment which you attempted to post on my blog in which you said my volunary work with survivors in setting up a PTSD support group, my writing a blog and campaigning for an independent inquiry into 7/7 was 'standing on the backs of the dead and wounded of 7/7'. I explained to you that I found this deeply offensive and that was why I was not publishing your comment. You then apologised and sent another comment, which I did publish..." There was then a comment from FJL which prompted Duff to intervene with a humourous but insightful retort: "Ladies, ladies, you are at risk of resembling a pair of drunken biddies fighting outside a pub! STOP IT, both of you! But if you are enjoying it so much that you really can't stop, then please do it somewhere else. The blog equivalent of ladies wrestling in mud holds no attraction for me so please do it elsewhere." However they BOTH paid no heed to his request and made further side jabs against each other, in the comments, until losing interest. Recently Duff has commented on the Liberati Lynch Mob that has formed since. Duff was right. This is nothing more than the blog equivalent of two drunk ladettes fighting outside a pub. There was no need for others to get involved. There was no need to form a lynch mob. They should have BOTH been ignored. I realise this will not be a popular post, I don't have a huge circulation of regular readers. I usually get about 15-20 SE hits a day, so it's quite conceivable I'm now exposing myself to supporters of Rachel North in the form of trolling. Since I've linked extensively to North, I imagine she'll see this post, and if she stays true to form, she will comment, as I have noticed on all other blogs I have viewed linking to the witch hunt. So Rachel, feel free to comment and defend yourself, but be prepared for my response. Here. And good luck with the new book, for which Lowde has undoubtedly brought much unintentional publicity.