Saturday, June 3, 2006

Keep your children inside

From a news release found on The Canadian Internet Registration Authority's (CIRA) homepage:

Recent events related through the media indicated that Liberal MP Joe Volpe's staff had requested CIRA suspend

Bernard Turcotte, CIRA's President and CEO states "We have no record of any contact between CIRA and Mr. Volpe or his staff. Furthermore, CIRA does not deal with website content. This is and continues to be a guiding principle underlying our operations."

He added that no CIRA staff undertook any actions with respect to but rather that the Registrar for the domain name requested, via CIRA's automated systems, that the domain name be cancelled, as is allowed under the rules. The registrar advised CIRA that it made this request because its registrant would not provide valid Canadian contact information.
Via Nealenews, an article that contradicts the above statement:
Digital Home Canada contacted the creator of the website who says that interpretation is false.

In several emails to Digital Home, the website creator claims the registrar, Canadian Domain Name Services took down the website without any warning.

When the website creator discovered the site had been removed, an email was sent to the registrar asking why the actions were taken. The registrar advised the site creator that it had violated Article 3.1 Paragraph (h) (i) and (ii) of CIRA Policies which allow CIRA to suspend a domain name. The rules say CIRA may suspend a domain if the site is directly or indirectly, defaming or contributing to the defamation of any other Person or unlawfully discriminating or contributing to the unlawful discrimination of any other Person.
Youth for Volpe


Ian Scott said...

From my experience in dealing with all sorts of domain names, clients with domain names, domain name suspensions, and with CIRA directly, I am more inclined to believe the first explanation.

Joe may have brought the false information that was used to register the domain name to the registrar's attention.

I'm not defending Joe - but certainly, if the registrant of the domain name had properly agreed to the contract they were entering into when they registered the domain, there would be far less issues involved here.

Regardless of whether one thinks they should be able to provide anonymous or false information when registering a domain, the fact is one enters a contract, agrees to that contract, and there are similar requirements for ALL domain extensions on the Internet. This is required by ICANN, the corporation responsible for domain names and numbers.

Lisa said...

Probably it is more likely that the site got shut down because "Mike Hunt" provided false information and that scenario is clearly more legitimate than the second one. Still, someone isn't telling the truth and the CEO for CIRA contradicts CIRA's own policy when he says "CIRA does not deal with website content."

The essentially interesting aspect of this story though, apart from the amusing Youth for Volpe site, are reports of someone involved with the Volpe campaign initiating action by the CIRA. We should expect no better from wolves looking to devour the lambs and their pasture.

On a positive note, the website is getting alot more traffic than it would have if the Volpe gang, or maybe their opponents, hadn't enlisted "the law" to shut it down.

Ian Scott said...

Actually, both sides could be telling the truth, Lisa. There is a difference between CIRA and a "Registrar." CDNS (I think I have the acronym correct) is a Registrar that acts sort of on behalf of CIRA, and charges a fee for registering domain names.

CIRA has its own requirements, which are set out by ICANN - which is a corporation in the United States, and that is ultimately responsible for how domain name extensions are provided and offered.

CDNS probably has it's own, like other registrars, it's own contract requirements when using it's services to register a .ca domain name.

It is quite possible that both scenarios took place - that it was ultimately canceled by CIRA upon being advised of false information, and at the same time, was also conserned about any civil suits launched against it by Volpe - if it continued to keep a false, (by contract) domain name in a non-suspension state.

IF Volpe did choose to proceed with a civl suit in those circumstances, the only entities he could actually serve would be the registrar and CIRA.

As well, the issues of whether a website is "defamatory," is subjective - and it is quite likely that CDNS felt some "libel chill" - and quite likely, as an entity, didn't want the risk of legal action taken against it.

Volpe did not "enlist "the law" to shut it down," he enlisted the concept of "contract" to have a domain name suspended. Again, there is a difference between a "website" and a "domain name." Even after the domain name was suspended, the website likely still existed, unless the hosting company also "suspended" its availability to visitors.

The website may not have been available through typing in a domain name, but it still could have been available by typing in an alias provided by the hosting company.

"Freedom of speech" was not affected. Merely the domain name, which was falsely registered, was affected.

Again, I'm not supporting what Volpe did. However, the registrant of the domain name deserves just as much criticism for not meeting their end of a contract, and falsely registering a domain name. Quite frankly, the registrant lied.

Lisa said...

Volpe did not "enlist "the law" to shut it down," he enlisted the concept of "contract" to have a domain name suspended.

Volpe and his blood suckers had NOTHING to do with the original contract. Why the fuck are they butting in? Why do they care if some guy lied when he registered his domain? What they do care about of course, is finding whatever means possible to shut down a website ridiculing an aspiring mandarin.

Ian SCott said...

"Volpe and his blood suckers had NOTHING to do with the original contract"

Incorrect. And here is where I believe there is much confusion on this issue.

CIRA claims they do not monitor website content. I believe them. The section that is being referred to by CDNS (you have an incorrect link, by the way - your link links to the domain name complaint resolution process, which "Mike Hunt" could also use to try to resolve the situation, if he provides accurate registrant information) - not the actual section that was quoted:

"Article 3.1
Paragraph (h) (i) and (ii)
(h) not engage in any direct or indirect activity which in CIRA's opinion is designed to bring, or may bring, the Registry into disrepute, is designed to interfere, or may interfere, with CIRA's operations or designed to expose, or may expose, CIRA to prosecution or to legal action by the Registrant or a third party including, but not limited to, any of the following kinds of activities:
(i) directly or indirectly, defaming or contributing to the defamation of any other Person,
(ii) unlawfully discriminating or contributing to the unlawful discrimination of any other Person; or
(iii) committing any other actionable wrong against any other Person including, without limitation, any other infringement of the Person's rights;"

This is not, as far as I know, referring to website content, but the use of domain names registered through CIRA.

'', containing Volpe's name, could come under the above section - not the content of the site itself.

Using Volpe's name, which is a clear reference to Joe Volpe in this case, means that section 3 applies to the domain name in question, and is also part of the contract that "Mike Hunt" agreed to when he registered the domain.

