I guess if there's ever a column written by "Wok Your Kitty", we'll know who is behind it.

I don't know Raphael Alexander personally but I've conversed with him many times. Like me, he's based here in Vancouver. I know what he does for a living but will let him reveal that if he so chooses.

It was beyond hilarious for Kinsella to seem offended and then cited as his private detective "Dr. Dawg". Just curious, is this jerk's first name "Doctor" and his last name "Dawg"?!?

Kinsella & Dawg: Nitwits of the decade!!!

god, don't link to the litigious twit...he'll just get 'aroused' by the increase in traffic.

I agree - don't link to Kinsella's blog. Also, don't actually quote or he will sue you. He has copyrighted all of his blog contents.

Nonsense Lorraine. a) it's attributed, b) it's visible segregated from my comments.

If Warren doesn't read the National Post, how does he know what's in it? he glanced at it? what exactly is... "and don't do so at all, now" while focusing on the "at all" section of this attributed quote of Warren's... what is the intent of, "at all" does it mean "zero" ? or is there another meaning of "at all" that I'm not aware of?

Do you think the likes of James Carville and Karl Rove spend their spare time investigating the pen names of minor bloggers of little import?

Just asking...

Psssst, don't let Mark Twain hear about this...

Is this the Liberal to whom you are referring? Is it still on Liberal Iggy's staff?

http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com/a-wide-stance/

"Robespiere's cure"?
...-

"Beware of blood lust on the Left

Scratch a global warming fanatic these days and you may find a wannabe executioner.

The way I figure it, wish death upon your political opponents once and it can be ignored as just a warped jest. Do it twice and it looks like evidence of mounting frustration with your neighbors’ inability to see your cause’s crystalline righteousness.

Do it three times and folks around you should start reaching for their hog legs (Don’t know the meaning of that firearms industry technical term? Google it, then read the entry in the Urban Dictionary).

It seems there are more than a few global warming fanatics these days whose patience is wearing thin with those of us who refuse to endorse repeal of what the true believers view as three of the 20th century’s greatest evils – privately owned cars that empower people to go where they please, suburbs that let them permanently escape city life, and free market capitalism that produces a wider prosperity than seen anywhere else in human history.

So we increasingly hear such folks muttering darkly about things that remind of Robespierre’s cure for counter-revolutionary thinking. Take the most recent example, a post on Talking Points Memo by “The Insolent Braggart” who poses an interesting question: “So when the right wing f--ktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events - how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn’t we start punishing them now?”

It would be easy to dismiss this as an isolated example, something akin to the slightly warped jest mentioned above, except for one thing: The sentiment expressed in this anonymous post on one of the Left’s most widely read blogs isn’t exactly unique."
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/mark_tapscott/Beware-of-blood-lust-on-the-Left-47733932.html

Wherever this vogon goes, trouble and firings follow. Daisy Wheel Greasers makes the Ottawa Sun, but it might not help business too much:)

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2009/06/11/9759186-sun.html

Rageaholic was a word once used to describe someone. I thought it was pretty clever.

"Warren Kinsella" isn't a psuedonym?

You mean he blogs that stupidly under HIS OWN NAME?

Words fail me.

Robert, when you say Dr. Dawg, do you mean the guy in the comments over here?

http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com/i-see-your-dita-and-raise-you/#comment-90452

And of course MrKin isn't allowing comments on his post either. Ahh, free speech....

Warren is absolutely correct.

I am sure that any author who refuses to publish under their own name is not worth reading.

I am further convinced that Eric Blair (George Orwell), Charles Dodgson (Lewis Caroll), Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), David Cornell (John le Carre), Francois-Marie Arouet (Voltaire) and Josef Korzeniowski (Joseph Conrad) would agree with with me.

lance...a good rip! Almost as good as Kathy ripping dawg over at Currie's.(genre?..that sounds so asexual...)
Thanks to 'mouse-over' we don't have to contaminate ourselves by linking.
Good for Raph...one of the best bloggers around.

Kinsella unamused over regurgitated talking points and screeds? Imagine that.

"I am sure that any author who refuses to publish under their own name is not worth reading.

