No, I'm Matt Cunningham!

And who (or what) the hell is Cornholio???

Comments

[Hanna]

Lessee... there are 8 bloggers listed on the right (of course) column.

Only Jubal and Lurk are regular bloggers, with Silence on occasions.

But all of a sudden the rest of them have crawled from under whatever rock they were hiding to say that they are Matt Cunningham..

Wait a minute. Perhaps they are right. Perhaps there really are only four of them (I remember Kahuna posting once) and Jubal is Matt is Dutch (or German, and Afgan) and, of course, is Publius since this was his "justification" for the disposable mask.

Pathetic, really, to waste bandwidth on this..

[Hanna]

Should Owners Of Web Sites Be Anonymous?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114609925357637113.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace

By WILLIAM M. BULKELEY
April 27, 2006; Page B1
The Wall Street Journal

(snip)

Whois is regulated by the Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers, usually called Icann, a nongovernmental organization based in Marina del Rey, Calif., that handles many vital Internet issues. Under Icann's current regulations, anyone who gets a Web site is supposed to list a name, phone number and address in Whois of a contact person to resolve both technical problems with a site and administrative issues.

Earlier this month, at the urging of privacy advocates and over the opposition of major corporations, the Icann committee responsible for Whois voted 18-9 to restrict its listings solely to someone who can resolve technical "configuration" problems. That means a Web-hosting company could be listed without any link to the person who controls what appears on the site. After the committee makes recommendations on other aspects of the Whois rules, the full Icann board is expected to approve the reduced disclosure requirement.

The dispute partly reflects the growth of the Internet from a communications network used by scientists and academics into a global river of commerce. The requirement for a name, phone number and street address came years before identity theft became a mainstream concern. Advocates of reduced information say that the original purpose was to make sure someone was available to fix Web-site problems that were interfering with the broader network, and the changes are consistent with the original goals of the Internet of permitting free-wheeling communications.

(snip)

[Jubal]

Hanna:

Since you post as MediaWatcher on the El Toro Info Site, are you really in any position to criticize others who use pseudonyms? Or do you just like being a comments crank?

How's life in Minnesota? Any airports to fight?

[tylerh]

Jubal,

whatever the merits of your argument, you did not address the point Hanna raised. Hanna's quoted article addresses the level of disclosure to control a URL, such as ocblog.net. You raise the seperate issue of appropriate disclosure for commenting on any given blog.

Surely you see the difference, but I'll belabor the point anyway. Domain owners have special rights not available to mere posters, namely the ability for any browser in the world to find their postings via a few easily memorized words. The keepers of the data that make this possible have a vital interest in keeping the system running smoothly, so a discussion of what level of disclosure is appropriate is of general interest to active internet users.

Seperately, each operator of a blog has the the right and the ability to regulate behavior on the blog any way they want. FreeRepublic bans IPs that post disagreement. RedState ban IPs that challenge Party orthodoxy in an unapproved matter. DailyKos, Slashdot, Metafilter, and Plastic let users moderate the comments themselves, to much the same effect. I run two different web sites for which you must get a password from me directly to even get in. You currently allow anyone to post, and your blog is better for it. But that is the choice you made amongst many possibilities. You could, for example, password protect the page and require each user to post a bond before getting access, and then refund half of the remaining balance upon each year of "good behavoir."

Moreover, Hanna isn't all that anonymous: you were able to link her to a a different pseudonym on a different website.

Lastly, if your stated goal is to run a web site where we discuss issues and avoid personal attacks, why does a discussion of appropriate disclosure levels for internet behavior conclude:

do you just like being a comments crank? How's life in Minnesota? Any airports to fight?

[Tylerh]

Lurk,

as ever, Wikipedia is your friend. Cornholio " is the insane alter ego of Beavis in MTV's animated series Beavis and Butt-head."

With this question you've revealed your age even more firmly than your politics do...another chip in the anonymity of the blogpen 8)

[WHO CARES]

lets be honest...does it really matter..who JUBAL is....

Nope...the writing is good and worth reading.

[Hanna]

Thank you, tylerh. You obviously have read the debate that I was having with Jubal on the El Toro message board when I was banned here, since most visitors here would have no idea what is the issue.

Here is what he said on the El Toro board:

"Enlighten me, MW. Why are blog commenters allowed to use pseudonyms, but blog authors are not -- when both are engaged in posting?"

The fact that you have clarified it so well just shows the obtuseness of Jubal who still, yes, does not get it, when he compares bloggers to visitors in using pseudonyms.

Since Jubal was outed he now also compares himself to me and to Len Kranser who continue to use our old screen names to provide continuity on the message board, even though every one knows who we are. OK, I will clarity: everyone who regularly visits that message board. So now Jubal, on the OC Weekly blog says: so, everyone knows who I am too... No, not until two weeks ago.

But then, again, this is the prerogative of a blogger. He can and will get the last word; he can and will delete and ban the comments and commenters that he dislikes.

Earlier this year, when Jubal appeared - masked and modified - on Rick Rieff show, there was a whole thread here by many suggesting that he was Matt Cunningham. Interestingly, this thread is now missing from the archives.

