Ian Scott's Reciept of Correspondence from Colbert's ISP

Posted at Ianism:

More Colbert - Response From Service Provider

Filed under:

• Brent Colbert

— by Ian Scott @ 19:47

”[imh #CLU-27762-706]: Website Cracked
From:
abuse@dnsprotect.com To:
ian@pairowoodies.com Date:
Today 07:24:10 pm

Hello Ian,

Our network admins regularly scan for all hack/exploit attempts. Furthermore we have software and hardware which run daily to check for such issues. If it comes across any brute force attacks, the firewall automatically blocks the offending IP and our admins are alerted.

I can assure you that if we detect any remote threats, we will be on top of the issue immediately. Your ticket has been sent to a level-2 engineer for further investigation, if he finds anything suspcious, he will take the appropriate action.

Thank you for writing in.

Regards,
____
John – Customer Support Dept.”

You see Peter, and anyone else that would think I’m an idiot for reporting this “hack” to the correct people, what you guys don’t understand is that Colbert’s suggestion is pretty damn serious.

IF indeed someone has cracked his site, it means that the cracker STILL might have control of Colbert’s site.

Not only that, it means that it IS possible that the cracker could have control of the entire server that Colbert’s site resides on.

Now, seeing that I have my own servers, I take this seriously. Crackers can and do attempt to crack other servers from servers that they’ve already managed to crack. In fact, most criminal activity relating to server cracks, theft of personal information, theft of money, etc., is done through servers and websites that have been cracked.

Perhaps Colbert doesn’t realize the seriousness of his “admission” to having had his website cracked – but I do, as does his hosting provider.

IF something is found, his hosting provider will appreciate my telling them – just as I would appreciate his hosting provider advising me of their suspicions regarding one of my servers being cracked. It’s the “right” way to do things in the world of internet security.

Now of course, if Colbert is lying about his website being cracked, his hosting provider isn’t going to be too happy with this admission wasting their time.

Server security is taken as seriously as home security, in the server world.

If you think I’ve gone overboard, then I invite you to spend a few days with me, and I’ll certainly show you why this allegation by Colbert NEEDS to be taken seriously.

Now, if indeed he is calling a false alarm.. well.. we all know Colbert’s philosophy about the “law being the law being the law,” right?

A Tangled Web... from Ianism

Ian Scott Posted

A Tangled Web - Colbert Is A Liar

Filed under:

• Brent Colbert

— by Ian Scott @ 16:44

Brent Colbert is a liar:

“As for comments posted by Ian Scott, I’m not sure what you have done to upset the SpamKarma Gods but your comments were flagged as being on an inedpendent spam backlist. Your comment rating was -72 and therefore automatically deleted. I have restored your comments and upgraded your spamkarma locally but you will continue to have your comments marked as spam on any other wordpress site that used spamkarma 2.0 and the international comment blacklist.”
~ Colbert

This is a pathetic attempt on Colbert’s part to steer the “heat” away from him on the commentgate issue at his site.

None of his explanations add up. To put it succinctly, he’s full of bullshit.

How do I know Brent is a liar? Well, Colbert nastily and publically insinuate that I am listed in a “blacklist” somewhere.

If someone were to tell you that you were listed in a “blacklist,” you should take that very seriously. Problem is, Colbert refuses to tell me what RBL I’m apparently listed in. Spam Karma has logs. Colbert should be able to easily tell us all what RBL I’m listed in.

I have queried every known public blacklist (there are a couple of websites that allow you to do this in a matter of seconds), and guess what? I’m not there!

There was one blacklist I was not able to query, and I emailed the maintainer, James Seward, personally. His response:

“I’ve checked in the db and your IP and url have never been submitted, let alone listed.

[..]

I’m sorry you seem to have been tagged as spam, although I’m pretty sure
blbl.org didn’t cause it. If the person who claimed it can provide SK2
logs from when it happened, it might shed some light on it.”

