Holiday Hiatus

Alex Fear and the Mrs are officially on holiday for 2 weeks from tomorrow, so the blogging will be light. We're actually looking for new flat to rent but we may just skip to the beach if the sun keeps (or catch a cheap 'environMENTALly unfriendly' flight away for a few days). In the meantime, any time I get at the 'puter will be devoted to testing a new CMS and thinking the best way to go about transferring this to a Wordpress blog (domain name/content). Look forward to changes, and better organisation of the resources (devoted to social action etc). In the meantime, click on one of the labels below to read through some previous topics.

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

They Know Not What They Do...

Here is an example of a victim who has every entitlement to want justice and revenge, but has chosen true courage and forgiveness. "THE man who horrifically injured a student after he threw a traffic cone from a bridge today escaped a jail sentence - after a plea from his victim... ...The 24-year-old postgraduate occupational therapy student suffered a badly broken skull and three fractured vertebrae in her spine. Her arms and legs were paralysed. However, the courageous victim, who is making a good recovery at home in Ireland - but is likely to have weakness in one or more limbs for the rest of her life - said she did not want to see Smith go to jail for his crime." - The Scotsman In other recent news, a would be suicide bomber was forgiven by Afghanistans President Hamid Karzai. "Rafiqullah's father, a poor tradesman from South Waziristan in Pakistan, had sent his son to a madrassa to learn the Koran. Later, when he asked where his son was, the teachers brushed him off, he said. Last month the boy was caught wearing a suicide vest on a motorcycle in the city of Khost... ..."You are now free and forgiven by the people of Afghanistan," [Karzai] told the boy with a smile." - The Sydney Morning Herald It brings to mind the stories of Anthony Walker's mother, Abigail Witchalls and Gordon Wilson. It strikes me that that these people know something about the human condition, the darkness that exists in the human heart. They also are aware on some level of their own failings and weaknesses. They understand what the Bruderhofs' Johann Christoph Arnold meant when he said: "Far from leaving us weak and vulnerable, forgiving empowers our lives and our work. It brings true closure to the most difficult situations, for it allows us to lay aside the riddles of retribution and human justice and to experience true peace of heart. More than that, it sets into motion a positive chain reaction that brings the fruits of our forgiveness to others." - The Lost Art of Forgiving A favourite quote of mine is from George MacDonald: "It may be infinitely worse to refuse to forgive than to murder, because the latter may be an impulse of a moment of heat, whereas the former is a cold and deliberate choice of the heart." The reality is that anyone can be a victim, it doesn't take brains or strength, just be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just as anyone can be a victim, anyone can condemn a murderer, rapist, bomber or any other offender. It doesn't take courage to recognise that someone has done wrong, or to celebrate when the offender is brought to justice. That's just natural. What does take courage and strength, however is to choose to forgive an offender when you have every right to be angry and demand justice. When you are innocent and they have acted with evil intent. Forgiveness is when you cross from living as a victim, to living as a righteous person. But before I'm accused of preachifying, like everyone else, I don't find it easy to forgive either. Forgiveness, or rather, the attitude of forgiveness is a hard one to master. But I recognise the importance and the help it has given me in my own life. Both me and my brother have had our fair share of childhood trauma. Many senseless things took place that were difficult to understand. If you want to hear what a victim sounds like I have a list as long as my arm of things I could tell you. I don't, however make a point of sharing these things on this blog because I do not want to be defined by what happens to me. I see these things as challenges, things to overcome, rather than depend on sympathy of others. Of course, I have mentioned some of my experiences in passing, when they have been relevant to a discussion. This makes sense. But I try to keep things relevant, to avoid emotional appeals and embarrassment. The point is, I have forgiven the things of the past, and will continue to forgive the things of the present. I think Martin Luthor King put it best in his 1957 Advice For Living Paper, where he speaks of love, but he's talking about the act of love that is forgiveness (ie. not returning 'hate for hate'): "Far from being the pious injunction of a Utopian dreamer, love is an absolute necessity for the survival of our civilization. To return hate for hate does nothing but intensify the existence of evil in the universe. Someone must have sense enough and religion enough to cut off the chain of hate and evil, and this can only be done through love. Moreover, love is creative and redemptive. Love builds up and unites; hate tears down and destroys. The aftermath of the "fight fire with fire" method which you suggest is bitterness and chaos; the aftermath of the love method is reconciliation and the creation of the beloved community. Physical force can repress, restrain, coerce, destroy, but it cannot create and organize anything permanent; only love can do that. Yes love--which means understanding, creative, redemptive goodwill, even for one's enemies--is the solution to the race problem. Often love is crucified and buried in a grave, but in the long run it rises up and redeems even that which crucifies it." - Volume IV: Symbol of the Movement (Advice for Living) Forgiveness is not burying ones head in the sand, it is actively making a choice to restore a broken relationship, whether it is a family, friendship or to the community. Even when standing against injustice (and I refer to the bibles intepretation of injustice, not the Daily Mail), and hypocrisy, an attitude of forgiveness is needed. The objective should be to see a person, organisation or company change its ways. As Alan Paton put it, "An offender can be punished... But to punish and not to restore, that is the greatest of all offences... If a man takes unto himself God's right to punish, then he must also take upon himself God's promise to restore." This means in criticism we should always try to offer a way out, offer a way for someone to admit their fault gracefully. Uh huh, something I am aware of and attempt to do, but admittedly I fail on occasion.