As I tried to ask ET when she made some claims about "freedom of speech" and website "content," where does it say anything that what was at issue was "content?"

It doesn't.

My point is, if the original registrant had properly entered into the contract, he could respond to the complaint regarding the use of Volpe's name in the domain name - and quite possibly win his case.

Under the rules of CIRA, Volpe has as much interest to get involved, as would be coca-cola for a .com domain name involving their product.

That doesn't make it "right," but there is a far bigger picture here than what most folks are caring to look at before jumping to some conclusions.

We can also discuss the issue of anonymous domain name registration as well sometime - there are VERY good reasons why this is not allowed, and involves technical reasons to prevent DNS poisoning and allows the official registrant to prove their case that they are the official registrant of a domain and that theft of that registration has occurred (which has happened in the past).

Lisa said...


I am not "incorrect" when I say that Volpe and his gang had nothing to do with the domain registration of the "offending" website. Not their business. Did Volpe obtain a patent of the name "Volpe." May I appeal to the .ca board if someone makes a site entitled Will my complaint be resolved in favour of my grievance? I'd hope not.

Ian Scott said...

They may not have had something to do with the original contract, but like many, many other people before them, felt they had something to do with the contract that CIRA requires, especially considering the domain name itself referred to Joe Volpe.

There are a number of issues here that people aren't seeming to understand.

Folks may not like the contract CIRA requires, or it's rules. Volpe is not the first person to act in this manner.

I've acted in similar a manner (when I was motivated to have a registration suspended and the registration was false).

I think it would be more important to understand the process, the issues involved, the internet domain name policy, etc., before folks jump all over Volpe or start claiming some ludicrous idea that "freedom of speech has been eroded."

Perhaps if I feel motivated enough at some point, I'll write an article about this entire thing, along with what domain names actually are considered (no one OWNS a domain name, by the way, under the original philosophy of granting names - they are simply "registered," which is not the same as "ownership").

Seriously, there are way too many other issues involved here - and many folks are simply choosing to not know all those issues, or are being critical of one person for doing the same thing that many others have done in the past.

"May I appeal to the .ca board if someone makes a site entitled"

Yes, you can. In fact, anyone can make a complaint to CIRA or a registrar regarding the registration of a domain name.

Even you might have motivating reasons for having the domain suspended - just because you have not come across any at this point in time, or can think of any reasons right now, there might come a time when you might be so motivated.

My reason was because of a falsly registered domain that sent me over 10,000 spam messages in one week.

Now, some people believe "spam" should come under the guise of "freedom of expression" as well. But it doesn't, and neither does the registration of any domain name.

Ian Scott said...

"Did Volpe obtain a patent of the name "Volpe.""

Notwithstanding I detest the concept of "patents," this is not a "patent" issue.

It is quite clear to any reasonable person, that the domain name was registered with Joe Volpe in mind.

Mike said...

Ian, why are you wasting time over here when there are so many much more important contexts just waiting to be dropped and proportions to be disregarded over at Shotgun?

Ian Scott said...

Mike, not sure I understand your question or your insination about my "wasting" of time. I spend my time based upon my own whim.

Regarding "contexts" and "proportions," kind of my point. Moral relativism, to me, is that which ignores some evil, based on "proportions." I find it fascinating (my projection) that some generalize their way into beliefs about things, whilst ignoring or generalizing away other facts. Don't you find that interesting?

Ian Scott said...

And far be it for me to take a thread off topic like this.. Mike, what's your thoughts on freedom of expression and contract?

Ian Scott said...

Mike, as an afterthought, seeing as you have linked to a post where I've commented, to be sure, regarding "proportions" and so forth, wondering if you'd be interested in some introductions to some friends of mine, who have been the victims of "Christian" terror, in Northern Ireland?

One of them fled the Republic of Ireland, back in the 50's I believe it was, after his home was attacked upon the order of a priest. The reason? Because he was operating an orphanage, but he was a Protestant, in a mostly Catholic county.

Oh yes, there certainly has been some "not very" proportionate Protestant evil on Roman Catholics as well.. no doubting that!

But heck, as far as "proportions," you know, I was thinking.. maybe you'd be interested in meeting some folks someday.

Oh, I'll also let you in on some stories about my auld man as well.. now that he's dead, they don't need to be kept confidential anymore. Yes, all about "proportions," indeed.

Ian Scott said...

Hey Mike, did you know that Canadian and American Roman Catholics provided the largest amounts of financial support to the IRA, - you know... I'm sure you've heard of them... even just a couple of years ago, the commmitted an awful atrocity in a wee town in Northern Ireland - and for years and years, in pubs in Toronto, and at St. Paddy's day parades, hats would go around, taking up a collection for "the cause" back in the motherland?

Yeah, no need to bring up the fact that sort of evil went on right here in North America! Oh no, not now that we're "fighting" all the wicked Islamists, huh?

Yeah, on "proportion," I thought you might be interested in where the largest proportion of financial support for terror in Ireland came from, Mike.

Lisa said...


I don't understand your last few comments here.

Lots of aid (financial support) voluntarily given by individual citizens with good will to starving citizens in various countries has ended up in the hands of regimes responsible for the food shortage in the first place. And lots of people willingly donate to evil causes too, on purpose.

If the individuals that were arrested in Toronto were indeed planning on blowing up innocent people, then they should be apprehended, right? They can hardly be said to have the freedom to express themselves in that way.

The illegitimate use of violence against innocent people is wrong, no matter the race or religious beliefs of the perpetrators of violence.

But, throughout the world, Islamist terrorism is on the rise, so this is what people are talking about right now and for good reason. Yes, let us put matters into "proportion."

Mike said...

This kid got beat up real bad in an alley behind my old apartment. It was just like Darfur, man.

Ian Scott said...

"The illegitimate use of violence against innocent people is wrong, no matter the race or religious beliefs of the perpetrators of violence."

That, my darling ;), is EXACTLY my point.

What I am finding very disturbing in so-called "rational" debate, our the outrageous generalizations which include such things as "Christians don't do 'such and such'" vs. "Islam is evil."

These generalizations are ridiculous. I have no issue with people focussing on "Islamic" terrorism - but to draw comparisons, in such a general manner that "Islam is evil," "Christianity is good" is false.