On the other hand, families of Mickey Conroy, two months after his death, all of a sudden "discovered" the threads on this blog to express their sorrow.

How often is a thread revived two months later? Never! Not on a political blog when things change every day, often every hour.

And no, I did not think that Jubal personally had anything to do with that "revival" but someone else did.

One last comment: instead of attacking me, why not answer a simple question: when was the last time that "Roscoe," "OC Dutch," "Publius" and "Pistolero" posted on the OC Blog? How often in the last month? Six months? last year?

[Silence Dogood]

Hanna-

Look: Benjamin Franklin remarked that, "Freedom of the press is for those who own a printing press."

Jubal owns this site. He has the authority to allow or delete any and all comments, including mine. I don't lose any sleep over it.

That you continue to lobby for unregulated blogging on HIS SITE speaks volumes about Jubal's efforts to develop something unmatched in the OC political blogosphere.

I know the other members of the Blogpen aren't Jubal in disguise. I know that. You'll just have to live with the frustration of not knowing.

[Jubal]

Tylerh and Hanna:

I'll take this in parts.

The WSJ snippet Hanna posted refers to the level of information disclosed in an a WHOIS search of a given domain name. When I bought ocblog.net, I paid the extra fee for private registration. So what exactly is the issue here? Are you and Hanna claiming I didn';t have the right to do that?

You currently allow anyone to post, and your blog is better for it.
Thank you, I appreciate that someone actually recignizes that. Hanna seems unable to.

Moreover, Hanna isn't all that anonymous: you were able to link her to a a different pseudonym on a different website.

Unless you've been going to Kranser's webiste for a long time, Hanna is pseudonymous there. She doesn't disclose her identity, and the only reason I eventually fisgured it out is because the IP that is displayed next to her pseudonym Media Watcher matched the IP displayed in the e-mail notifications I recieve whenever Hanna (or anyone else) posts a comment here. Otherwise, how would I have known Hanna and Media Watcher are the same person?

Lastly, if your stated goal is to run a web site where we discuss issues and avoid personal attacks, why does a discussion of appropriate disclosure levels for internet behavior conclude: do you just like being a comments crank? How's life in Minnesota? Any airports to fight?

Simply weariness from Hanna's unremitting negativity. She loves to take advantage of what OC Blog has to offer in terms of disseminating information and engaging in discussion with other people interested in politics -- yet when it comes to the person who's hard work makes that possible, she has done nothing but trash me. I get tired of it after while. Yet, you're right, I should refrain from that kind of comment.

You and I have disagreed, but you've always been classy and reasonable. Hanna has just been a crank.

[Jubal]

And now for Hanna:

"Enlighten me, MW. Why are blog commenters allowed to use pseudonyms, but blog authors are not -- when both are engaged in posting?"

The fact that you have clarified it so well just shows the obtuseness of Jubal who still, yes, does not get it, when he compares bloggers to visitors in using pseudonyms.

Hanna, you entitled to your opinion. But that's just what it is: your opinion. You write as if it were a law of nature, and anyone -- including me -- who disagrees "just doesn't get it" and is "obtuse."

Earlier this year, when Jubal appeared - masked and modified - on Rick Rieff show, there was a whole thread here by many suggesting that he was Matt Cunningham. Interestingly, this thread is now missing from the archives.

Yep -- and if you search, you will still find comments remaining where people speculated I was Jubal.

Would you feel better if I checked with you before I delete a comment? And if so, then I will send you the bill for running OC Blog.

Since Jubal was outed he now also compares himself to me and to Len Kranser who continue to use our old screen names to provide continuity on the message board, even though every one knows who we are. OK, I will clarity: everyone who regularly visits that message board. So now Jubal, on the OC Weekly blog says: so, everyone knows who I am too... No, not until two weeks ago.

Acutally, Hanna, this is what I said: But then again, Len Kranser uses a pseudonym on his site — but I guess that is OK because “everyone” knows it is him, just like “everyone” knows you are Media Watcher. But it is not OK for me, even though my identity — as even the OCW “admits” — is an open secret.

On the other hand, families of Mickey Conroy, two months after his death, all of a sudden "discovered" the threads on this blog to express their sorrow.

Are you still festering about that one? As I said then, contact Mickey's family if you don't believe they posted those comments. Otherwise, I'm done agruing with you on that topic -- which was like trying to convince a paranoiac that he isn't being followed.

How often is a thread revived two months later? Never! Not on a political blog when things change every day, often every hour.

I didn't know you were an expert on blogging, Hanna. FYI, it happens all the time -- including on OC Blog. It's a result of Googling.

And no, I did not think that Jubal personally had anything to do with that "revival" but someone else did.

You're right -- it was Mickey Conroy's grand daughter. Unfortunately, she didn't know she wasn't allowed to post that she was offended by your comments.

One last comment: instead of attacking me, why not answer a simple question: when was the last time that "Roscoe," "OC Dutch," "Publius" and "Pistolero" posted on the OC Blog? How often in the last month? Six months? last year?