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

Stealing Abstracts Part 1

This Post Is Rated: I for Ooh... Illegal. Or is it... and what are the implications? It's already been done 1.3 million times and counting. After some careful consideration, I thought I'd join in and "break the law" too: 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0 This string of seemingly random numbers forms a key to unlocking the DRM on HD-DVD and Blue Ray hardware. The AACS-LA does not want people to publish this number. In fact it has even threatened legal action against those who choose to publish this set of numbers. I won't go into too much detail here because this story is old and there is already plenty of information on the web and it's been covered extensively by BoingBoing. But is it really illegal to publish a set of numbers? Interestingly (at the time of publishing this post) it has not been tested in court which really raises the question of whether it's actually illegal to own and publish these numbers. Can you really own a number? Something tells me it never will be tested, or if it is, the AACS will probably fail. Can you really see them filing a law-suit against 1.3 million people, many who probably don't even reside in America? Interestingly, Ed Felton of Freedom to Tinker already addressed the issue of 128-bit number ownership: Now, thanks to our newly developed VirtualLandGrab technology, you can own a 128-bit integer of your very own (and then presumably, start issuing take-down notices to anyone who publishes the numbers or keeps a copy of them). Here’s how we do it. First, we generate a fresh pseudorandom integer, just for you. Then we use your integer to encrypt a copyrighted haiku, thereby transforming your integer into a circumvention device capable of decrypting the haiku without your permission. We then give you all of our rights to decrypt the haiku using your integer. The DMCA does the rest. - You Can Own An Integer Too - Get Yours Here! I'm plan to do a follow up post on this subject as it demands a more thoughtful analysis, but my initial thoughts on this subject is that we have moved beyond a mere Information Age and are becoming part of a type of Information Revolution. Traditional business models and capitalist frameworks are being usurped by Creative Commons and Open Source. These examples speak for themselves: EFF: Public Interest Prevails in Digital Copyright Showdown The Inquirer: Linux Man says Microsoft screwed itself Finish Court Rules CSS Protection used in DVDs "ineffective" Lessig Blog: Required Reading: The Next 10 Years The Enquirer: EMI Has DRM Free Sales Boom SmartFlix: This Post is for You, Robert Tourtelot eCoustics: Dell Introduces Linux Based Computers Software Journal: Microsoft and IBM admits Google is now a rival... Whether you know it or not you are witness to a civil war taking place over the net. The internet is a type of 'wild west' or Electronic Frontier if you will. All the rules from the old country no longer count. If you Google search, blog, social network, make internet calls or have ever used any kind of free or open source software then you have already chosen your side or become a sympathiser for the revolutionaries. My second thought is this, by pursuing legal action even against people who simply publish a string of numbers (regardless of knowledge of how to use them), then the AACS and other vested interests are already losing the battle. They dilute the severity of their claim by attacking anyone without discretion, and they will be opening the door for people to claim ownership of numbers and text (see above)- the end result would be death of progress, innovation and design. Imagine a programmer that would have to obtain rights from a different 'owner' for every line of code they wrote for a new program? Perhaps the only way to move forward would be for programmers to learn Klingon or some other language- until the AACS claimed ownership of certain strings of Klingon numbers and words. In my view, those who are blurring the lines between what is and isn't illegal copying are the proprietors and proponents of DRM and the DMCA. More to come. Technorati Tags: drm, aacs key, dmca, copyright, open source, illegal, creative commons, electronic frontier, information revolution, hd-dvd, blue-ray, 09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0 DISCUSS THIS POST

