Jay Maynard

wbwolf (whose LJ I can't comment on directly) had this to say last night:

[I'm sorry, Michael, but I've never been able to even respect Bush Jr. I've found him repugent, didactic, reprehensible, and Texan since the day he was thrust onto my consciesousness.]

This is typical of the Left: they mock him and call him stupid, despite being repeatedly proven wrong. Time and time again, his judgment is right on the money, as Jay Ambrose wrote in this editorial reprinted in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Don't underestimate him, and don't think for a moment that he's not what this country wants.

(And as for being Texan: Maybe you're sick of me, and all I stand for, Brian, but I will never for one moment apologize for being from Texas, and Bush should not either.)

I've been accused of using vakkotaur's LJ account to evade a ban on commenting on wbwolf's LJ entries. Here, for the record, is the reply I made to that accusation (which can be found in a comment in youngvanwinkle's LJ):

I don't know Vakko's password, and would not use it in any case. When I have something to say, I say it, under my own name. When I have a comment about your LJ entries, I make it in my own LJ, with a lj-user tag back to yours.

I view it as a matter of personal integrity: if I'm not willing to hang my name on it, I don't say it. If I can't hang my own name on it, I won't say it. Thus, I view this statement of yours as an attack on my personal integrity. I would ask for an apology, but it would be a futile gesture.

I'm saddened, but not surprised, that you choose to ban me from commenting on your LJ. I have not done the reverse, nor will I do so. (Even if I knew how, beyond banning those not in my friends list.) My entries may be commented on by any registered LJ user.


Finally, I'm disappointed that wbwolf chose to attack me by proxy. If he's got a problem with me, he can tell me about it, not make accusations in a third party's LJ, especially one that I don't normally read.

I, and a lot of other folks, use the SPEWS list to block email from hosts and networks that support and facilitate spamming. SPEWS operates anonymously, and does not contact anyone or accept contacts from anyone. The FAQ does say that anyone wanting to discuss SPEWS listings should do so in the Usenet newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.email . This results in a lot of postings there complaining, blustering, threatening, and whining about being listed, especially since SPEWS does not list just the sources of spam, but also expands those listings to take in larger and larger chunks of network space from providers that do not terminate spamming customers.

A common feature of these complaints is that the person making them will often threaten to sue if the listing isn't removed. This is funny on several levels, as well as usually being quite naive legally (the common wisdom on the anti-spam side is that SPEWS is doing nothing but publishing opinions about who is a spam supporter, period, an activity protected by the First Amendment).

Today, a sysadmin for the American Bar Association posted, saying that their systems were part of a SPEWS listing. The posting was refreshingly clueful, and notable because they did not make any legal threats at all. Perhaps the ABA is more professional than a bunch of spammers, after all...