Posted by: Ian at June 11, 2009 9:24 AM"

....Barack Obama (William Ayers)

maz2 has a good point, increasingly as of late, I've had some very hostile encounters, only verbal so far, but I thought for sure one 18 year old girl at walmart was going to try to attack me with a stapler for having a conversation within earshot of her of the falsehoods of global warming and the scam it is. I also received quite a few baleful glares, and this is alberta!

Other than that, people like Kinsella should be locked up, he incited hatred, is quite hateful and malicious and it shows.

Commenting under pseudonyms is just wrong.

I agree, Ann.

I particularly like when someone poses a self serving rhetorical question, then follows it with - "Good question."

Nice comment, me.

Thanks me. I rock my world.

Pseudonymous commenters are up to no good.

Anonymous comment is an integral part of free speech. That why I've never agreed with attempts to reveal the identities of bloggers - even unmitigated jerks like, say, Canadian Cynic.

The way I see it, so long as sites like CC's can operate unfettered, free speech is alive and kicking in Canada.

ET is the blog name of Edwina Taborsky (also: www.blogger.com/profile/04080231632213914265), a Canadian who came up to Toronto not so long ago from Quebec of Anthropology and worked as, guess what, a taxpayer funded job in the ivory tower academia. She was a professor of anthropology, though no longer at Bishop's for reasons that are not clear and, I'm guessing, better left unsaid.

sHe's a very typical rightist, fascist, anti-realist, anti-Canadian, postintelligence - and 'debates' by semantic twitches. That is, you'll make a point, and she'll try to rebut by switching the meaning of your terms and accusing you of what you didn't mean. That's a diversion. And she works only with words; no evidence and no logic.

Jade Wahr:

I agree, but then I think all commenters are up to no good - trying to impose their personal viewpoints on everybody like that. Who do they think they are?

When's Kate coming back?

>Anonymous comment is an integral part of free speech.

I agree with that observation Rabbit.

Mass media was called the fourth estate of the realm. A reference to the media standing on guard for the third estate [the commoner] against the corruption of the first two estates [the church and government] From the advent of the mass media era journalistic privilege not to reveal sources was afforded and defended to protect the anonymity of news sources from harmful retaliation.

Woodward and Bernstein had Deep Throat just as the Star, CP or CBC have unnamed or anonymous sources for particulars, quotes and opinion.

Alienated - LOL and again LOL!

This is an outrage!

From my prospective these name calling attacks on ET are nothing other than retaliating against her accurate observations of Bam Bam and the other fascist lefties.
And fascist is the accurate lable......

I agree with ET on the blogging ethics.

And, I will henceforth be on the lookout for semantic twitches.

Thanks, Occam's. I laughed out loud at that!

>>"You see, you have to first, acknowledge that IF someone is using a blog name, then, on that same blog, you don't have the right to deconstruct that name and give any data about that person."

Thank u for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt the point about 'debates' by semantic twitches. Couldn't have found a better example. Well done.

>>"If you object to such, then, you shouldn't yourself have done so. Right?"

Again, thank u for proving my point. Which was simply to show what a hypocrite you are. So worried and sensitive about your own anonymity but so brazenly open to revealing the real name of another's. And one who you know is banned from here so has no way of responding. And YOU have the gall to question anyone else's ethics?!?!?! It is to laugh.

>>"At the moment, you are just using the term to name-call, and that type of behaviour is childish."

ROTFLMAO. Omigod. That was a funny one, Edwina. Did you laugh when you wrote that? I mean, YOU the Queen of Hyperbolic Name Calling whining about ANYONE ELSE name calling.

>>"IF one is 'right', then, this means you are NOT a fascist. Fascism is 'left'."

That one is too funny. Just too funny. Clearly you are an anthropologist and not a historian. I can't believe I'm wasting my time with someone who knows so very very little about politics and history. Reas up on fascism Edwina and hopefully you'll learn something.

>>"And there is no such thing as 'post-intelligence'. One is either intelligent or uintelligent."

I concede that point and agree with you entirely. You are not post-intelligent; you are, as you say, unintelligent. Thank you for pointing that out for all of us.