What I am pointing out, is exactly what you wrote about the illegitimate use of violence against innocent peoples.

What many people do not want to seem to hear, however, in their crazy generalization about "Good Christians" is that Christian evil has been very recent - yet few ever spoke out about it, and few today are even willing to admit it.

If reports from Rwanda are correct, there has been official Roman Catholic complicity in some of the attrocities over there. Now, I have no idea if the Vatican is aware of this possible complicity, but certainly there is evidence that Roman Catholicism in that some of their officials, may be complicit.

We've also got the recent case where it has been shown that the Roman Catholic official responsible for the State of Washington was involved in a recent coverup of allegations of child sex abuse by priests. That is evil.

We've also got the Vatican fighting in US courts to exempt The Vatican from responsibility for what it's officials and representatives have done to little boys, based on the Vatican's apparent "Nation Statehood."

That is evil.

I'm certainly not doubting or forgiving Islamic terrorism. I'm not forgiving, however, those who make these far reaching idiotic generalizations about "evil Islam" (I personally know a number of Islamic Muslims, who may even be more distressed than you are about Islamic terrorism).

I also find this belief that some seem to hold to, that Islam wants to take over the world, laughable. Where's the plan? Hell, Islamic groups are fighting amongst themselves, for pete's sake!

When anyone wishes to make generalized statements about "evil Islam," without recognizing that there are many followers of Islam who want nothing to do with their extremist adherents, I will certainly point out that there exist, even today, "extremist Christians" who take part in evil.

To ignore that is simply hypocritical and of course, ignores the fact that innocents (such as my own family members, friends, and acquaintances) have known the costs of terrorism, funded by Roman Catholics in Canada.

I am not easily insulted, but it insults me for folks to say that what happened to my family and friends doesn't seem to really matter much, well because, you know.. the Church has "reformed" itself, or whatever.

Do you know that in the 1980's the Pope sent a personal envoy to Northern Ireland to bring the Pope's special blessings to a convicted terrorist who was on a hunger strike? That ended up motivating some Roman Catholics to now see this convicted terrorist as a martyr.

You explain to me, how a "Church" can operate as a Church and as a Nation State at the same time, while ignoring the courts of a western country, the United Kingdom, and offering "blessings" to a convicted terrorist, who never repented of his terrorist activities? Is that not evil to you?

Ian Scott said...

" This kid got beat up real bad in an alley behind my old apartment. It was just like Darfur, man"

Poor kid. Just like Darfur, huh? Perhaps you can provide some "context" to your "just like" statement.

Maybe, if there should be a "State," our State should be providing more resources so there are less "risks" of kids getting beaten up real bad in alleys near you, then using our resources someplace else.

Ian Scott said...

A kid got beaten up last night in the alley right behind my house.. beaten real bad.. it was just like East Belfast, man. Cept.. the kid in the kid near my back alley didn't have a black and decker drill go through his kneecaps, nor was he tarred and feathered.

But, yeah, it was just like East Belfast, man.

Ian Scott said...

Eh, Mike..ever actually discussed with a real person, the affects and costs of terrorism.. you know.. a person that has actually been there, seen that, done that, and even knew real live terrorists?

Maybe, if you are ever interested in that aspect, we can talk sometime Mike.

And you can explain to me why i shouldn't be reminding folks of "Christian" terror, when they go on and on about "Islam," and don't want to acknowledge the Christian terrorists or supporters among us.

Looking forward to hearing your response on this, Mike. You think that there is something "more" evil about Islamic terrorism, than Roman Catholic terrorism, as far as an individual is concerned?

Or is it all about... numbers.. proportions.. such that, for some reason, you think that my own family's costs of dealing with terrorism, suppotted by Roman Catholics, should mean.. well.. diddly because, today, well.. some dudes in Saudia Arabia seem to be the most threatening.. so.. we'll forget about the recent past as far as other religous terrorism, and apparently should all just "band" together or something?

Mike, if you are ever interested, I'll discuss with you, terrorism. I'll guarantee you as well that I have far more that has been lost, due to terrorism than you will ever have, or the majority of Canadians will ever have.

Darfur, man? Hell.. try talking to some of my friends that have been actually affected by black and decker drills or chicken feathers and tar.

To both you and me, Darfur is impersonal.

To me, black and decker drills, being on hit lists, chicken feathers and hot tar - is not so impersonal. Financed by North American Roman Catholics.

Yeah, come talk to me about living with a dad, who was engaged with terrorists.. who had bombs tossed toward him.. who shot god damn terrorists, supported by Canadian and American Roman Catholics.

Fuck Darfur.

Let's talk Brown's Square, Belfast.

Let's talk about personal friends that I personally knew of, being shot dead or bombed to death.

Is it maybe coming to Canada, thanks to Islamists? Perhaps. I don't know.

But I wonder.. have you ever met a real terrorist, and engaged him in conversation? I have.

Ever met someone who tried to protect individual life against terrorism, where the threat was real and constant? I have.

Ever been in a "terrorist" zone, where the threat of suddenly being bombed out of existence was possible? I have.

And it wasn't Islamofacists, Mike. It was "good" Christians.

Ever been in a "battle zone," where troops stopped you in their spot checks, along a road? I've been there Mike.

Been told to stop the car, with soldiers pointing their weopons at me, and my travelling companiion, and ordered to "open the boot and bonnet" and then empty the "trunks" of luggage we had.

Mike, you can giggle, laugh, make fun of, or criticize me when I point out that generalizations are false on other blogs.. but if you are ever truly interested in discussing the effects of terrorism, and the extremists of Christianity that motivated it all, feel free to contact me.

Fuck Darfur. Go to Belfast.

Visit some of my friends who were kneecapped.

Tarred and feathered.

I've also got aquaintances that unfortunately, you won't be able to talk to, because they are dead.

The city I was born in was the subject of one of the worse Roman Catholic sponsored terrorist acts ever - when the IRA planted bombs, given access by Roman Catholic nuns to an area that bordered a cenotaph, in Enniskillen, the day before a war memoral service, which ended up killing many, maiming many - innocents, simply attending a memoral service.