The War Against Theism

This Post Is Rated: O for May be deemed Offensive. But it's not, really, not unless you want to be offended. Side Note: This is my first post using Microsoft's new Windows Live Writer, which works almost effortlessly with Blogger! It's amazing, Microsoft is actually embracing third party and open source?! It's actually pretty decent and so far was the easiest to configure amongst the ones I tested. I consider myself a fairly moderate/progressive Christian, someone who believes in all the tenets of the Christian faith, but also someone who you could have a pint down the pub with and talk about current events. But I started to notice that some of the bloggers whose opinions I both read and respect have made negative reference to the Christian faith, both passively and directly. The basis of their arguments usually consist of the old Science vs Religion argument, but it can sometimes degenerate into the usual "religion is dangerous/evil/fault of the worlds problems". I therefore felt I should make a direct comment on the rise of anti-theism that is being led by fundamentalist atheists such as Richard Dawkins. It's not just a point of discussing scientific theories, if that was the case most people would not have heard of him, it's gets much more personal than that. The reason being is that Dawkins and people like him are hostile towards religion, specifically Christianity, and consider believers like myself to be infected with a "virus of the mind". Before I continue, it is important to separate atheism from anti-theism. An atheist is someone who disbelieves in the existence of a God or gods (some atheists prefer to be referred to as 'normal', but then we would have to call theists not-normal, and if these statistics are to be believed, theism is the norm. Whatever, lets avoid the neologisms for now). In contrast, an anti-theist is someone who not only disbelieves in a God or gods, it is someone who is opposed to that belief in others. Many readers of this blog may be atheist, but they do not spend their days trying to disprove God or rally against believers, they simply live their lives as we all do. I made a rational choice 10 years ago to become a Christian (and continue to believe against the difficulties that present themselves). I can understand why someone would make a rational choice to become an atheist, or would be an atheist simply because they have not had a religious upbringing. So if you're confident in your beliefs, it should mean that there's no real reason to feel threatened by someone else's. Yet after suffering the intolerance of the religious right for years, we now must now also face the intolerance of the militant anti-theists. I have a theory on anti-theists. You see a true atheist really has nothing against God, since they don't believe God exists. They do not feel the need to fight against something that isn't there. This makes me think that anti-theists are people who have either been hurt in the past by the church, or hold some sort of grudge against God and/or believers. After all Dawkins himself flip-flopped between Christianity and atheism in his early years. You can't tell me there isn't some bitterness there towards the church. I know because I've been in the church for 10 years, you just don't come away without some scars! But before I'm accused of being obsessive. It's not all about Dawkins, he is merely a figurehead, easy to reference. There are many evangelists on the side of anti-theism. The thing that bothers me most is the lack of intellect and common sense in the arguments against faith. This is observed in the often used platitudes and aphorisms, when arguing against theism: "Religion is not only wrong, it's evil" - New Atheism "Theism and its corresponding religions are harmful to society and individuals" - No God Network "[Religion] teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." - Richard Dawkins But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg "Religious moderates are, in large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed." - Sam Harris "The Nazi policy of genocide was based on premises quite similar to those in the Hebrew Bible." - Hector Avalos "[Religion] is consistent with crime, cruelty, envy, hatred, malice, and uncharitableness." - American Atheists "Religion kills." - Christopher Hitchens So according to the proponents of anti-theism, religion is: evil, harmful to society, uneducated, responsible for violence, comparable to Nazism, criminal, cruel, envious, hateful, malicious, uncharitable and it kills. As the Americans would say, that's a long rap sheet. Shouldn't we start rounding up