Well, some of the blogging tories seem to think I’m wasting time here. They are probably correct. The “herd” mentality of some seems to be to support members of their herd, no matter if they are caught in despicable deceit and tangled web of lifes.

I for one don’t want anyone running for public office that is capable of this sort of dishonesty, telling lie upon lie to get out of his own little situation that he created for himself.

Brent Colbert is a liar. I’ll take that back ONLY when Colbert tells me and provides evidence that I was listed in a blacklist/RBL.

Google is pretty powerful, Colbert. You’ve got your own little section here on my site. Someday, you just might want to run again, huh? And people will be googling your name. They can make up their own minds.

I’ll make you a deal though: If you provide FULL DISCLOSURE publically of your dishonesty, I’ll remove these posts. What you say MUST be technically accurate, truthful, and an admission of your dishonesty.

Insinuating that someone is in a “blacklist” somewhere is serious business, Colbert. You were the one just a couple of days ago insinuating “libel” charges toward Jay Currie. Where’s your head, man?

I’ve already emailed Colbert about 14 hours ago, requesting this information. He has not replied to that email. He did reply to an email wherein I offered him security services and penetration testing. His reply,

“Thank you for your offer but it will not be necessary. I would suggest that you perhaps make the same offer to Mr. Currie as he has alleged his site has been hacked as well.

I for one am tired of this whole mess and will not comment further on it.

Brent”

Yet he can’t provide me with the RBL/blacklist I’m apparently listed in?

And you trust this guy in politics?

This guy insinuates his site has been hacked, but no one knows what software he was running that was vulnerable? Do you realize that if YOU BELIEVE Colbert, you should be asking him what software was vulnerable to ensure your version is patched or so that you have the opportunity to use something different?

And then to help clear the heat, insinuates that another individual has done some naughty things to get listed in a blacklist, but won’t back up his insinuations?

He’s a goddamned liar.
And a pathetic one at that to make insinuations against someone else to take off the heat he brought upon himself.

Curiouser And Curiouser

Jay recaps, and adds some more observations on the latest version offered by Colbert...

Curiousor and Curiousor

While I spent the day moving and trying to get KMG back online L’affair Colbert took many a dizzying twist and turn.

A miracle occured.

First Colbert posted a long rebuttal of my email in which he states:

So what happened to this comment, I went through my spam filter to see if it was caught there but besides the countless manhood enlargement products and on-line gaming ads no “rather insulting” comments.
As I was away from my computer for most of the day, it being my youngest first birthday I know I did not delete it. A quick check with my security guy to look at the records shows no posting activity beyond what appears on the site of held in the spam blocker.
colbert

And then in his comments Colbert comes up with this:

When a comment is posted to my site I instantly get a copy sent to my blackberry so that when I am away from my desk I can see what people are saying. In the last couple of days I have not received any notification of a comment left here by Mr. Currie and it is not in the spam list so I am left with no other option but to believe that he has made this story up.
colbert

Meaghan Walker-Williams beats the poor man about the head and shoulders with, er, logic and eyewitness testimony. Ian Scott nails him on the tech end. Kate McMillan suggested that it was just spiffy to delete whatever comments you want.

With the arrival of the screen shot from Andrew Anderson’s invaluable CanConv, Colbert had to go to plan B.

I’m not disputing that Jay may have posted something to his blog. I’m not even suggesting that a few people may have seen it on his site before it was deleted by someone with administrator privileges.
colbert

Meaghan wallops the poor man pointing out that he had earlier claimed that with respect to the substance of my post, namely my comment on his blog, “I am left with no other option but to believe that he has made this story up.” op. cit. supra. Kate is surprisingly silent. Ian Scott was being “spam blocked” but posted to his own blog:

So either he is a liar, or an idiot, or his “security guy” is totally incompetent and an idiot. One comment he could miss? Perhaps. Two or three?

In fact, I’ve just tried posting a comment on Colbert’s blog a few minutes ago – the same “spam tag” message, and then tried resending it and got the “Oops” message.

So that indeed is evidence that his software DOES have a record of the comments. Therefore, Colbert is outright lying or is incompetent at figuring the difference between a spam comment about spam and a comment about inherent rights.