You bring up Darfur. You have no god damn clue, Mike. You don't have to bring up Darfur. I bet though, if I bring up Enniskillen, unless you go and do some research, your face will be blank.. because.. well.. you know, it's best to not bring up that sort of sectarian violence, and the facts that accounted for the IRA being able to plant their bombs the night before, in an area that included access through a Roman Catholic convent.

No, all of us here in North America, having not been the subject of Catholic sponsored terrorism, well, we can all sort of ignore the little places of the world where it does occur, and even ignore it.. and pretend that it's "random" or .. what's the word they use to use back when folks were shot at in Toronto... "isolated."

Tell that to the people involved, dude. Tell them.. oh, don't worry.. this is just "isolated."

Laugh at me, Mike. Don't take me seriously. I don't care.. and to be honest, I'm doubtful I'll ever convince you of my understanding of libertariansism or individualism.. which is fine by me. But as long as there are people like you, who would talk about "proportions" or come up with absurd nonsense about "Darfur," then, just like the Jews who want to "never forget" their own holocaust, I never want folks to forget either, what Roman Catholic sponsored terrorism has cost the country I was born in.

Yeah, maybe it wasn't six million dead... hell, the country only has a population of one point five million...

but who fucking cares?

Why is "quantity" of evil more important to some, than evil itself?

Regardless of where it takes place?

Hey Mike.. why don't you actually engage me sometime, in a real debate, instead of using inuendo as you have done in the past?

Why not simply dispute what I have said or written, or challenge me straight me up? Point to my factual errors, Mike. Point directly to them, so I can understand exactly what you are saying, and can respond likewise, instead of through your innuendo?

Come on Mike, talk to me about Roman Catholic sponsored terrorism, and tell me that, because it's less "quantity," that somehow, there is less to talk about regarding pointing it out, when folks make wild generalizations about "christianity" and "islam."

Debate me straight up, Mike, instead of using nutty responses about Darfur and some guy that got beat up in your back allly.

Come on Mike, convince me that my family and friends, who have borne the cost of Roman Catholic sponsored terrorism, are somehow worth less, in "generalization city," and discussions about what religion is "more evil" or not, than other religions.

Mike, you prepared to admit that generalizations about the "goodness" of Christianity are absolutely false?

Or.. are my family members and friends, as individuals, worth less, in memory, than those blown up at 9/11? Just becuase there was more blown up at 9/11? It's a matter of quantity?

Come on Mike.. fuck the bullshit.. get on with actually debating me about this. Fuck the stupid insinuations, Mike. The fallacy of sarcasm. You're REALLY good at sarcasm, Mike.. how about actually dealing with reality sometime though?

You gonna giggle, and come up with more sarcasm, or are you actually prepared to hear some facts and reality? And at the same time, keep in mind your supposed beliefs about individual liberty.. does this apply for ALL individuals, or just the ones that in your mind, are worth not having to worry about because "their experiences are isolated?"

Come on Mike.. engage someone that has known the costs of terrorism personally. Tell that person, directly, that he is a nut bar, because his engagement with terrorism is of less "proportion" to other acts of terrorism thoughout the world.

Engage someone who actually has had the opportunity to know terrorists, Mike. And who has even befriended financial supporters of terrorism.

Oh, you can giggle, maybe, and respond with some more idiotic non comparison or sarcasm.. but if you're truly interested in truth.. how about it, Mike?

You wanna actually talk and discuss, or do you wanna continue to respond with ignorance?

You wanna tell me that my experiences with terrorism, nd the costs of that, are somehow.. not important, because you have bigger eggs to hatch?

Hey Mike, you know anuyone personally, htat has been tarred and feathered? I do.

You know anyone that has bee kneecappped, due to religous nonsense? I do.

you know anyone personally that has had to flee, because of terrorism, and fear for their life? I do. And it was Roman Catholic sponsored terrorism, Mike.

That make it any less terrorism, because it wasn't Islamic sponsored? WEll, I guess in North America, it might _seem_ that way, to those who ignore the impacts upon the individual.

Mike, any time you truly want to engage me, and not use the fallacy of sarcasm in your response, or any other logical fallacy, hell, I'll discuss this with you.

And I bet - yes I may be wrong - but I bet you have no clue about Roman Catholic sponsored terrorism, and the reaches it has had, even when a family has fled it, 5,000 miles away, and how yet the fear can still remain, while one knows that friends in a new country who pass money into hats are actualy supporting terrorist intelligence and guns and black and decker drills, and buying arms from Libya, to simply destroy life, when it suits them.

God, yeah.. Islamic terrorism is bad.. as well.

So is all terrorism... no matter what religion sponsors it, Mike.

Generalities about religious adherents are utterly false.

If you ever seriously want to discuss, Mike, let me know. If you ever truly want to understand why I have such a detest for generalities about "Christians" being good, and "Islam" being evil, feel free to get in touch.

I'll even send you pictures as well.. the most gross images you have ever seen.. of Roman Catholic sponsored terrorist activities.. and you will be free to come up with whatever sarcastic fallacies you wish.

Organized religion, in all it's forms, is evil.

The Roman Catholic Church, not only is "organized" as a religion, but also has some recognition as a "nation state," and therefore, can interfere politically, with other nation states, based on it's religion.

Fear Islam all you want. Lack of fear of Roman Catholicism however, and how it has organized itself, is and idiotic lack of fear - ismply because in the past fifty years, there have been no major Vatican sponsored killings?

It's bizarre to me, that folks will allow such generalizations about "Christianity" and "Islam" to go unanswered, Mike. And then when it's broutht to their attention, that sarcasm or irrationality is used, to suggest that folks like me, who know personally, the costs of Roman Catholic sponsored terrorism, don't mean dick.

If you are truly interested in individual freedom, then it should matter not to you about "quantity" or "proportion" of evil - all evil is evil.

Yes? No? Or are you one of the ones prepared to sacrfice what your principles for the expediency of the times, whatever they might be?

MapMaster said...