Again, though, Edwina, think before you write. And try to be an ethical commenter rather than behave, as you did, in a childish schoolyard reaction.

Kathy:

My pleasure.

And I just love how ET can get so upset about someone doing to her what she has just done to others, and everyone here jumps to support her instead pointing out how hypocritical and unethical it is for her to do it.

Conservatives once again prove the rule: our principles don't apply to us.

...everyone here jumps to support her ~ If

I see it more as people jumping to shun you IF.

ET, in debating buddywhatshisname, may I suggest that you use techniques that he is undoubtedly familiar with and that his tiny mind can understand? I suggest you use the "I'm rubber and you're glue..." defense.

ET: I don't debate my work with people who have no knowledge of the field. Fair enough. But I did take a moment to read a bit about the field of semiosis. Very simply stated it's about the process of communication. Ironically the jargon is rife and the communication about the field appears to be limited to those who "get" the jargon. That is a way of establishing an in-crowd. With all due respect to ET, now I understand why I sometimes don't understand ET's posts.
ps I do think the identity outing was unethical and unfair. However we've all learned by now that you're never guaranteed anonymity on the blogoshphere. ET seems to be taking it in stride.

oh oh... Pandora's Box.
... me, me, & me.. ect

"I am sure that any author who refuses to publish under their own name is not worth reading."

George Orwell would not be amused. Or perhaps he would.

Is it just me or does everyone get the feeling that if Kate had guest bloggers for an extended time her site would die or become one with few readers at least.I guess theres a reason for that thirteen million plus.

If-You-can-do-it-so-can-i

Give it up. That BS about fascism being right wing was discredited the momment STALIN first pronounced it.
The most notorious fascists the NAZI's were but a different flavour of socialist.....and anyone smarter than a 5 th grader knows that.
THE COLD WAR IS OVER! YOUR SIDE LOST! ACCEPT THAT!

Come on, spike, it wouldn't die, it would just lie on its back the floor, inert and barely-breathing, with a poultice on its forehead...and... think of England....

eeyore - thanks. But I won't debate with 'if', because there is nothing to debate. Furthermore, if he refuses to acknowledge my blog name and gets personal, then he has overstepped the ethical boundaries of blogging.

Again, talking about the real name of someone who does not post here, for whatever reason, is not an unethical action.

nettie - I'd be cautious about what you read on the internet as definitive of any subject. Semiosis is not, in my research, about communication but about cognition and morphological formation. Nothing to do with communication. That field is more accurately called 'semiology'.

And any field gets located within an 'in crowd'. The people I work with are in physics, biology and computers - working on processes of morphological formation in the first two, and cognition in all three.

So, back to Kinsella. He first tells us that he doesn't read The Post. Then, he starts to comment on an individual who writes in the Post. Then, he comments about 'truth' and 'untruth'. Isn't there some kind of contradiction in these statements? If he doesn't read the Post, then, how does he know about this author in that paper?

Then, he refers to the 'writer's name' of the author. He asserts that IF this name is a pseudonym, THEN, the Post is publishing untruths. But this is a fallacy. The truth or untruth of the Post's article is not the name of the author, but has to refer to the CONTENT of the article. Kinsella doesn't say a word about the content, about its facticity or untruth. Not a word.

He's playing The Semantic Twitch. He's diverting the notion of Truth in a newspaper, from the content of its articles, to whether or not its authors use pseudonyms or not. Sorry, these are two different issues, and the use of a pseudonym is not related to Truth of reporting. But, trying to smear the content of an article, by smearing the author - ahh, nice Twitch.

Kate needs to return, post haste.
The children she has left in charge is turning this site into a tasteless joke.
How sad.

The difference of course is ET by any name is worth reading.

So let me see if I have this straight ET.

If someone has chosen to remain anonymous and is not allowed to comment here, then it is OK and ethical to reveal who they are and publish their name.

But, if someone has chosen to publish under their name on the internet in comments and elsewhere, and then changes her mind and decides she prefers to be anonymous, then it is not OK to publish publicly available information about her... because she comments here.

There are actually many words for that, ET. Hypocrite, moral equivalency, blind, deceitful, unethical. But I'm fine with just sticking with the way you yourself described it: unintelligent and nice semantic twitching.