My guess is that Colbert is blocking some folks and is using his “spam filter” to prevent some people’s comments from going live before he has a time to “vet” them.

So fire away with your libel allegations against me, Colbert. I’ve got the screenshots, and I’ll post them on my blog as soon as I’m done my coffee.
ianism

Better still, Ian has lock down evidence that Colbert’s “spam filter” was extra clever,

In fact, if you go and look at this post, you will notice that Les McKenzie has a comment in which he says, “Had you not been such a shithead, Ian, I might apologize for misreading your quote…”

Now, Mr. McKenzie was directly replying to my one of my comments on Colbert’s blog. You’ll notice that both of my comments have been deleted. Yet McKenzie’s remains… do you see anyone else named “Ian” above his? Colbert’s actions make McKenzie look like a blooming idiot.. responding to some guy named “Ian” on TWO separate occassions on Colbert’s blog – yet no “Ian” author exists. I’d be a little miffed at that if I were McKenzie.
ianism

Ooops….smart people are ganging up on Mr. Colbert. Time for Plan C. The old “you’ve been hacked…well so have I and I am not going to take it lying down” gambit:

We have found the missing comments! By going through the actual database we have located the original comments and something very curious. it would seem that “User Unknown” was able to delete the comments, using time stamps and IP access logs I will be forwarding the information my security guru discovered off to the same person at the RCMP that reviewed the logs when I was last hacked first thing in the morning.
colbert

First rate. Better still, Colbert or his security guru were miraculously able to find and restore the comments which

“In the last couple of days I have not received any notification of a comment left here by Mr. Currie.
colbert

You can read the wee thing here - which is a link to Colbert and I will repost it to my blog shortly. “What once was lost is now found”, as the hymn goes.

[Apparently the “hacker” really had it in for me. Every comment I have posted to Colbert, until today, has been miraculously restored with the little “Comment edited by User Unknown Comment recovered by Administrator” tag. Even the ones which were not deleted in the first place…]

Having been caught lying Colbert realizes that an apology might save his well flayed skin:

I will apologize for possibly suggesting that these post never existed, I just never saw them and had no knowledge that they had been removed. If Mr. Currie is willing to withdraw his potentially libelous accusations regarding my involvement in tampering with his blog I will conceder the matter settled.
colbert

Now, as it happens I know a little something about libel law. First of all there is no legal animal as “potentially libelous”: either something is a libel or it isn’t. Here are a couple of examples of libels:

It might have even sounded like a good idea while you were refilling your bong
colbert

Stating that a person uses drugs is outright defamation of character. Doing so in writing and publishing the result is a libel.

I have not received any notification of a comment left here by Mr. Currie and it is not in the spam list so I am left with no other option but to believe that he has made this story up.
colbert

Stating that a person “made this story up” is defamatory. Doing so in writing and publishing the result is a libel.

I’ll hold the question of Colbert’s libels in abeyance for the moment in the general expectation of a full apology posted prominently on Colbert’s site.

Ian Reacts To Colbert's Announcement of having been "Hacked"

Ian Wrote:

More Colbert

Filed under:

• Brent Colbert

— by Ian Scott @ 03:49

So Colbert is now claiming that his website was hacked. In the same post, he claims that I was listed in an RBL somewhere.

If either of these statements are true, it is incumbent upon Colbert to take further action, and if his “security guru” really is a “guru,” they will have already taken place.

I’ve emailed Colbert about this. One topic in my email is a general security issue, the other is a personal issue. I am expecting and in fact, under the circumstances, demand some information from Colbert based on his insinuation in his post.

If he does not provide this information to me in a timely manner (and under the circumstances, because of the seriousness of what he is suggesting, is less than 12 hours), I will make my email to him public.

And that’s all I’m going to say on that, other than it’s now in Colbert’s ball park to back up his insinuations, and to show us all that he is indeed a good “Internet Citizen.”