Ian, it seems to me that you feel we're guilty of an omission to mention other kinds of terrorism that implies to your mind a gross generalization of Islam. Of course I may be reading your comments wrong. But if that is so, you're the one implying the generalization, not us. It's just that we're not interested in manufacturing a context in which to bring up other kinds of terrorism. Speaking of which, as far as the victims of terrorism go, of course, the salient information is simply the terrorism, not the political, religious or other motives. But from this little Ontario town side of the fence, Islamic terrorism is quite a bit different from other terrorism that you cite in its extraterritorial ambitions. That's a genuine difference in proportion, I think.

Nowhere on these pages will you find the suggestion that all muslims are terrorists or sympathetic to terrorism. One of the things I can't stand is all the calls for "moderate muslims to speak out against terrorism." Well, by golly, what are the "moderate muslims" supposed to do, already? Many of those who have access to a public forum already have, and why others have to be demonstrative about it to us non-muslims is beyond me. I have also written about generalizations of muslims when the French riots were going on:

Reducing the numbers of muslims allowed to enter a country might seem at first glance to be a reasonable solution to prevent this kind of disorder, given that muslims have a readymade and apparently appealing annihilative creed at hand already, but it's hard to adopt that position if one wishes to be consistent as a proponent of freedom or natural rights or does not want to relegate muslims as non-human. Unless, of course, you think muslims are genetically disposed to violence and nihilism — you sick bastard. Oddly enough, though, large numbers of muslims already do live in Canada and the US without going on these kinds of rampages, and if it is true that a great number of them, including our own Mohamed Elmasry, have noxious views and French fantasies, it's only because we officially subsidize administration of their dirigiste apocalyptism — corporate multicultural welfare.

You cite muslim acquaintances "who may even be more distressed than you are about Islamic terrorism." I've no doubt about that. I would feel the same. And, I've no doubt, they would have their own particular fears of others making generalizations about them, as you seem to impugn about us. But that, I fear, is almost innuendo on your part.

MapMaster said...

I realize that I may be making accusing you of making a generalization about the London Fog when you may be making a specific complaint about Mike, but as far as I can tell, the charge is equally ludicrous from both ends.

Mike said...

Mapmaster, you're a saint of clarity and patience.

Ian Scott said...

MapMaster, I am not suggesting anything "general" about all contributors to The London Fog.

I am responding to Mike's comment, wherein he links to another blog where I have left comments, and provided his own comment about "proportion."

If you read the post in question, you will note that the following, with the sentences that I was responding to are first, followed by my comment:

""Islamic savages should not be appeased or comforted in the least by the Chief of Police"

Umm.. what Islamic "savages" have been appeased? I thought the savage ones were just arrested."


""Any Muslim who says they love peace should turn their backs on this cult of murder and seek shelter in the nearest Christian church."


Which Christian church, exactly? You mean the Roman Catholic Church, which throughout history, has shed more blood of those who didn't agree with her than any Muslim ever has???

Or, do you mean some Protestant Christian church, that perhaps was affiliated with the burnings of witches in America a hundred years ago, and some of which still call out for blood for those that don't agree with their doctrine?

This is hillarious!!!"


""and they should drop their fanaticism and join the open society."

Just as some Jews and Christians should drop their fanaticism and join 'open society' as well."


""Ian Scott - except that Islam is NOT REFORMED, while Christianity and Judaism are reformed."

When did this "reforming" take place, exactly?

Are you familiar with the 20th century Ustachi (sp?)? How about Prime Minister Diem of South Vietnam, who along with his Roman Catholic Cardinal brother, had buddhists butchered?

Those are known facts - 20th century facts. Whilst I'll agree that in North America, we don't see _much_ of this sort of radicalism among Christians, there is the case of one of President Bush's confidantes, a Holy Father, who has written that Roman Catholics would be justified in carrying out a civil war in the USA to bring the country "back" to Roman Catholic morality.

And then there are some reports coming out of Rwanda, that if true, indicates Roman Catholic complicity in some of the brutal murders there.

Not by all Roman Catholics, agreed - but don't let the sand keep burying your heads now."

You'll note that I responded to direct statements, and provided factual information to those statements.

I especially thought the second one, suggesting that peace loving Muslims run to a Christian church, funny. How about you?

Perhaps my point was missed - all organized religion is guilty of evil acts in the name of their religion. Islam has no monopoly on this.

We can discuss "proportions," but to ignore the evils that have been done by "Christian" churches, and that which we don't even have to go back very far in time, is sticking heads in sand.

At no point will you find me suggesting that there is no Islamic terror. However, you will find others on that comment thread, making light of Roman Catholic sponsored evil. I wonder who the "moral relativists" are?

Ian Scott said...

Mapmaster, just to follow this up one last time, unless there are further responses, I'd ask you to take a look at the original post, and the comments that ensued between Lisa and I.

The discussion was about the '' domain name suspension - in which there is a lot of misrepresentation going on in regard to how the Internet "works," what a domain name is, and even contract.

Now, in this thread, Mike changes the subject entirely, insinuating I'm "wasting my time" and links to another blog, wherein I post comments regarding the generalizations of others about religion, and Christian Churches.

What indeed was the point of insinuating "wasting of time" and the link to blog post elsewhere, that had nothing to do with the discussion at hand?

It would be, I think, disingenious to suggest there was some sarcasm in Mike's comment here. He had nothing to offer in regard to the discussion at hand, and instead brought something up entirely different, made insinuations, that when one looks closely at my direct comments, were false insinuations.

I trust that will provide you with my motivations for continuing the discussion on this comment thread, as I did. I think you will also notice that I was addressing Mike directly, in my above comment, not the Londog Contributors, generally. I found it quite odd that Mike would link to something completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand - for what purpose was that done?

Ian Scott said...


"disingenious to suggest" should be

"disingenious to not suggest"

MapMaster said...

Ian, I'm off to the big mind-scrubbing operation they call the university for a long day, but I'll try to respond to you tonight.
Cheers, MM

Pietr said...

Ian, are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party?
You just like them a lot.
You go out with them but you're not Stalin's bitch particularly.
I understand.

Ian Scott said...

Sorehead, what the fuck are you talking about?

MapMaster said...

