I promised to be in bed before 1:00 AM tonight, so this is telegraphed and without charm, but I couldn’t resist.
1. There was talk a while ago on Freedomain Radio and at Liberating Minds that there would be Globe and Mail article about FDR and Stefan Molyneux, with pictures. Boy, is there ever! It shows up in the Technology section, which surprised me (but then not really). Author Tu Thanh Ha has done himself some research. It’s full of links to threads and podcasts, and the cynic in me wonders if they will still go somewhere in the morning. Threads have been disappeared, you know, and it isn’t that hard to change a url. (And seven hours later, they are gone. Yeah, I didn’t get enough sleep last night, although I did have some pretty entertaining dreams.)
Follow this link to the Globe and Mail article:
It is not complimentary.
Edited to draw attention to the comment by Patience below, and to say that the links are now only open to members, and no new member accounts are being created without getting permission. So Joe Reader who stumbles on the article will not be able to listen to the audio or read the pertinent threads.
2. I follow some threads at FDR, but not many, so I was surprised to see two alerts in my email box for threads I’d never heard of. I checked, and it said that I had elected to receive any new posts in this particular forum of the discussion board. That’s just not the case, because lots of new threads have been started in the “The Individual” and “Psychology” sections since I started receiving alerts, so it got my attention. I think a global notification was sent out to all members.
These new posts are obviously plants. So obviously. What are the chances that two sad and confused but enlightened teenagers would start new threads called “Confusion over my dad” by Cand and “Confirming the evil of my parents” by Tom within a minute of each other? None. They are long posts, and they touch on some talking points, and Tom’s happens to roll the controversial topics of being Christian and being a homosexual all in one! Plus “Cand” sounds like “Candice,” who is a regular poster there; “Tom” sounds like “Tom,” who has been the lost child of the Guardian article. These names were pulled very quickly out of a hat, and the stories are these elaborate concoctions written in the exact same style and are not at all reminiscent of anything a teen would write on the very first post to a board like this. I know this because the text of these messages was included in the notification. I can post the text if anyone wants them, I suppose, although I might hold off until they actually appear on the boards, so they are officially public first. I don’t want to be that guy. (And now that they are no longer public material–deleted–I guess I never will.)
And this is the kicker: These posts don’t actually appear on the recent activity log. The last post of 12/12 (FDR producing breakthroughs…) was at 11:50 PM (I didn’t even read it) and the first post of 12/13 (Xtranormal Rocks!) was at 12:03 AM. The next post of the day (Attention all you lunatic atheists) isn’t until 12:12 AM.
Edited to remove useless screenshots and to apologize to Tom and Cand for calling them fakes. It was a misleading email–they were sent to me as old posts. I should have, I suppose, recognized the one as having the same title to the thread linked to in the article. My theory about how is was maybe a trap is unfounded–I told you that I should be posting after 1:00 AM!
I’ll strikethrough the stupid and wrong parts of this post and leave it up as a mea culpa because that is what people do, but it no longer applies and is not even that funny, although there is that sentence where I wonder about the trap, which appears to be wrong.
This is haphazard, frantic, incompetent damage control. I was really going to be impressed that no one discussed–in the public forum, anyway–the Daily Mail article that appeared yesterday, which was a revision of the Guardian article. It signified dignity and restraint that I predicted in my comments that I wasn’t going to be able to show. I wonder what the FDR crowd is going to say tomorrow about this complete and unquestionable and aggressive smear campaign perpetrated by those vile false-self statists in Toronto. Maybe silence is going to be the dignified response. Kudos!
Edited to add: Never mind. I was an idiot and didn’t see the first post on this topic. The first couple of responses at the top of the log just caught my eye. Molyneux heads up the conversation and includes audio of the original interview if you want to hear it. The thread is called “Freedomain Radio in the Globe and Mail.” It’s the second article put out by a biased and unobjective journalist. These guys just don’t get no respect!
I’m figuring this was the chain of events: The article posted online at 8:55 Pacific. Molyneux found it, read it, formatted his audio and started the thread by 11:09 PM, then spent the next hour writing two fake new posts, which he sent off by email at 12:03 AM and then 12:04 AM. Each fake post is about three good paragraphs in length. I could see how writing them would take an hour.
And of course I have to wonder aloud if I am the only person who got those email notifications, in an attempt to flush me out of hiding. Perhaps I am falling for a trap by writing about them. Ah, well. It was a good ride.
Please read the Globe and Mail piece. It’s something else. And follow the links. You have to follow the links–it’s where all the excitement is. (Sorry. You can’t follow the links because they’ve been deleted. You get this log in screen, but members who log in will get a message that the “resource you requested does not exist.” You can listen to the original interview, though, at the podcast page; it’s FDR1231 of Volume 4.)
PS: So I checked actually within the forums, thinking that maybe those alerts came from posts that somehow just skipped the recent activity log. They are not in the “The Individual” or the “Psychology” categories at all. Maybe they will appear later. We’ll see.
UPDATE 9:49 AM
I’ve decided to follow the thread at FDR in which they comment on this article, and this funny one just popped up (it’s an attempt to impugn the competence of the article author):
I’ve never in my life seen someone quote an internet forum. Unbelievable.
Of course you’re going to quote an Internet forum. The article is ABOUT an Internet forum, and it appears in the Technology section of the newspaper. You have to quote from the Internet forum if you want to present a fair view of the Internet forum. Otherwise, the people reading your newspaper will only have your opinion about what the Internet forum is like. Now people can decide for themselves.