If he replies satisfactorily, (and with a “security guru” on hand, I have no reason to doubt that he won’t), all will be well. I’ll provide him with my own public apology with the knowledge I helped him find a vulnerability in his software.

If he does not answer satisfactorily.. well.. we’ll see. My request to him should be extremely easy and and should take up less than five minutes of his time.

Update: Just as a public service to Colbert, I’ve decided to take one of the steps on my own that his “security guru” should have taken. I like to be a “good internet citizen.”

I’m sure you won’t mind, right, Colbert?
:)

Update 3

Interesting that Colbert would contact the RCMP, when in fact his hosting provider is located in the USA.

So, I’ve taken it upon myself to let his hosting provider know about this website hacking so they can investigate further. As someone involved in the internet security industry, it is incumbent upon me to ensure that cracks are investigated, public disclosure is made, and that these allegations be taken very very seriously. Part of my job is helping protect your websites with research and knowledge. Here’s my email:

Message was signed by ian@pairowoodies.com (Key ID: 0xDD39A774319CE936).
The signature is valid and the key is ultimately trusted.

Hi Folks,

I thought you should be aware that Brent Colbert, who hosts his site with you
apparently, (http://www.brentcolbert.com) is suggesting on his blog
(http://brentcolbert.com/blog/2005/08/08/update-on-the-missing-comments/)
that his site has been “hacked.”

I thought you should be aware of this – he claims to have his own “security
guru” – but it might be worthwhile for you to investigate this claim and
ensure that everything is patched, etc.

Of course, if there is a new vulnerability out there with respect to any
software Colbert is running on his site, that would be very important to know
so that others are not also afflicted with the same risks that
brentcolbert.com has been afflicted with.

Would you kindly investigate Colbert’s claims? There are many bloggers who
are using the same or similar software to Colbert, so it would seem to me
that it is incumbent upon us as being part of the “internet community” to
take Colbert’s claims seriously, and figure out exactly what the point of
access was that allowed Colbert’s blog to get hacked.

Naturally, you should be aware of this claim as you ARE his hosting provider.

Regards,—
Ian Scott
GPG/PGP KEY: 0×319CE936

****************************
http://www.securemylinuxbox.com

****************************

Hopefully, the abuse department will get this sorted out and make all bloggers safer against website “hacks!”

Right, Colbert?

I mean, your provider really ought to know about this hack! I have no idea how many sites they host, but it is also incumbent upon them to ensure that their server is safe and secure from access for their other clients.

Ian Remarks on "Party Loyalty"

Ian Wrote:

It's The Party, Stupid!

Filed under:

• Brent Colbert
• Moral Relativism
• Opinion

— by Ian Scott @ 02:12

This evening, a commentor on this post of mine, who calls itself “ferrethouse” wrote this:

“And I have not taken a screencap because I’m not a loser.”

And then this:

“The fact that you are wasting so much time on this makes you unworthy of public office. I would hope my public officials could distinguish between things that are worth spending time bitching about and things that aren’t!”

Now, I’ve seen a number of comments authored by someone calling itself “ferrethouse” and linking to Conservative Life. But interestingly, I’ve never seen ferrethouse call any blogging tory that has screen shots, imply they were a “loser.”

Kate McMillan of Small Dead Animals has in the past, made good use of screen shots. One instance in particular was the Sinclair Stevens affair, in which I assisted Kate and came up with further information. Some folks thought it was “silly” because well, it must have just been a “mistake” on Sinc Steven’s part to have a website aimed at removing Harper which was owned by an association affiliated with The Royal Commonwealth Society.

Interestingly enough, “ferrethouse” adds more ad hominem in the comment section over here at Bound By Gravity when it writes, “Ian, perhaps you should take up a different hobbie. The internet doesn’t appear to be the place for you.”

A little more digging into this strange issue of ad hominem on the part of ferrethouse turns up this post, at the site where ferrethouse regularly links to, which says:

“Please also keep in mind that one of the conditions of membership (referring to the Blogging Tories) is unqualified support of the Conservative Party of Canada.”