Ian, after reviewing the comment thread here and at the Shotgun, I can only conclude that I surrender in the face of your astonishing pitbull-like tenacity. And I obviously cannot speak for Mike's motives, although I suspect from what I know of the two of you that he enjoys the role of provacateur as much as you do. 'Nuff said, at least as far as I'm concerned on the subject. But I appreciate the distinction you make between Mike's comments and other Fog comments, even though I think that the distinction is drawn from inferences instead of knowledge. You see, after reading your recent post, I recollect that the only Muslim person I know is as a result of being introduced to Mike's Muslim friend. He's crazy, of course, but that's Mike's particular interest in people, but he's certifiably Muslim in any case. I know Mike to make generalizations, but for the purpose of provoking a response to competing and prevailing generalizations, and Mike always sides at least with the generalization that contains the most amount of truth, in my opinion. His errancy from total earnestness confuses you, I think. Geez, I guess I did have more to say on the subject after all.

But anyway, I'm interested in the equivalence it seems to me that you are drawing between Islamic terrorism and other kinds of terrorism. Well, as I said before, Islamic terrorism has extraterritorial ambitions that makes it markedly and more relevantly different than other kinds of terrorism. Aside from that, while the secular and limited-territorial political aims and objectives of Catholic or Protestant or otherwise terrorists can be artificially reconciled with their religious motivations, Islamic terrorism finds both political objectives and religious motivations have a neat ready-made global-reaching parcel to wrap them all up in. Where do I live? Not where the IRA, ETA or Tamil Tigers are going to strike. And that's the context in which I, and presumably Mike, make points about terrorism.

You mentioned in your post that

My enemies are extremists on any level, whether they are extreme atheists, extreme Christians, extreme Romanists, extreme Pagans, or anyone that refuses to recognize my inherent rights

I presume that you know full well that your position can be taken as an extremist one as well. Your position is not moral relative to any one of the other positions, of course, but the proximity and tendencies of your particular enemies is definitely relative to yourself. So as with Mike and myself. So as with our directions and redirections, I submit.

Ian Scott said...

Mapmaster, thanks for your response.

"although I suspect from what I know of the two of you that he enjoys the role of provacateur as much as you do."

I appreciate that, but sarcasm is not a legitimate procotavive role to play. How should one respond to sarcasm? As if it were not really sarcasm, and the person really did mean what they say, to whit, wasting time and "proportion?"

"But I appreciate the distinction you make between Mike's comments and other Fog comments, even though I think that the distinction is drawn from inferences instead of knowledge."

"You see, after reading your recent post, I recollect that the only Muslim person I know is as a result of being introduced to Mike's Muslim friend
I really don't know what you mean. My above comments were directed at Mike, utterly and completely. There should be no inference.

"You see, after reading your recent post, I recollect that the only Muslim person I know is as a result of being introduced to Mike's Muslim friend."

My recent post has nothing to do with the topic at hand here, MapMaster. But interesting nonetheless.. I've known at least 1,000 Muslims over the years.. none of them have ever made me feel threatened. Even the crazy ones.

"But anyway, I'm interested in the equivalence it seems to me that you are drawing between Islamic terrorism and other kinds of terrorism."

Moral equivalence, yes.

"Well, as I said before, Islamic terrorism has extraterritorial ambitions that makes it markedly and more relevantly different than other kinds of terrorism."

Only in your projections. Try talking to someone about terrorism, that actually knows the costs of terrorism. Who fucking cares if it is "Islamic" or "Roman Catholic" sponsored? Why do so many people want to give the Roman Catholic church some sort of "break" as far as their own sponsored terrorism?

IRA Terrorism certainly had "extraterritorial" ambitions. And in fact, for 30 years, those ambiitions were far more felt in reality, with bombings, and REAL destrution, than any projected Islamic destruction as far as their extremist actions.

You trying to tell me that somehow, Roman Catholic sponsored terrorism, over a period of 30 years, whree it was a daily fear that at any time, one might get blown up by a bomb, or enter the wrong pub, that just because the territory is smaller, that somehow, it is less serious?

" Catholic or Protestant or otherwise terrorists can be artificially reconciled with their religious motivations"

Bullshit. There is no "artificial reconciliation." You are almost coming across as if you are some phsychologist, that wishes to ignore the deeply held and deeply based religious motvations for the terror that I know about, and somehow try to make me ignore the reality of what was, just so that I could.. well.. see it as somehow different than what it was.

You ignore the fact that priests supported terrorism. You ignore that preachers supported their own versions of response. In Canada, I suppose it easy to not understand 500 years of history, when in fact, there's really very little history so far, and that is taught in a way to motivate emotion. Perhaps in five hundred years from now, this will all be mute, in Canada. Who knows? But don't ignore the reality of what is, and what was, and the million different interpretations of history, and the fact that for some in Northern Ireland, they take great pride in having fought on the side of the "enlightment" period, chasing a "Romish" King from the throne, shed their blood to do so, in order to inch along the enlightenment, in eventually bringing forth King William 111 and Queen Mary, who under contract, agreed to more individual liberty.

Perhaps in Canada, stuff like this is still very.. well.. fun to talk about. In Europe, and in Northern Ireland, the "cause" for liberty.. at least that which meant separation of Romish rule over individuals, is still quite strong.

There is no artificial nonsense here, at all.

And as much as it is hard for folks in North America to understand, Rome has had a huge influence even on the Republic of Ireland, until very recently. The plebiscite on abortion laws, just 20 years or so ago, was hard fought - between philosophy of Rome, and philosophy of individual liberty.

"Islamic terrorism finds both political objectives and religious motivations have a neat ready-made global-reaching parcel to wrap them all up in."

Sure. It would appear to the average Muslim, that there have been Global actions against them, with sometimes, the West propping up evil governments, when it was in the interests of the Western States to do so, and then when not in their interests anylonger, not propping them up.

In the meantime, individual loved babies died, or were bombed, or were killed.. depending on the "politics du jour."

Damn right, I'd be fed up myself, and want to shed my blod for my babies and grandbabies.

You are sincerely, being way too simplistic, Mapmapster.

"I presume that you know full well that your position can be taken as an extremist one as well"

Yes, but my position does not require any mystical beliefs about God, or anything else. It is based on the only things that can ultimately be known - and that is individual mind. Some of course, do find this extreme, as it discounts a God that can never be proven, and only through "faith" can it ever be accepted. Interestingly, the same God of Israel is the same God of Islam.