Conservatives: our principles don't apply to us.

ET, I think you’re wonky on Israel but find you very insightful outside of that.
And good stuff from the guest bloggers as well.
Thanks

Well, although I don't agree with ET all the time, her comments are well thought out and clearly more civilized that the rantings of a few leftoids who have come over to slag people. The difference is being able to debate your point without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

btw, ever notice how the level of civility goes down when "progressives" come to play? Drops the intelligence level to that of Rabble or Kos.

Yikes I'm outta here, too high a of risk of neuro-toxic shock from semantic tick bites.

Texas Canuck, you mean this sort of thing:

EBD ~ Nettie, your layman-squared critique of ET's work is, in the specific context of her phone number and email being published by some asshole, a big sunken turd-in-the-punchbowl, no?
Good sense of timing and occasion there. I wonder what you say to the bereaved family members at funerals about the deceased...

If you..... said "Unlike conservatives, I think knowledge and academia is respectful worthy pursuit."

Conservatives have always valued knowledge and education. They just don't value academics and intellectuals. There's a big difference there. Conservatives generally live in the real world and use their experience and education to make things work. The Left have never lived in the real world and try to force their theories on the real world.

If...: "You outed Dawg. Period."

I've been aware of his real name for more than a year so there's no way ET "outed" Dawg.

Also, I recall ET from the Shotgun and she never used her real name. That didn't prevent others from providing her information but ET never did.

ET, at the risk of distraction from the polemic, and now invective nature of the thread, is there a "for-dummies" source on the scientific discipline under discussion here. If you could refer those of us who would be interested in actually learning something, my interest has been inspired to discover the relationship between cognition and morphology. Remember for-dummies; no sarcasm intended.

I have received permission to publish something on here, which hopefully will set the matter to rest ...

Raphael used to write under his actual name but one day a Neo-Nazi called his home and threatened him. So he naturally decided to change the name under which he blogged.

When the National Post gave him the opportunity to write, many of the same type of Hateful Leftists we see trolling around in this post e-mailed the newspaper to try to shut him up.

(Lance: Edited as per request and due to the fact that this is all third/fourth/fifth hand information.)

The fact is that Raphael had explained all of this to the National Post and they're fine with it.

... on a personal note, a few months ago I received death threats, not by telephone but through e-mail. It's more than a little freaky and so I do understand the way Raphael must have felt.

glasnost - there isn't a single scientific discipline involved in this area. Instead, what has happened over the years is that a 'spreading group' of researchers, who come from different disciplines, have somehow connected and worked together on these issues.

As I said, the key disciplines, and I'm thinking of the major members of the group, are physics, biology, mathematics, bioengineering, computer and robotics. A fringe of botanists and economists.

The botanists are in it to test how plants form, by means of informed or cognitive interaction with their environment. The biologists are working on adapatation; again, how an organism sets itself up as an information system, gathers data, and transforms itself..i.e., gets a different shaped beak. Of course, the computer and robotics people want to make intelligent artificial systems.

What we've been exploring is how 'something intelligent' develops; that is, how matter/mass or energy is formed into a 'thing' that can make intelligent or predictive decisions. This includes atoms and molecules as well as cells. It can 'anticipate'; it can 'make a model' of itself and its environment and how it interacts with the environment and then make decisions about its future interactions.

There's no 'text for dummies', unfortunately, because the disciplines are all interactive. I used to give a regular class on this; it was a favourite class of students, and using a chalkboard and time, these issues can indeed be easily explained - and quite frankly, students readily 'get it'. As they frequently told me, it 'made a lot of sense'. And I've been asked, many times, to write a book on it. But I've become rather lazy since retirement. And, it would have to be a book heavy on diagrams. Indeed, a powerpoint book would be best!

All I can offer, without that class, is a difficult article in an online journal:

SIGNS

Scroll down to 2008. There's an article by me titled: Biological organisms as semiosic systems: the importance of strong and weak anticipation".

glasnost - unfortunately, there isn't a 'text for dummies' for this area of research. The thing is, we are from different disciplines, all working together, and there's no collated text. We come primarily from physics, biology, bioengineering, mathematics, and computer and robotics. There's a fringe group from botany and economics.