(Emphasis and content between parenthesis mine.)

Well, isn’t that interesting? Unqualified Support.

What is this demand for unqualified support mean anyhow?

It’s all about the party? Stick up for those “unqualified supporters,” regardless of their ethics, lies, deceipt? Demand loyalty to the party without question? Go out and accuse others of being “losers” should they show another “unqualified party supporter” to be in the wrong? Put down any attempt at truth and time spent on finding truth as “silliness?”

Is this really what most Blogging Tories are all about? Unqualified Support? Boy, that’s a pathetic requirement to be a member of some blog community that supports the Conservative Party Of Canada – a party that claims to be “open” and supportive of “free speech,” don’t you think?

Unqualified support.. “either you’re in, or you’re out! We demand loyalty! Do not criticize the party!”

For those that claim to be independent thinkers, I’d sure be wondering about this “unqualified support” requirement. Yeah, some of those blogging tories will pipe up and talk about how in practice, some disagree with each other, blah blah.. but just think.. at any time, depending on how it is interpreted, your disagreement could be construed as not providing “unqualified support” to the CPC. Unqualified support means exactly that. Your support is never “qualified” by even a single issue that you don’t agree with.

So I’m wondering if this is what it is all about for the folks like “ferrethouse.” Instead of rationally disputing someone’s post, it’s all about ad hominem, all for the party and it’s “unqualified supporters,” you know?

It’s the party, stupid. We get to decide what is “worthy” of wasting time on. Of course, holding someone responsible for honesty is not really one of those “worthy” things.

Colbert Comes Up With A New ... Explanation

Colbert writes on his blog:

August 8, 2005

Update on the Missing Comments

We have found the missing comments! By going through the actual database we have located the original comments and something very curious. it would seem that “User Unknown” was able to delete the comments, using time stamps and IP access logs I will be forwarding the information my security guru discovered off to the same person at the RCMP that reviewed the logs when I was last hacked first thing in the morning.

I will apologize for possibly suggesting that these post never existed, I just never saw them and had no knowledge that they had been removed. If Mr. Currie is willing to withdraw his potentially libelous accusations regarding my involvement in tampering with his blog I will conceder the matter settled.

As for comments posted by Ian Scott, I’m not sure what you have done to upset the SpamKarma Gods but your comments were flagged as being on an inedpendent spam backlist. Your comment rating was -72 and therefore automatically deleted. I have restored your comments and upgraded your spamkarma locally but you will continue to have your comments marked as spam on any other wordpress site that used spamkarma 2.0 and the international comment blacklist.

Proof of Colbert's lies About the Comments Spam Blocker....

Ian Posted The Following As Proof That Colbert's Claim About Spam Software being responsible for the problem:

Brent Colbert - Either Idiot Or Liar

Filed under:

• Brent Colbert
• Opinion

— by Ian Scott @ 17:18

“So what happened to this comment, I went through my spam filter to see if it was caught there but besides the countless manhood enlargement products and on-line gaming ads no “rather insulting” comments.
As I was away from my computer for most of the day, it being my youngest first birthday I know I did not delete it. A quick check with my security guy to look at the records shows no posting activity beyond what appears on the site of held in the spam blocker.”

~ Colbert

I have tried posting four comments four times now in the past four days or so on Colbert’s blog. My first couple of comments were accepted. However all subsequent comments have been “flagged as spam” which are forwarded to the site admin.

None of my comments were “spam.” His suggestion that there is no record of any of my comments is bullshit. How do I know this? The first time I received this error message, I wondered if Colbert had set up a “time delay” system for comments on his blog, so I waited an hour before trying to resend the first one.

Guess what happened? His software returned the message, “Oops, looks like you’ve already tried to say that.”

So either he is a liar, or an idiot, or his “security guy” is totally incompetent and an idiot. One comment he could miss? Perhaps. Two or three?

In fact, I’ve just tried posting a comment on Colbert’s blog a few minutes ago – the same “spam tag” message, and then tried resending it and got the “Oops” message.

