I didn't realize exactly what had happened when the blog was shut down. I knew it had been reported as "spam", but I had no idea this sort of thing was going on. Crazy, since I think we've been pretty good sports about the whole "supporting the nominee" thing.
I don't agree with this whole "let's hunt down so-and-so" mentality. Even if it's a freeper, I don't think s/he should be tracked IRL. That kind of persecution for dissent really freaks me out.
when it first happened - i put on my detective hat and have been working on it since then.
and it totally freaks me out too.
Woah there, internet detective, you better not try and figure out who it was that attacked you, or it would actually be a warning shot across the bow to opponents of CanadianGal that they will be tracked down and exposed for speaking ill of the Canadiamessiah.
have just proved what your intention is here in that comment. well done!
My intention is to point out:
1. There is nothing wrong with figuring out who is attacking you, or someone you support. Being anonymous is no excuse to let someone get away with slander.
2. It is offensive to make accusations without evidence.
You see tracking down the sources of the Muslim smears as scary and offensive.
Yet, whoever attacked your blog needs to face a public call-out and your internet detectivery.
You don't see yourself saying it COULD be Obama supporters as accusing Obama supporters.
Yet, when I suggest you COULD have done it yourself you see it as a direct accusation on you.
I am saying this to illustrate points one and two above.
Go ahead and do your best to find out who made the false reports, and post IF you have evidence. But when you do, remember that is in conflict with your theory that uncovering anonymous posters is wrong.
i have heard your 'problems' with this diary a couple of times now. clearly your intention is to suggest all sorts of things that are untrue. and i no longer am interested in engaging you.
thanks for your feedback. and happy 4th of july.
Though, is it not just as likely that, in the case of Clintonistas for Obama, it was Republicans or PUMAz that complained about the site?
I get what you are saying...but, I just don't see any evidence that it was persons supporting Obama intent on stifling dissent.
As to tracking down the source of the moronic Obama is a Muslim smearmail....I don't have any problem with it. Shit like that should be nipped in the bud....no matter who is being smeared and lied about.
To label the calling out of lies and the disclosure of those who peddle them as 'Silencing Dissension' is a stretch. There are plenty of folks who dissent without lying and smearing.....and those are the ones that we should be fighting to protect.
Don't know how much sense I am making....we have already begun our July 4th celebrations here.....