My "extreme," therefore, is the extreme of "natural rights," which I invite anyone to debate me at any time, and in fact, some have tried, but have gone away, scratching their heads, trying to figure out how they can fit their own "beliefs" into this system, or use their "beliefs" to show that my premises about natural rights, which come from the existence of mind, can be defeated, logically.

I bet you've done the same and found the same yoursel, as well, Mapmaster.

"Your position is not moral relative to any one of the other positions, of course, but the proximity and tendencies of your particular enemies is definitely relative to yourself."

Incorrect. The ONLY enemies I have are those that would use any excuse, emotionally justified, for attempting to not recognize my natural rights. I can even live with those, who for their own consentual reasons, decide to give over their natural rights to some faith. My enemies are those that would, by their own faith, and instead of through logic and premises that they can actually know, and not just have faith in, expect me to modify or change my beliefs about myself, or any other individual.

I an assure you, my enemies are not Mike's enemies.

And even if a NEW entity were to come along, and take the place of that "government" which I don't recognize over myself, and place different restrictions upon me, I still would not recognize them as being true restrictions. I might play with them, for my own survival, but never would you ever find me play to any degree, where I'd demand of others to fullfill my fantasies or theirs.. about coercions or "what is best" for people.

Now that we've settled that, perhaps you can ask Mike, if he wants to tell you, his motivations for hi-jacking this thread in the first place, which was about '', and linking to comments I made elsewhere, that pointed out the fallacy of beliefs about "Christian Churches," along with his sarcasm as well?

There is no "bull headedness" on my part, Mapmaster. If one can show me I am wrong, then gladly, I will consider. Of course, some can point out that they don't like my "style," but is that the same as showing someone is wrong in the fact they point out incorrect assertions?

MapMaster, with all due respect, your Mike, jumped into a thread where Lisa and i were discuussing some truths and realities about how the Internet works, and made a sarcastic comment, linked to another blog post that had nothing to do with either The London Fog, or the post in general that was under discussion, and instead made insinuations about me, regarding "proportion" when I took someone to task for their outrageous generalizations about Muslims and what "peaceful Muslims" should do, ie.. .. running to a Christian church.

Now, you tell me..does Mike have any issue with what I've said, in regard to the original post, ie, the Joe Volpe thing?

If not, then what the fuck is the sarcastic bullshit and misrepresentation all about, in linking to something totally off topic?

Does Mike have an issue with my comments on some other blog? Well, why does he not just post them himself, with it's own subject and heading? He does have the authority to do that, no?

If he wants to take issue with something I've written elsewhere about outright idiotic claims (as I see them) about Christian Churches, then sure.. start a new thread about that.

If Mike has an issue about anything I've said in this particular discuussion, regarding the Joe Volpe shit, then by God, let him speak to those issues!!

If MIke wants to start a discussion, completely different from this, but based on something I've written elsewhere, then by god, start a new discuussion. Point to my errors. Point to my false premises. Hell, over the past 30 years, I've changed my opinion on a number of things, based on folks rationally engaging me.

If he thinks I am wrong on something, let him start his own blog post, and let him directly point to the errors, instead of using the fallacy of sarcasm.

I can stand up for what I belive.. and I'll even admit to when I'm wrong.

What the fuck does my assertion that it is hillarious for someone to suggest peaceful muslims run to a christian church, have to do with the original discussion that was ongoing, about the reality of how the Internet works?

Mapmater, tell Mikey that I'm a big boy, and I can handle and deal with disagreement or having soeone point out any errors I've made. I've been making errors for years... and because of those errors, and considering rational arguument in return, that I've dramatically gone many circles and sometimes in weird curved lines, to where I am now.

Sarcasm and the inability to offer anything directly to a conversation or comment thread/discussion other than silly distractions is what it is.. siliness.

I've enjoyed some of Mike's posts in the past, but I really don't get his fallacy of sarcasm as he has used, on several occassions, in relation to my point of view.

I'll take him for face value.. and damn right, I'll let you and him, and anyone else that is interested, my own personal experiences, and dare ayone to sugest that somehow, my experiences directly with terrorism are "less important" than his or anyone else's projections.

Comeon Mikey, bring it on. Fuck the sarcasm, and deal with reality.

Send that message to him, Mapmaster.

Remind him that is fucking pathetic to hi-jack a comment thread, and make silly insinuations, and point to something else entirely, without actually saying anything himself.

You want to discuuss terrorism or "proportions?" Bring it on baby. Let's not just simply discuss Darfur, but let's also discuss Rwanda as well.

Hell, Mapmster, I am the first to admit that there are some evil assholes in Islam. But I'm going to be straight up with you.. I ain't going to let other evil get away with their evil, just becauuse today, it's not the "evil de jour."

You know what I mean? There are so many idiots who have only half a clue about the terrorism in my home country, and come up with only hte half the story.. and yeah, maybe 3,000 of them did not get killed in one day.. but for a population of 1.5 million, there is an enormous amount of them, proportionately speaking, that have been affected.. by fucking god damn religous sponsored terrorism.

Private to Mike.. you want to discuss this without sarcasm? Be my guest, dude.

We'll both agree to not hi-jack other comments, and use any fallacies, and we can discuuss.. if you are really interested in knowledge, of course, even that which doesn't suit your own world view at this point in time....

Hell, maybe Mike, you are smarter than me... but whatever.. the sincere challenge is there, for all the London Foggers to witness.. our own thread, Mike.. no fallacious sarcasm, a thread totaly devoted to learning and knowing more about the world, and life.

You up to it, Mike?

And for a comment that was originally about Joe Volpe, with issues that were nver considered, I guess this has bone way off topic.. but whatever.

Come on Mike.. let's start our own thread, just you and me.. no fallacies of sarcasm, no fallatoius bullshit about premises.. and well, we'll both learn, huh?

You up for it, Mike?

Pietr said...


Honey Pot said...

That was quite the diatribe. Maybe we should put all those catlicks on a boat and float them back to Ireland. More beer for the rest of us.