So that indeed is evidence that his software DOES have a record of the comments. Therefore, Colbert is outright lying or is incompetent at figuring the difference between a spam comment about spam and a comment about inherent rights.

My guess is that Colbert is blocking some folks and is using his “spam filter” to prevent some people’s comments from going live before he has a time to “vet” them.

So fire away with your libel allegations against me, Colbert. I’ve got the screenshots, and I’ll post them on my blog as soon as I’m done my coffee.

Update: Here are the screen captures:

Image showing me typing a comment on Colbert’s blog

Image showing the message that my comment has been flagged as spam. As I reported a couple of days ago, I received this message prior to posting this post to my blog on August 6, around 1AM. I had tried posting a comment earlier on August 4. I can also vouch for seeing the now deleted comment from Jay Currie on Colbert’s blog.

Image showing what happens if you try to repost the comment on Colbert’s blog. You will note that this is the message I received after trying to repost my comment on August 5. The message in my comment is available at this post which I wrote on August 6, 1AM: http://www.ianism.com/?postid=614.

This is “proof” enough for me that my comments, which have been flagged as “spam,” were indeed in Colbert’s software – likely a database. So for Colbert to say that the only flagged comments were those that were about spam for penis enlargments, he is lying.

He can put whatever spin he wants on it until he’s blue in the face (an appropriate colour, huh?), but he’s got himself into a little pickle here. He can weasel his way out, by not bothering to discuss it further, or try to come up with some excuse, but the fact of the matter is, he is lying on his blog. He’ll probably blame his software – but that won’t be good enough either. It would be awfully curious for a database to lose SOME content, but not the content dealing with penis enlargements, you know? Software just doesn’t work that way.

I completely agree with Colbert deleting comments on his blog – it’s his blog. He can do anything that he wants. What I take issue with is his absurd lies about his system, and his attempt at trying to say that the only comments not on his blog are “spam” – his definition appears to be the traditional definition and accepted meaning of the word – but that other comments are approved.

It’s just a bold faced lie.

Update 2:

In fact, if you go and look at this post, you will notice that Les McKenzie has a comment in which he says, “Had you not been such a shithead, Ian, I might apologize for misreading your quote…”

Now, Mr. McKenzie was directly replying to my one of my comments on Colbert’s blog. You’ll notice that both of my comments have been deleted. Yet McKenzie’s remains… do you see anyone else named “Ian” above his? Colbert’s actions make McKenzie look like a blooming idiot.. responding to some guy named “Ian” on TWO separate occassions on Colbert’s blog – yet no “Ian” author exists. I’d be a little miffed at that if I were McKenzie.

My comments that WERE on Colbert’s blog were straight up comments about the topic he had posted on, and then McKenzie misread one of mine out totally took what I had said out of context. I corrected McKenzie – thus McKenzie’s comment about his non-apology and calling me a “shithead.”

Interesting that, isn’t it? His denial of deleting Jay Currie’s comments – will he now admit to deleting mine?

Jay Gives Update On Missing Posts

Jay writes on his own blog:

Email

I sent this email to Brent Colbert, Steve Taylor at the Blogging Tories, Jim Elve at Blogs Canada and Andrew at Bound By Gravity.

Hi Steve,

I realize that you are not personally responsible for every Blogging
Tory on the blogroll. But I thought you’d like to have a wee bit of
information.

Yeaterday I posted a rather insulting comment on Brent Colbert’s blog.
It was deleted. Fairball in the sense that it’s his blog and he can do
what he wants.

I also posted the comment to my blog http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com
with a bit of a commentary.

That post was taken down last night. I did not take it down. Here is
the page as it now reads http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com/?p=27.

Now, I cannot prove that Brent hacked my site and, frankly, I am would
be amazed if he could manage to fire the two neurons needed to do such
a thing. But there is the evidence and there are plenty of people who
saw the original post.

In blogland deleting negative comments demonstrates intellectual
impotence. No big deal but it ensures that you are not taken very
seriously.

