On Tim Lambert’s weblog, our regular correspondent per was making interesting points on the R2 statistic in the thread called "McIntyre’s Irrational Demands" when suddenly // all// some [updated - SM ] of per’s comments vanished.
Was it Spam Karma or just per’s karma?
To be fair, Spam Karma has reacted strangely to some people’s posts on this weblog and both Steve and I have had to retrieve posts that got sent to hell erroneously. I assume that as time goes on, Spam Karma will learn not to mark down posts just because they’re complimentary.
There’s obviously an innocent explanation for these things.
Update(Steve ): I’ve asked people to shut this topic down and flame elsewhere.
In summary, it has been established that it was Lambert (not Spam Karma) that deleted some of per’s comments and banned per from his site. I had seen the comments in question prior to deletion and, in my opinion, they were substantive and clearly not flames.
As an encore, [John A. believes that] Lambert, emulating Mann’s prior blocking of me from his FTP site, has blocked John A. from access to his site. [edited on Oct 6].
In passing, some of Lambert’s correspondents have suggested that per is an alter ago for McKitrick or myself or is an associate of ours or "connected" to us. To remove any misconceptions on this, neither McKitrick nor I have any "connection" to per; I know who he is because he has identified himself to me by email; I can categorically assert that neither of us has even met him. I enjoy per’s comments on the controversy and am glad that he’s interested in it. I note that Lambert once loudly proclaimed that per was John Brignell, but later retracted the proclamation when Lambert discovered that his conclusion was based on copying an IP address incorrectly. His retraction was not entitled "Lambert Screws It Up Again!"
John adds: I have discovered that I am not the only blocked from even reading Lambert’s weblog. Clearly Lambert has decided that intelligent, scientifically literate critics are too ****. I can still read the site through one of the Internet’s numerous anonymous proxies, so Lambert’s ****. [edited Oct 6]
Steve adds: Lambert says that John A. was not blocked [by Lambert - added Oct 6]. He says that there were server problems at his end which prevented access to everyone. We will of course take Lambert at his word, although I will note that I did not experience any access difficulties in the period in question. Anyone who want to discuss this further will find a convenient forum at Lambert’s blog, since he has devoted an entire post to this issue.
John replies:22nd Aug 2005. I’m still blocked. What an amazing server that can set access rules all on its own that ****! It must be ****…
John adds:22 Aug 2005 (evening). I can now access the website. For some reason Lambert tries to imply that I had problems connecting to the server. I didn’t. Access rules on the server were activated to prevent access from certain IP addresses or ranges. I didn’t get a "404" or a "server down" message, I got an "access rules have been invoked" message, which could *** have been deliberately set by someone. Why? We’ll never know for sure.
Steve Aug 23: Lambert first said that other people had the same problem as John A and later said: "Anyway, I figured out what happened “¢’¬? a spambot has been spamming my blog using the same IP as you [John A], so Bad Behavior blocked access from your IP. I’ve removed the block, but if the spambot does it again, it will be automatically blocked again. If you are the only person using that IP address than your computer is infected."
John Sep 2:I note that Lambert has continued ***** [snip]. Yes, just ***[snip]. I //****// [do not believe that I was] blocked by a "spambot", or anything like it, because a spambot doesn’t block by setting rules at the level of the Web server itself. Those rules //****// [may have been] deliberately set by someone not a million miles from Lambert’s office. Secondly, I do not have viruses or spyware on machine as it is running SuSE Linux 9.3 which doesn’t have either of those problems. (If Lambert ****, he could actually check his logs and verify this) So one way or another Lambert twists and turns and accuses everyone else of **** except himself. It doesn’t help that Lambert ******.. [Edited by SM on Oct 6]
Steve: Oct. 6: If I may summarize this boring thread . Lambert’s position can be neatly summarized, in the immortal words of Bob Marley,
I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy.
This post was originally about Lambert deleting posts from correspondent Per. Lambert admits that he shot the sheriff. John A. claimed that Lambert had, in addition, blocked him from the site. Lambert claims that this was due to Bad Behavior. Lambert stated:
I explained in detail why John A’s IP was blocked. Bad Behavior decided that a spambot had visited my blog from his IP. I looked at the log and found it looked like a visit from a spambot. If it wasn’t that then it was misconfigured software on his machine. Other people have been blocked because of misbehaving aggregators.
In my opinion, there is reasonable doubt as to whether Lambert shot the deputy. In light of this,
I have edited out some claims by John A. in the above post. Bob Marley’s decision stands.