theists and executing them for the good of humanity? It's clear that by choosing to be a Christian I am aligning myself with the mythological Devil of the scriptures! I have sold myself to the ideological Satan of the post-modern world. I'm fine with that description if that's what you want to use to define my set of beliefs. Here's a list of other deluded individuals like myself from past and present, who have caused harm to society through their theistic beliefs: A List of Evil Religious Oppressors Martin Luthor King Leader of the civil rights movement for blacks in America. Dietrich Bonhoeffer Led a movement against the Nazi regime in Germany. William Wilberforce Led the movement to abolish slavery in the UK. CS Lewis Author of The Chronicles of Narnia and wrote many apologetics for the Christian faith. Jim Wallis Leader of Sojourners for social justice and peace. JRR Tolkien Author of The Lord of the Rings. Johnny Cash Famous singer. Alice Cooper Famous singer. George Washington American President. Isaac Newton Scientist and mathematician. First hypothesized the law of gravitation. John Milton Author of Paradise Lost. William Booth Founder of the Salvation Army. Galileo Galilei Astronomer and physicist. Theorised that the Earth moved around the Sun and not the other way round. Blaise Pascal French mathematician and physicist. Inventor of the hydraulic press and syringe. One of the early fathers of modern computer engineering. Charles Spurgeon Founder of Spurgeon's charity for children and young people. John Adams American President. Helped draft the Declaration of Independence. Obviously this is just a small list of criminals who have committed crimes against humanity. But what about anti-theists and their wonderful contribution towards humanity? If we're going to define theists as evil, ignorant and murderous, then it's only fair that we establish a definition for all atheists and anti-theists. Here is a list of atheists and anti-theists who have brought enlightenment and peace to the world, through their atheism: A List of Enlightened Humanitarian Atheists Pol Pot Ruler of Cambodia, Responsible for the genocide of one third of Cambodia's population since being in power in his orchestrated 'Year Zero'. Josef Stalin Russian dictator, 'purged' his party of political rivals and organised assassinations of political opponents. Responsible for Ukrainian genocide and various atrocities against Eastern Europeans after WW2. Jeffrey Dahmer American serial killer. Robert Mugabe Leader of Zimbabwe, a 'corrupt dictator' who has oppressed political opponents and ruined the economy with his land reform policies. Mao Zedong Led a 'violent revolution' of China, executed political opponents and committed acts of genocide against people branded 'counter-revolutionaries'. Kenneth Parnell Convicted sex offender and kidnapper. Larry Gene Ashbrook Disturbed and paranoid spree killer. Armin Meiwes German cannibal who killed and consumed a willing victim he met on the Internet. Karl Marx Philosopher whose works have inspired many communist regimes including Maoism, Stalinism, North Korea, Russia and Cuba to name a few. Harold Shipman British serial killer. Gary Glitter Former glam rock singer, convicted pedophile sex offender. Jean Kambanda Leader of Rwanda inciting genocide of ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutu sympathisers. Of course, there are more atheists that can be added to the list. These are people who unlike religious bigots, being atheists, have obviously had a good impact on society. Model citizens wouldn't you say? For what it's worth I detest the hate speech of Richard Dawkins as much as I detested the hate speech of Jerry Falwell. Richard may be more eloquent than Falwell but the underlying derision is there. My question to the anti-theists is this: Isn't it about time we have a reasonable open dialogue rather than this fundamentalist dogma? What exactly do you hope to achieve by constantly deriding religion? What are your goals? Be honest, what would it take for you to be satisfied you no longer felt threatened by people like me? Make us wear a band identifying our faith? Bar us from certain jobs and careers? Introduce regulations to limit the practice of our faith? Make us attend re-education camps? Wipe us out- convert to Atheism or die? I await a coherent response. EDIT: The original tables were giving my layout problems, if anyone else experienced this, my apologies- I've reduced the width to fit at least 800x600 (hopefully). Technorati Tags: atheism, theism, religion, anti theism, militant atheism, fundamentalist, faith, richard dawkins, christian, virus of the mind