However, so far as I know, this is the first time that a site has been
hacked to take down a comment.

You can, of course, disregard this message entirely, as I say, you are
not the Blogging Tories’ nanny. But, frankly, I would have serious
difficulty having anyone who directly or indirectly hacked a fellow
blogger’s site remain on my blogroll. And given that the asshat is a
failed Tory candidate and claims to be a CPC adviser it might be a bit
of a problem if he continues stuffing negative material, on other
people’s websites, down the memory hole.

Your call. And, hey, maybe Brent didn’t hack my site. I’d ask.

Cheers,

Jay

Update: Colbert responds with a blanket denial. He denies ever receiving the comment for his blog

I do not make a habit of deleting comments and have intentionally left the offensive words in the resent comments so that readers can see for themselves the level of intelligent debate that I get from those on the other side of my position.

So what happened to this comment, I went through my spam filter to see if it was caught there but besides the countless manhood enlargement products and on-line gaming ads no “rather insulting” comments.

and ever having hacked mine.

What evidence do you have? Who else saw this post? ….If you don’t have a copy I’m sure that the “plenty of people” can search their feed readers for the original.

It would be delightful if someone did indeed have this comment either from Colbert’s blog or mine on their feed reader.

Happily Colbert can’t help ending with living proof of the fact that, as one commentor put it at Bound by Gravity, ” Colbert is a hopeless doofus” by way of a bit of speculation as to how I could possibly have come up with the insame delusion that I posted a comment to his blog and to mine:

I suspect that you were a little bored last night while your friends were our living their lives and having fun and decided to make up this little tale to stir up some controversy, might have even sounded like a good idea while you were refilling your bong….

Looking at the structure of that sentence one is tempted to suggest that Colbert should knock of his own intoxicants before, say, noon; however Colbert should be aware that it is quite possible to support Emery and not smoke pot. I know it will be a stretch; but if he works really hard…

Update 2: I went over to Colbert’s blog to check the status of other comments I’ve left. He no longer has comments. Hmmm. (10:26AM They are back. Likely a browser error on my end.)

Read the full post jay in Uncategorized, blogging | 7 Comments »

Jay Discovers His Post On His Own Blog About Colbert Has Vanished

Jay writes:

A Moron with Hacking Skills

I had a post up which quoted comment I made on Brent Colbert’s blog. Now I don’t.

Because this is very much a work in progress I’ve not built the assorted protections which a blog needs to keep morons from taking down posts which they are incapable of responding to in a marginally intelligent manner. Frankly, the people who read this site when it was on blogspot would never have stooped to this sort of cheap hackery.

Apparently Brent Colbert or one of his supporters, having brought a rock to gunfight figure the best thing to do is to shove it down the memory hole.

I would very much appreciate anyone happens to have a copy of the comment or a portion sending it to me. As for the sort of person who would hack a site to delete a post…sad. Very, very sad.

Posted by jay in Canadian Politics, media, blogging | RSS 2.0

All Hell Breaks Loose

Jay... at this point a chronology on your end would be good, ditto for Ian...

Colbert Makes An Incredibly ODD and Weird Response To the Question

Colbert responds to the question about law, re protesting unjust laws with the following:

August 4, 2005

Welcome to all the new readers

Colbert’s Comments has recently moved back to visitor levels not seen since the Gomery Days. Here’s a tip for my fellow bloggers, write a post denouncing illegal drug use and let the hits roll in.

In the last 48 hours I have received more than 100 emails and or feedbacks on my post suggesting that Marc Emery should be deported to face charges in the U.S.

I was recently invited to be a regular contributing columnist to americandaily.com and most of my feedback has come from people from both sides of the border calling for even more liberal drug laws and wild rationalizations why breaking the law is completely acceptable. I particularly like the one person who compared the “right” to smoke pot with the struggle to end slavery.

In that e-mail the person asked if I thought Canadians who aided backs to escape slave owners and give them sanctuary in Canada should have been extradited back to the US for breaking American law.