The botanists are primarily focused on plant adaptation to changes in the environment, understanding such adaptations as 'informed decisions'. Biologists are working with cells, insects and birds and animals. Physics and biologists - with complex adaptive networking. Computer and robotics are of course, focused on developing artificial intelligence. But, it's all the same focus. How does mass/matter form itself into a system that can 'intelligently' gather information about its environment, and interact constructively.

I used to give a regular class on it - and using the blackboard and many diagrams, students very easily understood it. It was, actually, a favourite course and they frequently told me how logical it was, how 'it made sense'. I've been asked to write an introductory text, but I've become lazy in retirement. And such a text would really require powerpoint and lots of diagrams.

All I can suggest, and I'll give the title of the article and hope that you can find it, so I don't get sent to the corner..is, google

'Biological organisms as semiosic systems: the importance of strong and weak anticipation'. It's in a journal called SIGNS. And it's not an easy article, but, it does explain things!

Personally I really don't care what a person wants to call themselves. I am not debating the person, I am debating their ideas. The only question in play is if the other person's idea is worth challenging or if the idea is so idiotic that it is best left alone.

Wow. Edwina Taborsky's quite the loony hypocrite.

in typical fascio-leftist fashion. The original point of the topic has been lost by meaningless bickering over unrelated issues. A typical tactic of a group losing a debate.

Further to the debate, it's completely acceptable to use pseudonyms, it's the tool of protection in our "non-free speech in practise" "free speech on paper" country.

in typical fascio-leftist fashion. The original point of the topic has been lost by meaningless bickering over unrelated issues. A typical tactic of a group losing a debate.

Oh, the irony.

There's no doubt that Kate is the one and only, but for the sake of your family you're going to have to pull yourself together, Black Mamba.

Meh, they got their worries, I got mine. But you're right, I must try to be brave.
Ever seen the Kamp Krusty episode of the Simpsons? Summer-camp devolves into a grim Dickensian workhouse in the absence of The Man himself, but Bart never loses faith. "Kruty is coming, Krusty is coming..." he chants, clutching himself and rocking back and forth.
And when Krusty does finally arrive, he's filled with contrition and takes everyone to on holiday to Mexico.
It'll be like that here at Kamp Kate... she'll be back. I have faith.
But don't be cross, EBD. I just wish there'd been a little more troll-shooting on this here thread.

Ha! Never saw the Kamp Krusty episode. My favourite moment -- and I don't remember the fine details, it was a long time ago -- was when a group was trapped in a big hole, and couldn't climb out, and then someone had a bright idea: "Dig UP!!"

I agree with you about the troll shooting, but you should bear in mind that Lance is a very, very hard-working guy who just didn't have time to monitor what was happening on the thread.

Heartily agree with you about Kate; she didn't get to be the number one Conservative Blog by accident. In the meantime, though, be kind to us guest bloggers -- "we'ze do'in da bess we kan, boss."

And you know what happens to people who complain about camp cooking -- "ptuhhh!! That's horsesh.......um, but it's good, it's good!

That's what we want to see.

And a bang-up job it is that you all are doing, sir! Please don't make me sleep in the haunted cabin, or have anyone pee in my baked beans. I'll be good. :)

*fish* on this thread is gone.

Stop feeding the trolls. You people are smarter than this.

Wow. Talk about censorship!

By the way, "Lance" sounds so, so, what's the word?

Oh and now the deletions are starting.

You winguts are such hypocrites. HYPOCRITES!

This is nuts--ET outs Dawg, someone else outs ET and in the end you leave up ET's "outing" of Dr. Dawg in this very post and delete all opposting points of view. (I'm glad you deleted the comments related to ET's identity though.) How Stalinesque!

It is. These people talk a good fight about free speech. Once they feel its sting, they fold like a bad hand.

I hadn't received any complaints about ET's outing.

I'll rectify that.

At the risk of being seriously petty, Lance, I complained, way back when. It's at 10:30AM, and there's a reference to it at 9:35PM