Ian Scott said...

You're right.. that was quite the "diatribe," motivated by some lovely wine - not beer at all, for which I apologise. However, I'll come back to this later, be more succinct, and still make the offer to Mike regarding a rational debate in regard to the comment section over at the Western Standard, to wit organized Christianity is not a "religion of peace."

Lisa said...

What's this crap about "hi-jacking this thread"?? Mike is a member of the London Fog, and so he can say whatever the hell he wants here. And remember, a comment section is for comments - there are no "rules" specifying that one keep on topic. Further, you didn't have to respond to Mike's comment and could have continued to discuss the Volpe issue. In other words, you are free to ignore what you perceive as "sarcasm."

Ian Scott said...

Sure Lisa - I considered that as a member of The London Fog, he is free to write whatever he wants, wherever he wants. Perhaps the semantics of the term "hi-jack" is not correct.

I didn't have to respond to Mike, but I did. Still doesn't take away from the sarcasm, does it?

Now, with that in mind, does Mike believe that "proportions" of evil are more important than "evil" itself?

Lisa said...

Who the fuck cares if Mike was being "sarcastic"? Should he be "friendly" instead?

No one here is saying that "proportions" of evil are more important than "evil" itself." But I'm sure you'll agree that stealing a pack of gum is a lesser "evil" than blowing people up.

Ian Scott said...

I don't know who the fuck "cares." I'm sure you don't care, and this continuing discussion about it, is simply an investigation into truth, right? You don't care, I don't care, but instead, we've agreed, I guess, that it was sarcasm?

Your analogy about a pack of gum is a false analogy.

My point in regard to "proportions" of evil were in regard to the number of killings done in the name of religion. Killings of human beings - not stealing packs of gum.

But having said that, property is property, and only the property owner can put a value on how exactly that property is valued by them.

If that pack of gum was the very last pack of gum that my father ever purchased before he died, that pack of gum may indeed be worth more to me, than the pack of gum that you just bought at the convenience store today.

But this has nothing to do with the proportion of evil, in regard to killing or sponsored killing, by religion.

Ian Scott said...

Oh, and to sorehead.. still waiting for some kind of explanation regarding your gibberish about Stalin and the communist party. Care to explain? I really have no clue what you were talking about.

Ian Scott said...

"Who the fuck cares if Mike was being "sarcastic"? Should he be "friendly" instead?'

The use of sarcasm is a logical fallacy.

Who knows what "friendly" is, except to the person who "feels" the "friendliness?"

Sarcasm and friendliness are not related, in any sense.

Lisa said...

I suppose friendliness could be said to be a "logical fallacy" too. Who knows what "sarcasm" or "friendliness" is, except to the person who "feels" that "sarcasm" or "friendliness."

Ian Scott said...

Indeed, sarcasm is a recognized logical fallacy, in the same vein as ad hominem. I've never heard of a logical fallacy as "friendliness" I must admit.

But I suppose, if we were to come up with one, that would be interesting!

gm said...

Religion (most supernatural belief sytems) itself is evil as it calls for self sacrifice and that life in heaven is better than on earth. The one thing Islam adds is that we must also sacrifice non believers.

They also believe in having a monopoly on the supernatural "truth" which means none of them can be called rational.

Ian Scott said...

gm, I could be wrong - but I'm not sure that Islam does believe in the "sacrifice" of non-believers, at least in the sense of what I know "sacrifice" to mean.

A sacrifice is an attonement, not a punishment.

Indeed, Jews in the Old Testament have been instructed to massacre non-Jews.

Do most Jews practice this today? No.

Christians have a long history themselves of practicing massacre or being complicit in massacres, both through their own motivations and also through involvement in politics.

Islam certainly has no monopoly in the belief of "monopoly" in supernatural "truth." Just go ask any "faithful" Roman Catholic about how one is to understand and interpret the Bible - it is, to them, only to be understood and interpreted through the heirarchy of The Church. Individuals are not supposed to interpret for themselves.

Martin Luther learned that lesson!

gm, you won't get any disagreement from me on your first sentence though!

gm said...

Ian this about what a particular strain of Islam teaches it's current followers.

Amiruddin says Khalid used to come to his mosque to pray, sometimes in the company of Zakaria Amara and Fahim Ahmad, two of the alleged ringleaders.

“They would enter into the mosque to pray, and they would pray in a very aggressive manner, and they would come in military fatigues and military touques and stuff. It looked to me that they were watching a lot of those Chechnyan jihad videos online and stuff.”

Amiruddin is a teacher of Sufism, a traditional brand of Islam that rejects the ideology of jihad. Amiruddin says the group was seduced by hardline propaganda financed by the Saudi government and promoting a strict, Wahhabi brand of Islam.

He says the Saudis have flooded Canada with free Qur’ans, laced with jihadist commentary.

“In the back of these Qur’ans that are being published in Saudi Arabia, you have basically essays on the need for offensive jihad and the legitimacy of offensive jihad and things like that. Very alarming stuff,” he said.

Amiruddin said many mainstream Muslim organizations in Canada are really part of the problem, standing by as extremist propaganda spreads in the mosques.

He cites the Al-Rahman centre in Mississauga, Ont., which he links to the Al-Maghrib Institute, which runs a popular educational website. It’s nominally run out of Ottawa, but Amiruddin says it’s really a Saudi operation.

gm said...

Surah 2:190-193 as proof that Islam teaches only defensive warfare, but eschews offense.

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they first fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression."

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay Zakat, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful." (Surah 9:5)

The Islamic philosopher and historian, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 AD), stated,

“In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united in (Islam), so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same.”

Saudi scholar al-Amin likewise points to the Qur’an for the justification of offensive holy war,

"God had made it clear to us that (we should) call for acceptance of islam first, then wage war. It is not admissible to wage war before extending the invitation to embrace islam first, as the Qur’an says. ‘We verily sent our messenger with clear proofs and revealed to them the scripture and the balance, that mankind may observe right measure, and he revealed iron, wherein is mighty power and uses for mankind and that Allah (God) may know him who helps Him and his messengers—Allah is strong, Almighty"’ (Surah Iron 57:25).”