This answer requires a certain set of circumstances and a better understanding of the laws that existed in the US at that time but if a Canadian citizen entered the US for the purpose of breaking the law, no matter how shameful that law was, they should be tried for that crime. If their actions were limited in helping people once they crossed the border unaided then I would not support extradition. We would not tolerate Americans coming north to commit crimes and then slipping back home to avoid prosecution, would we?

So the short answer to that question is yes, I guess I am not that much of a libertarian because I do believe in the rule of law and sometimes that poses ethical and moral problems when the law is wrong but the solution is not to break it but to work to change it.

I will do my part to engage in the debate and oppose any move to liberalize our drug laws in this country which is my right.

Colbert is Questions About His "Law is The Law* Stance on This Issue

A poster asked the following question of Colbert, in his comment's sections.

"Let’s fire up the WAY BACK MACHINE, circa 1850. The place, North America. The issue at hand, People in Canada who assisted the Underground Railway to free slaves from the Southern Plantations.

Slavery was legal in the United States. Helping slaves escape from their “owners” was considered a serious crime, and indeed it was presumed to violate the property rights of the slave owners.

When the people in Canada ran across the border, and sent money to assist those terribly evil abolitionists who were violating THE LAWS of the United States of America (including the Constitution which allowed for slave-ownership) were they doing wrong?"

Chronology - Colbert's Folly Begins Thusly

On August 3rd, 2005, Brent Colbert made the following post to his blog on the subject of the arrest and possible extradition of marijuana legalization activist Marc Emery.

August 3, 2005

Canadian Government refuses to extradite Tritium exporter

American Homeland Security officials intercepted a package last month in transit across the Canada/US border containing Tritium (H3) an ingredient essential to the construction of boosted-fission nuclear weapons.

The package was sent from Canada was addressed to a suspected al-Qa’ida cell in Michigan. In a joint operation RCMP, CSIS and the FBI traced the parcel back to a Canadian citizen born in Pakistan and living in a west end suburb or Toronto, Ontario.

The individual is being questioned by Canadian authorities. US officials are attempting to secure an extradition order to have the unnamed individual face charges in America under the US Patriot Act.

A spokesperson for Justice Minister Irwin Cottler explained in a briefing that the individual in question was not charged with any crime and is only being questioned to determine if any Canadian laws have been violated.

“Tritium is used in many commercial products including emergency exit signs and airport landing beacons. Transporting tritium is an “A-1 Special Form” material but as the quantity was so small and the risk mitigated by the correct packaging we are not concidering criminal charges at this time.”

American Homeland Security Officials are more concerned. “with that amount a skilled bomb maker could turn a low yield dirty bomb into a thermonuclear device” The FBI Special Agent in Charge of this operation explained, “ We are concerned with the lack of controls in Canada on this key ingredient weapon making material.”

Canadian Justice Minister Cottler’s spokesperson claims that even if the Americans can find links between the Canadian citizen and al-Qa’ida the individual will not be extradited and will not face criminal prosecution in Canada. “after all it’s only a little radioactive and only for personal use. Besides it says right on the package not for waging Jihad so Canada can’t be responsible for what somebody might do with the material”

When reporters questioned Public Security Minister Anne McLellan about the logic of releasing a suspected associate of an al-Qa’ida cell and refusing to honour an American Extradition order she suggested that “the Americans should take care of their own problems instead of trying to police the world.” She went on to say “even if these people had been successful in detonating a nuclear bomb, did you realize that more Americans are killed with hand guns in a single day then would be killed in a nuclear attack.”

When asked to explain her wild claim the Minister rushed back into her Ministerial car, lit up a smoke, and instructed the driver to speed off.

This is of course a work of fiction but replace tritium in any of the stories about Marc Emery and everybody here would be up in arms about how Canada is not doing enough on the war on terror. Why should our lackluster efforts in the war on drugs be any different? Until the laws are changed they are still the law and should be enforced. You can try and justify it by saying that it doesn’t hurt anybody and booze is worse and all that but once again until the law is changed it’s still illegal so butt out.