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.

Jerry Falwell Has Stepped Into Eternity...

This Post Is Rated: O for You'll probably be Offended. Contains religious satire and irreverence towards the recently departed. Who will he be sharing it with? (Answers in the comments please): - - - OR - - - Forbes: Television Evangelist Falwell Dies at 73 Wikipedia: Jerry Falwell

So Long (My Friend)

Chris just wants to be loved... tell me what's wrong with that? SharperIron links to an article on beliefnet that hints at American Idol Chris Sligh's Christian past: "If Chris has been paying attention to past seasons of the show, he probably knows that past winners like Carrie Underwood and Fantasia Barrino won lots of votes from Christian viewers, who are a valuable demographic to have on his side. He's trying to court the Christian vote while simultaneously win the favor of kids who think it's punk rock to sing "obscure" (read: not Stevie Wonder) songs on the show. If his strategy works, he could make it all the way to the top." - Idol Chatter: American Idol's Chris Sligh: Christian or Coy? To bad he didn't choose to sing DC Talks' My Friend, which might have been more relevant given the situation.

Comparing Christian Value Systems...

Christian Peace Witness for Iraq march down 16th Street on their way to the White House. Source: God's Politics Christian Voice hold protest outside BBC Television Studios against broadcast of Jerry Springer: The Opera. Source: BBC Comedy One protest is inspired by deep moral conviction regarding a world event, the other inspired by a deep moral conviction regarding what's on TV tonight.

Trump Calls It

On the war: "The war is a total disaster" "Sadam Hussein, whether they like him, or didn't like him, he hated terrorists, he'd shoot and kill terrorists..." On the causes: "...there's only one person you can blame and that's our current President" On Bush's staff: "Obviously Rumsfeld was a disaster" "Condolleeza Rice is a lovely woman but she never makes a deal... she waves" On America's repuation: "We had a chance after September 11th, to be the most popular nation on earth... and we blew it" On Iraq: "The day we leave anyway it's all gonna blow up" "Saddam Hussein will be a nice person... compared to the person that takes over for Saddam Hussein, he will be considered a nice person... he will hate America" On the casualties: "Nobody talks about the soldiers who are coming back with no arms and no legs" On the current US Administration: "Everything in Washington has been a lie" Referral: The Osterley Times, Anything They Say

Lead By Example

Never were so many asked to give up so much for so few...

End of The War Against Terror?

The man behind it all has confessed - to EVERYTHING - from plotting to assassinate Pope JP II to 9/11 - proving torture works. Can we all now get back on with our lives? Terrorism is dead, long live King George (and poodle, Tony)! HT: The Osterley Times -/-/- Adding a new sidekick: Cosmonos, who utilises the power of words and draws from deep knowledge and understanding. Alex is not sure how this sidekick thing is going to pan out, since he already has a links page and referrer list... If you don't agree with you're sidekick moniker, let Alex know.