Mocking the Afflicted (again)
Anyone still following this sorry saga may have noted that in comments on the riverSbend smearsite, on Alex's blog and here there have been a couple of dubious Troy apologists Charles, Yenshui and Gordo who have first popped up pretending to be independent voices and then under the tiniest bit of pressure have suddenly switched to talking about what "they" (the people behind the riverSbend smearblog) think or what "they" will do in the future. Thus revealing that they are in fact in complete cahoots with the riverSbend smearblogs instigators.
For an early example of very similar behaviour check this link from soc.retirement where regular Troy cohort "Jim" first feigns confusion over Troy's involvement in the riverSbend blog (Oct 30, 1 in the afternoon):
Troy seems to have taken socret further then any other old gummers if he is getting this kind of attention! Assuming of course if he is the real culprit, which of course he is not.
[NB I don't know what "socret" or "gummers" means. Anyone?]
Before shortly making plain he knows exactly who is involved (Oct 30, 8 in the evening):
Glad to have been invited to post as rivers and regret passing up the opportunity now as I see it did score some points. ;)
It seems Jim's childish desire to display that he is part of the in crowd may have led him to be somewhat indiscreet about his knowledge of the perpetrators. Gives a whole new meaning to the term "second childhood"
A similar affliction has affected Gordo ("You don't seem to understand, I did not reveal all of the errors made in the Riverbend blog") Yenshui ("If you find the contract they will go away.") and Charles ("your adamant defense of riverbend's lie is the root cause for this blog's actual existence.")
[As a sidebar when I went to cut-and-paste Gordo's comment I noticed something very interesting. Another amusing incompetence. A couple of people took note of Gordo saying what "they" had done but if you notice while it appears that Gordo just repeated the same comment 3 times, in fact in the first instance he said "I" directly taking responsibility for the laughable anti-Riverbend dossier these clowns are compiling. Almost got away with that one "Gordo" but not quite :) See for yourself at the comments to this entry ]
Lying About the Past. Very Dumbly
But here's my favourite piece of badly stage-managed history from these clowns. This one really is a doozy. On the riverSbend smearblog Charles reproduces this link to a Usenet post from Sept 23 (I already mentioned this here) in which he claims that my "adamant defense of riverbend's lie (sic) [about the Diyala Bridge Contract] is the root cause for this blog's actual existence."
First of all of course the smearblog existed long before this even occurred (the solerito hitcounter started on Sept 11 - nice day to start an unAmerican anti-liberty site guys). Second of all here is verbatim my "adamant" defence of the the Diyala Bridge contract which apparently so enraged Troy that he went back in time and started up a blog that didn't even mention the bridge(seriously you guys are freakin morons!):
I ran a google search on the [Diyala Bridge] story and have noted it does seem to have gained some currency - and also to have sparked some debate as to its accuracy among the blogging community.
I expect sooner or later someone with the ability to verify one way or the other will weigh in to the debate.
For the moment I think people outside of Iraq are going to believe whatever they want to believe depending on their politics - no big deal. (Personally I find the crux of the story - that high-priced US contractors are being favoured over Iraqi ones to be wholly plausible, but I don't know about a 50M to 300K disparity) The more important questions relate to how widely stories like this are circulating around Iraq, and - true or not - whether they are being believed *there*.
[I then posted a few extracts of debate over the veracity of the bridge story]
That's a real U-turn from me, isn't it guys? Or rather its like two really fast consecutive U-turns equalling a 100% consistent direction. From the beginning I said I thought the size of the disparity sounded doubtful. But I found the basic message perfectly plausible.
Please stop embarrassing yourselves fellas. You're starting to make me feel like someone who picks on the mentally challenged.