What do you care? Are you the OC Blog truant officer?

[Silence Dogood]

Speaking only for myself, I've been really swamped with work lately. I feel really guilty about not posting.

I know Jubal would like us all on the Blogpen to post more. He has provided an amazing avenue for me to express my thoughts and I'm not taking full advantage of it. I'll start posting regularly again just as soon as work lightens.

[Hanna]

Silence, I am disappointed. You usually tend to read what others post before you shoot from the hip. Will look at it as a caused by being swamped with work.

Please show me where I am questioning Jubal's right to regulate the blog. Why should I? How could I? Of course this is his blog and he can do whatever he pleases, including using pseudonyms, listing other bloggers - whether real or not - editing and deleting posts and threads and ban visitors. This is a given, really.

Jubal is beyond repair but you should be able to see the irony of Jubal criticizing regular commenters for using pseudonyms, not seeing the difference when this is used by visitors or by the owners. I thought that tylerh explained it beautifully. If you, like Jubal, get into a tunnel vision mode when your read something of mine, please read tylerh's.

This thread started by one of the so-called blogger joining the others in claiming that s/he is Matt Cunningham. So I express an observation that while there are many so-called bloggers listed on this page, most of them never or rarely post. That Jubal gets hot under the collar and thinks that I want to "police" this blog - if the shoe fits, etc.

Like the kings of yesteryear who had the right for the first nights of virgin brides, Jubal has the right for the last word so go ahead. We've gone through this before, I am done.

[tylerh]

Jubal,

Thanks for the followup. I don't really want to get between you and Hanna, so I'll step back from that disclosure issue and make a different proposal:

You need to split the Jubal net persona.

You could even do so publicly. Currently, the Jubal net persona is a political partisan (eg Pro - Harkey), and the Official Censor. Whoops. Judges maintain a public aura of neutrality exactly because it is all but impossible to mix these two roles. If I go on an anti-Harkey binge, which Jubal do I aim at, and how could you tell? If "jubal" makes a forceful responce, how can I tell if it's the partisan or the censor that confronts me?

Rightly or wrongly, whenever "jubal" censors someone in disagreement, "jubal" will always be subject to suspicion. This is in stark contrast to another website home to fiery but (usually) civil discussion, Plastic.com. Plastic is owned by a guy named Carl, and Carl posts. But the Carl net persona only posts about operational issues and stays out of the discussions. When the Carl net persona bans, which is exceedingly rare, most everyone accepts. Another example is the highly successful economics blog "Marginal Revolution." The professor who runs the blog, Tyler Cowen, explicitly maintains an alter ego named Tyrone for arguing certain controversial positions. This split net-personality is really helpful: everyone knows from the get-go if the Tyler really believes the argument he is making, or is merely trying out a new line of intellectual attack.

Splitting yourself across mutliple net personas has another advantage: it will help you clarify your own intentions for every post you make. Your choice of persona will help mold you comments toward being "partisan" or "judicial." For example, The swipe you took at Hanna upthread that I pointed out was a par for the course in a partisan deathmatch, but a touch unwise for the Official Patroller of Posting Behavior. A split persona would solve this problem.

So split Jubal into two or more peronas, so that the rest of us know "which" Jubal we're dealing with from post to post.

[Silence Dogood]

Hanna-

The Middle Aged jus primae noctis isn't even close to the same as Jubal's activities with his own site (his own property).

Stop watching Braveheart for a moment and take a breath.

[Jubal]

Jubal is beyond repair but you should be able to see the irony of Jubal criticizing regular commenters for using pseudonyms...

?????

When did I do that?

[Lurk]

Tyler, that wasn't my post. In fact it was up to me, it would've been deleted as "corn hole" has an extremely nasty and vulgar connotation.

[Hanna]

tylerh, interesting.

(Yes, I said I was done, but this is in response to your post).

In the early days of the El Toro info site, I was an official team member. I would cover for Len when he was away and was also the address for questions and comments emailed to the site (and what a weekend that was, during the noise test). And I replied under my full name.

When Len started the message board, if I commented as the site team member, like providing information and links from the site, I posted under Hanna. I also had the access to delete and to edit posts. But when I participated in a give and take exchange, expressing my opinion, I used my other screen name - northwood - that I used also on the Cox' OCNow and on the El Toro Chronicles message boards.

So, yes, I can see your point about a "split personality." I intuitively used it then because it provided a different perspective to my comments.

Jubal, though, has on occasions posted here as Matt Cunningham so one can wonder what were the reasons there. To report about meetings that he attended as himself, I suppose.

[tylerh]

My apologies to you, Lurk. My comment about "who is cornholio" should have been addressed to Kahuna. That's the second time this year I have misattributed a comment to you. Back to remedial reading class for me.....

Seperately, while I agree that "cornholio" is pretty tasteless, I don't think it rises to the level of ban-ability because it was a direct reference to something that got past the MTV censors. By contrast, if I were to call another poster a "cornhole" then I think that would be worth at least a warning.