Let's make "Let's do the Public's business in public" public!!

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Wed, Oct 24

--- content removed ---

11 comments:

observer said...

Servais wrote about Michael Lilliquist:

He has not been involved in any city wide processes nor civic issues.... He needs to serve on some commissions first or be active in public processes for a few years.

It is fascinating to see how Servais' concerns are NOT reflected in his enthusiaistic support for Dan Pike, who has even a smaller record in civic affairs.

shoves in jar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tip Johnson said...

Prancing homosexual? Ad hominum attacks? Issues?

It is time for Lisa, Dan, mitch and Tim Paxton to unequivocally state whether they condone this rip-off abomination, know who's running it and whether those doing so have any affiliation with the McShane campaign.

I can tell you that it has nothing to do with the Pike campaign.

Let's see who is comporting themselves with integrity and dignity. Who is in favor of substantive dialog and who is interested in slinging mud.

Anonymous said...

so, Tip, it is just as well that Pike should not respond to accusations by anonymous ones, but McShane, et al MUST respond! or else?
what is the fascination that those who comment here are against Pike, are therefore the principals of the opposition?

and the fact that anonymous comments on a blog, whether a ripoff or not, might attract all sorts of deviants, but also attract responsible people - not unlike yourself...who would like to carry on a discussion.

so far, I really have not seen a two way discussion on some valid questions raised about the qualifications of Pike. just angry comments against commenting.

Tip Johnson said...

Who's bashing McShane on this site?

You're confusing who's getting it with who's dishing it out.

Have I made statements about Pike's qualifications? I've asked the posters of abusive comments on this site to show me either such a comment or any ad hominum attack I have made. I've begged them to discuss some issues, any issue. But it is more or less like a broken Lenny Bruce record without the humor.

I don't think my posts can be fairly characterized as angry, either - at least not by way of any fair comparison to the stuff appearing anonymously here.

McShane should highlight his experience and qualifications. Pike should do the same. But name calling and denigration are completely unnecessary and unhelpful.

But the fact remains that this site is a flagrant copyright violation commenced explicitly to mock John Servais' opinions, one of which is to prefer Pike for mayor. Since its inception, this site has displayed a shocking lack of respect for any opinions that do not show an allegiance to the McShane campaign. Respecting other's opinions is a cornerstone of our democracy. That's the problem.

So, it is high time McShane stated clearly whether he condones or condemns this theft, whether he knows the culprits and whether they are in any way affiliated with his campaign.

That's not about experience and qualifications. It's about integrity.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Integrity, who paid for Pike's Bellwether fundraiser?

Jive Ass Horn said...

Tip--

I agree this prank and thought experiment has outlived its usefulness or interest or amusement.

Hint:

If John thinks this site--which was a prank and a thought experiement--is copyright infringement (NOT, by the way, according to his own instructions on this topic at the time the site went up), why doesn't he just send me an email __ASKING__ for the site to be taken down?

I find it laughable (but less so every day that passes) that JS went out on a witch hunt for the guilty, tried to get Google to kill the site, to piss-&-moan and self-pity and even disappear as a commentator, weave conspiracies, but never had the BRAINS to think that maybe he could just __ASK__ that it be taken down.

Too simple. Not vicious enough.

Says everything about the vicious, gutless little troll this site honors.

Here's my email address: jive.ass.horn@gmail.com. Say please. Or don't.

For the record, this site was set up--as I've said numerous times--as an experiment to comment on the postings at NWC. It was not politically motivated. It was inspired by a posting that anyone can read, posted by JS, written by Mitch Friedman, that dared JS top open his site.

So I opened his site.

Anyone could have started this, and probably SHOULD have long ago. I thought it up because I read the Friedman email.

Someone somewhere called this a half-witted effort, and they were right. Not a lot of thought (or effort) went into it.

Would this become a forum for attacks against candidates, who would have known? But I think it IS good that JS didn't just get to snipe at and spew distortions about candidates for eight weeks without being challenged.

Who made the comment boards a place for snipes against candidates? Tip Johnson, who early on assigned motives for the site that AREN'T the motives for the site. As I've said.

Read my lips: It was a prank and a thought experiment to see what would happen. Want to see it go away? Ask.

Most fascinating lesson from the experiment? It doesn't take much sunshine to make a cockroach scurry away to a corner.

Is this site coipyright infringement? I doubt it very much. There are copyright notices all over the place, worded exactly as JS originally asked them to be worded (I have a screen scrape of his ORIGINAL instructions prior to Oct. 1. Too bad Blogger can't post it). There is a direct link back to his site and he is noted everywhere as the original author of materials.

Are **opinions** copyrightable? Doubtful.

Heck, most blogs are cut-&-paste jobs, with a little commentary thrown in by some bloviating blowhard. At least I posted Servais' comments exactly as written without comment. If this site represents copyright infringement, so do 90% of blogs.

SO: Copyright infringement, on a nonprofit site where there are copyright notices all over the place, a fair use disclosure, and permissions granted that were only revised after the fact? Doubtful.

At any rate, under any scenario, the remedy is simple-- Recourse Number One, any attorney will give it, dumbshit:

First, ask that the site be taken down. If the request is refused, maybe there's additional action.

Until then, I assume JS actually LIKES the attenton he's getting. He sure hasn't complained about it much lately.

Finally, is this a mockery of JS opinions? Comments could have just as easily been howls from JS supporters, angry their hero was being skewered. Funny--and informative-- that that didn't happen.

That email again: jive.ass.horn@gmail.com

One more time: jive.ass.horn@gmail.com

Tip Johnson said...

Yep, looks like it's pretty much over. And you're right. John could've, maybe should've asked.

So far as I can figger, it looks like less than a dozen regulars, mostly all from the same club, so possibly I ascribed the wrong motives, but most folks just reading might feel the same way.

As far as the copyright thing goes, I think the recasting content is specifically covered in the DCMA. No big deal since it's too expensive to litigate.

As far as the cockroaches and sunshine goes, I think the visciousness of the comments and ubiquitous anonymity here speaks adequately to that one - skitter, skitter.

And if you want to know how well JS appreciates your work, you can write him easily enough, too. You could've asked before swiping his stuff!

Oh, well. Best to get busy and fill out those ballots, folks. My work here is done (I hope).

Anonymous said...

So now maybe you've figured out why NW Citizen was set up so all postings have authors.

It wasn't just John. Look at the level of civility on most local blogs. Very few of them are the sort of place you'd want to go for conversation.

There are exceptions: metafilter and metachat are a good example of how things can go well. They had the advantage of a very long gestation period and a firmly held ethos.

So you've learned the Achilles heel of open networks - they are vulnerable to freeloaders. And the flip side of anonymity is license.

Sic transit gloria idiota.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that, any time someone criticizes one Dan, the other Dan's team accuses their opponent. So, anyone can get the Dans to have at it by posting something critical of one or the other. Let the good times roll.

Other than the Herald, who allows posting to locally published material?

Richard Head said...

Too bad, it was just getting fun watching all you bunny-humpin' tofu-stalkin' crystal-wavin' tree-huggin' pinko's havin' a slap-fight with each other.

My friends call me Dick